Covid-19 News/Discussion

[ET80]

3 hours ago, BayRaider said:

J&J is not traditional. 

The only "traditional" one would be NovaVax which uses the same method as a Flu shot, subunit protein vaccine. Although even NovaVax is not your typical inactivated/dead virus type of vaccine which is really "traditional". Those by far take the longest to develop, whereas mRNA is quite fast (and even faster under Operation Warp-speed). The only traditional COVID Vaccine out is the Sinopharm in China, and its effectiveness is under 50% and with the greatest side effects so far. That one was definitely rushed by China as traditional vaccines should NOT be that fast under any circumstances. 

Well said...

[ET80]

4 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

We should probably note that the length of time we've been working isn't why they are successful in this case. mRNA vaccines are superior as general candidates for a viral vaccine for a few reasons. Off the top of my head:

• Effectively zero direct safety concerns. 
  • Before everyone loses their mind, the word direct is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
  • The active part of the vaccine is a big strand of mRNA, which is just a big salt helix-y brick folded in on itself a bunch. Occasionally, it will be broken up by a stray water molecule and then disintegrate into bases used for other RNA, but otherwise, it doesn't interact with much of anything in the body. This is a huge deal. Most drugs can interact with all sorts of receptors that have a variety of effects, not here.
  • It's a single dose that is cleared from the body within about 24 hours. In other words, there are no long term effects from the drug. It's gone faster than the Advil you took after to calm your headache. So many drugs work well in small, single doses, but accumulate over time when taken repeatedly or develop enzymatic changes in the body over time. Worse yet, sometimes the body can develop immune reactions to biologic drug treatments after multiple doses. None of those concerns here. Also no concerns about drug-drug interactions. Those "medical errors" people talk about: yeah DDIs are a huge one. Non-factor.
  • It doesn't contain any live viral material, and the only "activity" or "purity" is the gene sequence of the vaccine, which we've been perfecting manufacturing for since the 1950's. You can get machines to custom make you whatever sequence you want (up to a pretty long number of base pairs) at the touch of a button these days. This is huge. If we had to use dead virus, or partial virus and there's a mistake in manufacturing, we may be at risk of infecting people. If there's a manufacturing mistake here, you got a nonsense gene sequence or a broken salt brick that gets disintegrated. No big deal.
  • We produce a vaccine with a sequence of mRNA that only codes one fragment of protein, and we know that the body will encode that protein in an environment where the protein will be immediately destroyed..
  • This is minor, but the injection is the safest dose route as well. There is less room for inter-population variability because we are bypassing the absorption through the intestine (because we have to). But everyone is getting the same dose here, whereas with things like eyedrops that may be more convenient, the amount you get person to person can vary wildly.
• Treatable indirect safety concerns
  • So the safety concerns that do exist are immune system related, because this works by stimulating the immune system to produce antibodies based on the protein encoded from the sequence of the vaccine. All we need to do is manage the immune spike, and those are the side effects that we all feel. Good news is that we know how to do this, and the side effects are going to be temporary/reversible since the vaccine itself is cleared and the immune spike is temporary. 
• Infinite efficacy
  • Most anti-virals suck. They require huge doses (which comes with toxicity) and don't tend to work all that well (hence the huge dose).
  • One of the many reasons for this is that the shape of the molecule has to be really weird because they operate like a big wrench in the gears that drive viral replication. The downside of having a drug that operates like a big wrench is that getting it to the virus (into the bloodstream, then into distant cells, then into the virus from there) is a huge problem.
  • None of those concerns here - this has to be injected but we get the immune system trained to hunt and destroy. That's going to be a complete knockout of the virus, even after the drug is gone. And everywhere too. No concerns about having to dose in the lungs, or if we can cross the blood brain barrier. We get efficacy everywhere, even though the drug itself can't cross into those vulnerable tissues. The best of both worlds.
  • EDIT: I should note many of the same advantages in safety for central nervous system tissues also apply to expecting mothers. The placental barrier will keep the drug out, but we know the antibody protection can be passed on, so we're getting efficacy inheritance with an extra structural safety barrier in the design. I had a few co-workers/friends who specifically elected to get the vaccine while pregnant for this reason.

Pharma isn't going to stop making these because they're controversial in the day-to-day political environment. They're trying to win patents; they're going to use the best product. This is better by design, and when you start factoring in the degree of quality of life improvements that we see from first generation style therapies to second to third, the gap is only going to widen. 

This is getting quoted every page from here on out. I need people who want to argue this to see this EVERY time they post.

[-Hope-]

3 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

For J&J, it makes sense. For general population when we need billions more global doses, I get the benefits but am torn.

with 1% of the developing world vaccinated right now i think it's a grievous injustice and the WHO for all their faults is entirely within their rights to admonish the US as they have.

[pwny]

13 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

We should probably note that the length of time we've been working isn't why they are successful in this case. mRNA vaccines are superior as general candidates for a viral vaccine for a few reasons. Off the top of my head:

• Effectively zero direct safety concerns. 
  • Before everyone loses their mind, the word direct is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
  • The active part of the vaccine is a big strand of mRNA, which is just a big salt helix-y brick folded in on itself a bunch. Occasionally, it will be broken up by a stray water molecule and then disintegrate into bases used for other RNA, but otherwise, it doesn't interact with much of anything in the body. This is a huge deal. Most drugs can interact with all sorts of receptors that have a variety of effects, not here.
  • It's a single dose that is cleared from the body within about 24 hours. In other words, there are no long term effects from the drug. It's gone faster than the Advil you took after to calm your headache. So many drugs work well in small, single doses, but accumulate over time when taken repeatedly or develop enzymatic changes in the body over time. Worse yet, sometimes the body can develop immune reactions to biologic drug treatments after multiple doses. None of those concerns here. Also no concerns about drug-drug interactions. Those "medical errors" people talk about: yeah DDIs are a huge one. Non-factor.
  • It doesn't contain any live viral material, and the only "activity" or "purity" is the gene sequence of the vaccine, which we've been perfecting manufacturing for since the 1950's. You can get machines to custom make you whatever sequence you want (up to a pretty long number of base pairs) at the touch of a button these days. This is huge. If we had to use dead virus, or partial virus and there's a mistake in manufacturing, we may be at risk of infecting people. If there's a manufacturing mistake here, you got a nonsense gene sequence or a broken salt brick that gets disintegrated. No big deal.
  • We produce a vaccine with a sequence of mRNA that only codes one fragment of protein, and we know that the body will encode that protein in an environment where the protein will be immediately destroyed..
  • This is minor, but the injection is the safest dose route as well. There is less room for inter-population variability because we are bypassing the absorption through the intestine (because we have to). But everyone is getting the same dose here, whereas with things like eyedrops that may be more convenient, the amount you get person to person can vary wildly.
• Treatable indirect safety concerns
  • So the safety concerns that do exist are immune system related, because this works by stimulating the immune system to produce antibodies based on the protein encoded from the sequence of the vaccine. All we need to do is manage the immune spike, and those are the side effects that we all feel. Good news is that we know how to do this, and the side effects are going to be temporary/reversible since the vaccine itself is cleared and the immune spike is temporary. 
• Infinite efficacy
  • Most anti-virals suck. They require huge doses (which comes with toxicity) and don't tend to work all that well (hence the huge dose).
  • One of the many reasons for this is that the shape of the molecule has to be really weird because they operate like a big wrench in the gears that drive viral replication. The downside of having a drug that operates like a big wrench is that getting it to the virus (into the bloodstream, then into distant cells, then into the virus from there) is a huge problem.
  • None of those concerns here - this has to be injected but we get the immune system trained to hunt and destroy. That's going to be a complete knockout of the virus, even after the drug is gone. And everywhere too. No concerns about having to dose in the lungs, or if we can cross the blood brain barrier. We get efficacy everywhere, even though the drug itself can't cross into those vulnerable tissues. The best of both worlds.
  • EDIT: I should note many of the same advantages in safety for central nervous system tissues also apply to expecting mothers. The placental barrier will keep the drug out, but we know the antibody protection can be passed on, so we're getting efficacy inheritance with an extra structural safety barrier in the design. I had a few co-workers/friends who specifically elected to get the vaccine while pregnant for this reason.

Pharma isn't going to stop making these because they're controversial in the day-to-day political environment. They're trying to win patents; they're going to use the best product. This is better by design, and when you start factoring in the degree of quality of life improvements that we see from first generation style therapies to second to third, the gap is only going to widen. 

This is great information and I want to make sure this gets boosted again.

With the very first part before all the cool technical aspect, I agree. But I would say that knowing that we’ve been seeing published studies on mRNA research since 1990 and building info on SARS-COV type viruses for potential vaccination since 2002 should go a long while for hesitant people who aren’t full into the conspiracy theories to understand that this wasn’t some rammed through vaccine based on next to no prior scientific knowledge.

We had teams working a combined 50 years (30+20 concurrent) on two different concepts, and then when the entire scientific community stopped every single other thing they were working on to solely focus on figuring out how to make them work, we were able to put together a vaccine within months of that.

It took the time from the late 80’s forward to now with normal progress, and then a workforce hundreds of times larger than any one normal research team would be, working literally 24/7 globally with the most powerful computers in existence on loan from the largest companies in the world, and then the entire bureaucratic and review boards casting aside all their other work to only work on reviewing all the info with this, just to get it to market.

The information is well researched, and as you so greatly explained, is also awesome in how it works. A major win for the scientific community.

[MWil23]

12 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

We should probably note that the length of time we've been working isn't why they are successful in this case. mRNA vaccines are superior as general candidates for a viral vaccine for a few reasons. Off the top of my head:

• Effectively zero direct safety concerns. 
  • Before everyone loses their mind, the word direct is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
  • The active part of the vaccine is a big strand of mRNA, which is just a big salt helix-y brick folded in on itself a bunch. Occasionally, it will be broken up by a stray water molecule and then disintegrate into bases used for other RNA, but otherwise, it doesn't interact with much of anything in the body. This is a huge deal. Most drugs can interact with all sorts of receptors that have a variety of effects, not here.
  • It's a single dose that is cleared from the body within about 24 hours. In other words, there are no long term effects from the drug. It's gone faster than the Advil you took after to calm your headache. So many drugs work well in small, single doses, but accumulate over time when taken repeatedly or develop enzymatic changes in the body over time. Worse yet, sometimes the body can develop immune reactions to biologic drug treatments after multiple doses. None of those concerns here. Also no concerns about drug-drug interactions. Those "medical errors" people talk about: yeah DDIs are a huge one. Non-factor.
  • It doesn't contain any live viral material, and the only "activity" or "purity" is the gene sequence of the vaccine, which we've been perfecting manufacturing for since the 1950's. You can get machines to custom make you whatever sequence you want (up to a pretty long number of base pairs) at the touch of a button these days. This is huge. If we had to use dead virus, or partial virus and there's a mistake in manufacturing, we may be at risk of infecting people. If there's a manufacturing mistake here, you got a nonsense gene sequence or a broken salt brick that gets disintegrated. No big deal.
  • We produce a vaccine with a sequence of mRNA that only codes one fragment of protein, and we know that the body will encode that protein in an environment where the protein will be immediately destroyed..
  • This is minor, but the injection is the safest dose route as well. There is less room for inter-population variability because we are bypassing the absorption through the intestine (because we have to). But everyone is getting the same dose here, whereas with things like eyedrops that may be more convenient, the amount you get person to person can vary wildly.
• Treatable indirect safety concerns
  • So the safety concerns that do exist are immune system related, because this works by stimulating the immune system to produce antibodies based on the protein encoded from the sequence of the vaccine. All we need to do is manage the immune spike, and those are the side effects that we all feel. Good news is that we know how to do this, and the side effects are going to be temporary/reversible since the vaccine itself is cleared and the immune spike is temporary. 
• Infinite efficacy
  • Most anti-virals suck. They require huge doses (which comes with toxicity) and don't tend to work all that well (hence the huge dose).
  • One of the many reasons for this is that the shape of the molecule has to be really weird because they operate like a big wrench in the gears that drive viral replication. The downside of having a drug that operates like a big wrench is that getting it to the virus (into the bloodstream, then into distant cells, then into the virus from there) is a huge problem.
  • None of those concerns here - this has to be injected but we get the immune system trained to hunt and destroy. That's going to be a complete knockout of the virus, even after the drug is gone. And everywhere too. No concerns about having to dose in the lungs, or if we can cross the blood brain barrier. We get efficacy everywhere, even though the drug itself can't cross into those vulnerable tissues. The best of both worlds.
  • EDIT: I should note many of the same advantages in safety for central nervous system tissues also apply to expecting mothers. The placental barrier will keep the drug out, but we know the antibody protection can be passed on, so we're getting efficacy inheritance with an extra structural safety barrier in the design. I had a few co-workers/friends who specifically elected to get the vaccine while pregnant for this reason.

Pharma isn't going to stop making these because they're controversial in the day-to-day political environment. They're trying to win patents; they're going to use the best product. This is better by design, and when you start factoring in the degree of quality of life improvements that we see from first generation style therapies to second to third, the gap is only going to widen. 

TL;DR

Here is what I'm going to assume you're saying:

In regards to the "research"

In regards to the safety risks:

In regards to the long term science and study behind the "data":

In regards to the immune system:

In regards to the credibility of the scientists conducting said study and their credentials:

In regards to you trying to make a valid point:

[pwny]

I was just talking to a NICU nurse who is seeing a spike in COVID patients, including some with pretty serious cases of it.

 

Not great.

[Mox]

15 hours ago, beekay414 said:

And the man routinely says "don't listen to me, I'm a *expletive* moron" when confronted on his podcast lol. Anyone that listens to Joe Rogan for information, and not just his comedy/MMA analysis, is well...I won't go there.

Yeah, he's not a source of information and he admits that. He's an entertaining dude shooting the **** with a bunch of different people.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

2 minutes ago, pwny said:

I was just talking to a NICU nurse who is seeing a spike in COVID patients, including some with pretty serious cases of it.

 

Not great.

Maybe if they’d have exercised more or eaten better…

[incognito_man]

15 minutes ago, pwny said:

I was just talking to a NICU nurse who is seeing a spike in COVID patients, including some with pretty serious cases of it.

 

Not great.

my ex is a medflight nurse who picks up on the ICU as well and heard yesterday it's full of Covid patients and they again have to transform other ICUs into covid wards now. And this, in a city with 80%+ vaccination (granted the hospital serves outlying communities in half the state that don't come close to that).

Edited August 19, 2021 by incognito_man

[MWil23]

Today, I thought to myself:

"I wonder if the people worried about breathing in their own air via masks are also against CPR..."

[TVScout]

An Alabama doctor watched patients reject the coronavirus vaccine. Now he’s refusing to treat them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/08/18/alabama-doctor-unvaccinated-patients-valentine/?utm_campaign=wp_for_you&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_personalizedforyou&utm_content=readinghistory_Health__position1

[MWil23]

16 minutes ago, TVScout said:

An Alabama doctor watched patients reject the coronavirus vaccine. Now he’s refusing to treat them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/08/18/alabama-doctor-unvaccinated-patients-valentine/?utm_campaign=wp_for_you&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_personalizedforyou&utm_content=readinghistory_Health__position1

He's totally within his right to do so, just like I'm totally within my right to move all 3 of my kids from their former Pediatrician based solely off the fact that I don't like their practice or policies. 

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

22 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

He's totally within his right to do so, just like I'm totally within my right to move all 3 of my kids from their former Pediatrician based solely off the fact that I don't like their practice or policies. 

Yeah for sure.

People “fire” their doctors all the time, but generally physicians will continue to put up with a patient’s shenanigans unless they find out they’re lying about meds, Dr. shopping. etc.

I think some people are of the opinion that doctors are required to treat them, and that’s just not so in most settings.

[ramssuperbowl99]

51 minutes ago, TVScout said:

An Alabama doctor watched patients reject the coronavirus vaccine. Now he’s refusing to treat them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/08/18/alabama-doctor-unvaccinated-patients-valentine/?utm_campaign=wp_for_you&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_personalizedforyou&utm_content=readinghistory_Health__position1

He's looking out for his own mental health, the well-being of his staff, and his immuno-compromised patients as well by making sure his waiting room isn't a cesspool. Smart decision.

[JohnChimpo]

12 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Yeah for sure.

People “fire” their doctors all the time, but generally physicians will continue to put up with a patient’s shenanigans unless they find out they’re lying about meds, Dr. shopping. etc.

I think some people are of the opinion that doctors are required to treat them, and that’s just not so in most settings.

Reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where Elaine gets labeled a “difficult patient” and no doctor will treat her.

Edited August 19, 2021 by JohnChimpo