COVID-19 (Wuhan Novel Coronavirus) Pandemic Master Thread

[yzj]

This “experimental” garbage has simply got to stop.

If you have a problem with it you’ve got to take that up with the FDA.

https://www.northwell.edu/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine/frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=Vaccines%20that%20receive%20EUA%20are,several%20months%20after%20vaccination.

Why is the COVID-19 vaccine considered experimental?
Vaccines that receive EUA are considered experimental until the FDA formally approves it. It is possible that a rare side effect will be found after mass vaccination allows a longer term of observation on a larger number of people, but most side effects are picked up in the first several months after vaccination.

[S209]

If you have a problem with it you’ve got to take that up with the FDA.

You know that’s not the FDA website, right? The FDA calls it no such thing.

The reason it only has EUA is because, as you posted, there may be a very rare side effect that wasn’t noted (now no longer a concern, with more than a billion people vaccinated). Risk stratification would be difficult. Also,

For the EUA, it's an average of two months, but for a license, six months are required

Full approval is likely coming in about a month. Are you going to stop calling them “experimental” then? Would you rather expose your children to an “experimental” COVID-19 virus? I assure you, the FDA wouldn’t extend EUA to COVID despite the protection it offers.

[yelped]

Count me in. I’m not recommending that my older teens get the vaccine. And that would be true even if they didn’t have covid antibodies. The risk/ reward of an experimental vaccine with an EUA and a slight known risk of complications just isn’t compelling at their age.

Experimental? You do know that Pfizer and Moderna have both finished their regular lengthy trials by now and have submitted the results for final approval, which should come within the next few weeks. Will you and others stop calling it "experimental" by then? Nevermind that over a billion doses were administered already.

ETA: I see that @S209 has beat me to it.

[avromie7]

You know that’s not the FDA website, right? The FDA calls it no such thing.

The reason it only has EUA is because, as you posted, there may be a very rare side effect that wasn’t noted (now no longer a concern, with more than a billion people vaccinated). Risk stratification would be difficult. Also,

Full approval is likely coming in about a month. Are you going to stop calling them “experimental” then? Would you rather expose your children to an “experimental” COVID-19 virus? I assure you, the FDA wouldn’t extend EUA to COVID despite the protection it offers.

Didn't Israel recently announce a possible link to rare heart issues in young men? Didn't we just find out about a blood clot issue in Women? We simply don't know nearly as much about the side effects of this vaccine and who they affect as we do about an established vaccine like MMR.

Will I get the COVID vaccine? Probably at some point, but I see no reason to rush to take it now. The fact that I had COVID recently makes the argument for waiting even stronger.

Additionally, don't lump together Pfizer, Moderna, Astrazeneca, J&J, and the Russian & Chinese vaccines to prove safety. I want nothing to do with presumed safety by the Russians and Chinese.

[yelped]

Didn't Israel recently announce a possible link to rare heart issues in young men? Didn't we just find out about a blood clot issue in Women? We simply don't know nearly as much about the side effects of this vaccine and who they affect as we do about an established vaccine like MMR.

Will I get the COVID vaccine? Probably at some point, but I see no reason to rush to take it now. The fact that I had COVID recently makes the argument for waiting even stronger.

Additionally, don't lump together Pfizer, Moderna, Astrazeneca, J&J, and the Russian & Chinese vaccines to prove safety. I want nothing to do with presumed safety by the Russians and Chinese.

I'm confused. The first half of this post you seem to be lumping together all the vaccines, and then you say you don't want people to lump them together.

I think 99% of people here would prefer Pfizer/Moderna over J&J and Astra-Zenica. The Russian and Chinese vaccines are not in the picture.

That Israeli "link" was for Pfizer, but as they said, they don't see it in greater numbers than in the general population so it remains to be studied if there is any link. Why did they announce it then? I think @ExGingi has a line for that.

[avromie7]

I'm confused. The first half of this post you seem to be lumping together all the vaccines, and then you say you don't want people to lump them together.

I think 99% of people here would prefer Pfizer/Moderna over J&J and Astra-Zenica. The Russian and Chinese vaccines are not in the picture.

That Israeli "link" was for Pfizer, but as they said, they don't see it in greater numbers than in the general population so it remains to be studied if there is any link. Why did they announce it then? I think @ExGingi has a line for that.

My post was to refute @S209 saying there is nothing more to be seen, and we already know about any possible side effects. I showed 2 recently announced possible side effects as proof that it can still happen.

Again, the reason I lumped everything together (including Russia and China) is because @S209 used all of them together as part of his "proof" that they're safe.

[yzj]

You know that’s not the FDA website, right? The FDA calls it no such thing.

The reason it only has EUA is because, as you posted, there may be a very rare side effect that wasn’t noted (now no longer a concern, with more than a billion people vaccinated). Risk stratification would be difficult. Also,

Full approval is likely coming in about a month. Are you going to stop calling them “experimental” then? Would you rather expose your children to an “experimental” COVID-19 virus? I assure you, the FDA wouldn’t extend EUA to COVID despite the protection it offers.

Do you really think there is tangible risk to an 18 year old with antibodies that justifies taking a vaccine that is experimental, investigational, unapproved, or whatever else you feel comfortable calling it at this point? Ask me three or four years down the line and I might answer differently but right now my answer is no.

[Lurker]

Do you really think there is tangible risk to an 18 year old with antibodies that justifies taking a vaccine that is experimental, investigational, unapproved, or whatever else you feel comfortable calling it at this point? Ask me three or four years down the line and I might answer differently but right now my answer is no.

What do antibodies have to do with waiting 3-4 years?

[S209]

Do you really think there is tangible risk to an 18 year old with antibodies that justifies taking a vaccine that is experimental, investigational, unapproved, or whatever else you feel comfortable calling it at this point? Ask me three or four years down the line and I might answer differently but right now my answer is no.

You said it would be true *without* antibodies. There is no question that the risk of COVID far outweighs any possible hypothetical risks from a vaccine by a factor of tens of thousands.

This includes young healthy people who are not high risk, leaving aside the common effect of being ill for weeks or the risk of transmission to others.

Didn't Israel recently announce a possible link to rare heart issues in young men?

The *hypothetically possible* issue of myocarditis is verifiably far more prevalent among people who have contracted COVID. In fact, in some places myocarditis is responsible for about 7% of COVID deaths. Compare that to Pfizer where 62 cases out of 10 million doses are being investigated (it’s highly implausible that there’s a causal link as there is no virus in the mRNA vaccine, and is a condition that millions are diagnosed with in a typical year).

I will admit that there is more to the discussion if one has had COVID recently and/or has a high level of antibodies. I don’t think I’ve ever dismissed that out of hand.

[S209]

Do you really think there is tangible risk to an 18 year old with antibodies that justifies taking a vaccine that is experimental, investigational, unapproved, or whatever else you feel comfortable calling it at this point? Ask me three or four years down the line and I might answer differently but right now my answer is no.

This is the funny part. You are far over evaluating the risk of a severe side effect from a vaccine in a young healthy person (.0001% at a maximum) and minimizing the chance of severe illness or a moderate or severe medium to long term effect to a young healthy person from COVID (in the single digit percentages). Even with antibodies the risk/reward is probably far more lopsided than you realize.

What if I told you 5% of young people who got the vaccine lost their sense of smell for months and had their baseline oxygen plummet for a week? C’mon, man!

As I’ve said many times, it boils down to people being terrible at intuitive math.

[yzj]

This is the funny part. You are far over evaluating the risk of a severe side effect from a vaccine in a young healthy person (.0001% at a maximum) and minimizing the chance of severe illness or a moderate or severe medium to long term effect to a young healthy person from COVID (in the single digit percentages). Even with antibodies the risk/reward is probably far more lopsided than you realize.

What if I told you 5% of young people who got the vaccine lost their sense of smell for months and had their baseline oxygen plummet for a week? C’mon, man!

As I’ve said many times, it boils down to people being terrible at intuitive math.

Math is only as good as the factors that are added up. A teenager in Lakewood who hasn’t gotten COVID by now likely either has some degree of natural immunity or has a lifestyle that doesn’t encompass major exposure to spreader events and is far less likely to contract it than at this point last year. Couple that with the vast majority of the population being vaccinated within the next couple months, and the prevalence of potential spreaders plummeting. The odds of contracting covid for this teenager are quite low. Throw in the odds of serious illness in that age group and you are down to slim to negligible. Running to take a vaccine that has one of the shortest track records in history is just not logical.

[AsherO]

My 20 yo is the only one in our family who didn't get covid.
When they lowered the eligibility age for the vaccine we got him the J&J.  One and done.
And now none of his symptoms are suspected of being covid, and I don't worry that he'll infect an ole man in shul. ( Who actually has to take responsibility for himself and get the vaccine or not come to shul.)

If he has COVID-symptoms it could be COVID. Efficacy of JNJ is below 80%.

[Lurker]

Math is only as good as the factors that are added up. A teenager in Lakewood who hasn’t gotten COVID by now likely either has some degree of natural immunity or has a lifestyle that doesn’t encompass major exposure to spreader events and is far less likely to contract it than at this point last year. Couple that with the vast majority of the population being vaccinated within the next couple months, and the prevalence of potential spreaders plummeting. The odds of contracting covid for this teenager are quite low. Throw in the odds of serious illness in that age group and you are down to slim to negligible. Running to take a vaccine that has one of the shortest track records in history is just not logical.

Do you really believe that with those who think like you and people who agree with Rogen, together with the anti-vax faction, we have a realistic chance of having the vast majority of the country vaccinated within the next few months? And while I agree with a lot of your thinking on this, I'm not sure why you say you'll revisit this in 3-4 years instead of every few months.

[avromie7]

Do you really believe that with those who think like you and people who agree with Rogen, together with the anti-vax faction, we have a realistic chance of having the vast majority of the country vaccinated within the next few months?

Maybe, but I don't think it's my responsibility to take the vaccine for "public health".

And while I agree with a lot of your thinking on this, I'm not sure why you say you'll revisit this in 3-4 years instead of every few months.

+1

[S209]

Math is only as good as the factors that are added up. A teenager in Lakewood who hasn’t gotten COVID by now likely either has some degree of natural immunity or has a lifestyle that doesn’t encompass major exposure to spreader events and is far less likely to contract it than at this point last year. Couple that with the vast majority of the population being vaccinated within the next couple months, and the prevalence of potential spreaders plummeting. The odds of contracting covid for this teenager are quite low. Throw in the odds of serious illness in that age group and you are down to slim to negligible. Running to take a vaccine that has one of the shortest track records in history is just not logical.

Again, your math is off. You’re over evaluating the odds of any side effect from any vaccine, least of all one that has been distributed to as many people as this has. The anti-vaxxer faction has got you. Saying things like “it’s just not logical” or “short track record” distracts from the fact that side effects are always noticed within a few weeks and are certain to be exceedingly rare, on the slim chance they even exist.

There have been hundreds of people a week contracting COVID in Lakewood for the last several months straight, the fact that they haven’t had it previously has no bearing on their ability to get it in the future. There is no such thing as natural immunity, but citing debunked theories seems to be a particular weak spot of yours.

How have your overall COVID predictions been doing this far? Do you think maybe it’s time to revisit some of your decision making?

[yzj]

Do you really believe that with those who think like you and people who agree with Rogen, together with the anti-vax faction, we have a realistic chance of having the vast majority of the country vaccinated within the next few months? And while I agree with a lot of your thinking on this, I'm not sure why you say you'll revisit this in 3-4 years instead of every few months.

Frankly I’m concerned about my child more than about the rest of the country. In 3-4 years assuming it’s a vaccine with a stellar long term track record I would probably recommend my child get it. I’m not an anti vaccer.

[S209]

Frankly I’m concerned about my child more than about the rest of the country. In 3-4 years assuming it’s a vaccine with a stellar long term track record I would probably recommend my child get it. I’m not an anti vaccer.

Of course. I believe he was addressing the part where you say you can rely on the country being vaccinated, he was raising the point that we might not get to that level.

I agree with you that COVID is continually becoming a much lowered threat with each passing day as millions more are vaccinated. However, I still think you’re way underestimating the risks of COVID vs. the vaccine, but that might simply be ignorance.

[Lurker]

Frankly I’m concerned about my child more than about the rest of the country. In 3-4 years assuming it’s a vaccine with a stellar long term track record I would probably recommend my child get it. I’m not an anti vaccer.

Sorry, those were 2 separate points. One addressing your prediction that "the vast majority of the population being vaccinated within the next couple of months" will be a reality, and the other addressing your timeframe for revisiting the risk factors of Covid and vaccination.

[AsherO]

I’m not an anti vaccer.

You’re against getting vaccinated yourself and are spending time on an online forum defending, nay promoting, your position against the vaccine. Sorry mate, you’re textbook definition for anti-vaxxer, no matter how you choose to spell it.

[Lurker]

You’re against getting vaccinated yourself and are spending time on an online forum defending, nay promoting, your position against the vaccine. Sorry mate, you’re textbook definition for anti-vaxxer, no matter how you choose to spell it.

A distinction needs to be made between someone who is anti-vax as a general rule, and those who want to push off getting the Covid vaccine (for whatever reason).