Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

Lumen

sligeach wrote: »

Was the blood clotting issue spotted before the vaccine went to market? No, it wasn't. It may be a small proportion of people affected, but it was still missed. That's in its infancy, never mind years down the road.

Which vaccines have produced side effects that started years after being administered?

Stormyteacup

Lumen wrote: »

That's disappointingly waffly coming from you.

As I understand it the time to market was reduced due to certain steps that are normally done in sequence being parallelised.

"Rushed" implies excessive haste, i.e. haste that caused steps to be missed or poorly executed.

Are we allowed to ask why the process in other vaccine development was normally done in sequence but done in parallel for this one?

I don’t know the answer, and not bothered particularly and have had first mRNA jab, but surely you can understand some people’s concern with departing from the established time to market steps.

Maybe accelerated is a better description than rushed.

sligeach

Lumen wrote: »

Which vaccines have produced side effects that started years after being administered?

On the flip side, what vaccine has been rushed to market like this before?

Wibbs

sligeach wrote: »

Was the blood clotting issue spotted before the vaccine went to market? No, it wasn't. It may be a small proportion of people affected, but it was still missed. That's in its infancy, never mind years down the road.

The clotting issue was an absolutely tiny number of people. In the J&J example it was something like 80-90 people. That it raised concern at that level is a good thing too.

schmoo2k

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm not, but keep banging that drum.

And if some have weighed up the societal risks and decided that they personally feel the potential risks of a rushed to market set of vaccines and in the case of the MRNA type never been approved for use in humans before isn't worth the risk to them personally, what do you say to that? Should they be forced to take those vaccines?

And remember for those under the age of 65 the mortality rate without vaccines who tested positive for covid demographic since the first case in Ireland is 0.15%. The real figure will be even less. Which by the by is significantly lower than mortality rates for over 65's in "normal" annual influenza season. It is not "killing people of all ages". For those who are over 65 and/or with underlying conditions that leave them more vulnerable the risk/reward equation clearly makes far more sense and we've seen the uptake in that group is very high.

That is simply not true and spreading fake news like that is reprehensible IMO.

Stormyteacup

schmoo2k wrote: »

That is simply not true and spreading fake news like that is reprehensible IMO.

What mRNA vaccine is in use for humans apart from Covid ones?

astrofool

Stormyteacup wrote: »

Are we allowed to ask why the process in other vaccine development was normally done in sequence but done in parallel for this one?

I don’t know the answer, and not bothered particularly and have had first mRNA jab, but surely you can understand some people’s concern with departing from the established time to market steps.

Maybe accelerated is a better description than rushed.

As noted before, vaccines don't make much money for pharma companies, so they are generally developed very slowly with a small budget, the small budget means they only move onto the next step once the previous step has been proven to work. What happened with the coronavirus vaccines was to develop all the possibilities at the same time, thus the "winner" would be found more quickly and moved to the next stage, the actual length of time taken on the winning formula(s) was the same as it would be for any medicine, but by parallelizing and throwing money at all the losers the process could be sped up immeasurably while not compromising on the safety aspects of the medicine.

It must also be noted that there has been many loser vaccines that have stopped development, Sanofi had quite a high profile example.

It also answers the question of how do we, the human race, achieve great things. The will to do it has to be present ("We choose to go to the Moon") and massive buckets of money/wealth to pay for the resources needed to do so.

Lumen

Stormyteacup wrote: »

Are we allowed to ask why the process in other vaccine development was normally done in sequence but done in parallel for this one?.

Because we are in a public health emergency, so it makes sense to optimise the process in ways that would not make sense otherwise.

You can read about the process here:

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/public-health-threats/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/treatments-vaccines/vaccines-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines-development-evaluation-approval-monitoring

Standard vaccine development


Fast-track vaccine development


We are now at the point where a number of "studies after authorisation" have been completed, along with collection and analysis of the effects of billions of administered doses.

schmoo2k

Stormyteacup wrote: »

What mRNA vaccine is in use for humans apart from Covid ones?

The mRNA delivery mechanism has been used in FDA approved treatments since 1998, the fact its been used as a traditional "vaccine" is irrelevant as the delivery mechanism is the same as the approved treatments (in fact you could call some of the cancer treatments cancer vaccines if you wanted - its just word play).

Now you can say the specific "spike protein(s)" its delivering hasn't been used before, but the mRNA delivery mechanism very much has been.

Also worth noting that the scale of the testing for mRNA delivery for Covid was an order of magnitude greater than all the previous approved mRNA treatments combined.

Wibbs

astrofool wrote: »

It would be unprecedented for a medicine to only start exhibiting further symptoms after a certain amount of time, sure time is used in trials to figure out effects but usually as a way to catch things that might have been missed, the sheer numbers taking the COVID vaccines put this notion to bed, if we were going to see something long term we'd have already seen it (and again with the massive amount of people in the trials).

All medicines carry the risk of side effects and some depend on length of time too. Thalidomide is an obvious one that was in the market for a couple of years before being pulled because of birth defects, though is still very much in play for other conditions. Now as a vaccine is a "once off" in essence and not something you're taking on the regular that risk is going to be much lower.

Sure, but you don't know if you'll be one of those impacted, some of those who have had severe COVID and died have been fit and healthy individuals without any conditions, the % chance is low, but you have no way to tell if you're vulnerable until you catch it (which can also vary with viral load as we've seen with some doctors succumbing to it)

The risk isn't just low for young, never mind fit and healthy people, it's monumentally low. If it were a lottery, I'd not be wasting my money buying a ticket or many tickets unless I was over 70 and even then it wouldn't be a sure thing. Now we hear talk of long covid, but if I had a fiver for ever time I heard of someone, almost never directly connected with the teller being reduced from a 25 year old adonis to a wreck for life because of covid... well if I added it to the pile of fivers from those I've heard of, again at a remove who came down with more clots than a National Party meeting after being vaccinated my bank balance would be healthier. I have no doubt after affects of a severe case will be in play. Bad flus can cause heart inflammation for example, but the fear rising over that being widespread will require more testable evidence for me. There's still a lot of signal to noise going on.

Stormyteacup

astrofool wrote: »

As noted before, vaccines don't make much money for pharma companies, so they are generally developed very slowly with a small budget, the small budget means they only move onto the next step once the previous step has been proven to work. What happened with the coronavirus vaccines was to develop all the possibilities at the same time, thus the "winner" would be found more quickly and moved to the next stage, the actual length of time taken on the winning formula(s) was the same as it would be for any medicine, but by parallelizing and throwing money at all the losers the process could be sped up immeasurably while not compromising on the safety aspects of the medicine.

It must also be noted that there has been many loser vaccines that have stopped development, Sanofi had quite a high profile example.

It also answers the question of how do we, the human race, achieve great things. The will to do it has to be present ("We choose to go to the Moon") and massive buckets of money/wealth to pay for the resources needed to do so.

Thank you for explanation. It’s logical, and like most, I’m glad of global effort. Aside from immediate benefits, as a massive test case it will speed mRNA technology to great things.

It would be good if this could be communicated to anyone vaccine hesitant as clearly as possible as despite the logic, I can fully understand any hesitancy resulting from deviation/acceleration of normal vaccine development process.

Wibbs

schmoo2k wrote: »

That is simply not true and spreading fake news like that is reprehensible IMO.

Ah would you give over with the "fake news" banal catchphrase hyperbole. The theory of MRNA delivery mechanisms was in play since the 60's IIRC and really took off as a theory in the 90's but in actual trials more like the 00's and interest waned because of concerns about serious side effects in treatments for cancer, heart and metabolic diseases. Moderna was only founded in 2010 and they ran into safety concerns in short order, barely a year after their foundation.

But the Crigler-Najjar treatment has been indefinitely delayed, an Alexion spokeswoman told STAT. It never proved safe enough to test in humans, according to several former Moderna employees and collaborators who worked closely on the project. Unable to press forward with that technology, Moderna has had to focus instead on developing a handful of vaccines, turning to a less lucrative field that might not justify the company’s nearly $5 billion valuation.

The company’s premise: Using custom-built strands of messenger RNA, known as mRNA, it aims to turn the body’s cells into ad hoc drug factories, compelling them to produce the proteins needed to treat a wide variety of diseases.

But mRNA is a tricky technology. Several major pharmaceutical companies have tried and abandoned the idea, struggling to get mRNA into cells without triggering nasty side effects.[emphasis mine]

The vaccine route was seen as a much better bet because of the lower doses and risks of side effects involved. Now clearly they've tailored the science in the last few years and as we've seen the side effects in the milllions of doses have proved mild or statistically unimportant, but you can't claim that this method of delivery wasn't without serious problems. Problems serious enough to have investors and other major pharmaceutical enterprises dropping it.

astrofool

Wibbs wrote: »

All medicines carry the risk of side effects and some depend on length of time too. Thalidomide is an obvious one that was in the market for a couple of years before being pulled because of birth defects, though is still very much in play for other conditions. Now as a vaccine is a "once off" in essence and not something you're taking on the regular that risk is going to be much lower.

The risk isn't just low for young, never mind fit and healthy people, it's monumentally low. If it were a lottery, I'd not be wasting my money buying a ticket or many tickets unless I was over 70 and even then it wouldn't be a sure thing. Now we hear talk of long covid, but if I had a fiver for ever time I heard of someone, almost never directly connected with the teller being reduced from a 25 year old adonis to a wreck for life because of covid... well if I added it to the pile of fivers from those I've heard of, again at a remove who came down with more clots than a National Party meeting after being vaccinated my bank balance would be healthier. I have no doubt after affects of a severe case will be in play. Bad flus can cause heart inflammation for example, but the fear rising over that being widespread will require more testable evidence for me. There's still a lot of signal to noise going on.

Without getting too simplistic, time really isn't an interesting measure beyond the first few months, it's more, for a number of events, what is the chance of X happening, to take thalidomide as an example, time wasn't the issue (well beyond a trimester or two), it was the number of events that needed to happen for them to recognize there was a problem (well that and negligence around the development and the desire to get it marketed and making money).

With the COVID vaccines, the number of events is astronomical compared to other medicines, which has allowed us to catch those really rare side effects that for other traditionally developed medicines, would probably never be found as the occurrence might be once every other year.

Lumen

Since Thalidomide was brought up, this is worth a read to see how far we've come since the 1950s.

It's like peering into the dark ages.

https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/medicine/thalidomide

During early testing, researchers at the company found that it was virtually impossible to give test animals a lethal dose of the drug (based on the LD50 test). Largely based on this, the drug was deemed to be harmless to humans. Thalidomide was licensed in July 1956 for over-the-counter sale (no doctor’s prescription was needed) in Germany.

Stormyteacup

schmoo2k wrote: »

The mRNA delivery mechanism has been used in FDA approved treatments since 1998, the fact its been used as a traditional "vaccine" is irrelevant as the delivery mechanism is the same as the approved treatments (in fact you could call some of the cancer treatments cancer vaccines if you wanted - its just word play).

Now you can say the specific "spike protein(s)" its delivering hasn't been used before, but the mRNA delivery mechanism very much has been.

Also worth noting that the scale of the testing for mRNA delivery for Covid was an order of magnitude greater than all the previous approved mRNA treatments combined.

I would take issue with the above as a vaccine is a prophylactic traditionally - not used on those already ill.

I’m aware of existing mRNA treatments and future looks bright. However it’s history is treating illnesses already contracted. We know for example that chemotherapy and radiotherapy help cancer patients but that those treatments would never be used on healthy people to prevent cancer.

The bar is necessarily set differently for mass administration of treatment to healthy people.

schmoo2k

Stormyteacup wrote: »

I would take issue with the above as a vaccine is a prophylactic traditionally - not used on those already ill.

I’m aware of existing mRNA treatments and future looks bright. However it’s history is treating illnesses already contracted. We know for example that chemotherapy and radiotherapy help cancer patients but that those treatments would never be used on healthy people to prevent cancer.

The bar is necessarily set differently for mass administration of treatment to healthy people.

That statement is equally true for the new "traditional" vaccines as well?

My understanding is that the delivery mechanism is sound, but there are question marks over what it alters and the possible effects it might have (good or bad), which varies differently based on what its trying change - a lot of the failed trials were quite ambitious on what it was trying to alter (that also happen to be in areas where there are currently no known cutes)?

Further the triggering of the spike protein is very much at the "easy" end of the scale from a DNA point of view (once they had the Covid virus fully decoded they were able to develop the first test batches within a week).

As has been previously pointed out vaccines traditionally don't make a lot of money for pharma and mRNA is relatively new and specialised.

Sorry for my click bate "fake news", but from where I am sitting the following is true:
* mRNA has been used in FDA approved treatments since 1998
* This is the first time mRNA has been used as a vaccine (administered to healthy folks)
* The clinical trials were expedited, with significantly larger control groups than traditional testing.
* Long term side affects are not known (same for all Covid vaccines and also true for Covid itself).

323

tom1ie wrote: »

Why don't you want to take it?
Do you not want to protect your fellow humans?

My vaccination booklet already has more than the average number of stamps. I won't be adding any of these because I am not in the least bit afraid of this dose.



"protect your fellow humans?" If any of my fellow humans are concerned, by all means go get jabbed if they feel it will be of benefit. Unlike those pushing the fear agenda, I'm not into judging people.

Blut2

astrofool wrote: »

It would be unprecedented for a medicine to only start exhibiting further symptoms after a certain amount of time, sure time is used in trials to figure out effects but usually as a way to catch things that might have been missed, the sheer numbers taking the COVID vaccines put this notion to bed, if we were going to see something long term we'd have already seen it (and again with the massive amount of people in the trials).

This has happened with not just "a medicine", but multiple actual flu vaccines. Its nowhere near unprecedented:

After the immunization program began, the vaccine was associated with an increase in reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome, which can cause paralysis, respiratory arrest, and death. The immunization program was ended after approximately 25% of the population of the United States had been administered the vaccine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_swine_flu_outbreak

Or more recently:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix

Pandemrix is an influenza vaccine for influenza pandemics, such as the 2009 flu pandemic. The vaccine was developed by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and patented in September 2006. The vaccine was one of the H1N1 vaccines approved for use by the European Commission in September 2009, upon the recommendations of the European Medicines Agency (EMEA)

Pandemrix was found to be associated with an increased risk of narcolepsy following investigations by Swedish and Finnish health authorities and had higher rates of adverse events than other vaccines for H1N1. This resulted in several legal cases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix

The odds of serious side effects from any of the corona vaccines emerging in the future are low but they definitely aren't zero. The vaccines have only been in widespread use for 5~ months at this stage, its still very very early to tell.

astrofool

Blut2 wrote: »

This has happened with not just "a medicine", but multiple actual flu vaccines. Its nowhere near unprecedented:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_swine_flu_outbreak

Or more recently:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix

The odds of serious side effects from any of the corona vaccines emerging in the future are low but they definitely aren't zero. The vaccines have only been in widespread use for 5~ months at this stage, its still very very early to tell.

Sure, but time wasn't a factor in either of those, number of events to identify an issue was, with the COVID vaccines the number of events to analyze is off the scale.

Blut2

astrofool wrote: »

Sure, but time wasn't a factor in either of those, number of events to identify an issue was, with the COVID vaccines the number of events to analyze is off the scale.

Time was absolutely a factor in studies being carried out on the effects of the vaccines only after they had entered wide-spread use.

And in terms of number of events they vaccinated 25% of the American population for example in 1976 before deciding that vaccine was actually a health risk. We're only at 52% of the population in America done with the current vaccines as of today. So it is a bigger pool of the population for analysis - but not exactly orders of magnitude different.

astrofool

Blut2 wrote: »

Time was absolutely a factor in studies being carried out on the effects of the vaccines only after they had entered wide-spread use.

And in terms of number of events they vaccinated 25% of the American population for example in 1976 before deciding that vaccine was actually a health risk. We're only at 52% of the population in America done with the current vaccines as of today. So it is a bigger pool of the population for analysis - but not exactly orders of magnitude different.

It would be fair to say at least an order of magnitude greater.

BillyBiggs

astrofool wrote: »

It would be fair to say at least an order of magnitude greater.

You are beginning to sound like an authority on the pandemic, a virologist/ epidemiologist.

BillyBiggs

BillyBiggs wrote: »

You are beginning to sound like an authority on the pandemic, a virologist/ epidemiologist.

Im no astrofool fan but im a big science fan and very well read too. He may just be as interested and educated and more even, BUT on the other side of the debate which is his right. Debate him back😁

BillyBiggs

rusty cole wrote: »

Im no astrofool fan but im a big science fan and very well read too. He may just be as interested and educated and more even, BUT on the other side of the debate which is his right. Debate him backðŸ˜

Haha it’s just that there are so many “armchair experts” writing about the pandemic.

Blut2

BillyBiggs wrote: »

You are beginning to sound like an authority on the pandemic, a virologist/ epidemiologist.

An expert in the field would never claim "It would be unprecedented for a medicine to only start exhibiting further symptoms after a certain amount of time" though to be fair, given the many many examples (including the rather relevant two above) of such things happening.

Ash.J.Williams

Just got my first jab and the bleedin horn on me

moonage

323 wrote: »

Anyway the poll mentioned "an approved" vaccine? Most of the manufacturers of these vaccines "authorized " for use have not even applied for approval as yet, Pfizer just applied last month.

These vaccines shouldn't even be on the market.

They could only obtain their emergency use authorisations if there was no effective treatment available. But there was and is one: ivermectin.

Ivermectin—a safe, cheap and effective preventative and treatment—had to be suppressed so that the vaccines could come to market. It's immoral and evil.

Beasty

moonage wrote: »

These vaccines shouldn't even be on the market.

They could only obtain their emergency use authorisations if there was no effective treatment available. But there was and is one: ivermectin.

Ivermectin—a safe, cheap and effective preventative and treatment—had to be suppressed so that the vaccines could come to market. It's immoral and evil.

Threadbanned for repeatedly spouting CT crap

Aph2016

Will end up taking the vaccine because you're essentially being forced to take it in order to travel.

Ash.J.Williams

Delighted he’s banned, a scientist he is not .