Moderators: Bakhtosh, EvilHomer3k
New research suggests that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine can protect against a mutation found in two highly contagious variants of the coronavirus.
https://www.today.com/health/pfizer-stu ... nt-t205341The study is preliminary and has not yet been reviewed by experts, a key step for medical research.
So I watched an interview where the Doctor explained the reasoning for halving the doses - that the Moderna virus has something like 3-4 times the messenger RNA than the Pfizer vaccine, which is why halving it should still work.Defiant wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 1:50 amI'm confused. Are they halving the dose so that they can give people two doses where each dose is half sized? I guess that's one way of giving two "doses".“We know that for the Moderna vaccine, giving half of the dose to people between the ages of 18 and 55, two doses, half the dose, which means exactly achieving the objective of immunizing double the number of people with the doses we have,” Slaoui said.
“We know it induces identical immune response” to the full dose, he added.
Seriously. It was tested for many reasons that haven't changed just for coronavirus.
Look, I just need you to tell me how I should feel about the Biden administration's decision to release all the doses. Sounds like I should be wary / skeptical?
If they do this you really are going to be a part of a huge clinical trial.
I feel like this is Biden's attempt to address the idea that there aren't enough doses being made available vs we don't have enough infrastructure in place to provide the doses that have already been distributed. If I could wave a magic wand and make 300 million doses available tomorrow, we still have an insane delivery problem.
Lack of leadership. It's not like vaccine categories are written in the state constitution or something. Identify problem, fix it. But no one has the leadership chops to make the tough (or in this case, not so tough) decisions and stick by them.
It would be nice if you could find a few more magnitudes of them as long as we are dreaming.
| Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |
Brain is still faster than fingers - even after like 30+ years of typing practice.
New York's strict vaccine guidelines forced one clinic to throw away vaccine doses after it couldn't find eligible people.
It strikes me that with all the states using race-based ‘equity’ metrics to distribute early COVID vaccines and threatening hefty fines for any deviations from protocol, it's about as surefire a recipe as there could possibly be to slow down the process of actually getting vaccines into arms. Because realistically, those threatened with fines of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars will inevitably be that much more methodical and painstaking while doing their job.
Just did a quick read through of this paper. As you state, it looks like some aspects of the immune response are still around at high levels 8 months from infection (they don't have data past 8 months). Interestingly, they mentioned that there's just as much heterogeneity in the immune response months after infection as there is early on; they mention as much as a 200 fold difference in immune system responses to Covid. So sounds like people whose immune systems don't mount much of a response aren't likely to "catch up" over time so to speak in their response.$iljanus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 2:24 pm Worthwhile reading from a Science article just released addressing what kind of memory response people have 8 months after infection. Going to have to read through it. I’m curious about the age cohorts studied since there are differences in immune function depending on age.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ ... ce.abf4063
I mean, I'm not on the front lines giving vaccines (nor did I assist in the policy development for my state), but we're not at "race based equity metrics" at this point. Right now it's all about vaccinating a core set of people that fit in a very narrow employment and demographic window.Anonymous Bosch wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 4:24 pm It strikes me that with all the states using race-based ‘equity’ metrics to distribute early COVID vaccines and threatening hefty fines for any deviations from protocol, it's about as surefire a recipe as there could possibly be to slow down the process of actually getting vaccines into arms.
It's currently by appointment only in my state. I cannot imagine offering it any other way at this point, but if locals don't have the ability to schedule appointments in advance (online portal, phone banks, etc...) then it has to be complete chaos.
At hospitals affiliated with NYU, Columbia, Harvard and Vanderbilt, 20- and 30-something grad students, IT and billing staff and administrators (none of whom see patients) have been vaccinated ahead of the elderly and other high-risk populations 1/x
No, but note that it's very rare for a vaccine not to do both. There's only 1 or 2 (I've heard both numbers) vaccines that allow for transmission after innoculation.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-v ... 1609436842Plans have stalled for a large study on U.S. college campuses that was intended to answer a question critical to the coronavirus pandemic response: Do the new Covid-19 vaccines stop the virus from spreading, in addition to protecting individuals from getting sick?
A network of medical researchers who have helped run federally funded studies of Covid-19 vaccines were hoping to start a clinical trial of Moderna Inc.’s shot in more than 20,000 college students in January. The study would test whether the vaccine prevented transmission of the coronavirus from person to person and whether it prevented infections that don’t trigger symptoms.
But last week, the researchers told about 20 universities that were considering participating in the study that it wouldn’t move forward yet, according to people involved in the effort. The researchers weren’t able to secure federal funding for the trial, which would have cost several hundred million dollars, and faced time constraints in getting the complex study up and running so it could yield results before students ended the spring semester, these people said.
Very little info, but as more people are vaccinated, we'll get more information:
Note:This uncertainty is a consequence of the extremely rapid vaccine development process. Normally, a vaccine trial would observe recipients of a vaccine for a longer period of time, showing not just whether they became ill, but whether they spread contagion, before a vaccine entered wide use. While it’s likely that the various coronavirus vaccine candidates provide at least some reduction in transmission, it’s simply too soon to know for sure, or to what degree.
The next question is will the vaccines reduce transmission for the newly discovered variants that are more easily transmitted? Again, no one knows.According to the FDA, most vaccines that protect from viral illnesses also reduce viral transmission by those who are vaccinated, and there is reason for optimism that the current wave of COVID vaccines will, as well. Most notably, Moderna’s vaccine trial showed some reduction in asymptomatic infections as measured through nasal swabs, which could suggest reduced transmission after vaccination. Dr. Eric Topol of the Scripps Research Translational Institute has described those findings as inconclusive, but promising on the question of post-vaccine transmission.
| Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |
Can't they just offer like a $100 bonus for getting vaccinated? Seems like it's in the best interest of the company to make sure that their workforce isn't getting sick, and I wouldn't think that it would take a ton of money to get people off the fence about vaccination.stessier wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 10:57 am Anecdotally, in the 500 person manufacturing facility where I work, it sounds like about 20% of the people are willing to get the shot. If we told them they could stop wearing masks, I wonder how high we could get that number (some of the work we do is rather like a cardio workout and doing so in N95s is extremely unpleasant).
You would think - but from conversations, that wouldn't even come close. Probably closer to 10x that and you'd still have hold outs thinking we were trying to kill them. The workforce is very adverse to it. We get $600/year for filling out an anonymous health survey - less than 50% of us do.El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 11:01 amCan't they just offer like a $100 bonus for getting vaccinated? Seems like it's in the best interest of the company to make sure that their workforce isn't getting sick, and I wouldn't think that it would take a ton of money to get people off the fence about vaccination.stessier wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 10:57 am Anecdotally, in the 500 person manufacturing facility where I work, it sounds like about 20% of the people are willing to get the shot. If we told them they could stop wearing masks, I wonder how high we could get that number (some of the work we do is rather like a cardio workout and doing so in N95s is extremely unpleasant).
| Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |
Our state news organization published a primer on employers and vaccination:stessier wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 10:57 am Anecdotally, in the 500 person manufacturing facility where I work, it sounds like about 20% of the people are willing to get the shot. If we told them they could stop wearing masks, I wonder how high we could get that number (some of the work we do is rather like a cardio workout and doing so in N95s is extremely unpleasant).
Possibly applicable:Can my employer require me to be vaccinated for the coronavirus?
Yes.
The Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued guidance recently that employment law experts had been expecting. It said the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), which gives workers some rights when it comes to an employer requiring certain medical exams, doesn’t apply when it comes to COVID vaccines.
...
Employers have an obligation to ensure that their employees have a healthy and safe work environment...
...
Employers may require vaccines if the failure to vaccinate will result in a direct threat to other employees....
So...it depends. Add in whatever State laws you might have that could possible cover this as well. It's going to be interesting.What if my boss doesn’t require it? Can I be fired if I don’t want to work with unvaccinated coworkers?
You have options.
Ford said that COVID-19 has presented employers with many unprecedented challenges, but each worker’s case presents variables and should be handled on a case-by-case basis.
There may also be different circumstances depending on the job and the industry.
Then how do they know who to send the $600 to?
Even if the company had the legal right to force the vaccine, I really doubt they would. It's not the culture.Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 11:16 amOur state news organization published a primer on employers and vaccination:stessier wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 10:57 am Anecdotally, in the 500 person manufacturing facility where I work, it sounds like about 20% of the people are willing to get the shot. If we told them they could stop wearing masks, I wonder how high we could get that number (some of the work we do is rather like a cardio workout and doing so in N95s is extremely unpleasant).
Can my employer require me to be vaccinated for the coronavirus?
Yes.
The Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued guidance recently that employment law experts had been expecting. It said the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), which gives workers some rights when it comes to an employer requiring certain medical exams, doesn’t apply when it comes to COVID vaccines.
...
Employers have an obligation to ensure that their employees have a healthy and safe work environment...
...
Employers may require vaccines if the failure to vaccinate will result in a direct threat to other employees....
| Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |
That's why I included the next part for you.
Fuck this death cult.A third Dem tests positive and blames maskless Rs. “I am now in strict isolation, worried that I have risked my wife’s health and angry at the selfishness and arrogance of the anti-maskers who put their own contempt and disregard for decency ahead of the health” of colleagues
In the short run, it will take some time for the vaccine's effectiveness to build up. (Effectiveness is defined as not getting sick with COVID-19. If 100 vaccinated people are exposed to a virus, and 50 of them subsequently develop symptoms, that vaccine is 50% effective.)
With the Pfizer vaccine, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in December found that protection doesn't start until 12 days after the first shot, and reaches 52% effectiveness a few weeks later. A week after the second vaccination, the effectiveness rate hits 95%. In its application for authorization, Moderna reported a protection rate of 51% two weeks after the first immunization, and 94% two weeks after the second dose."
"That's not 100%," says Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a member of the FDA's vaccine advisory board. "That means one out of every 20 people who get this vaccine could still get moderate to severe infection."
So how will we get an answer to whether vaccinated people can infect others?
If someone is found to be shedding virus, then researchers will check to see if that virus is capable of reproducing itself, and if it is, whether there's enough to infect other people. That raises another unknown: It's not yet clear what an infectious dose would be.
Nailing down the answers to all these questions is a laborious process. And no one is saying yet how soon the results of these sorts of studies of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines will be available.
There are other ways to get at the answer. The COVID-19 Prevention Network has proposed an experimental study that would involve vaccinating more than 20,000 college students with Moderna's vaccine, checking them multiple times per week for virus shedding, and doing contact tracing when infections occurred. The trial, which would cost several hundred million dollars, has so far been turned down by federal funders.
I was thinking 2 weeks after the 2nd vaccination I would be willing to be around people willing to be around me maskless but generally wear a mask in public. I don't see me leaving the house to be around people until I'm comfortable being around them without a mask. My thinking was based on Internet reading from around the time Pfizer began promoting their release. Until I talk to a health care person spiking me, that's the guidance I will keep built in my head.A week after the second vaccination, the effectiveness rate hits 95%.
i wonder what the average X months/years is for an average person is just going to try to go back to 'normal' things in their life because THEY JUST CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE, heedless of the self risk of infection (excluding the average Trumpist, where X = 0 minutes)LordMortis wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 5:40 pm
Also I won't do this forever and I can only imagine I'm more patient than the average person. A year is a lot of time to give up and we're already approaching giving up a year of our lives.
Even better:The two vaccines available now — one by Pfizer and another by Moderna — require two doses: a priming shot and then a booster three or four weeks later, depending on which company’s injection you get.
But another vaccine on the horizon — developed by Johnson & Johnson — would require only a single dose.
...
The vaccine is still in development, but the New Brunswick-based company is expected to release the findings of its Phase 3 clinical trial — known as “Ensemble” — later this month, the company says.
“We hope to have that information very soon,” Johnson & Johnson CEO Alex Gorsky said Monday at J.P. Morgan’s annual health care conference.
The company aims to meet the necessary benchmarks by as early as Jan. 21, according to reports. Johnson & Johnson did not respond to a request for comment regarding its timeline.
As great as it would be here in the U.S. right now, it likely has more significance for other parts of the globe in terms of delivery.Like Oxford/AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine also doesn’t require ultra-cold storage like Pfizer’s version does.
“The vaccine technology we’ve used can remain stable for two years at -4° F, and at least three months at 35 [to] 46° F, which is about the temperature of your home refrigerator,” Mammen said in the statement.
Many experts believe vaccines like the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca doses can be more rapidly scaled up and more easily delivered, as they don’t require special freezers.