None of this is down to "us". You need government action to prevent this. It's that simple. There is nothing I can do to make people stop travelling, wear masks, stay home or get tested.
A vaccine that is tested for around 6 months. Actually it's multiple vaccines with two new approaches which are not tested at all for long-term side effects.
From that perspective it's not really desirable to get "people" vaccinated as quickly as possible.
PS.: Was the validation somehow 4 years? You can't cope with facts.
"For most people, Covid-19 is a brief and mild disease but some are left struggling with symptoms including lasting fatigue, persistent pain and breathlessness for months.
The condition known as "long Covid" is having a debilitating effect on people's lives, and stories of being left exhausted after even a short walk are now common.
So far, the focus has been on saving lives during the pandemic, but there is now a growing recognition that people are facing long-term consequences of a Covid infection.
Yet even basic questions - such as why people get long Covid or whether everyone will fully recover - are riddled with uncertainty."
Think the point is you either roll the dice with COVID or roll the dice with a vaccine. We have evidence of long-term COVID effects while with any of the vaccines not enough time has passed.
You are always rolling the dice when you get a cold. The important part is how likely the side effects really are and this is proven for neither.
In addition to this, vaccine side effects can be way more severe than that especially for otherwise healthy people. Given the lethality is <0.1% for people under 60 and sterile immunity (with the vaccine) is neither proven nor targeted, there doesn't seem to be a hurry to get the vaccine really.
Why are you all over this thread fear mongering about sterilizing immunity?
The vaccine trials indeed did not collect data about it, but the starting assumption (based on the mechanism of action of the vaccines) is that they are likely to result in sterilizing immunity. They may not! But the lack of data doesn't mean we should expect there to not be sterilizing immunity.
Explain to me how it is preferable to get all the Covid mRNA from an infection instead of a tiny piece that codes for nothing that will kill you and primes your immune system. What long term side effect do you see from a tiny piece of foreign mRNA, something our bodies encounter continually throughout our lifetimes?
Testing the vaccine and the new approaches properly. The average age of COVID deaths is around 82 years (at least in Germany), so I'd say many of these people would have died in the next few months anyway.
Also COVID is not the only cause of death and act in panic might cause more deaths than not acting at all. With a lethality of around 0.4% and the average age of death, COVID is no reason to hurry a vaccine that might have abysmal side effects. You could maybe argue that the spanish flu was (at that time), but COVID is really several orders of magnitude less lethal and also not with as prevalent and severe side effects as the measles (especially among the young and otherwise healthy).
> that codes for nothing that will kill you and primes your immune system
Just because people apparently aren't immediately dying doesn't mean the mRNA vaccine can't introduce some unapparent immune system pathology.
It seems like the vaccine is good, but I also don't need it as a younger person with a healthy immune system. I'd rather wait to see evidence of long-term safety...which doesn't happen until a vaccine is studied in many people who've taken it and observed after years.
You mean the vaccine against the virus that has already killed 300k people in the US? Its very clearly desirable to get all of the elderly and people with pre-existing conditions vaccinated as quickly as possible since they have such a high probability of dying of the virus. Even if we did just that we could cut the death rate way down.
Using a vaccine which is tested exclusively on young men (which is the normal procedure) on elderly first is yet another inconsistency in the "holy vaccine"-narrative.
> vaccine which is tested exclusively on young men
is COMPLETELY wrong.
1. The trials have been performed on both men and women
2. Age groups <65 AND >= 65
3. Also included chronically ill
From Moderna:
> As of today, the COVE study includes more than 7,000 Americans over the age of 65. It also includes more than 5,000 Americans who are under the age of 65 but have high-risk chronic diseases that put them at increased risk of severe COVID-19, such as diabetes, severe obesity and cardiac disease. These medically high-risk groups represent 42% of the total participants in the Phase 3 COVE study.
I'm a little confused. The worst case scenario for Pandemrix is a tiny chance of developing narcolepsy. Literally a few tens of people for a country. Is that wrong?
It seems that would be a very acceptable risk compared to 1% of people dying and 5 years of lockdown...
The lockdown is not a consequence of COVID. The fact that (especially) young people were affected means you need to compare the lethality of these younger groups and that one is below 0.1% (under the age of 60 in Sweden).
Are they sitting on it? Here in the UK they can't give it out fast enough. We're ignoring the medical advice to give people 1 dose and then wait 12 weeks so we can have twice as many people get at least one...
>The C.D.C. reported that about 1.2 million people in nursing homes and long-term-care centers had been given first shots through a federal program, though more than 4.7 million doses had been distributed for those facilities.
Wtf? How have they lost 3.5m doses? They can't all be "delivered to site but not used yet" can they?
The companies running the vaccinations for those facilities have visited ~10% of the facilities so far. I suppose they have a large allocation despite that rate because the populations in the facilities tend to be high risk.
The easier to handle vaccines can't come soon enough at this point. Hopefully the production issue with the J&J vaccine doesn't impact later batches (hopefully having them producing tens of millions of doses by April and May).
Seems like a bad misallocation. If they can only deliver a third of the vaccinations, someone else should be given the others to deliver. Either to the same group or whoever they can reach...
Yeah, I don't know. They've only been active for ~1/2 of the vaccination period and have delivered almost 1/7 of the doses administered in Michigan. If the storage isn't problematic, I don't have an issue with them having some lead time.
(giving a dose to a vulnerable person in a few days is pretty clearly more beneficial than giving it to a low risk person today; if the administration wasn't performing well vs the rest of the state or the interval were longer it'd be a more difficult consideration)
Yeah, that makes sense. I would say that 3.5m is a LOT to have and not have given out. 3.5m people vaccinated, if 1% get covid, that's 35,000 cases. That's dead plus 350 dead plus 1750 hospitalisations (1 and 5% respectively). Probably a lot higher if its vulnerable people getting going without.
I suppose we'd need a lot more data to confirm whether this understandably part of a ramp up or if its evidence of incompetent management...
It definitely is a lot to have and not have given out, but the overall ratio is something like 15 million doses administered out of 40 million distributed.
(It's not clear if is really 40 million, but slow administration is a broad issue. And now there's a question of how much is going to be available each week; if the supply is X/week, it's going to be hard to convince people to build the capability to administer 2x/week)
>giving a dose to a vulnerable person in a few days is pretty clearly more beneficial than giving it to a low risk person today
That's not entirely clear to me, if the "low risk" person is in a position to be a superspreader. Vaccinating a supermarket checkout worker now, vs an elderly person (who gets delivery food and never meets anyone) in a few days, could easily save many more lives.
reply