Moderna is also only weeks behind Pfizer/Biontech here with a very similar technology and manufacturing capability of hundreds of millions of doses. We'll be seeing the first EUA's by December, and shots in the arm before the end of the year. Pretty incredible that we can just science our way out of things like this. Humans are awesome.
Emergency Use Authorization, for anyone else who hadn't encountered the term yet
What makes you say that? That's quite fast, no?
https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/a-framework-for-e...
What makes you say this, other than a knee-jerk 'US-bad'?
They have the manpower and logistics in place yes, but you still need special equipment keep it at temperature.
I'm sure my company will do everything they can to ensure factory and retail workers will be next. Factory because shutting down our factory would be a disaster to our finances. Retail because all employees who are supposed to not go anywhere still get groceries, so protecting those workers reduces are contact. The the CEO is next, probably only slightly above the rest of us office workers who can stay home.
Any update on this figure? I'm seeing a lotta different stances
If this is the only vaccine that passes trails - well they can't make it fast enough for a late 2021 opener. If some of the others also pass trails then early 2021 is a possibility (so long as you don't have some reason to prefer a specific vaccine as opposed to whatever you can get first)
If we can vaccinate hospital workers and high-risk individuals, that will already make fatalities go down very quickly. That will help us get out of confinement faster.
Am I the only one here who doesn't want to get inoculated in basically the first batch?
Is getting COVID safe long term? There are plenty of viruses that cause issues in the long term. HIV causes AIDS, HPV and Hepatitis cause cancers years later. We have no clue on the long term effects of SARS-Cov-2, other than that it causes COVID-19 in the short term.
It's a choice between the pest and the cholera at this point.
For most people yes
edit: so the whole world is studying this virus 24/7 for almost a year and nobody detected anything, yet you think it might give us aids v2 ? Feel free to link any study that hints to anything remotely going in that direction because I couldn't find anything at all.
We already know there is a strong possibility the virus has a negative effect on cognitive ability even in people who don't get any serious symptoms [0]
Those might go away. They might not. There could be other effects we're unware of. What we do know is that you're unlikely to find any expert on this who will unequivocally say "no longer term effects".
[0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.20.20215863v...
Pre-print or published or not, it presents evidence that shows it's incorrect to assert there are no longer term effects of COVID. Even if peer review shows flaws that invalidate this particular study, research into the full effects of COVID are still underway, and we simply don't have the data required to assert "no longer term effects for most people"
I think you might overestimate what we can detect, when it comes to how viruses interact with a living human body. Yes, the whole world is studying it 24/7, and we really do not have a clue on long term effects. Science is pretty good, but some problems are pretty difficult too.
30 years ago, we could not have this ubiquitous testing capability and probably could not develop these tests at all. 10 years ago, we would definitely not have this vaccine one year after patient zero. Today, we really have no clue on long term effects until they happen on a statistical scale. Science and biotech progress rapidly, but there are still a lot of things we can't do.
People have been getting infected with coronaviruses of various kinds for millennia. Nobody has ever linked a low severity cold-like infection with long term severe consequences, and given the sort of longitudinal study that would be required to establish such a link, any such claims would need to be treated very carefully.
Nonetheless, the original SARS-1 (which is way closer to SARS-2 than say OC43), is known to be causing long term, debilitating health complication among significant number of survivors.
Nonetheless, the original SARS-1 (which is way closer to SARS-2 than say OC43), is known to be causing long term, debilitating health complication among significant number of survivors
And yet it didn't turn into a worldwide outbreak, so one must ask how much value this classification scheme actually has, given that SARS-2 is really nothing like SARS-1 in either infectiousness nor severity.
Sure we do. mRNA vaccines have been under development for over a decade now. And while none have been approved for human use yet, it's not for lack of safety data. There have been zero serious adverse events reported in the Moderna or Pfizer phase 1, 2, and 3 trials. The only side effects are mild fatigue, headache, and soreness that you would associate with an immune response. Furthermore there is no possible way that the vaccine can even cause long term effects; the mRNA breaks down naturally in the body almost immediately. Any side effects will be immediately present and related to acute immune response. Worrying about some vague long term "what if" problems that have no mechanism for action is just non-scientific magical thinking.
Again, apples and oranges. This is a completely different class of drugs compared to SARS vaccines from a decade ago. Those were based on live viruses, which the mRNA vaccines are not.
It's kind of annoying to have to be fearful on public transport, having to avoid infecting older family members and therefore not seeing them, and much else. Then there's the risk to yourself with COVID, which varies based on your lifestyle, age, and good/bad genes. Clearly some percentage of the population die, and a bigger have long-term very unpleasant effects.
On the other hand, the vaccine can be discovered, 12 months from now, to cause an autoimmune reaction in some people and their immune systems attack their joints or something.
I think this pandemic teaches us all one thing - almost the entire world of understanding can be boiled down to probability.
I've never heard of such a thing, but then again I have only a surface understanding of vaccines.
If you are a doctor/nurse working in a covid ward we know for sure that the risk whatever happens long term is a lot less than the risk of getting covid. For someone like me who has no reason to go anywhere (I'm not even allowed in the office until this pandemic passes) I can afford to wait until there is more data - and I also have to because I'm low on the list of those who will be vaccinated because I'm relatively low risk of getting it.
I vaguely remember this story (from years ago) about a drug or vaccine during the 70s, where apparently everything was fine but then kids (or kids of kids, can't remember) ended up with birth defects.
The name of the drug was "Contergan" in german which german-speaking readers might recognize more easily.
A more relevant example is Pandemrix, a flu vaccine launched in the EU in 2009. A year later it was discovered that it seems to increase the risk of narcolepsy in teenagers sixfold. The vaccine was produced and licensed in an expedited fashion because of a "pandemic" (of swine flu), which used a then-new and slightly experimental technique (adjuvants) which interestingly, German doctors flagged up as a risk and suggested the German government use a different H1N1 vaccine that was less experimental.
Given that viral genome sequencing didn't even exist in 1976, I don't think it's a meaningful comparison.
id get this today if i could
There is no shortcut for that, and there is an obviously huge pressure to cut corners.
It's fair to be concerned, not anti-Vax.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/09/no-pfizer...
The US government is paying like $20 for each dose. I'd pay 100x that without batting an eye.
Thank you thank you thank you to everyone working on this vaccine and related Covid treatments.
Can't wait to get the needle in the arm!
Congratulations and thanks to everybody who worked so hard on this.
So grandma might need to wait, and the grandkids going to school might get it first, then healthy 20/30-somethings working in public facing jobs etc.
While you’re being inconvenienced remember that you’re better off than most people who’ve ever lived. Isolation and fear of early death were a pervasive part of life until the 20th century brought vaccination and antibiotics, and we’re getting only a small reminder of what used to be normal.
The other mistake is assuming that this is endless. Countries which have strict safety measures are able to reopen after having controlled spread - Australia had a hard lockdown and has now gone without any cases for a while. In contrast, the United States’ leaders chose to squander the sacrifice of the spring lockdown by not making it effective and then relaxing restrictions before the viral spread was controlled, ensuring the maximal cost for minimal benefit.
That matters because there are things that you have to do, and you don’t have a way to control other people’s decisions. Closing high-risk recreational activities means that someone can go shopping with less risk because the people near them weren’t hanging out at the bar the night before.
The value of a lockdown isn't in changing the behavior of those who are already voluntarily avoiding exposure -- its value is in changing the behavior of those who inconsiderately spread it to others during their essential travels outside of their house.
2. Do you have data showing how effective the lockdowns were? Did they have a problem with compliance?
Here’s a recent publication which could inform your opinion - note especially the part about employment forcing people to leave their houses to work:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
“ Latin American countries have long had some of the most scarring income inequalities in the world, and they are predicted to worsen. The informal labour market is huge, making up 54% of all work across the region (up to 70% in some countries, such as Peru). Informal workers have little access to social protection and have no choice but to continue to work daily to earn a living. The result is that their capability to follow quarantine and social distancing measures is limited. Informal workers also have less access to health care.”
…
“The increases in obesity and diabetes in Latin America are surely major contributors to the high mortality rates. In Mexico and Chile, more than 75% of the female population is overweight. Nutrient-poor and energy-dense processed foods are often the only type of food readily affordable to the most disadvantaged people. Although some countries, including Brazil and Costa Rica, have a universal health-care system, most Latin American countries have large gaps in accessibility caused mainly by out-of-pocket health expenditure, which is 34% of total health spending.”
"Sweden had more deaths than Norway and Finland" yes they screwed up sending people to care homes when it first hit - over half of their deaths occurred there. like most of the countries that got hit early. Plus a lot of dark skinned immigrants (vitamin D levels have been shown to be a big factor). Those alone account for a lot of the difference. There is little reason to believe that lockdown had a very positive effect.
1. We have no idea what a null hypothesis scenario would be in Argentina or Peru.
2. Regardless, "flattening the curve" is more of a statement about the first or second derivative of case numbers.
https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1298956333941743616?...
God also gave us this virus, if we stick to the religious logic.
The 'God will smite thee' beliefs largely came about as a form of control over people, and do not line up with New Testament biblical teaching.
For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.
Part of the power of the Bible is its contradictions. Like in math, you can use one contradiction to prove any statement true.
How do I use God's wisdom to decide if if a certain pig is "safe" to eat or not?
Deuteronomy 14:3-20
3 “You shall not eat any abomination. 4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, 5 the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex,[a] the antelope, and the mountain sheep. 6 Every animal that parts the hoof and has the hoof cloven in two and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. 7 Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cloven you shall not eat these: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not part the hoof, are unclean for you. 8 And the pig, because it parts the hoof but does not chew the cud, is unclean for you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch.
9 “Of all that are in the waters you may eat these: whatever has fins and scales you may eat. 10 And whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean for you.
11 “You may eat all clean birds. 12 But these are the ones that you shall not eat: the eagle,[b] the bearded vulture, the black vulture, 13 the kite, the falcon of any kind; 14 every raven of any kind; 15 the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind; 16 the little owl and the short-eared owl, the barn owl 17 and the tawny owl, the carrion vulture and the cormorant, 18 the stork, the heron of any kind; the hoopoe and the bat. 19 And all winged insects are unclean for you; they shall not be eaten. 20 All clean winged things you may eat.
Correction - if you go by the Old Testament, pork is forbidden.
It's hard enough to see loved ones die or to suffer life long side effects if lockdowns only delay it. But to have it happen just a couple months before a vaccine was available would be incredibly hard.
The prospect of a vaccine should make isolation much more bearable mentally. We're past halfway, folks!
Where do you get that it will take "months" between emergency approval and actual vaccinations? The communications out of the leading vaccine teams clearly state otherwise.
Because this is a press release from a corporation with a vested interest in being "first" and not an approval by the FDA.
https://news.yahoo.com/hhs-secretary-coronavirus-general-vac...
HHS expecting availability for the public in March. Let me see 1..2..3... ah yes that appears to be MONTHS away.
EDIT: I upvoted you because you make a valid point. Things will not recover overnight. But at the same time, we can still celebrate the hope of a promising solution.
Science has done its job; now we need to push for coordination between infrastructure, government, and business to finish it.
I'm sure they have no incentives to say that right. The reality is that the UK and many others are in the middle of a massive surge of cases. The idea that life will be "normal" a few months from now in Spring seems farcical.
Of course there are other vaccines in development. If any other them pass trails that changes things too. we can only speculate as to how.
No matter what though, there is now a real light at the end of the tunnel.
Wait who developed this vaccine again?
I have built up in my head the idea of all the things I'm going to do 'once I get vaccinated', but at 90% that gets pushed off to "once most people get vaccinated". If it were by myself, I might push my luck. But I want to do those things with friends, or family. .9^n is pretty shitty odds once n gets to around 5.
There's a sort of rhetoric that's pointed out by 'Thinking, Fast and Slow' as a warning sign for agendas, and I've seen a bunch of them used by both sides this election cycle. But at the same time one of the defenses against these rhetorical devices is reframing: rephrase the bargain from another context and see if you'd still accept it. They don't seem to reconcile that in public discourse this reframing happens in public.
"If I go out for steak, I'm probably okay at 90%," versus, "If we have our family reunion at Disney World, there's a 50% chance we're all going to be attending a funeral in a month, even if everybody got the vaccine." You could call the latter shrill, sure, but "there's a 50% chance everything will work out fine," is self-deception. You're trying really hard not to look at all of the potential, statistically significant outcomes.
How in the heck do you arrive at a 50% chance of someone dying? You might argue that there's a 50% chance of someone getting the virus (that's really debatable, it's not highly contagious), but even if someone did, their chance of survival is several orders of magnitude higher than 50% unless they are in a high-risk group...
> but at 90% that gets pushed off to "once most people get vaccinated"
(Behaviour in these times seems to be a good indicator who has got some self-control and who has not, I think)
>It has not affected me so it probably doesnt affect anyone
I didn't say it won't affect me or it won't affect anyone.
This is really exciting news. How did you find out? Shouldn't we alert the public?
But each new person who gets it is a potential spreader, which increases the likelihood of an at-risk person getting it. Someone who may be elderly or immunocompromised, who can be seriously hurt or killed by it.
0-19 years: 0.00003 20-49 years: 0.0002 50-69 years: 0.005 70+ years: 0.054
I wouldn't consider it high at all.
I'm not againts vaccine, I'm againts lockdown.
At least for me I consider the cost/risk from lockdown is greater than the cost/risk from covid.