Covid-19 News/Discussion

[ET80]

1 hour ago, MWil23 said:

To be fair, I do think that labeling everyone with reservations "anti-vaxx" is completely disingenuous at worst, or ill-informed at best. I personally know and have talked to two separate people who just scheduled a vaccination appointment now that Pfizer is FDA approved.

Likewise, the opposite is also true - it's not a safe assumption to assume everyone is on board following FDA approval (not saying you're suggesting this, of course).

My anecdotal experience has been that new excuses are popping up - and these new excuses are MUCH dumber now, bluntly speaking. 

If someone in good faith was waiting for this and does get it now, kudos to them - I legitimately love those people and am excited that they got what they wanted and are now protected. It's those who STILL find these asinine excuses to avoid this vaccine who deserve the vitriol they're getting.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

1 hour ago, MWil23 said:

To be fair, I do think that labeling everyone with reservations "anti-vaxx" is completely disingenuous at worst, or ill-informed at best. I personally know and have talked to two separate people who just scheduled a vaccination appointment now that Pfizer is FDA approved.

I mean, did they think they wouldn’t?
 

”I know we gave EUA and half the country is already vaxxed, but nah”

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

3 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Likewise, the opposite is also true - it's not a safe assumption to assume everyone is on board following FDA approval (not saying you're suggesting this, of course).

My anecdotal experience has been that new excuses are popping up - and these new excuses are MUCH dumber now, bluntly speaking. 

If someone in good faith was waiting for this and does get it now, kudos to them - I legitimately love those people and am excited that they got what they wanted and are now protected. It's those who STILL find these asinine excuses to avoid this vaccine who deserve the vitriol they're getting.

“It was rushed”

[BayRaider]

1 hour ago, MWil23 said:

To be fair, I do think that labeling everyone with reservations "anti-vaxx" is completely disingenuous at worst, or ill-informed at best. I personally know and have talked to two separate people who just scheduled a vaccination appointment now that Pfizer is FDA approved.

Exactly. I know of at least 6-7 people who have now gotten vaccinated this week due to looming FDA Approval. Some a few days before, since it was announced it’ll likely be Monday. 

I was vaccinated Tuesday because I was finally comfortable with the research, especially after talking to other people with Autoimmune diseases who received the shor. But looming FDA Approval the following week certainly helped. 

I’m hoping this will cause a surge in California. Currently we are 55% Fully Vaxxed and 68% One Dose. I’m hoping due to the FDA Approval, we can see that 55% shoot up to past 60% in the next three weeks, but that may be very wishful thinking. 
 

 

Edited August 24, 2021 by BayRaider

[MWil23]

18 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I mean, did they think they wouldn’t?
 

”I know we gave EUA and half the country is already vaxxed, but nah”

One of those two was also pregnant at the time. Regardless, I don't fault anyone who waited for FDA approval, personally.

[Deadpulse]

44 minutes ago, ET80 said:

BAH GAWD HE BROKE HIM IN HALF!!!

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

Just now, MWil23 said:

One of those two was also pregnant at the time. Regardless, I don't fault anyone who waited for FDA approval, personally.

Imo if you’re doing a risk assessment, I think any reasonable person could look at pretty much any verifiable data and conclude that any risk associated with the vaccine pales in comparison to that of covid.

”I’m just being cautious” rings somewhat hollow.

[MWil23]

4 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Imo if you’re doing a risk assessment, I think any reasonable person could look at pretty much any verifiable data and conclude that any risk associated with the vaccine pales in comparison to that of covid.

”I’m just being cautious” rings somewhat hollow.

You're absolutely entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with you when one of those individuals has a history of blood clot issues.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

2 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

You're absolutely entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with you when one of those individuals has a history of blood clot issues.

Science does.

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1005

At least statistically you’re significantly more likely to have clotting issues from covid than the vaccine.  Or pregnancy alone for that matter, which is 1/1000.

And the blood clotting concerns were only ever related to J&J. I think they’ve attribute a couple dozen clots to that vaccine out of like 9 million vaccines administered.

These aren’t my opinions, simply facts.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

I get the concern, but some people seemingly want a guarantee that they won’t have any issues at all.  That’s simply not how vaccines or healthcare or medications work.

There is a risk, but it’s significantly lower than the alternative.

[JonStark]

57 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Imo if you’re doing a risk assessment, I think any reasonable person could look at pretty much any verifiable data and conclude that any risk associated with the vaccine pales in comparison to that of covid.

”I’m just being cautious” rings somewhat hollow.

I don't necessarily agree with this. Not everyone has the time to get the fish through all of the research available to find out what's legitimate or the mental capability to actually understand it, which is why the major news stations are so at fault for the vaccine rollout. It was either "too much risk, you're going to die" or "get the vaccine or you're a bad person" instead of actually presenting the reasoning behind why the vaccine is just as safe as others and is working. Just because you think it's easy enough to find the correct information doesn't mean someone who has always had trouble with science does.

[skywindO2]

I can understand people having concern and wanting to wait for full FDA approval but my own personal experience with people that spouted that line is that they were also the first and loudest voices ignoring, disregarding, and criticizing other COVID safety measures. FDA approval was never going to move the needle for them, they're only moving the goal posts even further.

Edited August 24, 2021 by skywindO2

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

6 minutes ago, JonStark said:

I don't necessarily agree with this. Not everyone has the time to get the fish through all of the research available to find out what's legitimate or the mental capability to actually understand it, which is why the major news stations are so at fault for the vaccine rollout. It was either "too much risk, you're going to die" or "get the vaccine or you're a bad person" instead of actually presenting the reasoning behind why the vaccine is just as safe as others and is working. Just because you think it's easy enough to find the correct information doesn't mean someone who has always had trouble with science does.

Then maybe they should stop trying to determine this stuff on their own and just listen to their doctor or the cdc or the surgeon general, etc.

[BobbyPhil1781]

17 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

No problem. 

Yes, companies start it earlier, how early depends on how important pediatric treatment is. If the drug is specifically made for kids and not for adults, they still have to dose in healthy adult volunteers first, but in that case the company would run all of the pediatric-related studies as early as possible to have the best idea whether it will work or not as early as they can to minimize risk.

Juvenile studies are not done in rhesus monkeys (or macques, they look like Rafiki and weigh 10 to 20 pounds), because they age too slowly. The studies would take years, so we have to use rats and mice, which become fully grown adults in ~90 days. Same reason we have to use rats and mice in studies to figure out if a drug causes cancer, dosing the whole lifespan of a monkey would outlast the patent protection.

And yes, when the primate data came out it was a big deal. The Phase 1 data was the slam dunk put the rent on it day, but primate data is usually more valuable than any other species except human since it's the species closest to us by a country mile. No substitute for human data though.

And yes, it sounds like they've gotten approval to dose down to 6 months. I would hope this is a very small group of infants, and that most of them are getting antibodies from mom's double jab. That's part of why I group gestational studies and juvenile studies together mentally; two different approaches to get immunity in infants.

100% correct, and a critically important point. The slogan we use to illustrate this is "children are not small adults"; it's at the top of the first slide of every Powerpoint presentation ever about pediatric drug development. And yes, we have physiological data for every single year so we can treat them all separately, all the way down to 0 week newborn, 1 month infant, etc. There are people who advertise being able to do stuff with -4 week old babies (mom is 8 months pregnant), but I think it's a reach.

That makes sense about the monkeys and that's something I never thought about. I guess I never really thought about why mice and rats were used in a lot of studies but when you bring up that point, it really does make a lot of sense. I'm sure there's other underlying variables that I'm also not thinking about but that's simply b/c I've never questioned why they're being used.

That's crazy they've (potentially) gotten approval down to 6 months. I was curious if newborns from vaccinated individuals would carry over the mom's immunity either from vaccination or natural infection and I'm guessing it does based on your comments.

Thanks for helping me understand a lot during this whole ordeal. As I've said countless times in here, I've learned a lot about stuff I've never known about. Even if all it does is get me a gold star in bar trivia, I'm still always glad to learn something.

[BobbyPhil1781]

11 hours ago, KManX89 said:

If you and a group of survivors are hiding out in a mall during a zombie outbreak just trying to make it out in one piece and some (Cov?)idiot WITHOUT a gun gets up and shouts "zombies aren't real! It's all a government hoax!" despite there literally being thousands of dead, decaying and munched corpses everywhere and sent them after you after getting himself devoured, I'm willing to bet you'd have some "choice" words for that guy while running for your life.

Now how do you think that relates to this?

And I'm not giving him credit for trying to damage control him downplaying the virus for an entire year.

He never said the virus was a hoax though. That's poor journalism that should be credited w/ that constantly being used. Downplayed, yes, but that's not the word you used. It's never the word people used.

That's fine you won't give him credit. That's your right and your choice. I will ALWAYS give people credit when they admit they were wrong and do something to try to fix it. I would think any sane adult would..... I've preached self-reflection and admitting to being wrong, being able to put your pride aside, and grow as an individual and that's what is happening here. It's better than continuing to tell people not do the right thing isn't it? I don't give two ****s about the guy either regardless of what any of you think. The boos also contradict the "cult" theory but whatever, that's not the point. The point is someone is trying to get a huge group of people, a lot against the vaccine, to get vaccinated and further help get rid of this thing and y'all are finding a way to criticize it. IMO, that's corny.