The state of the vaccines

Why do you think COVID is a hoax - that's bizarre.

 

Are you okay?

 

As far as I know many of these vaccines are supposed to come to the population at no cost, especially the ones that have already benefited from tax payer's money in the cost-sharing initiative. Likely the makers will bill private insurance plans when the person has one, with no co-pays, and will deliver the vaccine for free for the uninsured. Given that acceptance will be an uphill battle (given the STUPID politics attached to it), any hopes of a large acceptance rate that might contribute to herd immunity, would have to include free vaccines.

 

I won't be taking it anytime and it ain't because of stupid politics. It is because I don't put things in my body unless I am reasonably sure they are safe. I seldom even take a Tylenol.

 

And how will you reach the conclusion that it is reasonably safe? If virologists, epidemiologists, infectious diseases physician specialists, and regulatory agencies (which are made of top world-class scientists; all people who do this for a living and dedicate their entire lives to studying these things, that is, the pros) conclude that after 30,000 tests in live subjects of all walks of life, the vaccine protects 97% of recipients against the virus, and it causes mild and non-life-threatening side effects in 0.2% of subjects with no fatal reactions, what else do you need to conclude that it is reasonably safe?

Do you mean that you are better equipped to make this judgment call than virologists, epidemiologists, infectious diseases physician specialists, and scientists from the regulatory agencies who are actually dealing with this vaccine in real life and going over the test results?

Maybe you *are* better qualified because this being an anonymous forum, who knows, maybe you are a Nobel Prize-winning virologist who happens to be posting here anonymously among us; but if you aren't, then maybe you should consider deferring to the people who are equipped to make this judgment call.

If there is a gas leak in your house, what do you do? You call the pros, the specialists from the gas company, right? (Unless you are a gas specialist yourself and you can fix it all by yourself, and you are in possession of the necessary equipment).

If the electric wires in your house get old and cause a bad short-circuit that fries the board, what do you do? You call a pro, a licensed electrician, right? (Unless you are a licensed electrician yourself, and you are in possession of the necessary equipment).

If your house catches a major fire, what do you do? You call the pros from the Fire Department to put it off, right? In that case, even if you are a fireman you'll still call them, because it is unlikely that you are equipped at home with a major fire truck.

If your child, God forbid, develops a brain tumor, what do you do? You take the child to a brain surgeon, right? In that case, even if you are a neurosurgeon it would be unethical to treat your child yourself under penalty of losing your license, so you'll have to call someone else anyway.

I mean, that's all logical, right? So similarly, why on Earth when it's a question of an anti-viral vaccine, you don't trust the virologists, epidemiologists, and infectious diseases specialists??? Do you want to do it on your own? Do you have the lab equipment to run the tests? Can you understand a scientific paper full of jargon and high sciences and biostatistics equations, to get the full meaning of the results? Are you in possession of the specialized knowledge required to reach a conclusion about it that is factual and not opinion? If you are, then by all means, go ahead.

But if you aren't, trust them, just like you trust your gas company, your licensed electrician, your firemen, and your brain surgeon.

 

I am concerned that will not be the case when it comes times for distribution. I had "sticker shock" just last week when I was told a test would be $300 out-of-pocket. I have a call into my insurance company as my case manager didn't know if it was covered or not. If not, I cannot afford to shell out $900 for the three doctors that require I get tested prior to out-patient procedures next month. Sigh.

As for the vaccine - I was thinking about the equipment (ie. freezer trucks, dry ice, etc.) they would need just to transport the vaccine and the special training that will probably be required to administer it. That has to cost somebody somewhere and it's probably tax payer funded if it's not through private insurance companies. That's one hefty price tag no matter how you slice it.

 

True. The -70 degrees have me worried. But let's hope the administration will pick up the tab. After all, defeating this virus would not only be politically expedient, but would likely bring about an economic boom that would end up paying for the effort. If we don't spend this money and the virus just keeps going and going, the economic damage will be much worse.

About the test, that's despicable. Can't you get it done in your Health Department? I know that the situation is different according to the state and according to each county. In my county, the test is offered for free at the Health Department, and it's a drive-by. You call, schedule the appointment, give the make, color, and plate of your car, and you drive there when it's time for your appointment, roll back your window, they swab you, and call you with the result when it's ready (then mail you a certificate). But I know that not all states and counties are so equipped or have enough test kits and personnel to do it this way.

 

I have the power to control my body and it ain't happening.

 

That is another reason why I'm concerned about the vaccine. They are under a serious weight trying to get it through the stages to market. I don't blindly trust vaccines (I am living in the aftermath of a vaccine injury) anyway. This time crunch has me really concerned that they might be cutting some corners and we'll never know for years, maybe decades down the line. As what happened to me in college, I'm concerned that we will basically be held "hostage" to get it done.

Thanks for the idea of the Health Department. I didn't think to call them for whatever reason (old age creeping up. lol). Hopefully, they have some less expensive options available. Please cross your fingers for me to either find one or win the lottery .

 

I hope for your sake that if you catch a bad case of Covid-19, that power to control your body will avoid any of the several possible long-term organ damage.

 

There is no need for you to concern yourself with my health, healthcare, or decisions.

 

Thats actually a good sign that its a clean vaccine. Vaccines with long, stable shelf lives usually achieve it with preservatives that increase the risk of debilitating and permanant injury in the name of keeping costs lower. Vaccines are not exempt from the old saying 'you get what you pay for.'

 

I am absolutely not preoccupied with the time crunch because none of the vaccine candidates (except the Russians') is cutting corners where it matters, that is, the size of the animal trials, and phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 human trials. The corners being cut have to do primarily with the finances, production lines, and red tape. The clinical trials are proceeding with the usual number of subjects, like for every other vaccine and every other medication.

This is something that the public needs to understand. It's the most common thing we hear, and it's just plain wrong. Injecting money into a vaccine maker so that they can hire more personnel and buy more equipment to expedite things, and cost-sharing with grants so that they can start production in advance of final approval (to be ready to roll if there is approval) without going bankrupt if it is not approved, in no way, shape, or form, makes the TRIALS themselves be shorter or less reliable. It's a a very important distinction that I'm surprise that most people haven't realized.

I'm sorry to hear that you had a bad reaction to a vaccine. It happens (in very rare cases, but yes, those cases are out there and you were one of the rare unlucky ones). Like for all medications, it's a question of risks and benefits. There are always risks, but if we don't accept some risk we won't get the benefits. When the disease being prevented is very risky in itself, then the benefits outweigh the risks. By the way, they necessarily do, otherwise the vaccine wouldn't be approved. Which is not to say some of the risks won't materialize for this or that rare patient.

OK, fingers crossed for you. Good luck! Another thing, if you really can't afford it, call your doctors. If they require their patients to be tested, can't they provide the test in their own facility and eat up the cost? Some hospitals and clinics will accept to waive certain costs. Say, they will earn three thousand dollars from performing the procedure, but they will lose you as a patient if you don't show up because you can't afford the required test. So, if they were to test you and waive the cost as "cost of doing business," they'd still make a 2,700.00 profit...which is way better than not making any profit. Often the billing department of hospitals and clinics will work with the more disadvantaged clients to make things possible, or will at least negotiate a payment plan. Remember, some practices are desperate because the pandemic has affected their bottom line. They may be more willing to work with you on this than you may realize. Sure, if you don't ask, they won't spontaneously help you, and maybe you feel shy and you don't want to beg... but you should, and you may be surprised with the results.

Finally, any charities that cater to whatever category you might qualify for, and might help you if you call them up?

 

But I still do. That's what I do for a living. I'm a healthcare worker, so I worry about people's health and healthcare, and I try to help them with making an informed decision (which is part of the process of healthcare, called "informed consent"). One of my main objectives in posting here, is to contribute to bringing down misinformation about this virus, its treatment, and its prevention. Sure, you may feel adversarial and turned off by unsolicited advice, but sorry, it won't stop me from issuing it. You can take it or leave it. If it annoys you too much, place me on Ignore.

 

Can I make a request to the sane & sensible posters on this thread: DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. This thread has started off as a really good information drop from an informed person. Can we try to keep it that way? We can't prevent certain types of people from posting here, but interacting with them simply fills the thread with sewage. These people can't be reasoned with and no amount of argument, well made or otherwise, will achieve anything. Having to scroll through post after post of worthless back and forth really does spoil what was a very enjoyable thread. Please don't contribute to it.

Deprive the bridge dwellers of oxygen and let the useful, important informaton dominate the thread. Please.

 

Are you?

 

Concur - let's keep it sensible.

 

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I didn't realize you were in the healthcare field so it does help to know you aren't just flying by the seat of your pants.

Yes, I am one of the unfortunate small amount of people that was injured by a vaccine. It doesn't matter what the odds are if you happen to be on the wrong side of a statistic. I'm strong and a survivor so I keep plugging along.

I will follow up on those ideas this week. I am usually the idea person and advocate for others. It feels weird being on the receiving end. So, thank you!

 

You know, vaccines do need adjuvants. The thing is, they need to cause a minor irritation in order to recruit the leukocytes (the white blood cells, especially the T-helper ones) to gobble up and process the antigen. The most commonly used one is potassium-aluminum sulfate or Alum. Here, read up about it. It is actually quite safe:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/alum

Now, that's not a preservative. It's just to say you can't really have vaccines that are just the antigen or they wouldn't work so well.

Preservatives, yes, the most common is thimerosal which is mercury-based and there's been endless concern about it to the point that it was removed from pediatric vaccines except the flu one, although there's never been any evidence that it actually causes any damage, given that it contains ethylmercury which is much more benign than the more dangerous methylmercury that you find in contaminated fish. Thimerosal does cause minor local reactions like redness and swelling.

Of course the anti-vaxxers pretend that thimerosal causes autism, but it's just not the case. It is readily eliminated from the organism in mere hours. Even after thimerosal was taken off of vaccines due to the (groundless) outcry just to see if vaccines would be better accepted, rates of autism have continued to rise (if thimerosal were causing autism, than logically those rates would have dropped). Some flu vaccines have thimerosal but thimerosal-free flu shots are also available for the people who freak out about it.

There are other things in vaccines:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

I don't think any of these have to do with temperature. Probably the mRNA vaccines just need low temperature so that the mRNA won't spoil. That, I don't know for sure (I mean, what the mechanism is for the need). I'm not experienced with mRNA vaccines (for the simple fact that one has never been approved for human use) and what I know about them is what I read, same as anybody here. I do know that the Pfizer one will only last for 24 to 48 hours at refrigerated temps (that's the one that needs really cold storage). Regulators are saying 24hrs, the company is saying 48.

Moderna is saying that their vaccine can be simply stored at -4 degrees, which is what is found in any home freezer, so, much better.

 

Not all preservatives and/or adjuvents are created equal. They are applied to achieve a balance between cost and safety. My point is that I intend to avoid vaccines that are made less safe to keep costs down. Let me buy higher quality, more expensive and safer ones or don't expect me to vaccinate.

 

I have no idea what these so-called trolls are doing, but I'm glad to realize that my Ignore list is getting built up the right way because the only posts I see here are the ones that are seriously discussing the topic, so I assume that all the so-called trolls you are mentioning, belong already to my Ignore list. I advise you to do the same. The uncluttered view is beautiful.

 

OK, fair enough, but then, would you be more specific, please? What are the preservatives and adjuvants you object to, and why?

 

By the way, I've created another vaccine thread, and I actually should have kept it all here.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...andling-at-70-degrees.577614/#post-1072008375

I'll ask a moderator to merge the two threads.

@Adfundum would you please merge this thread with the one I linked to above? They are both about technical aspects of vaccines so I guess only one would be more focused. Thanks.

 

Yes, I've always said, the worst kind of economic impact, is NOT controlling the outbreak, due to low consumer confidence. Not to forget, given this virus' propensity to cause lasting organ damage which is becoming more and more evident, there will be an economic price to pay on this, too.

The death toll is not all, but also, what kind of societal costs will come out of this, in terms of treating chronic conditions like lung fibrosis with long-standing shortness of breath, strokes, kidney insufficiency, cognitive impairment (brain fog), chronic fatigue, and most concerning of all, the recent evidence of asymptomatic but impressive heart damage in covid-19 survivors, even those with mild cases, and even those youngish and with no underlying medical condition; this hidden heart damage is of the kind that matches other heart muscle diseases that progressively, after a few years, lead to heart failure.

Have enough long-term organ damage, and you have economic costs in burden of treatment, lost productivity, and premature death.

It is interesting to notice that the upper classes (of which I'm a member) are showing a bigger proportional dip in spending as compared to the lower classes. I wonder why. It's paradoxical because we have more disposable income and less worries about the future so we might have bigger consumer confidence even when facing a crisis.

But I guess it makes sense. We are not going to restaurants, staying in bed-and-breakfast lodging for romantic weekend trips, taking airplanes, and we cancelled gym memberships (they are closed, anyway). We are growing vegetables in our backyard (hydroponic system) and baking our own bread. We are not inviting friends over for dinner or swimming pool parties so all the expenses with food and drinks to serve to them are gone (we used to do it regularly).

There are some expenses that increased with the pandemic, though. We beefed up our paid TV packages, we bought an online exercise system called Mirror, we bought a fancy coffee machine to make our own gourmet coffee at home, and we switched almost all our shopping (including some groceries) to online vendors which are generally more expensive than the local shopping we used to do. Even pizza, we now get overseas deliveries directly from Italy (Talia di Napoli; they ship pizza packages made in Naples). We get seafood and fish from Alaska and pasta from Boston; wine comes from a winery that ships cases to our porch. And our N95s and ASTM level 3 facemasks are expensive due to all the price gouging. But 100% of these expenses are not going to the local economy and some are even going abroad (like the pizzas from Naples).

 

Major piece of news: the FDA is considering an emergency vaccine authorization ahead of the end of trials. I have mixed feelings about this.

https://theweek.com/5things/934829/fda-chief-says-might-okay-covid19-vaccine-before-human-trials-end