Who's getting the shot?

[ADigitalArtist]

Look, I'm not saying no-one should take the vaccine. I'm not saying a vaccine for this wouldn't be good.

I just don't know why I'm being pounced on for suggesting that a vaccine that hasn't even been trialled for more than a year may not be as safe, effective or useful as it's being made out to be. The only reason this vaccine is even legally allowed to be rolled out so early is because of emergency measures, and I'm just not sure that's good enough. I'm in a better the devil you know mindset here. If it does help people, great; I just don't conclusively know if it does, and neither can anyone, given that the longterm effects of this vaccine have yet to be known.

That's my problem, and I don't know why it's so controversial.

Probably because the inherent assumption that the only reason this was allowed to be rolled out is because of emergency measures isn't true. It's because of emergency measures that global redundant testing without budget constraints or in-house resource limitations.
This vaccine wasn't rushed, it was given priority. And maybe we shouldn't be so quick to balk when immunologists and virologists and doctors around the world keep having to repeat this: this vaccine still went through traditional phases of trials and was approved legitimately.

 

[Rival]

Probably because the inherent assumption that the only reason this was allowed to be rolled out is because of emergency measures isn't true. It's because of emergency measures that global redundant testing without budget constraints or in-house resource limitations.
This vaccine wasn't rushed, it was given priority. And maybe we shouldn't be so quick to balk when immunologists and virologists and doctors around the world keep having to repeat this: this vaccine still went through traditional phases of trials and was approved legitimately.

How could it though? That's my question. Normal thorough trials take years, you can't just reduce that with a budget. You have to be able to look at after-effects, long-term effects, use it on all kinds of different people and so on. No amount of money or priority can make this process go any faster. Money doesn't make the long-term come quicker. We simply don't know what this vaccine will or could lead to in a year or so. We don't have that data yet, so how we can say it's safe or effective I don't know?

I mean, there are drugs like oxycontin and thalidomide that were put on the market and defended endlessly by the medical establishment and they turned out to be incredibly hazardous.

I'm sorry, I'm just not convinced.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

How could it though? That's my question. Normal thorough trials take years, you can't just reduce that with a budget. You have to be able to look at after-effects, long-term effects, use it on all kinds of different people and so on. No amount of money or priority can make this process go any faster. Money doesn't make the long-term come quicker. We simply don't know what this vaccine will or could lead to in a year or so. We don't have that data yet, so how we can say it's safe or effective I don't know?

I mean, there are drugs like oxycontin and thalidomide that were put on the market and defended endlessly by the medical establishment and they turned out to be incredibly hazardous.

I'm sorry, I'm just not convinced.

You keep assuming that normal vaccines take years because they NEED to take years, and not because of things like lab funding, resource allocation, copyright reporting, non-test related approval chains and interdepartmental bureaucracy, getting enough people and researchers to handle appropriate sample sizes. It takes longer if starting from scratch, which we aren't because it's the same process as it was for SARS and MERS.
There are a thousand reasons why money and priority can safely shorten this process. And a thousand articles about how it was and why it's still safe.
To be frank there's no good reason to suspect this vaccine to be dangerous.

 

[Rival]

You keep assuming that normal vaccines take years because they NEED to take years, and not because of things like lab funding, resource allocation, copyright reporting, non-test related approval chains and interdepartmental bureaucracy, getting enough people and researchers to handle appropriate sample sizes. It takes longer if starting from scratch, which we aren't because it's the same process as it was for SARS and MERS.
There are a thousand reasons why money and priority can safely shorten this process. And a thousand articles about how it was and why it's still safe.
To be frank there's no good reason to suspect this vaccine to be dangerous.

I'm not suspecting it's dangerous; I'm not suspecting anything about it, just that I don't believe in the short amount of time we've had that it could have gone through enough thorough testing. No matter how much testing anyone on the planet wants to tell me it's had, it's not even been a year and I don't feel safe taking any medication that hasn't been tested for the long-term effects.

I'm looking at this:

Phase 1: These trials usually enroll 20 to 100 healthy volunteers or people with the condition being studied, and last several months. This phase measures safety by testing for any adverse side effects of the treatment, but not necessarily how effective the drug or device is.

Phase 2: Around 70% of potential new drugs enter Phase 2, which continues to measure safety, while also looking at how effective the treatment is and carefully investigating its side effects. Phase 2 trials recruit up to several hundred patients with the condition to take part. This phase typically lasts several months to two years.

Phase 3: Just 33% of drugs make it to Phase 3, which tests the potential treatment in the largest number of people. This phase measures both safety and effectiveness with many volunteers, sometimes thousands. Phase 3 trials last from one to four years.

FDA approval: After Phase 3, a pharmaceutical company may submit a New Drug Application (NDA) or a biologics license application (BLA) for the treatment to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA then reviews results from all stages of the trial to determine whether it will approve the drug and allow the pharmaceutical company to begin marketing it to the public.

Phase 4: This phase is often called “Post-Approval Research and Monitoring.” After a new treatment is approved by the FDA, the pharmaceutical or device company may want to continue monitoring patients to learn more about the treatment’s longer-term effects, while comparing it against other already-approved options. It may take time for long-term side effects to appear, making this an important phase.

How long do clinical trial phases take? (antidote.me)

The shortest amount of time according to this could be around 1 year 6 mois - 2 years.

I'm not trying to be dulheaded, but this is not making any sense to me at all.

 

[exchemist]

But that doesn't excuse my point that chemotherapy works but people just don't take it just because fifty some odd doctors (making up a number) says it's okay. Taking medicine for any thing whether to prevent, treat, or cure is always an individual decision based on that person's health, morals, environment, and general logic and experience.

Of course I wouldn't cough on other people. You don't wake up asymptomatic.

Of course there's a "what if; you may; it's a high chance".... that's understandable for many people to think that way because of their age, maybe their health, loved ones, or so have you. But "what ifs" make some people panic, some skeptical, and some indifferent. It really just depends.

I personally wouldn't get vaccinated (for any illness) unless I was in a position, environment, maybe age, and health in order to do so. It's really not a "do it or you'll affect the whole world" type of thing.

Some people are fools, I agree. And others are just selfish. There is no point hoping it were otherwise.

My concern in this thread is not to let myths pass unchallenged. Rival is, in effect, putting forward two myths:
1) that the vaccines may be unsafe in some way,
2) that they are ineffective.

Both myths are utterly false. The trials, which have been perfectly thorough, show the vaccines are safe. They also show the vaccines stop 70-90% of people getting symptoms. There is no reason to think the vaccines fail to prevent people dying of the illness and there is no reason to think the vaccines fail to reduce the spread of infection. There is, in fact, every reason to expect the vaccines to do both, very effectively. It is just that trial conditions cannot prove either of these things as they are too hard, or take too long, to measure statistically. If we demand statistics on both of these before we use the vaccines, we will wait for ever and we will be back to the stone age.

For us to get back to normal life, we need as many people as possible to get vaccinated.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm not suspecting it's dangerous; I'm not suspecting anything about it, just that I don't believe in the short amount of time we've had that it could have gone through enough thorough testing. No matter how much testing anyone on the planet wants to tell me it's had, it's not even been a year and I don't feel safe taking any medication that hasn't been tested for the long-term effects.

I'm looking at this:

Phase 1: These trials usually enroll 20 to 100 healthy volunteers or people with the condition being studied, and last several months. This phase measures safety by testing for any adverse side effects of the treatment, but not necessarily how effective the drug or device is.

Phase 2: Around 70% of potential new drugs enter Phase 2, which continues to measure safety, while also looking at how effective the treatment is and carefully investigating its side effects. Phase 2 trials recruit up to several hundred patients with the condition to take part. This phase typically lasts several months to two years.

Phase 3: Just 33% of drugs make it to Phase 3, which tests the potential treatment in the largest number of people. This phase measures both safety and effectiveness with many volunteers, sometimes thousands. Phase 3 trials last from one to four years.

FDA approval: After Phase 3, a pharmaceutical company may submit a New Drug Application (NDA) or a biologics license application (BLA) for the treatment to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA then reviews results from all stages of the trial to determine whether it will approve the drug and allow the pharmaceutical company to begin marketing it to the public.

Phase 4: This phase is often called “Post-Approval Research and Monitoring.” After a new treatment is approved by the FDA, the pharmaceutical or device company may want to continue monitoring patients to learn more about the treatment’s longer-term effects, while comparing it against other already-approved options. It may take time for long-term side effects to appear, making this an important phase.

How long do clinical trial phases take? (antidote.me)

The shortest amount of time according to this could be around 1 year 6 mois - 2 years.

I'm not trying to be dulheaded, but this is not making any sense to me at all.

Once again, that phases of testing generally last months to years is not because the testing NEEDS to take that long. They generally last that long because they don't have enormous funding to run parellel trials and an excess of regulators, researchers, redundant clinics, direct assistance from global government agencies with no-copyright archived research, test sharing, shared experts, etc etc etc etc.
Comparing normal clinical trials to covid clinical trials would ignore that what we're looking at aren't normal clinical environments. That doesn't mean they aren't being done safely. If anything, they're being done MUCH more safely due to many many many redundant evaluators and greater amount of clinical trials run in parallel.

 

[Lyndon]

it looks like anti vaxxer jerks are going to ruin this for everyone!

 

[Rival]

Once again, that phases of testing generally last months to years is not because the testing NEEDS to take that long. They generally last that long because they don't have enormous funding to run parellel trials and an excess of regulators, researchers, redundant clinics, direct assistance from global government agencies with no-copyright archived research, test sharing, shared experts, etc etc etc etc.
Comparing normal clinical trials to covid clinical trials would ignore that what we're looking at aren't normal clinical environments. That doesn't mean they aren't being done safely. If anything, they're being done MUCH more safely due to many many many redundant evaluators and greater amount of clinical trials run in parallel.

Bit convenient? I thought Ebola was pretty serious? I thought the previous SARS infection was pretty serious?

Still not sure how money makes the years pass faster?

I know it's sounding like I'm harping on about this and you may want to smack your head against a wall, but I am concerned about the longterm effects on my body (and others') for which we have no data. None. Nothing at all. And I think it's right to be concerned about that.

 

[Rival]

it looks like anti vaxxer jerks are going to ruin this for everyone!

I'm not anti-vaccine. My dad recently told me there are several he wouldn't let me have as a baby and I became pretty angry. I had my vaccines at school without a problem. I'm pro-vaccine.

I'm just concerned about this one, given the time frame. That's it. I'm concerned about mine and others' longterm health.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Bit convenient?

Two million deaths is not very conveniant.

I thought Ebola was pretty serious?

Ebola in its way is less serious than covid because its low dormancy rate and high mortality rate makes isolating and burning out infections easier. But if you're talking immunization, Ebola isn't in the same class as covid, with a much more difficult structure to work with. They evolve quickly which is why they, and other viruses like HIV, probably won't get vaccines any time in the immediate future. Ebola Virus: Why Isn't There a Cure? | Live Science

I thought the previous SARS infection was pretty serious?

It was on the back of SARS vaccination research we were able to make breakthroughs with Covid so quickly on the research side of things. And though SARS was serious, it wasn't 2 million deaths and potential healthcare system collapse under high hospitalization rates serious.

but I am concerned about the longterm effects on my body (and others') for which we have no data. None. Nothing at all. And I think it's right to be concerned about that.

I am quite sensibly more concerned about the long term effects of the Covid virus. Since it's the one we do have copious amounts of data causing long term damage even for those who survive.

 

[Rival]

What I'm getting from this is, I mean at some level, 'Take this vaccine because Corona is worse.'

Is that honestly about right? I'm just not in that camp.

Not knowing the long-term effects of the vaccine, how can we possibly compare?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

What I'm getting from this is, I mean at some level, 'Take this vaccine because Corona is worse.'

Is that honestly about right? I'm just not in that camp.

Not knowing the long-term effects of the vaccine, how can we possibly compare?

We could start by comparing the long term effects of other similar vaccines. mRNA vaccines are new but not that new, and have been studied in conjunction with use for Zika and even non-viral studies like using mRNA injections for cancer fighting for years.
We can also accept the studies that show nothing left of the vaccine remains in the body for long enough to DO long term damage. Complications like allergic reactions or other bodily rejections happen fast, there's been no mRNA style treatment which has developed prolonged exposure complications because there isn't prolonged exposure.

 

[Rival]

We could start by comparing the long term effects of other similar vaccines. mRNA vaccines are new but not that new, and have been studied in conjunction with use for Zika and even non-viral studies like using mRNA injections for cancer fighting for years.
We can also accept the studies that show nothing left of the vaccine remains in the body for long enough to DO long term damage. Complications like allergic reactions or other bodily rejections happen fast, there's been no mRNA style treatment which has developed prolonged exposure complications because there isn't prolonged exposure.

Thanks for actually addressing my concerns instead of calling me irrational or an anti-vaxxer.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Not at all. If you want to die, then refusing a vaccine that can save your life is perfectly rational. I don't know you and if you want to end your life it is none of my business. I would care about the others you could kill, or make ill, but since you say you don't go out much that doesn't seem to be an issue.

I said what I had to say to you. I'm sure you saw it before it was scrubbed.

 

[Wandering Monk]

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Some people are fools, I agree. And others are just selfish. There is no point hoping it were otherwise.

My concern in this thread is not to let myths pass unchallenged. Rival is, in effect, putting forward two myths:
1) that the vaccines may be unsafe in some way,
2) that they are ineffective.

All treatments "may" be unsafe in many ways. Many treatments are ineffective to one degree or another. My question is why does COVID vaccine have more "special criteria" of being effective than other treatments that have been around for years and used (say chemotherapy) and still have huge side affects?

It doesn't mean the vaccine is a placebo effect. It just means people are jumping up on high ends trying to get this shot where others say "hold on... wait a second..." as one would do for any other new treatment. I mean, when I got my surgery in 2003, the procedure was still considered "new" ten years or so. We didn't just go off of what scientist and doctors say. We (my parent and I) made our own decisions on the trustworthiness of a given surgery. It's a risk but I wouldn't down anyone who does not want to take that risk

Vaccine included.

Both myths are utterly false. The trials, which have been perfectly thorough, show the vaccines are safe. They also show the vaccines stop 70-90% of people getting symptoms. There is no reason to think the vaccines fail to prevent people dying of the illness and there is no reason to think the vaccines fail to reduce the spread of infection. There is, in fact, every reason to expect the vaccines to do both, very effectively. It is just that trial conditions cannot prove either of these things as they are too hard, or take too long, to measure statistically. If we demand statistics on both of these before we use the vaccines, we will wait for ever and we will be back to the stone age.

For us to get back to normal life, we need as many people as possible to get vaccinated.

I don't believe the vaccine will kill you. I think @Rival is more skeptical than many on RF and so am I. Skepticism is highly necessary for things like this. It's one thing to say "okay, let me try Aspirin instead of Advil this time since the doctors okayed it" and it's another to take something for a ideally deadly disease just as someone would get a new prescription from their doctors.

Do you think it's logical to be more skeptical over this because of the seriousness of it?

Taking the risk is one thing, but I do feel Rival has a point. I disagree that they are (edit-myths). In my opinion, just people are jumping ship for every number and person they see on the television screen. I mean, if I did that, gosh... Personally, I'd stick with what my doctors tell me since they know me more than a scientist who knows nothing about my health or any of that.

 

[Thief]

I certainly don't think of myself as a moron, but I am very reticent to have a vaccine that took all of a few months to prepare, test, and deliver. Were it any other vaccine, for example, that had been through the rigorous testing we have all come to expect I would have no problem taking it, as I have with every other one I've had.

I am just incredibly sceptical of this one and will wait until further results come in until/if I have it.

a rare moment of agreement for us

 

[Lyndon]

Anyone that is more afraid of the side effects of the vaccine than the side effect of the virus has a real problem!!

 

[Quagmire]

yeah......the virus is picking up speed

changing faces

it's in your hair

So are you.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well, Rival, you are joining many others - those who seem most at risk too (apart from the elderly and vulnerable):

Covid vaccine: 72% of black people unlikely to have jab, UK survey finds