Jump to content
Gordo

Just curious, anyone have a plan, or preps for global pandemic?

Covid-19 Vaccine Survey  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. Your Vaccine Status is:

    • Fully vaccinated
      20
    • Partially vaccinated
      0
    • Not Vaccinated
      5
  2. 2. If not (fully) vaccinated, your reason(s) for your decision (check all that apply):

    • Not Applicable - I'm vaccinated
      19
    • The rapid vaccine development process makes me distrust them
      3
    • I'm worried about vaccine side effects
      4
    • I don't think I'm at much risk of getting a covid infection
      3
    • I don't believe a covid infection is a serious risk for someone like me
      4
    • I'm waiting until the vaccines receive final approval
      0
    • Fear of needles
      0
    • A medical condition prevents me from getting vaccines
      0
    • Bad reaction to the first dose of the covid vaccine
      0
    • I already had COVID-19 and don't think I need the vaccine for protection
      2
    • Vaccine not available where I live
      0
  3. 3. Are you OK with having your CR forum name included on a list of members who have/haven't chosen to be vaccinated?

    • Yes
      22
    • No
      3


Recommended Posts

http://pge.libercus.net//.pf/showstory/202007090125/3

IS THE LITTLE BASTARD CALMING DOWN A BIT. SOME RECENT DATA SUGGESTS THAT IT HAS!

 

UPMC: Strain may not be as virulent 

BY DAVID TEMPLETON AND HALLIE LAUER PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE 

UPMC physicians said Thursday the higher levels of COVID-19 infections in recent weeks are not resulting in notably higher levels of hospitalizations or deaths. 

One key reason is that those becoming infected are younger people, with contact tracing showing many of them had patronized bars or restaurants without protective gear such as face masks or have recently returned from vacations out of state. 

But another possible factor is that UPMC more recently has been seeing a mutated SARS-CoV-2 strain that seems to be more infectious but less virulent than the original strain that triggered the pandemic, said Dr. Graham Snyder, UPMC medical director of infection prevention and hospital epidemiology. 

Only 2% of recent infections are causing severe enough illness to result in hospitalizations, with only one-tenth of those hospitalizations (or 0.2% of all positive cases) resulting in death. 

In addition, data gathered during the recent resurgence of the pandemic “is showing that we have been doing a good job in protecting those most vulnerable” from severe infection, including the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions, Dr. Snyder said. 

Dr. Donald Yealy, UPMC senior medical director and chair of the Department of Emergency Medicine at UPMC and the University of Pittsburgh, warned that everyone should expect “the virus will be with us for the foreseeable future.”

“But we are not seeing the same pattern of severeness as we did before,” he noted

Edited by Mike41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long tail of coronavirus can prolong suffering for months

For many, covid-19 is *NOT* a short term flu-like illness: 

A study of 143 recovered hospital patients in Italy, published in the JAMA Network journal on Thursday, found that 87 percent were still suffering at least one symptom 60 days after falling ill.

This follows research published last week by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found of 350 people surveyed, about 60 percent of inpatients and around a third of outpatients were not back to health 14-21 days after testing positive.

It is not yet clear whether long-lasting symptoms are caused by the virus itself or the body's overzealous immune reaction.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From MedicalXpress, Physicians give first comprehensive review of COVID-19's effects outside the lung

Their review—the first extensive review of COVID-19's effects on all affected organs outside the lungs—was published today in Nature Medicine.

The paper is titled, "Extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19."

"Physicians need to think of COVID-19 as a multisystem disease," Gupta says. "There's a lot of news about clotting but it's also important to understand that a substantial proportion of these patients suffer kidney, heart, and brain damage, and physicians need to treat those conditions along with the respiratory disease."

In just the first few weeks of the pandemic, we were seeing a lot of thrombotic complications, more than what we would have anticipated from experience with other viral illnesses

Clots can cause heart attacks, but the virus attacks the heart in other ways, one author says.

Another surprising finding was the high proportion of COVID-19 patients in the ICU with acute kidney damage. ... Data regarding long-term renal damage are currently lacking, but a significant proportion of patients will likely go on to require permanent dialysis.

Neurological symptoms, including headache, dizziness, fatigue, and loss of smell, may occur in about a third of patients.

More concerning, strokes caused by blood clots occur in up to 6% of severe cases and delirium in 8% to 9%.

"COVID-19 patients can be intubated for two to three weeks; a quarter require ventilators for 30 or more days," Gupta says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Vox My patient caught Covid-19 twice. So long to herd immunity hopes.

Another hope dashed – I’d read that there was hope that each subsequent infection would be less severe because the immune system would gradually become more efficient at fighting SARS-CoV-2.

Covid-19 may also be much worse the second time around. During his first infection, my patient experienced a mild cough and sore throat. His second infection, in contrast, was marked by a high fever, shortness of breath, and hypoxia, resulting in multiple trips to the hospital.

My patient, however, cleared his infection — he had two negative PCR tests after his first infection — and felt healthy for nearly six weeks.

Some patients, and particularly those who never develop symptoms, mount an antibody response immediately after infection only to have it wane quickly afterward

In general, the unknowns of immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 currently outweigh the knowns. We do not know how much immunity to expect once someone is infected with the virus, we do not know how long that immunity may last, and we do not know how many antibodies are needed to mount an effective response. And although there is some hope regarding cellular immunity (including T-cell responses) in the absence of a durable antibody response, the early evidence of reinfections puts the effectiveness of these immune responses in question as well.

Also troubling is that my patient’s case, and others like his, may dim the hope for natural herd immunity. … Experts generally consider natural herd immunity a worst-case scenario back-up plan. It requires mass infection (and, in the case of Covid-19, massive loss of life because of the disease’s fatality rate) before protection takes hold.

I am aware that my patient represents a sample size of one, but taken together with other emerging examples, outlier stories like his are a warning sign of a potential pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, BrianA said:

If you have T cells with memory of multiple common cold strains, you may have reduced Covid-19 severity.

 

Pre-existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2: the knowns and unknowns

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-0389-z

OTOHH,  others note that, those with memory T and/or B cells for common cold coronovirus' may mount a weaker response to Cov-19 -- as the immune cells may be programmed to think "it's just a cold".  The longer you've been alive, the more colds you've had.  Some hypothesize that this is why in general the older, the more susceptible to Cov-19 -- the best theory I've seen so far.

  --  Saul

  --  Saul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Saul said:

Some hypothesize that this is why in general the older, the more susceptible to Cov-19 -- the best theory I've seen so far.

Interesting, although somewhat contrary to my understanding of T-cells and aging, which is that as we age, the body produces fewer and weaker T-cells.. Here is a recent study which discusses this:

Defective immune cells could make us old

"Our T cells let us down as we age, becoming weaker pathogen fighters. This decline helps explain why elderly people are more susceptible to infections and less responsive to vaccines. One reason T cells falter as we get older is that mitochondria, the structures that serve as power plants inside cells, begin to malfunction. ...

But T cells might not just reflect aging. They could also promote it. Older people have chronic inflammation throughout the body, known as inflammaging, and researchers have proposed it spurs aging. T cells may stoke this process because they release inflammation-stimulating molecules."

---

Both the Swedish and the German T-cell studies posted earlier make sense and to a significant extent would explain the declining mortality rates despite the somewhat meaningless infection rates which dominate the news cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side Effects of Moderna's mRNA-1273 Vaccine for COVID-19

Quote

Moderna has released the full preliminary results of its clinical trials for its ground-breaking mRNA-1273 vaccine on the New England Journal of Medicine website dated July 14, 2020 and there appears to be some adverse reactions, particularly in the highest doses as you will see in this posting.

 

Promising details were released this week about Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccine but it remains in the early stages of development

Quote

[...] The report was “certainly no cause for celebration”, said Dr Peter Hotez, dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College, and a vaccine researcher in Houston, Texas. “But [it is] provocative enough that it’s worth looking at in a phase 3 trial.”

 

Quote

Moderna is one of five pharmaceutical companies that have received billions from the US government, in a vaccine development initiative called Operation Warp Speed. Later this month, Moderna and a handful of other laboratories will begin recruiting tens of thousands of volunteers to take the vaccine.

 

Quote

In light of so many unknowns, fundamental questions remain about when and if a vaccine will be developed for Covid-19, and what it will look like once it is approved

“Everyone’s been saying, ‘We’re going to have these vaccines by the fall or the end of 2020,’ and I keep saying – no, we’re going to need those Phase 3 studies,” said Hotez. “We won’t have the information until third quarter of 2021, and even that would be a world land speed record.

 

 

 

Edited by Sibiriak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does not seem from this that any drugs are good to use.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Effectiveness of Treatment Options Against SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Chandrasekar VT, Venkatesalu B, Patel HK, Spadaccini M, Manteuffel J, Ramesh M.
J Med Virol. 2020 Jul 15. doi: 10.1002/jmv.26302. Online ahead of print.
PMID: 32667699
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1002/jmv.26302
Abstract
Treatment options for Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are limited with no clarity on efficacy and safety profiles. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on patients ≥ 18 years reporting data on therapeutic interventions in SARS-CoV-2. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes were rates of mechanical ventilation, viral clearance, adverse events, discharge and progression to severe disease. Pooled rates and odds ratios (OR) were calculated. Twenty-nine studies with 5207 patients were included. Pooled all-cause mortality in intervention arm was 12.8% (95%CI: 8.1%-17.4%). Mortality was significantly higher for studies using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for intervention (OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.97-1.89). Adverse events were also higher in HCQ sub-group (OR: 3.88, 95% CI: 1.60 - 9.45). There was no difference in other secondary outcomes. There is a need for well-designed randomized clinical trials for further investigation of every therapeutic intervention for further insight into different therapeutic options. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Keywords: COVID-19; HCQ; SARS-CoV-2; hydroxychloroquine; meta-analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sibiriak said:

Moderna has released the full preliminary results of its clinical trials for its ground-breaking mRNA-1273 vaccine on the New England Journal of Medicine website dated July 14, 2020 and there appears to be some adverse reactions, particularly in the highest doses as you will see in this posting.

Report looks encouraging to me, I'm impressed with how quickly they were able to develop this vaccine (they had it in March).  No serious adverse events were noted, and no prespecified trial halting rules were met.  Hopefully the phase 3 trials go well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gordo said:

Report looks encouraging to me,

Yes. me too. In fact I'm hoping I'll get a call to participate in the Phase 3 trial, part of which is happening here in Pittsburgh. My biggest concern is the frequency of side-effects in the middle 100mcg dose, which is the likely one they will be using moving forward, and the implication of these side-effects on public acceptance. Here is the table from the paper with the frequency of difference side effects among the three different doses:

20200716_150003.jpg

The top bars show that after the second dose, 100% of the 100mcg subjects experienced some kind of adverse symptoms, with 80% of them being "moderate" in severity. Here is the table from the appendix showing their definitions for various levels of adverse reactions:

Screenshot_20200716-145154_Foxit PDF.jpg

So, for example, after the second 100mcg dose, 50% of subjects experienced either mild or moderate nausea, 80% experienced fatigue, 40% experienced a fever and 100% experienced pain, with 25% of them reporting that the pain was severe enough to require repeated use of pain relievers and/or interference with the normal activities. These were healthy people between 18 and 55. While none of these side effects was classified as severe in the 100mcg group, it makes one wonder how bad they would be for someone from a more vulnerable population. 

These are a much higher frequency of negative side effects than the regular flu vaccine. For example, this study [1] surveyed ~1000 senior citizens who got the flu vaccine in 2015-2016 and found the follow rates of side effects:

20200716_151600.jpg

I've highlighted how low the frequency of systemic side effects were from the flu shot, including fever (2.2%), headaches (1.9%) and fatigue (3.7%). Nevertheless, only about 45% of US adults get the flu vaccine in any given year according to the CDC.

My fear is that a brand new covid-19 vaccine where 100% of people experience some kind of adverse reaction and requires two shots to be effective will get much lower uptake than is required to attain anything close to herd immunity, especially in the US where the anti-vaxx movement is so vocal and already working to undermine any covid-19 vaccine.

--Dean

---------------------------------

[1] Comparison of Side Effects of the 2015–2016 High-Dose, Inactivated, Trivalent Influenza Vaccine and Standard Dose, Inactivated, Trivalent Influenza Vaccine in Adults ≥65 Years 

Anjum S. Kaka, Gregory A. Filice, Sharon Myllenbeck, Kristin L. Nichol

Open Forum Infectious Diseases, Volume 4, Issue 1, Winter 2017, ofx001, https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx001

Published: 12 January 2017

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling that people are much more afraid of dying from covid-19 than the flu, and the majority will gladly get the vaccine even if it means a day or two of fatigue, fever, and muscle soreness. Do you know of a way to sign up for the phase 3 trial? Edit: I found some promising links here: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-sign-up-for-coronavirus-vaccine-trials-2020-7

Edit2: Don’t want to go off topic but in my searching for the above I found Moderna is also doing vaccine trials for CMV (I want this!), Zika, and even some cancers: https://www.modernatx.com/pipeline/modernas-mrna-clinical-trials-cmv-mma-zika-several-types-cancer-and-other-diseases

Edited by Gordo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Gordo said:

I have a feeling that people are much more afraid of dying from covid-19 than the flu, and the majority will gladly get the vaccine even if it means a day or two of fatigue, fever, and muscle soreness

I hope you are right and I'm wrong in my pessimism about people's eventual willingness to get a vaccine with a high likelihood of unpleasant side effects. It might help if there was a way to incentivize people to get the vaccine, like relaxed mask requirements or only allowing kids back into (public) school if they have gotten the vaccine, just like we do for other vaccines. But such policies would undoubtedly get politicized and face heavy resistance in today's climate in the US.

Thanks for the links. I posted a few days ago the link to the website to sign up for Phase 3 covid vaccine trials.

--Dean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea I saw your earlier link, but thought there might be something specific to Moderna's phase 3.  I did sign up at your site.

Saw this today, its the first time I've seen the claim that MOST of the transmission is from the asymptomatic:
Top HHS official says ‘most’ of the coronavirus transmission is from asymptomatic people

I guess that might explain why infections (and deaths) are still surging in the U.S.  I think a lot of people have been assuming if they feel fine its all good, no need for a mask, hey lets do that family reunion, restaurant/bar, etc.

I'm wondering why daily new cases and deaths have plunged to a trickle in Europe but are still spiking to new highs in the U.S.?  Are there just too many stupid people in the U.S. that won't take basic precautions?  Or do we have a more virulent strain and it's only a matter of time before Europe has the same problem?  Either way, that vaccine can't come soon enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gordo said:

I found Moderna is also doing vaccine trials for CMV (I want this!)

Do you know you don't already have it?

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_betaherpesvirus_5

Quote

Seroprevalence is age-dependent: 58.9% of individuals aged 6 and older are infected with CMV while 90.8% of individuals aged 80 and older are positive for HCMV.[

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question to all who follow this thread wrt the link. Are you supplementing vitamin D and if so how much. I am currently taking 5000 iu once a week and getting 20 minutes or so of sun most days of the week. 
 

 

Although the degree of protection generally increases as 25(OH)D concentration increases, the optimal range appears to be in the range of 40–60 ng/mL (100–150 nmol/l). To achieve those levels, approximately half the population could take at least 2000–5000IU/d of vitamin D3 [135]. Various loading doses have been studied for achieving a 25(OH)D concentration of 30 ng/mL. For example, one study used a weekly or fortnightly dose totaling 100,000–200,000 IU over 8 weeks (1800 or 3600 IU/d) [136]. However, to achieve 40–60 ng/mL would take higher loading doses.
 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7231123/
 


 

An observational study conducted in Connecticut on 198 healthy adults in the fall and winter of 2009–2010 examined the relationship between serum 25(OH)D concentration and incidence of acute RTIs (ARTIs) [57]. Only 17% of people who maintained 25(OH)D >38 ng/mL throughout the study developed ARTIs, whereas 45% of those with 25(OH)D < 38 ng/mL did. Concentrations of 38 ng/mL or more were associated with a significant (p < 0.0001) twofold reduction in risk of developing ARTIs and with a marked reduction in the percentage of days ill. Eight influenza-like illnesses (ILIs) occurred, seven of which were the 2009 H1N1 influenza

 

4.2. Proposed Actions

The data reviewed here supports the role of higher 25(OH)D concentrations in reducing risk of infection and death from ARTIs, including those from influenza, CoV, and pneumonia. The peak season for ARTIs is generally when 25(OH)D concentrations are lowest. Thus, vitamin D3supplementation should be started or increased several months before winter to raise 25(OH)D concentrations to the range necessary to prevent ARTIs. Studies reviewed here generally reported that 25(OH)D concentrations of 20–30 ng/mL reduced the risk of ARTIs [134]. One reason for that result may be that the studies included few participants with higher 25(OH)D concentrations. However, one observational study reported that 38 ng/mL was the appropriate concentration to reduce the risk of CAP [57]. Although the degree of protection generally increases as 25(OH)D concentration increases, the optimal range appears to be in the range of 40–60 ng/mL (100–150 nmol/l). To achieve those levels, approximately half the population could take at least 2000–5000IU/d of vitamin D3 [135]. Various loading doses have been studied for achieving a 25(OH)D concentration of 30 ng/mL. For example, one study used a weekly or fortnightly dose totaling 100,000–200,000 IU over 8 weeks (1800 or 3600 IU/d) [136]. However, to achieve 40–60 ng/mL would take higher loading doses. A trial involving Canadian breast cancer patients with bone metastases treated with bisphosphonates but without comorbid conditions reported that doses of 10,000 IU/d of vitamin D3 over a four-month period showed no adverse effects, but did unmask two cases of primary hyperparathyroidism [137]. A study involving 33 participants, including seven taking 4000 IU/d of vitamin D3 and six who took 10,000 IU/d of vitamin D3 for 8 weeks, reported that 25(OH)D concentrations increased from 20 ± 6 to 39 ± 9 for 4000 IU/d and from 19 ± 4 to 67 ± 3 for 10,000 IU/d and improved gut microbiota with no adverse effects [138]. Thus, from the literature, it is reasonable to suggest taking 10,000 IU/d for a month, which is effective in rapidly increasing circulating levels of 25(OH)D into the preferred range of 40–60 ng/mL. To maintain that level after that first month, the dose can be decreased to 5000 IU/d [135,139,140]. When high doses of vitamin D are taken, calcium supplementation should not be high to reduce risk of hypercalcemia.

A recent review suggested using vitamin D loading doses of 200,000–300,000 IU in 50,000-IU capsules to reduce the risk and severity of COVID-19 [43].

The efficacy and safety of high-dose vitamin D supplementation has been demonstrated in a psychiatric hospital in Cincinnati, Ohio [141]. The age range was from 18 to 90 years. Half of the patients were black, and nearly half were white. All patients entering since 2011 were offered supplementation of 5000 or 10,000 IU/d vitamin D3. For 36 patients who received 5000 IU/d for 12 months or longer, mean serum 25(OH)D concentration rose from 24 to 68 ng/mL, whereas for the 78 patients who received 10,000 IU/d, mean concentrations increased from 25 to 96 ng/mL. No cases of vitamin D–induced hypercalcemia were reported. This article includes a brief review of other high-dose vitamin D studies, including the fact that vitamin D doses of 60,000–600,000 IU/d were found to treat and control such diseases as asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, rickets, and tuberculosis in the 1930s and 1940s. Those doses are much higher than the 10,000–25,000 IU/d of vitamin D3 that can be made from solar UVB exposure [142]. However, after reports of hypercalcemia associated with use of supra-physiological doses of vitamin D surfaced, e.g., [143], high-dose vitamin D supplementation fell out of favor.

A recent article on a high-dose vitamin D supplementation trial in New Zealand involving 5110 participants reported that, over a median of 3.3 years, monthly supplementation with 100,000 IU of vitamin D3 did not affect the incidence rate of kidney stone events or hypercalcemia [144].

Unfortunately, most countries do not have guidelines supporting vitamin D supplementation doses and desirable serum 25(OH)D concentrations that would deal with wintertime RTIs. Guidelines for many countries consider 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L) adequate. According to the statement from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis, and Musculoskeletal Diseases, “attainment of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels well above the threshold desired for bone health cannot be recommended based on current evidence, since safety has yet to be confirmed” [145]. This statement, published in 2017, is no longer correct since a number of vitamin D supplementation studies have reported that long-term vitamin D supplementation has health benefits without adverse health effects, e.g., 2000 IU/d for cancer risk reduction [66,146] and 4000 IU/d for reduced progression from prediabetes to diabetes [67].

A recent review on the status of vitamin D deficiency worldwide stated that because of inadequate evidence from clinical trials, “a 25(OH)D level of >50 nmol/L or 20 ng/mL is, therefore, the primary treatment goal, although some data suggest a benefit for a higher threshold” [147]. A companion article in the same issue of the journal stated, “although 20 ng/mL seems adequate to reduce risk of skeletal problems and ARTIs, concentrations above 30 ng/mL have been associated with reduced risk of cancer, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes” [148]. However, on the basis of the findings in several studies discussed here, as well as recommendations for breast and colorectal cancer prevention [149], the desirable concentration should be at least 40–60 ng/mL.

The U.S. Institute of Medicine issued vitamin D and calcium guidelines in 2011 [150]. The institute recommended vitamin D supplementation of 600 IU/d for people younger than 70 years, 800 IU/d for those older than 70 years, and a serum 25(OH)D concentration of 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L) or higher. That recommendation was based on the effects of vitamin D for bone health. The institute recognized that no studies had reported adverse effects of supplementation with less than 10,000 IU/d of vitamin D, but set the upper intake level at 4000 IU/d, partly out of concerns stemming from observational studies that found U-shaped 25(OH)D concentration–health outcome relationships. However, later investigation determined that most reports of J- or U-shaped relationships were from observational studies that did not measure serum 25(OH)D concentrations and that the likely reason for those relationships was a result of enrolling some participants who had started taking vitamin D supplements shortly before enrolling

Edited by Mike41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mike41 said:

Are you supplementing vitamin D and if so how much.

2000 IU daily in winter tapering off March and April resuming on days of low sun in November.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike41 said:

 you supplementing vitamin D and if so how much. 

Yes, 2000 IU per day.

Regarding vaccine acceptance, I found this survey from this WashPost article a bit discouraging:

A recent Washington Post poll found that 63 percent of black adults said they were likely to get a coronavirus vaccine, compared with 70 percent of whites and 78 percent of Hispanics. Only 32 percent of black adults said they would definitely get a vaccine, compared with 45 percent of whites and Hispanics.

Those don't seem like very high numbers, particularly since they don't factor in the extra attrition you would get from having to get two shots and that you would get when people hear about the high prevelance of adverse reactions discussed above, at least for the Moderna vaccine candidate.

--Dean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good vaccine is a good vaccine and something to get. But let's not beg the question. First, let's establish that the vaccine is indeed effective, without unacceptable side effects. I suppose only time will tell. I certainly hope it is more effective than the frequently dismal numbers for the flu vaccine in many years. As to side effects, again, only time will tell - and probably sadly, a lot of time. People are cautious, and rightly so. If you are in a situation of high vulnerability, because of your health or the health of those close to you and in an environment where exposure is of higher risk, then you may be under greater pressure to jump in. Personally, this does not apply to me, so I'll take my time and allow the data to accumulate before making a decision, no sense in jumping out the window unless you have to. YMMV. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

Yes, 2000 IU per day.

Regarding vaccine acceptance, I found this survey from this WashPost article a bit discouraging:

A recent Washington Post poll found that 63 percent of black adults said they were likely to get a coronavirus vaccine, compared with 70 percent of whites and 78 percent of Hispanics. Only 32 percent of black adults said they would definitely get a vaccine, compared with 45 percent of whites and Hispanics.

Those don't seem like very high numbers, particularly since they don't factor in the extra attrition you would get from having to get two shots and that you would get when people hear about the high prevelance of adverse reactions discussed above, at least for the Moderna vaccine candidate.

--Dean

Not too surprising! And As you say the bad publicity wrt adverse effects will undoubtedly Make it even worse . All I can say is I will be first in line if one comes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether to be first, middle, last in line for a vaccine depends upon trust.  I remember the swine flu from nearly ½ century ago where the vaccination program did not survive.

Reflections on the 1976 Swine Flu Vaccination Program

Some interesting quotes:

Barack Obama and Richard Lugar, New York Times, June 6, 2005 (2)

"It has been 37 years since the last influenza pandemic, or widespread global epidemic, so by historic patterns we may be due for another."

Soon, however, NIIP received the first of 2 crippling blows to hopes to immunize "every man, woman, and child." The first was later in 1976, when instead of boxes of bottled vaccine, the vaccine manufacturers delivered an ultimatum—that the federal government indemnify them against claims of adverse reactions as a requirement for release of the vaccines. The government quickly capitulated to industry's demand for indemnification. 

What NIIP did not and could not survive, however, was the second blow, finding cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) among persons receiving swine flu immunizations.

  [The following is a significant difference between then and now  CB]

Had H1N1 influenza been transmitted at that time, the small apparent risk of GBS from immunization would have been eclipsed by the obvious immediate benefit of vaccine-induced protection against swine flu. However, in December 1976, with >40 million persons immunized and no evidence of H1N1 transmission, federal health officials decided that the possibility of an association of GBS with the vaccine, however small, necessitated stopping immunization, at least until the issue could be explored. 

 

So for myself, I’m planning on trying to get in the second half of the line.  I realize that everyone will calculate the odds differently depending upon personal circumstances.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×