Coronavirus outbreak

[menime123]

I am trying to figure out a proper way to answer to this for quite some time. True, I also do not appreciate sensationalist language in a topic which is essentially scientific

Generally I do not disagree with what menime is saying. If you have the chance to eradicate a virus safely, do it. However the problem with this theory is that the weapons for this eradication (the vaccines) are so new that we do not know enough about their safety. We will know enough to license them in an emergency basis (that's the procedure they will be licensed with) but that's not the same as the normal procedure which takes time and years. It's almost a certainty that there are going to be rare and perhaps serious side effects which have not been identified right now due to their rarity but they may take a huge toll if we vaccinate whole country populations.

The two viruses we eradicated were eliminated by vaccines that were out and tried for years and years, not with totally new vaccines, hence the risk-benefit curve was acceptable. The rinderpest vaccine was developed in the 60s and the eradication happened 50 years later, the smallpox vaccine was developed in the late 19th century and eradication happened in the 70s. For most other vaccines there is always the risk-benefit ratio. If you go to a country with high yellow fever risk, you have to get vaccinated but if you go to Tanzania for example, the vaccine is not recommended despite the country having a (low) chance of yellow fever exposure because of this risk-benefit ratio. Same with malaria, there are countries where the prophylactic medication is recommended and there are countries which do have malaria but because the chance of contracting it is low, prophylaxis is not recommended. It is that I was referring to with my mention of influenza and not that the disease is similar to COVID (obviously COVID poses a bigger threat). Also it has to be said that there are so many other deadly diseases for which vaccines are available for decades (Polio for example since the late 80s) and there is still no eradication for many reasons that I suspect aiming at a fast COVID eradication through vaccination is totally unrealistic, especially considering that the only human disease we eradicated (smallpox) cannot spread from animals to human so human vaccination is enough, something that is not the case for COVID which can find reservoir in at least one type of animal based on what we know so far

It's this what I am talking about when I am saying the risk/benefit curve. To give you an example I am 120% in favour of my parents getting vaccinated because they are old and there is a great possibility (not a certainty) COVID will hurt them if they get it. However I am not in favor of a young healthy individual getting vaccinated early on because chances (again not a certainty) are that COVID is not a serious threat for him/her and also his vaccine may be better used on someone else. On purpose I did not mention myself because at my age I am not really sure in which category I belong but, for sure, I will not be among those who puts the vaccine in the first months (unless my longing for travelling becomes even bigger than what is right now).

In principle I don’t disagree with your concerns - they are valid and have merit, but to a point. Primarily, vaccinating older people does not offer 100% immunity and vaccines traditionally trigger a lower immunity response in older people.

So if you mix only vaccinate the older population and allow the virus to spread through the lower risk groups, you’re still going to have deaths. In comparison, if everyone has the vaccine (which I also know isn’t a 100% possibility) then the virus essentially fizzles out like Mariah come January.

I don’t consider my language or choice of words to be sensationalist. Too many people have died from this virus already and we have a growing section of the population either against the virus, against lockdown measure or both. There is a harsh truth to my words and for some people it’s a very bitter pill to swallow.

I have had the same conversation with family members and had to ask done of them what they would do if the caught the virus (through not following the rules) and you passed it onto someone you loved that then died?

The response is always ‘I wouldn’t be able to live with myself’ - and that is why we must band together and fix the problem before it gets out of control. Covid-19 is within our control at the moment, but only just. How we deal with it over the next 12 months could make it a permanent mainstay and I am bitterly against that.

I appreciate that the two viruses previously eradicated took a long time - but we didn’t have the infrastructure we do in 2020 to deal with it. There was a couple of world wars to deal with and the concept of universal healthcare was relatively alien - plus people have a deep mistrust of anything medical and would turn the cheek in case a doctor gave them bad news.

But Covid is so new that we have a real chance to catch it before it really takes hold, and I don’t understand not wanting to do so.

The irony of course is that if everyone stayed at home and followed the rules and literally did not leave home for 1 solid month then it would largely be wiped out. We have seen how successful lockdowns have been in dramatically reducing the spread of the virus and if we had held on longer it would have worked - but no country could afford to do that.

But we have people moaning they can’t go to the gym or have their haircut, like that’s the end of the world.

[menime123]

Also just to add, an aversion to the vaccine is not based on scientific evidence. It’s a gut reaction based on fear of the unknown.

The science says they work and pose no risk to health. I am not a scientist nor a medical professional so I have no option but to trust them - not trusting them is a disservice to me, my family and community, if I’m not prepared to follow the rules. If enough say it’s safe, who am I to argue against the experts?

I mean, I vote for politicians to run a country on blind faith alone, people that can start a nuclear war if they chose to do so.

[SholasBoy]

do you understand what i am trying to say??

Yes, all the capital letters and explanation marks were very helpful, thank you.

[InFamous]

Yes, all the capital letters and explanation marks were very helpful, thank you.

[jio]

Also just to add, an aversion to the vaccine is not based on scientific evidence. It’s a gut reaction based on fear of the unknown.

The science says they work and pose no risk to health. I am not a scientist nor a medical professional so I have no option but to trust them - not trusting them is a disservice to me, my family and community, if I’m not prepared to follow the rules. If enough say it’s safe, who am I to argue against the experts?

I mean, I vote for politicians to run a country on blind faith alone, people that can start a nuclear war if they chose to do so.

Well, the aversion to this vaccine is based on the speed with which the vaccines were developed, the fact that they used techniques never used before (which in an ideal world would mean more scrutiny than normal and not less), to some questionable announcements from 2 of the 3 candidate vaccine companies and to the fact that they do not accept full legal responsibility for their product. All these personally make me worry.

[menime123]

Well, the aversion to this vaccine is based on the speed with which the vaccines were developed, the fact that they used techniques never used before (which in an ideal world would mean more scrutiny than normal and not less), to some questionable announcements from 2 of the 3 candidate vaccine companies and to the fact that they do not accept full legal responsibility for their product. All these personally make me worry.

Not all of the vaccines were developed using new methods. the mRNA method isn’t new as such, it just has never been used in an approved vaccine. But the method has been tried and tested long before COVID hit (or so I understand) meaning the ‘recipe’ of the vaccine (for want of medical knowledge) isn’t new, but they are using different ingredients specifically for this virus.

Other vaccines are much more traditional in their approach, such as the Oxford Vaccine which uses the long established viral vector vaccine. Don’t quote me, but I’m pretty sure that’s the same method as the annual flu jab - and we get given a weakened version to trigger the right immune response (again, for wants of correct medical knowledge). More importantly, the Oxford vaccine has already sold a billion doses at cost, meaning there is no financial gain to them from creating this. I find that most encouraging and frankly, if someone is prepared to contract COVID and get on with life, why wouldn’t they be open to having a weakened version of it?

I’m no medical expert but I’m pretty sure none of the vaccines would be approved if there were unknown elements included that had never been used before, that could produce unknown outcomes. I accept some people may experience side effects, but scientists will know based on the ‘ingredients’ they use if a life threatening/altering outcome could be produced by them. It’s not like they’re witch doctors making it up as they go along.

I would also point to a lack of other failed vaccines. Yes all other vaccines undergo a much lengthier testing and approval process, but when did we last hear of a trial vaccine causing life altering conditions in test subjects? Even if it wasn’t approved yet, it would still make news if it had serious repercussions.

[theMathematician]

I don't know about other countries, but I guess the scepicism of many Germans recarding a vaccination has to do with the aftermaths of Contergan almost 60 years ago. It was a medication (rather than a vaccination) for pregnant mothers and in the end, many children ended up with limbs not properly developped. Of course, there are people who believe that Bill Gates wants to control people through a vaccination, but some are simply afraid of possible side effects.

[InFamous]

I don't know about other countries, but I guess the scepicism of many Germans recarding a vaccination has to do with the aftermaths of Contergan almost 60 years ago. It was a medication (rather than a vaccination) for pregnant mothers and in the end, many children ended up with limbs not properly developped. Of course, there are people who believe that Bill Gates wants to control people through a vaccination, but some are simply afraid of possible side effects.

Has the scepticism of these many Germans been reported anywhere in German media and has it been linked to this reason ? Do you have a link to any articles I can read highlighting this ? Or is this just purely conjecture on your part ?

[theMathematician]

Has the scepticism of these many Germans been reported anywhere in German media and has it been linked to this reason ? Do you have a link to any articles I can read highlighting this ? Or is this just purely conjecture on your part ?

I haven't got a link or anything official, which is why I wrote 'I guess'.

[InFamous]

I haven't got a link or anything official, which is why I wrote 'I guess'.

So literally you just made this up out of thin air with nothing to back it up what so ever.

Thanks for confirming.

[maroon]

Of course the main reason not to want any vaccine is not to get side effects just to be protected from a disease that is barely another seasonal flu.

[menime123]

Of course the main reason not to want any vaccine is not to get side effects just to be protected from a disease that is barely another seasonal flu.

Fake news.

[maroon]

Fake news.

Says who? You?
Oh yeah, because vaccines have no side effects at all. Yeah, give me a break.
And official statistics about only 0,6% of all COVID infected being in serious condition are probably also fake news, right?

[menime123]

Says who? You?
Oh yeah, because vaccines have no side effects at all. Yeah, give me a break.
And official statistics about only 0,6% of all COVID infected being in serious condition are probably also fake news, right?

It isn’t just another disease that is ‘barely another seasonal flu’. That is fake news.

It is also fake news to say 0.6% of all Covid cases were serious conditions when the worldwide death rate is 2.33% of confirmed cases.

In context, 1.45 million people have died around the world from Covid - from an illness that did exist 12 months ago. But of course, by all means pretend it isn’t serious.

Plus might I remind you a strain of flu once killed an estimated 100 million people and was one of the deadliest pandemics man kind has ever faced. Don’t underestimate something that killed more people Hitler.

[jio]

I would also point to a lack of other failed vaccines. Yes all other vaccines undergo a much lengthier testing and approval process, but when did we last hear of a trial vaccine causing life altering conditions in test subjects? Even if it wasn’t approved yet, it would still make news if it had serious repercussions.

The only case of a fast-track vaccine widespread administration in history actually did lead to a disaster and a withdrawal, that's the 1976 Swine Flu Vaccine. There have been other cases of withdrawals too (Rotavirus vaccine, initial measles vaccine) for vaccines that have been licensed in the normal slow process way. In addition to that there are vaccines (yellow fever vaccine) which are licensed only for a certain portion of the population (not including old and immunocompromised people for example) due to their adverse effect profile.

So to say that vaccines cannot be dangerous is simply not accurate. Vaccines are indeed a life-saver and one of the greatest discoveries ever for humanity but they have dangers too.

[jio]

It isn’t just another disease that is ‘barely another seasonal flu’. That is fake news.

It is also fake news to say 0.6% of all Covid cases were serious conditions when the worldwide death rate is 2.33% of confirmed cases.
.

According to WHO the fatality rate of COVID is 0.6%

[menime123]

The only case of a fast-track vaccine widespread administration in history actually did lead to a disaster and a withdrawal, that's the 1976 Swine Flu Vaccine. There have been other cases of withdrawals too (Rotavirus vaccine, initial measles vaccine) for vaccines that have been licensed in the normal slow process way. In addition to that there are vaccines (yellow fever vaccine) which are licensed only for a certain portion of the population (not including old and immunocompromised people for example) due to their adverse effect profile.

So to say that vaccines cannot be dangerous is simply not accurate. Vaccines are indeed a life-saver and one of the greatest discoveries ever for humanity but they have dangers too.

I never once said vaccines cannot be dangerous. But the fact is you’re referring to vaccines from a time before most of us were born. You’re going back decades, yet the world knows science and medicine has made massive leaps forward.

I mean you mention the yellow fever vaccine that has been safely administered since 1930s. Yes, not everyone can have the vaccine I believe that’s because it’s less effective for over 60s and for those with a compromised immune system (e.g. having other illnesses) it would have an adverse effect - which you would expect based on what a vaccine is and how it works (fairly sure most people with a compromised immune system are told to avoid vaccines anyway - I could be wrong but I’m fairly certain it’s already announced that they won’t be able to have the Covid vaccine too).

So the arguments just don’t hold up in 2020. People are finding out dated historical data to support their mistrust, rather than their mistrust being based on current realities. In short, they’re looking for something to justify why they feel a certain way when the real answer is a lack of knowledge and understanding on how vaccines have been created so fast.

A primary misconception is that the Covid vaccines are brand new, developed only once Covid hit. That is not true and the technologies used in all announced vaccines were in the works long before Covid even existed in humans.

The Oxford vaccine, for example, began life as a result of the Ebola crisis a few years ago. The bulk of the vaccine was created pre-2020 and had already been tested in hundreds of patients. Because this existed, years of work on the Covid vaccine was already done.

The Oxford vaccine has been tested with a pool of 30,000 people - the required amount and the same as any other approved vaccine. All of the required work has been done and yet people mistrust the ‘speed’ at which this has been developed based on nothing.

[menime123]

According to WHO the fatality rate of COVID is 0.6%

https://covid19.who.int

Globally, as of 3:48pm CET, 28 November 2020, there have been 61,299,371 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 1,439,784 deaths, reported to WHO.

Sadly, the numbers do not lie. The WHO confirm the mortality rate as 2.34%.

[jio]

https://covid19.who.int



Sadly, the numbers do not lie. The WHO confirm the mortality rate as 2.34%.

That's the case fatality rate though and not the mortality rate, meaning it misses many asymptomatic infections thus is artificially high. The mortality rate can only be an educated estimate and it has been accepted to be 0.6% back in August

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/video...e-at-0-6-video and given that the virus has spread since then in countries with younger populations in comparison to both China and Europe (thus lower death rates) it is unlikely to have changed much.

[jio]

I never once said vaccines cannot be dangerous. But the fact is you’re referring to vaccines from a time before most of us were born. You’re going back decades, yet the world knows science and medicine has made massive leaps forward.

I mean you mention the yellow fever vaccine that has been safely administered since 1930s. Yes, not everyone can have the vaccine I believe that’s because it’s less effective for over 60s and for those with a compromised immune system (e.g. having other illnesses) it would have an adverse effect - which you would expect based on what a vaccine is and how it works (fairly sure most people with a compromised immune system are told to avoid vaccines anyway - I could be wrong but I’m fairly certain it’s already announced that they won’t be able to have the Covid vaccine too).

So the arguments just don’t hold up in 2020. People are finding out dated historical data to support their mistrust, rather than their mistrust being based on current realities. In short, they’re looking for something to justify why they feel a certain way when the real answer is a lack of knowledge and understanding on how vaccines have been created so fast.

A primary misconception is that the Covid vaccines are brand new, developed only once Covid hit. That is not true and the technologies used in all announced vaccines were in the works long before Covid even existed in humans.

The Oxford vaccine, for example, began life as a result of the Ebola crisis a few years ago. The bulk of the vaccine was created pre-2020 and had already been tested in hundreds of patients. Because this existed, years of work on the Covid vaccine was already done.

The Oxford vaccine has been tested with a pool of 30,000 people - the required amount and the same as any other approved vaccine. All of the required work has been done and yet people mistrust the ‘speed’ at which this has been developed based on nothing.

Oh come now menime. The 1976 case is the only one ever of a vaccine fast tracked through clinical trials phases and it failed. It is the only valid comparison to this one because there has been no other fast tracking through clinical phases since then,(and that experience is one of the reasons companies are so careful with vaccines). The fact that the mechanism used is at works for years says absolutely nothing because the worry here is about clinical trial phases and not development phases and these vaccines are definitely not in clinical trials for years. The ebola vaccine history is also irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the mRNA technique (as you know). Moreover, none of the two approved ebola vaccines are under generalized license, they are under conditional licenses which means are not intended for generalized use yet but only for the most vulnerable of potential exposures until we know more about their profiles (exactly the same as what I suggested for the COVID vaccines in my earlier posts).

Given that the Oxford vaccine is not using the mRNA technique, it would be my personal vaccine of choice but still I would wait before getting it.

[DnBLover]

Making comparisons between these vaccines developed in 2020 with vaccines developed more than 40 years ago makes no sense. There were over 200 trials testing covid vaccines, unprecedented technology, knowledge, funding etc. These vaccines have not jumped any safety procedures, and they were fast tracked due to the early genetic sequencing (which didn't event exist 20 years ago).

Remove the emotion, focus on the facts. Cumulatively over 50k people have been administered one of these 3 vaccines with zero major side effects to report. With high efficacy so far (it is almost surely lowering, but already looks much better than the flu shots).

[jio]

DnBLover the problem is not (only) the number of people, the problem is the duration... Phase III Clinical trials normally last several years, not under 3 months because they need to test the efficacy and safety of the vaccine in real life. Now those trials are fast-forwarded mainly by deliberately administering the virus to patients who received the vaccine and see if it works or not. This happens for emergency reasons obviously and is enough to approve a vaccine on an emergency basis (that is as I said before for people for which the risk is really high) but it has its drawbacks, the biggest of which is that it is difficult to quantify and evaluate rare and late adverse effects in such a short time and also we lack knowledge about the duration of the protection. Also the 50 000 number you mentioned is really very small (given we are talking about 3 different vaccines and not 1). By definition very rare side effects happen at a rate of under 1 in 10 000 people so having a phase 3 clinical trial of 30-50 000 people is simply not sufficient for administering a vaccine to whole country populations because if you vaccinate millions with such a vaccine, the very rare side effects could affect thousands of people, thus sabotaging both the public health and trust in the system all together

[DnBLover]

Yea but if the rare side effects happen at a rate of 0.001% that is 6000 times lower than Covid's death rate... And at this point I'm speculating if any serious side effects will show up at all. Also, I'm not sure if you are right in terms of timings especially considering how quickly the flu shots are developed each year, but I also don't know better.

Keep in mind that clinical trials administer the vaccine only to half of the people involved, so we are talking above over 100k participants for these 3 studies.

[aRat]

Do we even know how long the protection of these vaccines lasts?

[DnBLover]

Do we even know how long the protection of these vaccines lasts?

They have mentioned something like up to 1 year... But who knows. At least a few months. It should be like the normal immunity you get after contracting covid.