The Vaccine Thread

[TradeTheBeal!]

6 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Mark me down as having crossed over to the dark side of not really caring if unvaxxed people get seriously ill at this point.  Best thing for everyone is that everyone obtain immunity is some way, and if you won't get vaxxed, then you get antibodies by contracting the disease.  Everyone has made their risk decision by now, and I'll live with mine and I'll accept yours, but I hope Omicron burns through the population like wildfire.  

Pretty much.  At this point I’ve begun to consider the positive impacts of Omicron knocking another 500,000 Maga Boomers into the dust.

[just654]

13 minutes ago, MrSilverMaC said:

So I got my moderna booster yesterday, and woke up with a cough and slight sore throat. Are these side effects of the shot or did I **** around and catch omicron before getting boosted?

 

I did not have those side effects with my Moderna booster. I was just mostly tired. Never hurts to get a test if you can find one.

[MrSilverMaC]

7 minutes ago, just654 said:

 

I did not have those side effects with my Moderna booster. I was just mostly tired. Never hurts to get a test if you can find one.

So this isn’t the begging of my x-men/lizard person mutation…

 

God damn it…

 

Well there goes my plans for world domination. I was going to be such a benevolent overlord.

[tshile]

2 hours ago, MrSilverMaC said:

So I got my moderna booster yesterday, and woke up with a cough and slight sore throat. Are these side effects of the shot or did I **** around and catch omicron before getting boosted?

My understanding is fever and aches are normal. Being lethargic  is normal. Never heard of sore throat and cough though…

 

the side effects of the vaccine are really side effects of the immune response. Fever, aches, being tired are side effects of immune response. 
 

i don’t believe coughing is a side effect of immune response nor is sore throat  but I’m also not a doctor. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Am I the only one whose side effects from the vaccines and booster were a sore arm for about 30 minutes and a desire to watch youtube videos instead of working?

[PleaseBlitz]

28 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Am I the only one whose side effects from the vaccines and booster were a sore arm for about 30 minutes and a desire to watch youtube videos instead of working?

 

Same here.  I was actually disappointed that I couldn't (honestly) use getting vaxxed as an excuse to take off work and childcare duties for an afternoon.  After my booster I got home and went for a long run. 

[Simmsy]

2 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Pretty much.  At this point I’ve begun to consider the positive impacts of Omicron knocking another 500,000 Maga Boomers into the dust.

We're going to need something just as contagious as Omicron, but with the kick of the Delta variant.

[Warhead36]

58 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Am I the only one whose side effects from the vaccines and booster were a sore arm for about 30 minutes and a desire to watch youtube videos instead of working?

I had the sudden urge to buy Microsoft products #billgatesmicrochippedme

[TheGreatBuzz]

40 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

We're going to need something just as contagious as Omicron, but with the kick of the Delta variant.

 

[tshile]

2 hours ago, Califan007 said:

Am I the only one whose side effects from the vaccines and booster were a sore arm for about 30 minutes and a desire to watch youtube videos instead of working?

I just wanted to lay around and watch movies 🤷‍♂️ 

[PokerPacker]

4 hours ago, Califan007 said:

Am I the only one whose side effects from the vaccines and booster were a sore arm for about 30 minutes and a desire to watch youtube videos instead of working?

Sounds about what my reaction was to the booster.

3 hours ago, Simmsy said:

We're going to need something just as contagious as Omicron, but with the kick of the Delta variant.

Can we get a vaccine targeted for this new variant before we release it?

[ixcuincle]

Getting boosted. Plan to return to watching caps soon so they're gonna need verification. Can I just pull up a qrcode or what 

 

Old guys like me don't know these newfangled tech we just haul the card around 

Edited December 28, 2021 by ixcuincle

[The Evil Genius]

 

When it comes to the jab, my body is like Chik-Fil-A on Sundays...closed. 😄

 

 

 

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

2 hours ago, ixcuincle said:

Getting boosted. Plan to return to watching caps soon so they're gonna need verification. Can I just pull up a qrcode or what 

 

Old guys like me don't know these newfangled tech we just haul the card around 

 

Depending your state, you can likely get a digital card emailed or texted to you. And yeah it will like include a QR code. 

[Elessar78]

r/HermanCainAward

[Sticksboi05]

On 12/26/2021 at 5:09 PM, PeterMP said:

 

Is there actually any evidence that we had the ability to generate the tests at the necessary volume and if we did, it would have made much of a difference?

 

The Vanity Fair piece is just odd to me.  The interpretation of a "vaccine only" response (from the Vanity Fair article) can be widely interpreted.  But even they say the Biden administration has put billions of dollars into ramping up test production.  $23 billion dollars doesn't seem like saying we don't care about something.  They talk about Europe like it is a great model for at home testing, but in Europe there have been issues with omicron.  If home testing is some great panacea, then why didn't the UK keep it in check?

 

It isn't like the FDA hasn't approved tests.  In May, there were multiple FDA approved home tests.

 

https://cen.acs.org/analytical-chemistry/diagnostics/covid-home-test-kit-review/99/i20

 

It's widely accepted that diminishing FDA restrictions on testing actually resulted in some not very good tests being put on the market and probably hurt our response and that home testing wasn't likely to going to actually solve the problem.

 

e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7577497/

 

(Which is consistent with what we've seen in Europe and them still having issues with omicron.)

 

 (People frequently like to criticize the FDA, but I've known a few people that work at the FDA and mostly they are good people that work hard.  And there is a long history of complaints about the FDA being underfunded and under resourced.  But by May, the FDA had approved a handful of home tests.  Are we really blaming a Dec. out break on lack of approval by the FDA that had been approved well before that?)

 

Generally, this seems to me to be likely a case where people like to complain about government when there really wasn't much different that the government could do.  Given the restrictions and resources the relevant government entities have.  I'd say 20/20 hindsight is perfect.  But this isn't even a case of that.  There's really nothing that I've seen that suggest that a different approach would have changes things much at all.  London is shutting down bars.  We could have rushed tests through the FDA process, probably had some poorer tests on the market, spent $200 billion on ramping up at home testing, and be in the same situation.  For what?

 

(What has worked pretty well is China style lockdowns.))

 

The fine folks at the FDA (and to be clear the FDA has a lot of great minds working there, and the advisory committees are top notch) continue to assess rapid tests for medical diagnosis vs. for public health. There are companies that can make millions of tests a day that cannot deliver to the U.S. because the FDA has set up an approval where these test makers have to skew results to look like PCR - it's not intended to be like PCR.

 

For public health, speed, testing regimen and accessibility are more important than extra accuracy. If we could get PCR results back in hours by the millions, it'd be a moot point, but we can't - especially in big waves. Taking an 80-85% accurate test over and over will catch more contagious people than random PCRs every once in a while coming back in 48 hours+. I think you bring up a great point about the UK - it's not just about making tests available but educating people on how they are used most effectively. For example, many people use rapid tests the day before an event - they should be used literally right before you go to someone's house. They should not be used to say "well I have symptoms but I'm negative so I'm fine", which clowns are doing. Omicron has made it harder to detect early contagiousness so many experts now suggest swabbing throat and nose even if it isn't FDA authorized.

 

The benefit does rely on humans actually using them properly and experts explaining how indeed - and in the absence of that, you won't see much of a difference. But that should be the issue we are dealing with, not the fact that there aren't enough tests.

Edited December 29, 2021 by Sticksboi05

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, Sticksboi05 said:

 

The fine folks at the FDA (and to be clear the FDA has a lot of great minds working there, and the advisory committees are top notch) continue to assess rapid tests for medical diagnosis vs. for public health. There are companies that can make millions of tests a day that cannot deliver to the U.S. because the FDA has set up an approval where these test makers have to skew results to look like PCR - it's not intended to be like PCR.

 

For public health, speed, testing regimen and accessibility are more important than extra accuracy. If we could get PCR results back in hours by the millions, it'd be a moot point, but we can't - especially in big waves. Taking an 80-85% accurate test over and over will catch more contagious people than random PCRs every once in a while coming back in 48 hours+. I think you bring up a great point about the UK - it's not just about making tests available but educating people on how they are used most effectively. For example, many people use rapid tests the day before an event - they should be used literally right before you go to someone's house. They should not be used to say "well I have symptoms but I'm negative so I'm fine", which clowns are doing. Omicron has made it harder to detect early contagiousness so many experts now suggest swabbing throat and nose even if it isn't FDA authorized.

 

The benefit does rely on humans actually using them properly and experts explaining how indeed - and in the absence of that, you won't see much of a difference. But that should be the issue we are dealing with, not the fact that there aren't enough tests.

 

Do you know of a test that is 80% or greater sensitivity that isn't approved by the FDA?

 

Average sensitivity (the ability to detect the virus in somebody that has it) of tests among people that are asymptomatic has been found to be less than 70% in several countries in Europe.  And only average about 80% in some studies among symptomatic people among tests in Europe.

 

The tests that were approved before May by the FDA work at the ~80% level. I think it is extremely unlikely that there are tests out there that are 80% or greater sensitivity that aren't approved by the FDA.  If ~80% got you approved by the FDA before May, I'm doubtful there was a company with a tests that performed at that level that wasn't applying for an FDA EUA.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Count me in with the folks that are over this whole ordeal, and prefer to just let omicron run wild and let what happens, happen.  There's been more than enough time passed for everyone to make their decision on vaxxing.  

[TradeTheBeal!]

 

[tshile]

While everyone impacted by the outbreak that got me was vaccinated, only a few of us were boostered. Which, I didn’t realize… I would have been pushing them all just like when the vaccine came out, but I thought we had already cleared that hurdle as a group of people…. Anyways, the difference in outcomes is incredible both in how far apart we are but also in just how consistent the results are. 
 

boostered - feel ‘off’. Maybe have a headache, gi issue, run a temp, aches for like a day or so. Generally minor no matter the combination of symptoms. Basically back at life on 24-36 hours. Obviously still quarantined but, we seem to be taking advantage of it in the form of working around the house/property. 
 

Not boostered - 3ish days of utter misery fighting temps in the 101-102 range. Most these guys realized they were sick Saturday or Sunday. Today is the first day they’re starting to feel better. 
 

I believe the timelines suggest we got hit with omicron. Everyone was symptomatic on day 3. 
 

and we’ve got a supposed case of transmission that includes someone stopping by to drop off presents, wearing masks the whole time, and only being around them for 10 minutes. I think something with the story must be off but that is how it was told to me. 

[MrSilverMaC]

On 12/28/2021 at 11:02 AM, tshile said:

My understanding is fever and aches are normal. Being lethargic  is normal. Never heard of sore throat and cough though…

 

the side effects of the vaccine are really side effects of the immune response. Fever, aches, being tired are side effects of immune response. 
 

i don’t believe coughing is a side effect of immune response nor is sore throat  but I’m also not a doctor. 

Yeah, I was afraid of that.

 

I got tested, came back negative. I’m not sure what I have but no corona for me. So that’s nice.

 

I can hold out hope for the sudden ability to manipulate the electro-magnetic spectrum.

[skinsmarydu]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

While everyone impacted by the outbreak that got me was vaccinated, only a few of us were boostered. Which, I didn’t realize… I would have been pushing them all just like when the vaccine came out, but I thought we had already cleared that hurdle as a group of people…. Anyways, the difference in outcomes is incredible both in how far apart we are but also in just how consistent the results are. 
 

boostered - feel ‘off’. Maybe have a headache, gi issue, run a temp, aches for like a day or so. Generally minor no matter the combination of symptoms. Basically back at life on 24-36 hours. Obviously still quarantined but, we seem to be taking advantage of it in the form of working around the house/property. 
 

Not boostered - 3ish days of utter misery fighting temps in the 101-102 range. Most these guys realized they were sick Saturday or Sunday. Today is the first day they’re starting to feel better. 
 

I believe the timelines suggest we got hit with omicron. Everyone was symptomatic on day 3. 
 

and we’ve got a supposed case of transmission that includes someone stopping by to drop off presents, wearing masks the whole time, and only being around them for 10 minutes. I think something with the story must be off but that is how it was told to me. 

If we've gotta go back to dropping stuff off and waving from the yard, so be it.  Hopefully, it's just for a little while.  Stay positive and distant, even tho it sucks.  We've done it before, and now we have a better understanding about doing it again. 

[EmirOfShmo]

 

[Sticksboi05]

On 12/29/2021 at 12:27 AM, PeterMP said:

 

Do you know of a test that is 80% or greater sensitivity that isn't approved by the FDA?

 

Average sensitivity (the ability to detect the virus in somebody that has it) of tests among people that are asymptomatic has been found to be less than 70% in several countries in Europe.  And only average about 80% in some studies among symptomatic people among tests in Europe.

 

The tests that were approved before May by the FDA work at the ~80% level. I think it is extremely unlikely that there are tests out there that are 80% or greater sensitivity that aren't approved by the FDA.  If ~80% got you approved by the FDA before May, I'm doubtful there was a company with a tests that performed at that level that wasn't applying for an FDA EUA.

 

Tests from Roche and Siemens among other companies, which we could have had earlier, have finally been authorized as the NIH has stepped in to assist the FDA with rapid test approval. Tens of millions more home tests now available each month. This is great federal collaboration - more more more! Bring us the tests.

 

This is great to see.

Edited December 31, 2021 by Sticksboi05

[PeterMP]

13 hours ago, Sticksboi05 said:

 

Tests from Roche and Siemens among other companies, which we could have had earlier, have finally been authorized as the NIH has stepped in to assist the FDA with rapid test approval. Tens of millions more home tests now available each month. This is great federal collaboration - more more more! Bring us the tests.

 

This is great to see.

 

I don't know about the Siemens tests, but the sensitivity of the Roche tests has been pretty hotly debated (There has been some implication that there was an unfair bias against Roche because they were European and some of the studies for their approval was refused because it was done in Europe.  The head of test approval at the FDA used to work for Abbot which is the dominant test on the US market and one of the first approved test.  So there has been insinuations of improprieties there.) but there are several studies that put it at less than 80% sensitivity.

 

e.g.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34242764/

 

"Results: Among the 1465 patients recruited, RT-PCR was positive in 141 individuals, corresponding to a prevalence of 9.6%. The Roche/SD Biosensor rapid antigen test was positive in 94 patients (6.4%), and negative in 1368 individuals (93.4%; insufficient sample material in 3 patients). The overall sensitivity of the rapid antigen test was 65.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 56.8-73.1), the specificity was 99.9% (95% CI 99.5-100.0). In asymptomatic individuals, the sensitivity was 44.0% (95% CI 24.4-65.1).

 

Conclusions: The accuracy of the SARS-CoV-2 Roche/SD Biosensor rapid antigen test in diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infections in a primary/secondary care testing facility was considerably lower compared with the manufacturer's data. Widespread application in such a setting might lead to a considerable number of individuals falsely classified as SARS-CoV-2 negative."

 

I believe the only study that found over ~80% sensitivity where done in Europe, funded by Roche, for their EU approval which allowed for samples with very high viral loads.  And I don't believe they (ever) released the actual viral loads in the samples in that study.

 

(Though even a quick search of Seiman's test also suggests sensitivities less than 80%:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8553283/

 

"A total of 212 participants were recruited. The sensitivity and specificity of the Siemens Clinitest Lateral Flow Test against the laboratory PCR test was 55.6% (95% CI 30.8-78.5) and 100% (95% CI 98.1-100) respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the SAMBA-2 PCR test against the laboratory PCR test was 60.0% (95% CI 32.3-83.7) and 100% (95% CI 97.9-100) respectively.

 

Neither the Siemens Clinitest Lateral Flow Test nor the SAMBA-2 PCR test demonstrated sufficient sensitivity to rule out active SARS-CoV-2 infection. Both tests demonstrated high specificity.")

 

So I'm doubtful either of these tests are actually achieving 80% sensitivity.  I'd love to see the data from the NIH studies that resulted in approval.  But if it is in the public domain, I can't find it.

 

(I'll point out, it is possible that both companies re-worked their tests some so that the sensitivities are now higher (e.g. 80%).  But that would be more recent data (to my knowledge) that I'm not aware of.  And that this current approval is based on those better results and not a result of the FDA moving the goal posts to make approval easier.)

 

**EDIT**

I'll point out that I went with 80% because that was the number put out in the previous post.  It is also possible that somebody has looked at the public health situation and decided having tests available, even if they are less than 80% effective, would be beneficial.

 

(Even though, IMO, it would be nice if the government actually issue some guidance about the reliability of each test they were approving.)

Edited December 31, 2021 by PeterMP