Coronavirus (NO POLITICAL OR SOCIAL COMMENTARY PLEASE)

[MrHT]

Originally Posted by mar3o

They are not going to release a vaccine to the world that is dangerous and could cause illness/health disorders/death to possibly millions of healthy individuals. It would destroy people's trust in vaccines that would lead to countless other diseases making a comeback. They know this. Nobody will risk this. We're not talking about a drug being released from a big-pharma company that may or may not be withholding certain findings from their own funded studies just to get it to market. We're talking about a vaccine that will be released worldwide, and that will get a ton of scrutiny from leading scientists and medical professionals before being released.

Count my parents in as one of the anti-vaxxers. The other day, my mom was like "don't you dare" when I told her that I will be first in line when a vaccine is released. Despite what my parents say, I still plan to run out and get one. They probably will never speak to me again...

[VictoryAtNight]

Had to report back to work at the start of this month. It took a bit of adjusting to working a full 8 hour work day again.

We are required to wear our face mask at all times, except when you are at your own cubicle/office. Even when heading to the bathroom, using the copier, etc., we are instructed to use our face mask.

[LordoftheRings]

The world ... WHO

• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-53227219

[Lee A Stewart]

In 1905 the Supreme Court addressed mandatory vaccinations in regard to smallpox in Jacobson v Massachusetts [2]. There the Court ruled that the police power of a state absolutely included reasonable regulations established by legislature to protect public health and safety [2]. Such regulations do not violate the 14th Amendment right to liberty because they fall within the many restraints to which every person is necessarily subjected for the common good [3]. Real liberty for all cannot exist if each individual is allowed to act without regard to the injury that his or her actions might cause others; liberty is constrained by law. The Court went on to determine in Jacobson that a state may require vaccination if the board of health deems it necessary for public health or safety [4].

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org...idemic/2006-04

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by MrHT

Count my parents in as one of the anti-vaxxers. The other day, my mom was like "don't you dare" when I told her that I will be first in line when a vaccine is released. Despite what my parents say, I still plan to run out and get one. They probably will never speak to me again...

That's unfortunate to hear, but I'm glad to hear that you will do the right thing. I hope they don't hold it against you. The funny thing is, I bet when they were growing up they had their vaccines. And they were fine. That's something the anti-vaxxers conveniently ignore.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...sco-180961994/

That was 44 years ago. It was unfortunate but not a good excuse for becoming an anti-vaxxer.

Maybe I should point out how vaccines are the reason you don't have to worry about measles or polio? I knew a friend growing up that had polio because his mother didn't get him the shot. Vaccines are also given to travelers so you don't end up getting something you really don't want.

On its website, the CDC notes that people who got the vaccination did have an increased risk of “approximately one additional case of GBS for every 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine.”

There have been mistakes made in hospitals. In fact mistakes happen in hospitals every day, every hour. Lots of people sadly never leave the hospital that should, due to mistakes or infections contracted at the hospital. Yet it's not a great idea to skip the hospital when you're shot or having a heart attack or need a transplant. Sometimes the benefit outweighs the risk.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Hayabusa85

I don't know what you are not getting about the fact that in order to test potential long term complications you need long term trials and only time can control that. All these things like funding, resources, scrutiny and blah, blah, blah don't fast forward time unless somebody stumbles on time travel in the process. Governments the world over have already put economy before public safety and continue to do so every day so why stop with a vaccine? One unsubstantiated article was all it took for a few world leaders to start pushing medication that could be dangerous and it lead to some deaths. And nonsense we have seen like shooting up hand sanitizer? That was tide pod challenge levels of stupidity but that was at least dumb kids trying to get noticed on social media and not grown men endorsing it.

China are about to skip the most important phase of testing vaccine safety and go straight to testing on large groups with their military getting go be guinea pigs so they are very much trying to rush it since they think they can wipe their hands clean of what they caused if they get a vaccine out first.

So yes if we see a vaccine even in the next year it will very much be that they are willing to risk it. If we don't see one for a few years there would still be risks since you can't test 10 year side effects or anything like that but at least it would have gone through some longer term trials. Anything before that? Hell no.

And yeah we are not talking something big pharma want to profit off of......

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bi...-it-2020-06-24

And this is why this vaccine won't be effective and get us herd immunity. Too many simply won't get it even if it's free (which it will be).

We're in the middle of a pandemic. Sometimes the benefit outweighs the risk. You want to sit around 5-10 years waiting while COVID-19 takes it's toll on millions of people?

[Hayabusa85]

Originally Posted by mar3o

That was 44 years ago. It was unfortunate but not a good excuse for becoming an anti-vaxxer.

Not trusting a rushed vaccine is not the same as being an anti-vaxxer and how long ago that happened is irrelevant. It can happen now just as easily as it happened then if the correct procedures are ignored. Which China are doing in their effort to be the first.

Maybe I should point out how vaccines are the reason you don't have to worry about measles or polio? I knew a friend growing up that had polio because his mother didn't get him the shot. Vaccines are also given to travelers so you don't end up getting something you really don't want.

Sure you are welcome to point out those vaccines which prove the point.

https://www.history.com/news/measles-vaccine-disease

It took more than a decade for scientists to develop a single-shot vaccine that worked to fend off the measles without causing high fevers and rashes

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-...-polio-vaccine

In 1954, clinical trials using the Salk vaccine and a placebo began on nearly two million American schoolchildren. In April 1955, it was announced that the vaccine was effective and safe, and a nationwide inoculation campaign began. Shortly thereafter, tragedy struck in the Western and mid-Western United States, when more than 200,000 people were injected with a defective vaccine manufactured at Cutter Laboratories of Berkeley, California. Thousands of polio cases were reported, 200 children were left paralyzed and 10 died.

That was almost a decade after he started work on the vaccine and it still went wrong. Not to mention both of these were after hundreds of years of the diseases existing and many other failed vaccines.

How about we go really recent with the dengue fever vaccine that has killed hundreds in the Philippines as of last year....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengvaxia_controversy

What this vaccine did is called antibody-dependent enhancement which in the simplest terms means it makes it worse instead of better. If you go back through my posts you will see I have mentioned ADE results with COVID-19 vaccine candidates. I'll give you one guess what ADE stands for.

ADE has been observed in previous attempts to develop coronavirus vaccines. To add to the concern, antibodies typical of ADE are present in the blood of some COVID-19 patients.

There have been mistakes made in hospitals. In fact mistakes happen in hospitals every day, every hour. Lots of people sadly never leave the hospital that should, due to mistakes or infections contracted at the hospital. Yet it's not a great idea to skip the hospital when you're shot or having a heart attack or need a transplant. Sometimes the benefit outweighs the risk.

A botched surgery every now and then isn't even slightly comparable to what damage could be done with a rushed vaccine.

We're in the middle of a pandemic. Sometimes the benefit outweighs the risk. You want to sit around 5-10 years waiting while COVID-19 takes it's toll on millions of people?

You don't rush a vaccine because people are in panic mode and have a save us now mentality. You don't rush a vaccine because you want to save face and be the first to have a vaccine for a virus you are responsible for. You don't rush a vaccine because you have an ego that needs to be stroked with credit for being number one as you are about to hit the campaign trail. You don't rush a vaccine because you care more about the economy than public health. Again vaccines take years for a reason and no the benefit doesn't outweigh the risk of a vaccine that could do more damage than the virus itself.

If 5-10 years is what it takes to properly test a vaccine then yes but I hate to break it to you, realistically a safe and effective vaccine is unlikely to even exist in that timeline. Also realistically it will burn itself out long before then like these viruses always do. Fun fact: out of the 20 worst epidemics/pandemics in human history only one has ever had a cure. There has also never been a vaccine for any strain of coronavirus and they have been around since the 1930's but you think that in less than a year they will just magically pull a safe vaccine out of their asses for a new strain? You don't see the problem with a country like China skipping the most crucial phase of vaccine trials that ensure safety because they are trying to rush it out? You really think people should blindly trust a vaccine when things like that are happening?

Even if they get lucky and don't do more damage with a rushed vaccine then there is a good chance it won't protect who it needs to protect the most. The older you get the less responsive you become to vaccines so the only way to protect the older generations is to extensively test and adjust the vaccine. Even then they will likely need to get vaccinated more than once and that increases the risk. The best fight against this will continue to be people not being selfish and taking the right precautions.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by mar3o

That's unfortunate to hear, but I'm glad to hear that you will do the right thing. I hope they don't hold it against you. The funny thing is, I bet when they were growing up they had their vaccines. And they were fine. That's something the anti-vaxxers conveniently ignore.

You think they ignore it? Vaccine Injury Compensation Programs exist in almost every developed country today (Canada is the only G7 country without one) because not all of the parents' generation were fine following vaccinations. Most of these programs were introduced in the 1980s, and that was before the vaccination schedule more than tripled.

Some 100% pro-vaccination infectious disease specialists in Canada have been calling for Canada to rectify this discrepancy for some time now - https://www.jstor.org/stable/41995722

[dobyblue]

It's a telling statistic:

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Agreed.
Yeah, I’m not at all concerned about safety profile of the chosen one. Sure, at worldwide launch they may miss some contraindications to the administration of the vaccine, like a history of long term use of this or that medication or some other association to some disease a person could have concurrently, but the risk to the general population will likely be very low, for that matter, much lower than the chance of young people becoming infected and hospitalized for COVID-19 which seems a very acceptable risk these days by lots of folks not following public health guidelines (mask wearing, social distancing, etc.).

Can you define "much lower"?

Lots of medical professionals in Canada don't seem concerned about the risk to young people, it must be pretty small.

Over 1000 physicians in Quebec have called on the premier to ease restrictions for schools (they went back weeks ago):

The letter notes that many recent studies have demonstrated that children are unlikely to catch the virus or to suffer serious health effects if they do, and transmission of the virus from children to adults is rare.

The physicians acknowledge it was necessary to close schools and daycares and shut down sports activities at the beginning of the pandemic, but given more recent scientific findings, they say some of the more extreme measures should now be reassessed.

The physicians are demanding that:

*the two-metre distancing rule not apply to children under 12 years old,
*children under 12 not be required to wear face coverings,
*adults caring for or teaching children wear transparent masks and protective eyewear, rather than visors, so that children can see them smile and see their lips when they talk,
*all individual and group sports activities for children and adolescents resume as soon as possible, and
*the use and sharing of educational materials and toys be permitted without the need for disinfection between each use.

https://montrealgazette.com/news/que...s-for-children

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Posting clip of alternative scientific opinion that isn't conspiracy theory nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZIX...ature=youtu.be

This video makes many valid points, he's not the only one speaking out either but the media have their narrative to follow.

@gummibear737
Stockholm is the best population to test Covid theory whereby it was hit hard early and did not have lockdowns.

Nobel Prize winner Dr Michael Levitt postulated that the virus burns out when it has infected 15-20% of the population.

According to this, he's right:



Based on the above:

[bruceames]

I agree, the only thing the makes sense why the Northeast isn't getting hit right now is because they've already been hit hard. The fact that New York's cases went down so quickly is attributed to partial herd immunity more than any other factor.

The South and West were spared since the epicenter was in New York and it spread through the Northeast. But upon reopening the high density zones in the South and West inevitably caught fire and its spreading regionally throughout the South and West.

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by Batman1980

My apologies, I do think Canada is better, agree to disagree.

Typical Canadian. He's apologizing for your compliment...

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by mar3o

That was 44 years ago. It was unfortunate but not a good excuse for becoming an anti-vaxxer.

Maybe I should point out how vaccines are the reason you don't have to worry about measles or polio? I knew a friend growing up that had polio because his mother didn't get him the shot. Vaccines are also given to travelers so you don't end up getting something you really don't want.



There have been mistakes made in hospitals. In fact mistakes happen in hospitals every day, every hour. Lots of people sadly never leave the hospital that should, due to mistakes or infections contracted at the hospital. Yet it's not a great idea to skip the hospital when you're shot or having a heart attack or need a transplant. Sometimes the benefit outweighs the risk.

Dude. Stop deflecting.

I'm not saying I'm an anti-vaxxer.

You stated 'They are not going to release a vaccine...that is dangerous'.

It has happened before. Doesn't matter that it was 44 years ago - idiocy/greed/hubris doesn't have a statute of limitations.

Doesn't mean it'll happen this time - but unlike your embracement of absolutes...it 'could' happen.

[bruceames]

It does make sense that herd immunity could be much lower, as the the people most likely to get aren't typical of the population as a whole.

"Basically, the virus stymies itself by disproportionately removing those most useful to it from contributing to its future transmission".

The younger people are mostly getting it now, those in high risk or just being careless. Once you take them out of the equation, it becomes much safer for everyone. Hopefully Dr. Levitt and like minded scientists are correct that the classic R0 equation is too simplified and needs to account for variation in the population as to who gets it first.

https://reason.com/2020/05/15/whats-...9-coronavirus/

[Lacit170]

Originally Posted by mar3o

https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-med...150116185.html

The Texas Medical Center scrubbed data showing ICU beds at full capacity as the state's coronavirus cases spike



Funny thing about Connecticut and Rhode Island being the two states showing a decline - in Rhode Island, masks are required. And people comply. And it seems to be working.

We're #1, We're #1 !!!

likely becuase RI, NY and CT were some of the first states hit hard by Covid, we're gotten past the initial wave and hopefully we dont see a round two come fall time...

but yes, almost everyone you see here wears a masks and does the right thing when out and about.

Originally Posted by mar3o

That's unfortunate to hear, but I'm glad to hear that you will do the right thing. I hope they don't hold it against you. The funny thing is, I bet when they were growing up they had their vaccines. And they were fine. That's something the anti-vaxxers conveniently ignore.

wouldnt it also mean that Mr H's parents didnt vaccinate Mr H....and he turned out just fine?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Hayabusa85

I don't know what you are not getting about the fact that in order to test potential long term complications you need long term trials and only time can control that.

Seems you and mar3o are debating between *good* and *perfect* with regard to a vaccine.

Originally Posted by Hayabusa85

So yes if we see a vaccine even in the next year it will very much be that they are willing to risk it. If we don't see one for a few years there would still be risks since you can't test 10 year side effects or anything like that but at least it would have gone through some longer term trials. Anything before that? Hell no.

trust in Tony - a vaccine could be developed by, but no more than a month or two sooner than 1-1 ½ years (from Jan 1, 2019) and be safe, ‘safe’ meaning with regards to not producing allergic reactions or facilitating enhanced virus response - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...e#post17569344
It’s also reassuring that in June Tony has stated “There is no chance in the world that I’m going to be forced into agreeing to something that I don’t think is safe and scientifically sound. I’ll guarantee you that.”

As I said on the last page, it’s certainly possible some rare adverse effect(s) may be unknown at launch and be picked up later given much more time and distribution, but that is considered an acceptable risk, similar to I think most people needing hip or knee replacement and patients accepting a 1% infection rate with the surgery.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Hayabusa85

What this vaccine did is called antibody-dependent enhancement which in the simplest terms means it makes it worse instead of better. If you go back through my posts you will see I have mentioned ADE results with COVID-19 vaccine candidates. I'll give you one guess what ADE stands for.

I’m interested, as I referenced the concept too, back in April which contained an extensive summary table of ADE observed with other different viral infections - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6290032/

I can’t find your original post discussing ADE and cov-sars-2 vaccines in development using search word 'antibodies', 'ADE'.... can you point me to it? Do you have a data set with regards to the bolded in your original post?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Can you define "much lower"?

Well I don’t like to be pinned down to an exact number because, if not realized, people would be disappointed and more, but I’m thinking in the <1-2% range, e.g. in the 10ths or hopefully 100ths %, certainly less than the infection rate related to hip or knee surgery at many hospitals which the general population accepts that risk in order to have the TKR or THR done.