General COVID-19 Vaccine Discussion

[TonyHancock]

According to SMH the issue of AZ and not being able to travel to US is not correct?

US has never stated that you cannot travel to the US with an AZ vaccination. You don't need a vaccination at all to enter, and the quarantine requirements will be state dependent and in many cases a recommendation.

What has been happening is that some private companies have required proof of an FDA approved double vaccination in order to enter their premises in my experience

I am due to fly into the US again in a couple of weeks and will update if requirements have changed.

 

[Vic]

Some aspects money and resources can accelerate for sure, but the medium to long term side-effects require time. It's entirely reasonable for some folks to take pause on taking this vaccine - especially if they are young and in good health and unlikely to be any burden on the health system.

We will likely get to 90%+ participation anyway through community support - so the need for medical apartheid is just political bullshit.

I picked the Rotavirus example because the first version was withdrawn after a year because of side effects. So I'm really not in the camp of medium to long term effects being an issue. The effects of the delivery method for vaccines are also pretty well known since they're used for a number of difference vaccines. I'm not sure it's an issue.

I tend to agree with the medical apartheid position, but I'm also sick to death of anti-vaxxers who think a measles vaccine is vastly more deadly than measles (for example). Or them banging on about some secret government conspiracy because of low flu cases, while ignoring the fact that lockdowns, hand washing and social distancing will also dramatically reduce the spread of flu. And I don't actually know if there has been a reduction in seasonal flu, or if that simply hasn't been reported.
the anti-vax position of avoiding a very small risk of vaccines, while subjecting society to a much greater risk, deserves some push back. IMO

I also think the delta variant suggests this is going to become like the seasonal flu vaccine. again just my uninformed opinion

While I may (or may not) have reservations about the oversight of the COVID vaccine development, that subject was NOT mentioned. Rather my comment was intended to be that the same level of standard of analysis and review is not being applied "across the board".
A further question which should be answered - when does the size of an observational study become statistically significant (in a medical sense)? Several million outcomes which might be coincidental?

More wandering
Fred

You can get statistically significant results with 1000 subjects. Millions of people have had covid vaccine.

 

[oz_mark]

Some aspects money and resources can accelerate for sure, but the medium to long term side-effects require time. It's entirely reasonable for some folks to take pause on taking this vaccine - especially if they are young and in good health and unlikely to be any burden on the health system.

We will likely get to 90%+ participation anyway through community support - so the need for medical apartheid is just political bullshit.

Someone may know (I don't), but from an historical perspective, how many vaccines have had long term side effects that have taken years to show up?

 

[drron]

The dengue vaccine was one.

Dengue vaccine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[cwphoto]

I picked the Rotavirus example because the first version was withdrawn after a year because of side effects. So I'm really not in the camp of medium to long term effects being an issue. The effects of the delivery method for vaccines are also pretty well known since they're used for a number of difference vaccines. I'm not sure it's an issue.

I tend to agree with the medical apartheid position, but I'm also sick to death of anti-vaxxers who think a measles vaccine is vastly more deadly than measles (for example). Or them banging on about some secret government conspiracy because of low flu cases, while ignoring the fact that lockdowns, hand washing and social distancing will also dramatically reduce the spread of flu. And I don't actually know if there has been a reduction in seasonal flu, or if that simply hasn't been reported.
the anti-vax position of avoiding a very small risk of vaccines, while subjecting society to a much greater risk, deserves some push back. IMO

I also think the delta variant suggests this is going to become like the seasonal flu vaccine. again just my uninformed opinion



You can get statistically significant results with 1000 subjects. Millions of people have had covid vaccine.

I think there is a difference between anti-vaxxers (those that reject all vaccines), and those who are cautious of this one.

 

[jb747]

I think there is a difference between anti-vaxxers (those that reject all vaccines), and those who are cautious of this one.

I doubt that the vast majority really make that distinction, simply jumping on the bandwagon as it goes past. And I don't care what they are actually against. I do care if they hold the rest of us back from getting off this interminable lockdown/border closure merry go-round.

 

[Vic]

I think there is a difference between anti-vaxxers (those that reject all vaccines), and those who are cautious of this one.

I've only seen caution on the covid vaccine from an anti perspective.

 

[cwphoto]

I've only seen caution on the covid vaccine from an anti perspective.

You're not looking.

 

[cwphoto]

I doubt that the vast majority really make that distinction, simply jumping on the bandwagon as it goes past. And I don't care what they are actually against. I do care if they hold the rest of us back from getting off this interminable lockdown/border closure merry go-round.

You can doubt all you want but it's misguided. There are many people who are happy with vaccination of tried/tested but cautious of this one.

So there are three categories, regardless of whether you accept them or not.

 

[Vic]

You can doubt all you want but it's misguided. There are many people who are happy with vaccination of tried/tested but cautious of this one.

So there are three categories, regardless of whether you accept them or not.

The root of such caution can only be anti-vaxxers, their dis-information infects my social media.

Even the dengue vaccine isn't directly comparable being it was a live vaccine. While this story is very specific in application, it clearly outlines the safety aspects of mRNA vaccines.

Nancy worried about getting the COVID vaccine while pregnant. This is what helped her decide

I thought when pregnant women became eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine I would be one of the first lining up. And I was… but then I wasn't.

www.abc.net.au

For those of you who might still be wondering, "Yes, but mRNA technology is different, it's new. How can we be sure?"

Well, mRNA technology isn't exactly new. According to the European Commission, human trials of cancer vaccines using mRNA technology have been happening for the last decade.

And the vaccine, which is basically just a tiny fragment of genetic code in a bubble of fat, doesn't even travel outside your muscle (in your arm where the needle goes), Craig Pennell tells me.

He's the Chair of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Professor in Maternal Fetal Medicine at the University of Newcastle (John Hunter Hospital) and has a special interest in molecular genetics.

"The bulk of the vaccine is metabolised in your muscle within hours after the shot, so it's impossible to cross the placenta," Dr Pennell says.

 

[cwphoto]

The root of such caution can only be anti-vaxxers, their dis-information infects my social media.

Even the dengue vaccine isn't directly comparable being it was a live vaccine. While this story is very specific in application, it clearly outlines the safety aspects of mRNA vaccines.

Nancy worried about getting the COVID vaccine while pregnant. This is what helped her decide

I thought when pregnant women became eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine I would be one of the first lining up. And I was… but then I wasn't.

www.abc.net.au

You need to look wider, maybe it's your social media.

 

[jakeseven7]

The root of such caution can only be anti-vaxxers, their dis-information infects my social media.

Even the dengue vaccine isn't directly comparable being it was a live vaccine. While this story is very specific in application, it clearly outlines the safety aspects of mRNA vaccines.

Nancy worried about getting the COVID vaccine while pregnant. This is what helped her decide

I thought when pregnant women became eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine I would be one of the first lining up. And I was… but then I wasn't.

www.abc.net.au

I guess who really cares where they come from, as long as they aren’t allowed to sit in theatres and next to me in a plane I don’t care what they do, I feel sorry for them more than anything - about the nasty impending illness they will get probably in the next few months.

 

[Vic]

You need to look wider, maybe it's your social media.

I'm pretty sure you're not in a position to tell me what I need to do, nor to make any judgements about what I see.

the ABC lifestyle piece I linked has the same themes - long term effects, untested. Themes repeated by both antis and the self proclaimed moderates...

 

[OZDUCK]

This should be an interesting test - and being conducted in Australia. If successful it will simplify and hopefully widen the vaccination process.

Novavax Begins Trial for Combination Vaccine for Flu, Covid-19

By Chris Wack Novavax Inc. said it has enrolled the first participants in a Phase 1/2 study to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of a combination...

www.marketwatch.com

 

[Batterytraveller]

2. I wish the pharmaceutical industry regulators would apply the same evaluation standards which are being practiced with the vaccine rollout to the existing pharmaceuticals which seem to limit serious infection.
Most interesting comment in the alternative sites may be: Where are the double blind studies for masks? Note: In high density situations (ie public transport) masks are likely somewhat functional.

This is pure FUD, plenty of work has been done into using existing pharmaceuticals to treat COVID - this is why drugs like Dexamethosone and remdesevir are being used today, because the evidence is there that they work. Plenty of other things have been tried and shown not to work. Death rates, even among the unvaccinated have fallen because we are better at treating COVID than we were a year ago.

As for masks there is more than a century of empirical evidence that masks reduce the spread and inhaling of droplets, aerosols and particles and the diseases . No mask is perfect but it will reduce the chance that you spread disease or breath in enough virus to catch the disease. As for the 'where are the double blind studies' cough. 30 seconds on google scholar will give you 1000s and thousands of peer-reviewed studies about the effectiveness of masks. (NB its also very hard to do a 'double blind' study one masks because WTF is a placebo mask)

This poster is just sewing ignorance and doubt.

 

[wandering_fred]

This poster is just sewing ignorance and doubt.

I recall a line from a Dickens story - "The law is an cough"
Corollary: Generally accepted medical practice will change if you live long enough.

But you missed my point with "double blind studies of masks".
The example I used was not to suggest that masks do not have their place - in fact I used an example where the use would be "generally accepted" (in populated spaces); ie, a situation where use would "pass the pub test". But wearing masks is a policy where a double blind study would seem inappropriate in mandating a "medical procedure". And studies showing them both effective and ineffective exist. I prefer use in locations where they will be useful and accepted. My take is that "double blind studies" also have their space and use, but are not universal in their application or success.

There are now reports of medical interventions with already approved drugs involving literally hundreds of thousands of people, with adequate numbers with and without those procedures. And these are either not being reported, or dismissed as coincidence or considered "observational". And "real double blind studies" are to be required to confirm the reported outcomes. Some such have been done in small populations with outcomes on both sides of the discussions. But since no company will make money from costly studies of size for drugs where the patent has expired - they will not happen.
Today organizations in all fields hire consultants to complete studies which will validate their desired outcomes. Medical research is no different. Note: Studies showing remdesevir is not effective do exist.
The small pox vaccine was created as a result of observational studies a long time ago.... Would that happen now?
And the current vaccines do not totally avoid infection or its transmission, rather limit the severity of the infection if re-infection occurs. This is unlike most previous vaccines. But limiting the intensity of the infection is "good", so until better things are found, get vaccinated and hope there are no long term side effects. And yes I did though I wish I had had a better selection to chose from.

 

[Princess Fiona]

I recall a line from a Dickens story - "The law is an cough"
Corollary: Generally accepted medical practice will change if you live long enough.

But you missed my point with "double blind studies of masks".
The example I used was not to suggest that masks do not have their place - in fact I used an example where the use would be "generally accepted" (in populated spaces); ie, a situation where use would "pass the pub test". But wearing masks is a policy where a double blind study would seem inappropriate in mandating a "medical procedure". And studies showing them both effective and ineffective exist. I prefer use in locations where they will be useful and accepted. My take is that "double blind studies" also have their space and use, but are not universal in their application or success.

There are now reports of medical interventions with already approved drugs involving literally hundreds of thousands of people, with adequate numbers with and without those procedures. And these are either not being reported, or dismissed as coincidence or considered "observational". And "real double blind studies" are to be required to confirm the reported outcomes. Some such have been done in small populations with outcomes on both sides of the discussions. But since no company will make money from costly studies of size for drugs where the patent has expired - they will not happen.
Today organizations in all fields hire consultants to complete studies which will validate their desired outcomes. Medical research is no different. Note: Studies showing remdesevir is not effective do exist.
The small pox vaccine was created as a result of observational studies a long time ago.... Would that happen now?
And the current vaccines do not totally avoid infection or its transmission, rather limit the severity of the infection if re-infection occurs. This is unlike most previous vaccines. But limiting the intensity of the infection is "good", so until better things are found, get vaccinated and hope there are no long term side effects. And yes I did though I wish I had had a better selection to chose from.

I think the point was that you can’t have a double blind study of masks unless the masks themselves are invisible to the wearers and the researchers.
And that’s going into Harry Potter territory.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

I think the point was that you can’t have a double blind study of masks unless the masks themselves are invisible to the wearers and the researchers.
And that’s going into Harry Potter territory.

Indeed.....plus very hard for people to not be aware that they are putting masks on and off and to have some notion if they have been issued with a better quality mask or not.

What is a double blind study?​

A double blind study is a randomized clinical trial in which:​

• You as patient don’t know if you’re receiving the experimental treatment, a standard treatment or a placebo, and
• Your doctor doesn’t know.

Only those directing the study know the treatment that each participant receives.​

​

Double blind studies prevent bias when doctors evaluate patients’ outcomes. This improves reliability of clinical trial results.​

​

This is one of the larger and more recent mask wearing studies with respect to Covid19:

​

Randomized study of mask-wearing illustrates their importance in preventing the spread COVID-19

The study, a randomized trial set up to demonstrate the effectiveness of masks, was conducted across 600 villages in rural Bangladesh. Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak, a Bangladeshi economist at Yale University discussed the findings with The World's host Carol Hills.

www.pri.org

​

 

[drron]

As to masks I am still a little sceptical that you are reducing your chance of getting Covid wearing a mask.But that isn't the point.Masks should be worn by those who are infected so reducing the chance of them infecting others.In Australia to increase the chances of the infected wearing masks you have to have a mask mandate.Especially important now with a large proportion of breakthrough infections being asymptomatic.

Then there is a side benefit.Mask wearing has certainly been shown to be effective in decreasing the spread of flu and the common cold.So if a mandate for masks is ongoing we could probably halve the incidence of flu.That culd mean 500 lives saved per year.

 

[Pushka]

Then there is a side benefit.Mask wearing has certainly been shown to be effective in decreasing the spread of flu and the common cold.So if a mandate for masks is ongoing we could probably halve the incidence of flu.That culd mean 500 lives saved per year.

I would be very much against mandated wearing of a mask come mid next year.