That's honestly not bad. I expected more, but it's still shit.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
That's honestly not bad. I expected more, but it's still shit.
Here's someone a lot cleverer than me explaining why you shouldn't be so worried about that:
Long-Term Effects of COVID-19 Vaccines: Should You Be Worried?
Lately I’ve observed a lot of worry about long-term effects from COVID-19 vaccine candidates, which I fully understand. Almost. This seems…edwardnirenberg.medium.com
Thanks for this. This is exactly what I've been wanting to see. A data driven break down of why we can trust a rushed production vaccine. This is great.
It has been used in humans for 10 years? Somehow I doubt that but if you can show the receipts Ill accept it.
It should do, as a lot more safety measures were added in as a result of the issues then.
Though it is important to remember...
- only one swine flu vaccine had issues, Pandemrix
- the issues surfaced one-to-two months after vaccination - meaning that anything similar here would have been spotted in the safety data obtained already
There's been lots of commentary about that. Two of the major reasons for the delay in vaccines are lack of funding and red tape. Neither are a problem here.
Results of the first phase I/II clinical vaccination trial with direct injection of mRNA - PubMed
Vaccination against tumor antigens has been shown to be a safe and efficacious prophylactic and therapeutic antitumor treatment in many animal models. Clinical studies in humans indicate that specific immunotherapy can also result in clinical benefits. The active pharmaceutical ingredient in...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Don't have the needed sub to read it myself though, so I can't comment on the study, and while the abstract does say it requires further work, this was for a different illness and a long time (medicinally speaking) ago , but it does at least seem to have been a thing that happened.
Plus the fact that they have to grow the virus to harvest the needed components as well. With an mRNA vaccine, they can just literally build the mRNA of an existing DNA segment template. They can build JUST what they need instead of harvesting it from a culture.
Happy to help. :) There's also this, on a similar topic from the same author:
The vaccines for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 weren’t rushed
I’m seeing a lot of people very concerned about the pace at which the vaccines for COVID-19 have been produced, which I get. We were told…
edwardnirenberg.medium.com
I think it would be really valuable to open up a "Vaccine Q&A" thread in here to act as a resource for people to be informed. Vaccine hesitancy is especially real for COVID-19 and I feel like a lot of people's concerns could be addressed if they were able to ask their questions in a safe environment
Pandemrix did not go through normal trials and was given immunity in the UK. They also used an oil adjutant they suspect of maybe triggering narcolepsy in a small amount of people. The evidence is not super conclusive. CDC says the link remains unproven.
More info on the subject here: buzzfeed.com/shaunlintern/these-nhs-staff-were-told-the-swine-flu-vaccine-was-safe
And here: https://www.statnews.com/2018/07/05/flu-vaccine-2009-pandemic-narcolepsy/
Fortunately, covid vaccines ARE going through trials to unmask precisely these kinds of problems. I'll feel much more comfortable taking my chances with a well-tested vaccine than stupid humans who can't use masks and insist on infecting me at every turn.
To be fair, it seems like Oxford hired clowns and morons to manage their study and interpret their results. That helps keep costs low.
They are more expensive to make. Pfizer is selling their at $20 per dose.
There was one, it died quiclky.
Biontech has already been conducting human trials for their mRNA based cancer vaccine since 2017.
Can someone explain the science behind this to me?
Aren't we testing the effectiveness of the vaccine? And only 11 there were given the vaccine and 185 weren't? I genuinely don't know how this works, feels like I'm missing something.
OP
OP
For usable results, they had to wait until a certain number of people in the test got COVID. In this case it looks like they got 196 cases.
Of those 196 people who got COVID, 185 had the placebo and 11 had the vaccine, which gives you data on how effective the vaccine was.
15,000 people were given the vaccine.. After they'd received both jabs, 11 of them developed Covid-19, no serious cases, no one died.
15,000 people were given the placebo.. After they'd received both jabs, 185 of them developed Covid-19, 30 serious cases, one died.
I've tweaked that initial post now so hopefully it's a bit clearer!
This is a really helpful blog post and the thing that it boils down to for me is this:Here's someone a lot cleverer than me explaining why you shouldn't be so worried about that:
Long-Term Effects of COVID-19 Vaccines: Should You Be Worried?
Lately I’ve observed a lot of worry about long-term effects from COVID-19 vaccine candidates, which I fully understand. Almost. This seems…
In much the same way as we don't fully know how long immunity lasts after infection, we don't know here either. Tests so far show that the immune response in those given the vaccine is at the same level or higher than those naturally infected, so it should be at least as good as those who recover from the disease. However, it's not known for certain, as enough time hasn't elapsed yet.
Do you know that its greed or are you just making assumptions?
The high price is due to new manufacturing process. Oxford is using an established process.
These things cost serious money to develop. It's not greed. Unless you think Moderna should eat a loss out of principle.
Good to hear. Hopefully this works out well.
I agree that a vaccine questions thread should be started or revived. A lot of people are concerned about some part of vaccine production and testing, and these concerns could be addressed by having people shedding more light on how all this works. Having a thread where these people can get answers without getting screamed at for being idiots would be very helpful, and could lead to more people taking the vaccine.
I agree that a vaccine questions thread should be started or revived. A lot of people are concerned about some part of vaccine production and testing, and these concerns could be addressed by having people shedding more light on how all this works. Having a thread where these people can get answers without getting screamed at for being idiots would be very helpful, and could lead to more people taking the vaccine.
Exactly, Moderna has almost no income. They're essentially still a start up despite now rocketing valuation. Government should be negotiating a bulk price which can then can be reimbursed by insurance for those who have it.
Yeah, and it seems to be worked down to $25/dose for the US Federal government order... WHich we should note, like this vaccine would not exist at all at this point without the initial $1b R&D investment, and then the $1.5b advanced order for the initial 100m doses of the vaccine that the Feds have ordered, which has an option to be expanded into 400m potential orders at a lower cost per dose.
Glaxosmith Kline and Pfizer look to be both at $21/dose and $19/dose respectively. Johnson & Johnson at $15 and AstraZeneca at $4/dose. But like you said, those four are some of the largest pharma companies in the world, Moderna is tiny medical technology company that's only 10 years old, and is narrowly focused on mRNA vaccine development.
Nurses are high priority, so there's a chance your SO could be getting a vaccine before the end of the year.
Good episode of the NYT The Daily today about vaccine rollout.
When and How You’ll Get a Vaccine
Multiple inoculations for the coronavirus are making their way through the approval process. Here’s what we know about the plan for their distribution.
That's reassuring to hear. And also horrifying on how pandemrix was handled.
Plus, while it's relatively depressing to think about, you also have to take into account the fact that at least 5% of the US population will (or, perhaps its better to stay should) have some level of immunity due to being exposed to the virus itself.
My job requires me to be in a hospital and in clinics, in January. I won't be interacting with patients directly, but will have contact with medical personnel both directly, and indirectly. This will be on Military bases, so I wonder if I'd have a better chance of getting a vaccine than others? I've also already had Covid, so who knows.
Yes, and therein lies the rub. I have no qualms about the immediate/short-term efficacy of the vaccine and the trial findings thus far suggest no short-term serious side effects take place. From a public health standpoint, taking into account the nature of coronaviruses in general (and the long-term efficacy of prior vaccines for this type of virus) I wonder about the efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine over the long-term and the logistics of delivering many multiples of vaccinations. If it's a yearly thing like influenza, then I suspect all will be well. If it's a few months, there will be issues. Unfortunately the only thing we can do is wait and see.
Indeed, although this will be ignored in vaccination policies.
Looking solely at public healthcare, probably not because you're not a healthcare worker. Military, I'm not sure.
A related question. Since they are using this for a coronavirus and using the mRNA method does that mean once COVID-19 has settled down that we could possibly have vaccines against cold viruses for the first time in human history? That would be awesome!
tbh i am on the fence i will get it but i feel i should wait a certain amount of time first. to observe the effects before taking the plunge because a rushed vaccine can be detrimental
At the moment, there are too many strains to make it interesting. Can't get 80-100 strains into one vaccine. There is also little monetary incentive to invest in the testing because a vaccine costs a lot of money to test, and if you can't cover every type of cold, people are not going to buy it.
Oh hell yes now I'm excited about the vaccine news. I was extremely worried about storage requirements for mRNA vaccines.
Based on what these numbers mean (ie the 94% comes from cases developed as the denominator, and not number of people in the trial as the denominator), I'm guessing they weren't purposely exposed to covid. How do they account for people who got either and just stayed home?
Headache, fatigue, sore arm and potentially high fever the day after getting it. About 1 in 10 have side effects.
They don't. You need a minimum amount of infections to open up the trial. If all your participants stayed home and didn't get Covid, testing would take a lot longer. The spread of Covid is to thank for the fast results. Vaccines for SARS and MERS failed because it was impossible for the placebo people to get sick. If there had been a cure or an effective treatment for Covid, they would have done direct infection but that is not ethical when there is no treatment.
Usually people are told to "go about their normal lives" for a vaccine trial and this will balance out over tens of thousands of participants. It's likely a relatively similar number of people were careful or not careful among both groups. (If anything, all the participants might be slightly inclined to be less careful under the hope they received the real vaccine.)
Also, the results here are dramatic enough that it's clearly highly effective. There's no way the discrepancy between the vaccinated and placebo groups could be largely attributed to behavior.