# The COVID-19 Vaccine



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Will you take it?


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Will you take it?


Not until data on any possible long term (>5 years) side effects, the efficacy of the vaccine and how long the antibodies last has been released. Then I will read the data and decide one way or the other.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SLFarmMI said:


> Not until data on any possible long term (>5 years) side effects, the efficacy of the vaccine and how long the antibodies last has been released. Then I will read the data and decide one way or the other.


So your answer is: 
*After it has been out for over two years*


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

HDRider said:


> So your answer is:
> *After it has been out for over two years*


No, because your "after it has been out over two years" assumes that the only thing that matters in my decision is that timeline. If, for example, the vaccine has been out for over 2 years but you are required to get a booster every 5 years due to the antibodies not lasting, I will not get it.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

I'm completely undecided.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

No


----------



## collegeboundgal (Jul 17, 2005)

You left out, "when it becomes mandatory for having a job or living a normal life like going to public places".


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

My bet is my job will eventually require me to take it. But I will hold off as long as possible. And depending on what happens between now and them making it mandatory, I may be looking for a new job.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

I will take it. I have elderly parents and don’t want to risk being the one to get them sick or worse. I want to be able to have dinner with friends etc without taking a risk of giving/receiving the virus. And have at least some faith that big pharma doesn’t want to sully their brand by putting out a dangerous vaccine. Like with thalidomide, nobody will forget it.

I have generally 12-14 employees and we all work together or in small groups, I already expect my most long term staff will be unlikely to get it. And I’m too small of a business in a market with competitors that my staff could easily find new jobs if I pressured them to get it. So I will take one for the team basically, so if there’s an outbreak at work- at least the boss can go in and keep the business partly afloat while I await staff to come back 😀


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

fireweed farm said:


> I will take it. I have elderly parents and don’t want to risk being the one to get them sick or worse. I want to be able to have dinner with friends etc without taking a risk of giving/receiving the virus. And have at least some faith that big pharma doesn’t want to sully their brand by putting out a dangerous vaccine. Like with thalidomide, nobody will forget it.
> 
> I have generally 12-14 employees and we all work together or in small groups, I already expect my most long term staff will be unlikely to get it. And I’m too small of a business in a market with competitors that my staff could easily find new jobs if I pressured them to get it. So I will take one for the team basically, so if there’s an outbreak at work- at least the boss can go in and keep the business partly afloat while I await staff to come back


You might want to do some reading up on the subject. It seems to be unknown if you getting a shot will prevent getting others sick. 


“What’s more, neither the Pfizer nor the Moderna vaccine trials tested whether the vaccines prevent people from being infected with the virus. Those trials, instead, focused on whether people were shielded from developing disease symptoms.”









Here’s what you need to know about the COVID-19 vaccines


There are still important unknowns about how Pfizer’s vaccine and others will work once they get injected in people around the world.




www.sciencenews.org


----------



## HaikuHeritage (Jan 2, 2021)

I'll take it when it's available to me. I was unsure at first, but after reviewing the methodology and the benchmarks it's met in this fast-tracked approval, I am satisfied that it is as safe as any other vaccine. I don't believe it's a silver bullet as we still have some missing data points and I think that the way Covid-19 is evolving will present challenges and make it all a bit of a moving target, but the idea is to reduce transmission at every possible point because no single thing in our arsenal will "fix" the pandemic alone. Social distancing is no trouble for me as a hermity type, wearing a mask in public makes me feel like a badass, getting a shot is NBD since I'm not pregnant, nursing, and do not have a history of allergic reactions. I'm cool with the new world way of reduced human contact in grocery-getting and everything else, too!


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

Redlands Okie said:


> You might want to do some reading up on the subject. It seems to be unknown if you getting a shot will prevent getting others sick.


I’m very much taking it so that I myself don’t get sick. 
If those around me get sick I will be more likely last man standing.
Someone needs to keep she show running.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

fireweed farm said:


> I will take it. I have elderly parents and don’t want to risk being the one to get them sick or worse. I want to be able to have dinner with friends etc without taking a risk of giving/receiving the virus. And have at least some faith that big pharma doesn’t want to sully their brand by putting out a dangerous vaccine. Like with thalidomide, nobody will forget it.
> 
> I have generally 12-14 employees and we all work together or in small groups, I already expect my most long term staff will be unlikely to get it. And I’m too small of a business in a market with competitors that my staff could easily find new jobs if I pressured them to get it. So I will take one for the team basically, so if there’s an outbreak at work- at least the boss can go in and keep the business partly afloat while I await staff to come back 😀



painterswife told provided us with links that show the vaccination would not prevent us from catching or transmitting the virus and it is only intended to reduce symptoms and minimize hospital admissions.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

wr said:


> painterswife told provided us with links that show the vaccination would not prevent us from catching or transmitting the virus and it is only intended to reduce symptoms and minimize hospital admissions.


Whether her link is true or not, would that information not be good reason for you to take it?


----------



## tracylee (Jun 29, 2013)

absolutely not, never!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

fireweed farm said:


> Whether her link is true or not, would that information not be good reason for you to take it?


Never....


----------



## HaikuHeritage (Jan 2, 2021)

wr said:


> painterswife told provided us with links that show the vaccination would not prevent us from catching or transmitting the virus and it is only intended to reduce symptoms and minimize hospital admissions.


I can't wrap my head around why this is a rationale for not taking it... so if you get sick you WANT the symptoms and possibility of hospitalization/dying?


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

wr said:


> painterswife told provided us with links that show the vaccination would not prevent us from catching or transmitting the virus and it is only intended to reduce symptoms and minimize hospital admissions.


Absolutely wrong. The FACTS--
The testing so far has only been to determine if the vaccne would prevent u from getting sick. *That's all they were looking for.* It in no way means it will still allow you to spread it. Knowinghow vaccines work in amplifying clonal B cell rsponse, it's fullyexpected to prevent sprad too, just no testsdone to prove thatyet. They;recoming.
Soory about the typos. My keyboard appears to be haunted.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

doc- said:


> Absolutely wrong. The FACTS--
> The testing so far has only been to determine if the vaccne would prevent u from getting sick. *That's all they were looking for.* It in no way means it will still allow you to spread it. Knowinghow vaccines work in amplifying clonal B cell rsponse, it's fullyexpected to prevent sprad too, just no testsdone to prove thatyet. They;recoming.
> Soory about the typos. My keyboard appears to be haunted.


So if I'm understanding correctly the testing done so far has been to see if the vax stops the illness part of the infection but not in the spread if infected. There have been no tests for spread yet but it's expected to behave as other vaccinations even though this one is a different new type of vaccination? Interesting.


----------



## Grafton County Couple (Sep 20, 2018)

No thanks. I'll take the monetary value instead.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

"We also have at least one example of a vaccine that can end up protecting the vaccinated person more than the community at large, Parikh told me. The flu vaccines are notoriously imperfect in how well they protect against infection, as effectiveness rates fluctuate but tend to be between 40 and 60 percent. That’s better than nothing for the people who get them — especially because we know that, even if you do get sick, having had the vaccine can result in a less severe illness. But, Parikh said, that means that person — vaccinated, less susceptible, and less sick than they otherwise would have been — can still spread influenza around the community.

"That’s the kind of thing scientists are worried about. But they’re also optimistic. “I suspect the answer will be that people will not be able to transmit — that the virus will protect from transmission, because I think there will be enough antibodies made that will neutralize the virus even at the mucosal surface,” said Dr. Warner Greene, senior investigator at Gladstone Institutes, an independent, nonprofit research lab in San Francisco. “But it is just a guess at this point,” he added."

But we don’t know yet if that is true of the COVID-19 vaccines, she told me. That’s because the focus of the clinical trials was narrow. It had to be because of the time constraints. *Scientists wanted to know whether these things prevented illness. They wanted to know whether the drugs were safe. And they got those answers."*









Even After Getting Vaccinated, You Could Still Infect Others


Now that the world has successfully completed history’s fastest development of a new vaccine, you might be wondering why we don’t always just make one this fast…




fivethirtyeight.com


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

fireweed farm said:


> Whether her link is true or not, would that information not be good reason for you to take it?


I never indicated if I would or wouldn’t take it but assumptions seems to be the COVID way. 

The way the vaccine is being distributed in Canada, I have plenty of time to make an informed decision after consulting with my doctor.

I would suggest that if you aren’t aware of the intended purpose of the vaccine, it’s probably best to refrain from insulting others or assuming anyone who wants more information is an anti vaxxer.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

painterswife said:


> "We also have at least one example of a vaccine that can end up protecting the vaccinated person more than the community at large, Parikh told me. The flu vaccines are notoriously imperfect in how well they protect against infection, as effectiveness rates fluctuate but tend to be between 40 and 60 percent. That’s better than nothing for the people who get them — especially because we know that, even if you do get sick, having had the vaccine can result in a less severe illness. But, Parikh said, that means that person — vaccinated, less susceptible, and less sick than they otherwise would have been — can still spread influenza around the community.
> 
> "That’s the kind of thing scientists are worried about. But they’re also optimistic. “I suspect the answer will be that people will not be able to transmit — that the virus will protect from transmission, because I think there will be enough antibodies made that will neutralize the virus even at the mucosal surface,” said Dr. Warner Greene, senior investigator at Gladstone Institutes, an independent, nonprofit research lab in San Francisco. “But it is just a guess at this point,” he added."
> 
> ...


From reading the article the researchers are pointing to 6 months to a year before they can verify transmission or not. So masking and social distancing will still be indicated.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

no really said:


> So masking and social distancing will still be indicated.


When will it ever end?


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Posted 1/2/21 6:30 PM CST

To each , it is their choice. I personally never take any vaccination I can avoid and as Flu A and B corona virus vaccines are of limited value and have 10 to12 months of development and evaluation time, the C19 vaccine warp speed development has relied on data from other corona virus vaccines that might be related to speed development and during the time of the vaccines development, as with other corona viruses, it declined in it's spread at times and also mutated numerous times as all corona viruses have that I have lived through.

After a year of continuing most of my normal activities with the exception of wearing a bandana when inside with others not of my core group and none of my core group getting ill, C19 despite it's increased PR factor, to me is as the various swine flu pandemics with no vaccines since the 1970s that I and my core group have lived through.

With all the media PR of the C19 pandemic, few remember that we weathered the SARS pandemic16 years ago and swine flu pandemic 4 years later.

I also am questioning the differences of this to other corona pandemics because my general practitioner although aware that I avoid vaccinations of this type has taken the opportunity at each of my follow up exams in 2020 to try to hard sell push me to sign up for it and during my last visit , he let slip that his service needed at least 80% participation to avoid losing a chunk of his normal insurance reimbursement extra payments for a "good report card of his service".

I also read an article that in addition to 70% participation nationally being touted for vaccine effectiveness, 70% to 85% was also the participation level to make it profitable to the companies and providers involved.

At the same time , health spokespeople with state and county departments and the main monopoly super hospital here are lamenting that support of the C19 vaccine is down to 49% to 50% nationally from a high of almost 90% in April /May of 2020. 

The director of the hospital even admitted that the majority of 65 year old plus folks accepting the vaccine were nursing home patients and not seniors in the common society.

The used car style hype being used and my experience during this and other pandemics in my lifetime have combined to leave me satisfied to not take a vaccination for C19, continue wearing my bandana face covering as long as it is mandated and allow my vaccination go to someone further back in line who wants it


----------



## 1sttimemom (Mar 1, 2005)

I'm a nurse in a nursing home and we are actually set up to get it very soon. I was a bit nervous about it, but have read up and feel reasonably comfortable with it at this point. I would be more concerned if I was considering pregnancy or something but I'm past that point in my life. It is not currently mandatory for my job, but I suspect it will be at some point. And having been on the front line of this whole thing when it swept through my small town nursing home fairly early in the pandemic I've seen the damage it can do to those at risk. I managed to get through working in extremely close contact with positive patients at a time when we had nothing but cloth masks available (no N95s to be found anywhere!!) to wear with out other PPE. I managed to go through all that and not get sick. But then in Nov my 14 yr old daughter caught it from school and of course I was exposed thru her. My daughter had a stuffy nose and slight sore throat for about 2 days and was just fine. OTOH, I had fever, severe body aches and felt extreme exhaustion. Even after I was finally cleared to go back to work I was so short of breath that could not even hold a normal conversation. I am 47 yrs old, non-smoker, and no serious health issues other than being fat. I do, however, have history of mild asthma (allergen induced) which normally I do not even need any treatment for at all. Whether it was the Covid itself or it caused the asthma to act up I don't know. But it was like having a 3 week long asthma attach and being so short of breath and wheezy was miserable. So yes, I will be getting the vaccine.


----------



## HaikuHeritage (Jan 2, 2021)

no really said:


> So if I'm understanding correctly the testing done so far has been to see if the vax stops the illness part of the infection but not in the spread if infected. There have been no tests for spread yet but it's expected to behave as other vaccinations even though this one is a different new type of vaccination? Interesting.


mRNA vaccines are new, but this is not the first and they aren't, like... BRAND new. 

Here's a good article about them from 2018 from a respected peer-reviewed journal: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243.pdf

Here's something more specific to the vaccines in question from last month: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/why-are-mrna-vaccines-so-exciting-2020121021599


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

.......


----------



## LonelyNorthwind (Mar 6, 2010)

Already took it, 3 days ago. Keep in mind, although new vaccines usually take many years to develop and approve, every lab, every scientist, every available dollar was made available and used soon as the d.n.a. & r.n.a. were released to the world from the labs in China at the beginning of this pandemic a year ago. The efforts to develop a vaccine to fight this virus began immediately in every scientific lab around the globe. Every test, every safeguard, every step possible has been taken. These people want to end this horror just as much as we do. The vaccine is safe, it is effective, it is necessary! Please disregard every political response to this medical emergency.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

HaikuHeritage said:


> mRNA vaccines are new, but this is not the first and they aren't, like... BRAND new.
> 
> Here's a good article about them from 2018 from a respected peer-reviewed journal: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243.pdf
> 
> Here's something more specific to the vaccines in question from last month: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/why-are-mrna-vaccines-so-exciting-2020121021599


Thank you for the links, I have read the Harvard paper recently but not the nature one.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I would prefer people be tested for the antibodies before mandatory vaccinations. 

According to every medical person I have spoke with, I had covid last year. If I had covid I don't need the vaccine. There is no purpose in giving a vaccine to people who had the virus.

The CDC is not clear about if the vaccine makes a person immune or if it just helps your body build antibodies after you are infected.









Understanding How COVID-19 Vaccines Work


Learn how COVID-19 vaccines work and develop immunity to the virus.




www.cdc.gov


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

Danaus29 said:


> I would prefer people be tested for the antibodies before mandatory vaccinations.
> 
> According to every medical person I have spoke with, I had covid last year. If I had covid I don't need the vaccine. There is no purpose in giving a vaccine to people who had the virus.
> 
> ...


I don't believe it's that simple. Would be ideal but doubt that will work.
Like the flu, I expect there will be corona-season and you will need to get an annual booster against it. Just because you have had it last year (may have) does not mean you won't get it next time it sweeps through your region.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

fireweed farm said:


> I don't believe it's that simple. Would be ideal but doubt that will work.
> Like the flu, I expect there will be corona-season and you will need to get an annual booster against it. Just because you have had it last year (may have) does not mean you won't get it next time it sweeps through your region.


So just like the flu they guess on what strain might come along? One of sixteen has had or has it nation wide. One of 1000 has died. What happened to just wait and see. It's just science ???


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Not all immunizations give you immunity for ever. Booster shots are required for many. It is not because the virus changes. It is because the immunity wears off.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

TripleD said:


> So just like the flu they guess on what strain might come along?


I don't think that is known yet.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Flu immunizations wear off. That is the reason they want you not to take them too early in the flu season for younger people. Older persons are given a surgery dose that is supposed to last up to a year.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Flu immunizations wear off. That is the reason they want you not to take them too early in the flu season.


Who is they? I've never had one!


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

fireweed farm said:


> I’m very much taking it so that I myself don’t get sick.
> If those around me get sick I will be more likely last man standing.
> Someone needs to keep she show running.
> View attachment 92971


Similar number to the risk of covid creating serious problems to the general public. 

Everyone should be able to take the trip as they think best.


----------



## Whoo (Apr 28, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Will you take it?


Are you going to take it? I've been taking a poll at work and found 90% are not wanting to take it at this time.


----------



## TxHorseMom (Feb 21, 2011)

I am a healthcare worker and I’ve already had the first injection. I’m due to get the 2nd on the 27th. My only “side effect” has been a sore arm.


----------



## TxHorseMom (Feb 21, 2011)

no really said:


> So if I'm understanding correctly the testing done so far has been to see if the vax stops the illness part of the infection but not in the spread if infected. There have been no tests for spread yet but it's expected to behave as other vaccinations even though this one is a different new type of vaccination? Interesting.


If you stop people from getting the disease, you are thus stopping the spread of it. You can’t spread what you don’t have.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

TxHorseMom said:


> If you stop people from getting the disease, you are thus stopping the spread of it. You can’t spread what you don’t have.


But does the vaccine stop people from getting the disease? According to most of what I've read it doesn't, it simply attempts to lessen the effects of the illness.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Correct, from what I have read.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

As always, I would encourage people to do what they feel is best for them. I would hope the decisions they make are informed but the covid seems to have brought out strong opinions which seems to grant people the right to force their opinions on others.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Someone on here might be able to simply it for me? A couple of counties over the positive testing rate is 23 percent. If those people live through it doesn't that go in the "good" category??? The end result is supposed to be herd immunity...


----------



## HaikuHeritage (Jan 2, 2021)

TripleD said:


> Someone on here might be able to simply it for me? A couple of counties over the positive testing rate is 23 percent. If those people live through it doesn't that go in the "good" category??? The end result is supposed to be herd immunity...


I don't see how herd immunity is supposed to work when antibodies wear off. You can get covid again even if you've already had it, and as I recall it's proving to be worse each time you get it?

Can someone link me to a valid explanation of how this herd immunity thing is supposed to work in this scenario?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

HaikuHeritage said:


> I don't see how herd immunity is supposed to work when antibodies wear off. You can get covid again even if you've already had it, and as I recall it's proving to be worse each time you get it?
> 
> Can someone link me to a valid explanation of how this herd immunity thing is supposed to work in this scenario?


I've read about less than 10 that might have been reinfected but they aren't sure it was actually covid and not residual effects of the first infection.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

HaikuHeritage said:


> I don't see how herd immunity is supposed to work when antibodies wear off. You can get covid again even if you've already had it, and as I recall it's proving to be worse each time you get it?
> 
> Can someone link me to a valid explanation of how this herd immunity thing is supposed to work in this scenario?


We don't know for certain whether immunity from getting COVID is long-lasting or not. There are some indications that it may be possible to get reinfected, but there is still a lot of unknown. Not only is it a case of antibodies, but also of t-cell memory, which may also contribute to longer term protection.

Either way though, even if immunity is time-limited, herd immunity is possible. If you get to around 60% of the people with immunity at the same time, the virus has trouble locating new targets to infect. With no new targets, the virus dies off and retreats to the bat cave or wherever it came from....

Getting to 60% will be difficult if reinfection is possible, because it is a "two steps forward, one step back" kind of situation. That's why we need to go for the cumulative effect of natural immunity, vaccination and continued masking/social distancing. By reducing the number of available targets, we increase the chance of the virus declining.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

HaikuHeritage said:


> I don't see how herd immunity is supposed to work when antibodies wear off. You can get covid again even if you've already had it, and as I recall it's proving to be worse each time you get it?
> 
> Can someone link me to a valid explanation of how this herd immunity thing is supposed to work in this scenario?


Herd Immunity is basically like moving the stepping stones so far a part that the bug can't get across the creek..How far apart?..That depends on how "long the legs are" for any particular bug. This CoV seems to have an intermediate to low infectivity, so maybe an immunity rate as low as 30% will work to keep us all relatively safe....At that point, it will still exist in the population at an "endemic" rate-- kinda like a "summer cold"-- always possible, but very uncommon.

it's not important if antibodies remain in your blood for a long time. What's important is the memory of the cells that make those antibodies....Measles, for instance, leaves a measurable level of antibodies in your blood for your whole life time. Levels of tetanus antibodies fall off progressively after your shot and are often not measurable after one year-- but on exposure to the bug, they rapidly rise and prevent disease even when you haven't been getting those recommended booster shots.

The exact status of long term Cov immunity is not known at this time (too short a history) but there's little reason to believe it won't be long term. A bigger worry is that maybe it'll be like flu that mutates so rapidly that last year's immunity doesn't help much with this year's new strain.(this doesn't seem the case at this point.)


----------



## sharkerbaby (Jan 15, 2016)

doc- said:


> The exact status of long term Cov immunity is not known at this time (too short a history) but there's little reason to believe it won't be long term. A bigger worry is that maybe it'll be like flu that mutates so rapidly that last year's immunity doesn't help much with this year's new strain.*(this doesn't seem the case at this point.*)


I'm wary about this belief as we're only 1 yr_-ish_ into this virus and we're already on at least the 3rd pretty viable variation.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

sharkerbaby said:


> I'm wary about this belief as we're only 1 yr_-ish_ into this virus and we're already on at least the 3rd pretty viable variation.


While several mutant variations have been found in the CoV population, they all seem to have the same antigenicity at this point, more than one year into it...as opposed to say, Influenza which has a dz different H types and a dz & a half N types --total antigen types 12 x 18, not to mention subtypes from less dominant antigns.....On its yearly course around the globe, the dominant type of flu seems to change a couple time each year, one reason it's so hard to predict the right combo for the vaccine to be offered.


----------



## jeepgrrl (Jun 3, 2020)

fireweed farm said:


> Whether her link is true or not, would that information not be good reason for you to take it?


For me, it’s not a good reason to take the vaccine if the symptomatology doesn‘t justify it. I am currently in isolation (until this Saturday), and was very fortunate (but not at all surprised) that I only had very mild, cold-like symptoms (dry sniffles, dry cough) from Covid-19, confirmed on New Year’s Day. I never had a fever, but did lose my sense of taste and most of my sense of smell, too (they are both now starting to return). I was not going to get the vaccination before I was infected, and for the record I don’t get the flu vaccine either. My immune system functions very well on its own and without the aid of human-engineered bioproducts. To the folks who want to get the vaccine, I say go for it, but just know that what they feel is best for them doesn‘t mean that is what is best for (or wanted by) everyone else.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

doc- said:


> While several mutant variations have been found in the CoV population, they all seem to have the same antigenicity at this point, more than one year into it...as opposed to say, Influenza which has a dz different H types and a dz & a half N types --total antigen types 12 x 18, not to mention subtypes from less dominant antigns.....On its yearly course around the globe, the dominant type of flu seems to change a couple time each year, one reason it's so hard to predict the right combo for the vaccine to be offered.


I've recently read about a mutated strain in South Africa and there has been some discussion about scientists lack of certainty that the vaccine will work on it. 

Is it that much different or do you feel there just hasn't been time to study it as closely as the newly mutated strain that's shown up in the UK?


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

wr said:


> I've recently read about a mutated strain in South Africa and there has been some discussion about scientists lack of certainty that the vaccine will work on it.
> 
> Is it that much different or do you feel there just hasn't been time to study it as closely as the newly mutated strain that's shown up in the UK?


Whenever we discuss CoV data and its implications, we always have to qualify it with "_So far _it looks like..." The encouraging thing is that So Far, it looks like this bug doesn't mutate as fast as some others, and mutations that have shown up don't seem to give it anything new to worry about.

The natural course of pathogens is to evolve into less virulent forms while their hosts evolve into more resistant populations. (But things can get worse before they get better.) Even germs have to worry about sustainability.


----------



## jeepgrrl (Jun 3, 2020)

doc- said:


> At that point, it will still exist in the population at an "endemic" rate-- kinda like a "summer cold"-- always possible, but very uncommon.
> 
> I am actually one of those folks that gets a summer cold every summer, unfailingly. It’s not contagious and I usually end up going to work because it doesn’t make me feel bad, it’s just bothersome. But I’ll take that over the flu any day.


----------



## 1sttimemom (Mar 1, 2005)

Just a quick update. I had the 1st of my Pfizer covid vaccines last Saturday. About half of my coworkers also took it and almost all residents at the nursing home I work at also took it. We all did just fine. A few of us had some soreness, maybe a bit tired for a day or so after, etc. I actually had a pretty sore arm and tender/swollen lymph nodes in my armpit on that side. All resolved within about 2 days. The workers were much more whiney than the seniors. The seniors were VERY excited to get it. I'm set to get my 2nd dose at the end of Jan.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

I got the first Moderna shot Dec 23rd. I get the second shot next Wednesday. No side effects from the first one except I was tired the day after it. I couldn't even tell I got the shot by the way my shoulder felt.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Check back with us in a year or two if you are able. Let us know if your "normal" thought patterns have been skewed or if you've been hearing new voices in your head.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I finally got an appointment for my first shot, Monday Jan 25 at 9:30am. 

The notice says I'll schedule my second dose when I get the first one. It doesn't say which vaccine I'll be getting.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I finally got an appointment for my first shot, Monday Jan 25 at 9:30am.
> 
> The notice says I'll schedule my second dose when I get the first one. It doesn't say which vaccine I'll be getting.


Should we care?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> Should we care?


Well that was nice. (sarcasm in case you didn't get it)



Nevada said:


> I finally got an appointment for my first shot, Monday Jan 25 at 9:30am.
> 
> The notice says I'll schedule my second dose when I get the first one. It doesn't say which vaccine I'll be getting.


I am happy for you Nevada. Those who want the vaccine should be able to get it. I hope all goes well for you.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Danaus29 said:


> I am happy for you Nevada. Those who want the vaccine should be able to get it. I hope all goes well for you.


I'm not taking it just for myself. If I have immunity it also helps protect those around me.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I'm not taking it just for myself. If I have immunity it also helps protect those around me.


Are you sure? They are saying you can still get the virus and pass it to others. The only difference is you are not supposed to get a severe case by taking the shot. They give about a 95% chance that you won't get severely ill if you get infected. I believe that is about exactly the same chance you have of getting severely ill if you don't take the shot.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> Are you sure? They are saying you can still get the virus and pass it to others. The only difference is you are not supposed to get a severe case by taking the shot. They give about a 95% chance that you won't get severely ill if you get infected. I believe that is about exactly the same chance you have of getting severely ill if you don't take the shot.


I think you've got your facts wrong.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I will take it. I have my elderly father living with us and another relative going through serious chemo. 

My sister is a nurse practioner, she thinks it is worth taking and I trust her knowledge and years of experience. 

My mom has already had the first shot, said her arm was sore like the flu shot but she feels fine otherwise a week after.

I will also keep trying to eat healthy, take my vitamins and elderberry, and try to make myself a hard target for covid or anything else that comes along. 

I don't plan on having a flat tire but I still carry a spare, ya know?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HaikuHeritage said:


> I don't see how herd immunity is supposed to work when antibodies wear off. You can get covid again even if you've already had it, and as I recall it's proving to be worse each time you get it?
> 
> Can someone link me to a valid explanation of how this herd immunity thing is supposed to work in this scenario?


It's extremely rare for someone to get it twice and the 2nd time tends to be LESS severe in those who get it for a 2nd time.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I think you've got your facts wrong.



Don't think so. We just had a big discussion on this the other day. The vaccines are all claiming a success rate of somewhere around 95% but as far as I know all of them say you can still get the infection and spread it but odds are high you won't get seriously ill. That's why some of us questioned whether these are truly vaccines or basically a form of treatment you take ahead of time.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> I think you've got your facts wrong.


He is mostly right, The vaccine doesn't prevent you from becoming infected with the virus, it helps your body attack the virus. There is some possibility of being contagious during the time you are infected, The purpose of the vaccine is to prevent the virus from turning into covid-19 or at least to reduce the severity. Also, the vaccine is not 100% effective.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> He is mostly right, The vaccine doesn't prevent you from becoming infected with the virus, it helps your body attack the virus. There is some possibility of being contagious during the time you are infected, The purpose of the vaccine is to prevent the virus from turning into covid-19 or at least to reduce the severity. Also, the vaccine is not 100% effective.


I turned on the radio this morning to hear the weather forecast. Right after the news, they interviewed a doctor about Covid-19. He confirmed what I said in the above post, but with a caveat. At this point, it is hypothetical. There are no studies out yet that indicate whether a person who has been vaccinated can become contagious. They believe they can be, but it has not yet been proven.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

“Preliminary data suggest that the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine might also provide some protection against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection”

“From the GRADE evidence assessment, the level of certainty for the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine was type 1 (high certainty) for the prevention of symptomatic COVID-19. Evidence was type 2 (moderate certainty) for the estimate of prevention of COVID-19–associated hospitalization and type 4 (very low certainty) for the estimates of prevention of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and all-cause death.”









The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ Interim...


This report describes the interim recommendation made by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on December 19, 2020, for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥18 years.




www.cdc.gov








So the studies so far show that moderna will likely (1 on a scale of 4) prevent you from having the symptoms of covid, so less likely to end up in the hospital (2 on a scale of 4). Next to no idea about still getting covid and just being a symptomatic (4 on a scale of 4). Those hoping to prevent giving covid to others, might want to be really careful. 
As the new study group participants (the general population) take the vaccine and time goes by we will know more about the vaccines and their side affects. (Thank you to the current study group)

I read that it is suggested to check on the ability of the location you get your shot to handle side affects such as anaphylaxis or other problems. Do not just assume they have the ability to help you if needed.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

My mother got her first shot.


----------



## bamabear44 (Jan 30, 2018)

I think that if you don't have the shot, you may not get to travel state to state, or fly stuff like that eventually...


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

bamabear44 said:


> I think that if you don't have the shot, you may not get to travel state to state, or fly stuff like that eventually...



Airlines might try that but if you ever see roadblocks at state borders checking your papers, you will know it is time to flee to somewhere better off like Venezuela.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> He is mostly right, The vaccine doesn't prevent you from becoming infected with the virus, it helps your body attack the virus. There is some possibility of being contagious during the time you are infected, The purpose of the vaccine is to prevent the virus from turning into covid-19 or at least to reduce the severity. Also, the vaccine is not 100% effective.


The idea is for the vaccine to trigger you to make antibodies against covid-19. So if your body sees the virus it will aggressively go after it before it can replicate. That's the basic idea behind all vaccines. We've all had vaccines for small pox. We don't become carriers of small pox after getting the vaccine..


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HaikuHeritage said:


> I don't see how herd immunity is supposed to work when antibodies wear off.


Can you elaborate on when you believe covid-19 antibodies wear off?


----------



## Jenn (Nov 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> Are you sure? They are saying you can still get the virus and pass it to others. The only difference is you are not supposed to get a severe case by taking the shot. They give about a 95% chance that you won't get severely ill if you get infected. I believe that is about exactly the same chance you have of getting severely ill if you don't take the shot.





MoonRiver said:


> ...they interviewed a doctor about Covid-19. He confirmed ... it is hypothetical. There are no studies out yet that indicate whether a person who has been vaccinated can become contagious. They believe they can be, but it has not yet been proven.


I have gotten the shot, second dose this week. (Moderna) Will post any symptoms I get from that.

I plan to keep wearing mask- to protect from the 5% chance of bad disease for myself and to protect others in case I can shed the virus. I will not feel very comfortable I won't infect love ones until we all have had full vaccination, but am too lazy to mask around them after avoiding them for a long time to protect each other- now lower risk with some of us partially vaccinated.

Figure in 1-3 years they'll better know if we still shed virus post vaccine, and percent risk of that. Not able to do that research yet- virus and vaccine not around long enough for results.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Jenn said:


> I have gotten the shot, second dose this week.


You are fortunate. I understand that rules are changing and the government is not holding back a portion of the vaccine for a second shot. They want everyone to get the first shot.

Why? If it's a two shot vaccine, why is this happening? How really "covered" is a person with just one shot?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> The idea is for the vaccine to trigger you to make antibodies against covid-19. So if your body sees the virus it will aggressively go after it before it can replicate. That's the basic idea behind all vaccines. We've all had vaccines for small pox. We don't become carriers of small pox after getting the vaccine..


I'm just saying what the scientists are saying.


> It sounds alarming at first, neither vaccine is aimed at preventing you from getting an infection.
> 
> “These COVID vaccines are preventing clinical disease, *we don't know if they prevent transmission*,” Dr. Beyrer said.
> It’s important to know the difference between infection and disease. Dr. Moss said just because you are infected or have transmitted coronavirus doesn’t mean you get sick.
> ...


https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/...ction/65-f65cb7ee-24dc-48d0-bc08-8cfb3423a3b6


> Vaccines are a marvel of medicine. Few interventions can claim to have saved as many lives. But it may surprise you to know that not all vaccines provide the same level of protection. *Some vaccines stop you getting symptomatic disease, but others stop you getting infected too*. The latter is known as *“sterilizing immunity”*. With sterilizing immunity, the virus can’t even gain a toehold in the body because the immune system stops the virus entering cells and replicating.


https://theconversation.com/coronav...nfection-heres-why-thats-not-a-problem-152204

Scientists have not yet determined if the Covid-19 vaccine provides sterilizing immunity or not.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wolf mom said:


> How really "covered" is a person with just one shot?


I've read that it's about 70%.


----------



## Jenn (Nov 9, 2004)

Wolf mom said:


> You are fortunate. I understand that rules are changing and the government is not holding back a portion of the vaccine for a second shot. They want everyone to get the first shot.
> 
> Why? If it's a two shot vaccine, why is this happening? How really "covered" is a person with just one shot?


I recognize my good fortune. It is a reward for working as a health care provider this past year, to make up for the risk that work has placed me in (category 1a-1b). Since I am retiring now it is a gift not a work place necessity. My husband (retired) lucked into getting one visiting in another town not restricting who gets a first one- he is category 1b or 2. Now he is home we will see if he can get the second dose on schedule here. 

Research (no doubt changing daily) seems to show 50% or so protection few weeks after dose 1, differs different shot versions and timing. Have not heard how long the one dose protection lasts without the booster, nor if we will need annual or whatever repeats. Might be like flu as more mutations arise. Some will probably make vaccines we have now ineffective. I am hopeful we ill ship out vaccine and get more into people's arms, but still get second doses given. One politician misinformed us about it. I hope the next one's promises about supply come true but politicians are politicians, and they are not at the warehouse or factory seeing the actual supplies.

I am especially concerned to hear the NHS (UK) plans to ration shots by just giving first dose until all have had it. We have no proof of how well that works. There are a few folk who can do alright probably with no shots for a while, and some who really need both doses- especially those risking their lives now fighting it and exposed workers eg grocery store clerks. Hope they all receive their second doses. And our professional opinion here (me and also doc husband) is we should vaccinate all prison and nursing home (NH) staff, but prisoners and residents NH can then be protected in that way (of course quarantine new entrants). And all teachers but not all the students. Getting these more at risk, more likely to be the source of infection folk covered will maximize benefit of shots given.


----------



## alderum (Jan 15, 2021)

fireweed farm said:


> I will take it. I have elderly parents and don’t want to risk being the one to get them sick or worse. I want to be able to have dinner with friends etc without taking a risk of giving/receiving the virus. And have at least some faith that big pharma doesn’t want to sully their brand by putting out a dangerous vaccine. Like with thalidomide, nobody will forget it.
> 
> I have generally 12-14 employees and we all work together or in small groups, I already expect my most long term staff will be unlikely to get it. And I’m too small of a business in a market with competitors that my staff could easily find new jobs if I pressured them to get it. So I will take one for the team basically, so if there’s an outbreak at work- at least the boss can go in and keep the business partly afloat while I await staff to come back 😀


It's well understood that the vaccine WILL NOT stop transmission. It maybe saves 3 days of hospital time but they didn't start logging side effects until 41 days after the first dose.


----------



## alderum (Jan 15, 2021)

HaikuHeritage said:


> I'll take it when it's available to me. I was unsure at first, but after reviewing the methodology and the benchmarks it's met in this fast-tracked approval, I am satisfied that it is as safe as any other vaccine. I don't believe it's a silver bullet as we still have some missing data points and I think that the way Covid-19 is evolving will present challenges and make it all a bit of a moving target, but the idea is to reduce transmission at every possible point because no single thing in our arsenal will "fix" the pandemic alone. Social distancing is no trouble for me as a hermity type, wearing a mask in public makes me feel like a badass, getting a shot is NBD since I'm not pregnant, nursing, and do not have a history of allergic reactions. I'm cool with the new world way of reduced human contact in grocery-getting and everything else, too!


Just make sure you fully understand what it means that vaccines are a 'liability free product.' Imagine if the Thalydimide kids couldn't sue for damages. Oh wait, that's right, they couldn't. Imagine if people couldn't sue and get discovery after being damaged by Vioxx. A drug that killed more people than Vietnam. Same methodology, same regulatory agencies. ETC.


----------



## alderum (Jan 15, 2021)

fireweed farm said:


> I’m very much taking it so that I myself don’t get sick.
> If those around me get sick I will be more likely last man standing.
> Someone needs to keep she show running.
> View attachment 92971


At least if this bridge fell you could sue the manufacturer. Vaccines are liability free, and pharmaceutical companies are basically sociopaths. Cleaning up one's health is much more of a sure thing than expecting a drug to save you.


----------



## alderum (Jan 15, 2021)

HaikuHeritage said:


> I can't wrap my head around why this is a rationale for not taking it... so if you get sick you WANT the symptoms and possibility of hospitalization/dying?


I'd take the symptoms over some weird autoimmune disease caused by MRNA proteins in my brain. People need to take control of their health and stop expecting pharma, hospitals & their drugs to save them. All those do is guarantee alzheimers

ps in the vaccine studies they started logging side effects 41 DAYS after the initial dose. Add kicked out everybody that was made sick by it.


----------



## alderum (Jan 15, 2021)

no really said:


> So if I'm understanding correctly the testing done so far has been to see if the vax stops the illness part of the infection but not in the spread if infected. There have been no tests for spread yet but it's expected to behave as other vaccinations even though this one is a different new type of vaccination? Interesting.


No vaccines stop spread. That's a marketing ploy. If you go into ICU's there will be signs saying ' you may not enter if you've recently had a measles vaccination'


----------



## alderum (Jan 15, 2021)

HDRider said:


> When will it ever end?


we should have resisted. It might never end


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> The idea is for the vaccine to trigger you to make antibodies against covid-19. So if your body sees the virus it will aggressively go after it before it can replicate. That's the basic idea behind all vaccines. We've all had vaccines for small pox. We don't become carriers of small pox after getting the vaccine..



But this is not like regular vaccines. These are RNA "vaccines". This is a completely new process of making them. There is one old school vaccine coming but I think it is still in the trial phase. Regular vaccines generally are made with a dead virus injected so your body thinks it is alive and makes antibodies to fight it. That way you have antibodies circulation in your blood to immediately attack the virus if you get it. These new vaccines only use a strand of DNA of the virus to familiarize your immune system with the DNA. If you get exposed to the virus, your body should recognize it sooner and then begin making antibodies to fight it. You can get the virus and a supposedly mild case of the disease by the time your body ramps up production of antibodies to fight it.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

bamabear44 said:


> I think that if you don't have the shot, you may not get to travel state to state, or fly stuff like that eventually...


Maybe not fly but I have to laugh about keeping people from travelling between states without being vaccinated. If the US can't keep illegal immigrants from crossing a massive river there is no way that local police can monitor every single road at every single state border.

Reminds me of a sight that I saw after 9/11. In Colorado one of the main roads through a town crossed through a military facility. They were stopping every vehicle at the gate and searching each passenger and vehicle. Yet once through the main gate you could see a back road off in the distance. That road had no blockade, no guards, no security.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Danaus29 said:


> Maybe not fly but I have to laugh about keeping people from travelling between states without being vaccinated. If the US can't keep illegal immigrants from crossing a massive river there is no way that local police can monitor every single road at every single state border.
> 
> Reminds me of a sight that I saw after 9/11. In Colorado one of the main roads through a town crossed through a military facility. They were stopping every vehicle at the gate and searching each passenger and vehicle. Yet once through the main gate you could see a back road off in the distance. That road had no blockade, no guards, no security.


Sort of like the chances of martial law working in this country. If we brought all our troops home from overseas we still don't have enough military to lock down our 5 largest cities.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

poppy said:


> Sort of like the chances of martial law working in this country. If we brought all our troops home from overseas we still don't have enough military to lock down our 5 largest cities.


The day after a tornado came through a city near hubby's mother's home the locals had already found a couple roads the National Guard had not secured.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I plan on getting the vaccine as soon as it’s available. If it only keeps me from getting sick and or dying that’s good enough for me!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> Maybe not fly but I have to laugh about keeping people from travelling between states without being vaccinated. If the US can't keep illegal immigrants from crossing a massive river there is no way that local police can monitor every single road at every single state border.
> 
> Reminds me of a sight that I saw after 9/11. In Colorado one of the main roads through a town crossed through a military facility. They were stopping every vehicle at the gate and searching each passenger and vehicle. Yet once through the main gate you could see a back road off in the distance. That road had no blockade, no guards, no security.


You are aware that “massive river” can normally be walked across without getting your pants wet in many places... right?


----------



## Nod (Dec 17, 2020)

HDRider said:


> Will you take it?


With a born on date after tomorrow...might consider it...


----------



## alderum (Jan 15, 2021)

doc- said:


> While several mutant variations have been found in the CoV population, they all seem to have the same antigenicity at this point, more than one year into it...as opposed to say, Influenza which has a dz different H types and a dz & a half N types --total antigen types 12 x 18, not to mention subtypes from less dominant antigns.....On its yearly course around the globe, the dominant type of flu seems to change a couple time each year, one reason it's so hard to predict the right combo for the vaccine to be offered.


And let's not forget, viruses mutate down in virulence. They always do.


----------



## alderum (Jan 15, 2021)

Nevada said:


> I'm not taking it just for myself. If I have immunity it also helps protect those around me.


They're very clear that the vaccine will not stop transmission. It might save you a little time being symptomatic, but that's it. Also of note, they didn't start logging side effects until 41 days after the first shot.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

alderum said:


> They're very clear that the vaccine will not stop transmission. It might save you a little time being symptomatic, but that's it. Also of note, they didn't start logging side effects until 41 days after the first shot.


You keep saying that but "they" said nothing of the sort. "They" said no one knows yet. That's a long way from it being clear that it won't. And btw, this is wrong too: "ps in the vaccine studies they started logging side effects 41 DAYS after the initial dose. Add kicked out everybody that was made sick by it." If you don't want to take the vaccine, don't. But spreading nonsense you "learned" from facebook doesn't help anyone.


----------



## sharkerbaby (Jan 15, 2016)

Nevada said:


> The idea is for the vaccine to trigger you to make antibodies against covid-19. So if your body sees the virus it will aggressively go after it before it can replicate. That's the basic idea behind all vaccines. We've all had vaccines for small pox. We don't become carriers of small pox after getting the vaccine..


As has been explained for you MANY times on MANY threads, this is not accurate. The vaccines currently being administered are mRNA vaccines, a new type of vaccine, which, in essence, simply gives your body "instructions" on how to fight the virus once it has been detected in your body. So in other words, your body has already been invaded, you are already carrying the virus in your blood, it has to be there before it can be detected. So, no, the vaccine does NOT trigger an an antibody generating reaction whatsoever, and it will NOT generate antibodies unless and until the virus is present.

The current question mostly is, 1) do you carry enough of a load for a long enough duration that you can also shed the virus in a high enough concentration to be considered infectious to others. And 2) how long after the mRNA vaccine shot is your body able to "remember" how to generate antibodies and how long do they stay in your system


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

sharkerbaby said:


> So, no, the vaccine does NOT trigger an an antibody generating reaction whatsoever, and it will NOT generate antibodies unless and until the virus is present.


That isn't actually correct. It isn't nearly as cut and dried as you are making it out to be, but to say "it will NOT generate antibodies unless and until the virus is present" is patently false.

From Science of Vaccines and Monoclonal Antibodies | COVID-19 Prevention Network

*Vaccine Antibodies vs. Coronavirus Infection Antibodies*

Your body will make different antibodies in response to coronavirus infection than in response to vaccination.
One of these antibodies is called a “spike antibody,” meaning that the antibody is directed at the spikes that surround the virus’s outer shell. The antibody attaches itself to the spikes on the virus in order to prevent the virus from attaching to your body’s healthy cells and causing infection. These are the types of antibodies that COVID-19 vaccines aim to teach your body to make in order to protect against infection.
Natural infection with coronavirus will produce different antibodies. These antibodies can bind to not just the spike, but also to other viral proteins such as the nucleocapsid. Current COVID-19 vaccines in development do not lead to antibodies against the nucleocapsid protein.
The antibody tests currently in use will only detect the second type of antibody that is produced by a natural infection with coronavirus. As time goes on and more vaccine candidates are tested, however, new antibody tests might be developed that also detect antibodies that binds to the virus’s spikes. If this happens, it means you could get a positive antibody test result, even if you have never had been infected with the coronavirus. Health care providers may not interpret your test results correctly as an immune response to a vaccine; they may incorrectly see it as an indication of prior infection with coronavirus. Once an effective vaccine is found and widely administered to the public, testing technology will need to clearly distinguish between vaccine responses and infection.

From Learn relevant terminology for the COVID-19 vaccine rollout - News

*What it means for the COVID-19 vaccine:* COVID-19 vaccination will help protect you by creating an antibody response without having to experience sickness. At this time, UAB does not anticipate implementation of a CoV-2 IgG antibody testing program after the first or second dose of vaccine.

From First data for Moderna Covid-19 vaccine show an immune response - STAT

Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccine led patients to produce antibodies that can neutralize the novel coronavirus that causes the disease, though it caused minor side effects in many patients, according to the first published data from an early-stage trial of the experimental shot.

The research is fairly clear on this. I agree with you completely that the more important questions are whether an immunized person can be contagious, and the duration of the vaccine's effectiveness.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

alderum said:


> And let's not forget, viruses mutate down in virulence. They always do.


No, they don't always. Sometimes they become much more virulent, sometimes less, and sometimes stay the same. The problem, for the virus, is that if they become more virulent, they can kill the host before the can spread, which eventually kills the virus. That is irrelevant to what you said though. Viruses mutate. That's it. To say they only mutate in one "direction" is not true.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Didn't a bunch of folks just die from vaccinations in Norway?


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

JeffreyD said:


> Didn't a bunch of folks just die from vaccinations in Norway?


"A bunch of folks" didn't, but yes, some did. The were very old, frail, nursing home patients that were already seriously ill. That is not to say those deaths should be written off, but it does need to be kept in perspective. 400 people a week die in nursing homes in Norway, so 23 is not a large number. It is believed that the side effects of the vaccine may have contributed to the deaths, but it's early in the investigation.

This is from an article that is intended for healthcare workers. I have access through the hospital where I work.

"Doctors in Norway have been told to conduct more thorough evaluations of very frail elderly patients in line to receive the Pfizer BioNTec vaccine against covid-19, following the deaths of 23 patients shortly after receiving the vaccine.
“It may be a coincidence, but we aren’t sure,” Steinar Madsen, medical director of the Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA), told _The BMJ_. “There is no certain connection between these deaths and the vaccine.”
The agency has investigated 13 of the deaths so far and concluded that common adverse reactions of mRNA vaccines, such as fever, nausea, and diarrhoea, may have contributed to fatal outcomes in some of the frail patients.
“There is a possibility that these common adverse reactions, that are not dangerous in fitter, younger patients and are not unusual with vaccines, may aggravate underlying disease in the elderly,” Madsen said. “We are not alarmed or worried about this, because these are very rare occurrences and they occurred in very frail patients with very serious disease,” he emphasised. “We are now asking for doctors to continue with the vaccination, but to carry out extra evaluation of very sick people whose underlying condition might be aggravated by it.” This evaluation includes discussing the risks and benefits of vaccination with the patient and their families to decide whether or not vaccination is the best course.
More than 20 000 doses of the vaccine have been administered over the past few weeks in Norway and around 400 deaths normally occur among care home residents every week."


----------



## sharkerbaby (Jan 15, 2016)

todd_xxxx said:


> That isn't actually correct. It isn't nearly as cut and dried as you are making it out to be, but to say "it will NOT generate antibodies unless and until the virus is present" is patently false.


Of course it's not as cut and dry as my post indicated. I agree I oversimplified mostly because this has been explained quite extensively up one side and down the other but it doesn't seem to be getting through to a few so out of exasperation, I've take to giving the cliff notes version. I will gladly hand the reins over to others to try to educate. Thank you for your more thorough and technical post.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

todd_xxxx said:


> "A bunch of folks" didn't, but yes, some did. The were very old, frail, nursing home patients that were already seriously ill. That is not to say those deaths should be written off, but it does need to be kept in perspective. 400 people a week die in nursing homes in Norway, so 23 is not a large number. It is believed that the side effects of the vaccine may have contributed to the deaths, but it's early in the investigation.
> 
> This is from an article that is intended for healthcare workers. I have access through the hospital where I work.
> 
> ...


How many is a bunch?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> Didn't a bunch of folks just die from vaccinations in Norway?


I believe it was primarily elderly, very sick people who couldn't handle the side effects.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> I believe it was primarily elderly, very sick people who couldn't handle the side effects.


More likely people who were allergic to something in the vaccine.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I just watched this video and I found it to have a little bit for everyone from science to conspiracy to government incompetence. Even a little on masks. Mainly it's about the 2 RNA vaccines and the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is made the way vaccines are normally made. The 2 people having the discussion are both Ph.D.'s in Biology.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> I believe it was primarily elderly, very sick people who couldn't handle the side effects.



IOW, exactly the same group of people who die from the virus.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> More likely people who were allergic to something in the vaccine.



Yea, right. Because everyone knows the elderly have more allergies.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> How many is a bunch?



That depends on the point you are trying to make. Twenty is a bunch if you support lockdowns and masks but 30 isn't a bunch if you get a new president and don't want him to get blamed.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

poppy said:


> That depends on the point you are trying to make. Twenty is a bunch if you support lockdowns and masks but 30 isn't a bunch if you get a new president and don't want him to get blamed.


Well, i don't support lock downs, I think masks have some, but limited, value, and I sure as hell don't support the incoming president. I would consider the 3-4000 people a day that are dying of covid a day a bunch, but 23 of the millions of people that have been vaccinated? No, I wouldn't consider that a bunch. Maybe you do?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

todd_xxxx said:


> Well, i don't support lock downs, I think masks have some, but limited, value, and I sure as hell don't support the incoming president. I would consider the 3-4000 people a day that are dying of covid a day a bunch, but 23 of the millions of people that have been vaccinated? No, I wouldn't consider that a bunch. Maybe you do?


To me, a bunch is a a group of bananas! 
Large groups of humans i consider a herd! Or a flock, especially if their sheeple! 😎


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> To me, a bunch is a a group of bananas!
> Large groups of humans i consider a herd! Or a flock, especially if their sheeple! 😎


Maybe a gaggle?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Maybe a gaggle?


That too!! 👍


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Evons hubby said:


> You are aware that “massive river” can normally be walked across without getting your pants wet in many places... right?


That was pretty much my point. They can't prevent entry into another state either.

Thought this posted earlier. My phone is useless for message boards.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Maybe a gaggle?


To be accurate, I believe a group of people in a city (especially DC) is properly called a Gaggle of Goobers.


----------



## DKJ (Jan 17, 2021)

fireweed farm said:


> Whether her link is true or not, would that information not be good reason for you to take it?


I will not be getting one. I am just a tad hopeful that they may not succeed with making it mandatory. The State of Massachusetts had declared it mandatory for students under 30 and they were going to begin enforcement effective February 28th. The mother of one college student sued the State the end of December. The state just retracted the mandate giving the excuse that it's been a light year for the flu! They did it just before they were due in court where they would have had to show evidence it was necessary for that age group to be vaccinated. I subscribe to the Children's Health Defense fund newsletter which is how I learned about the above lawsuit. I do not agree with all the cases they take on, but they have been a staunch defender of children's welfare for years. They are not anti-vaccine, but rather pro-informed consent. If you are interested in what is happening in the courts and in the science, I encourage you to check out their organization.

I am not forgetting that the companies making the mRna vaccinations available now are the same 4 or 5 drug companies that FDA fined over 13 Billion from 2009 to 2012. Those are not by any means all of the fines levied against them, just a few of the big ones. In reading the reason for the fines, most cases involved outright fraud, including *withholding test data about adverse reactions.* Why the CEO's are not in prison is beyond me - if you or I committed this level of fraud, especially fraud that potentially resulted in deaths, we'd be looking out through prison bars.

The following are my personal beliefs based on hours of research and input from someone I know with years of experience in this field. I know there is always another site or study to be considered. I've just found that when you look deeply into who conducted the research, who paid for the research, and what other financial interests they have, that far too often, an conflict of interest is there, yet not declared. 

There are so many disturbing components to this whole vaccination affair. These companies tried to get approval for this type of experimental vaccine (injecting genetic code) multiple times before, every time they got to the end of the last phase of trials, the FDA refused to approve because of the long term effects. Why are these vaccines suddenly safe now, when there has been no long term testing and no usual levels of animal testing.

I look at it this way, even at my age, the survival rate is 99.8 something. While the thought of taking it and dying from an allergic reaction, bleeding to death like the 56-year old doctor in Florida, getting Bell's Palsy, seizures, etc. is scary, that risk is pretty low. (They don't know enough about the possible risk of infertility for young women as that concern just surfaced the last month, so I guess we'll find that down the road.) Still why bother taking it if your survival rate is that high? Plus those survival numbers are the numbers for everyone, healthy and seriously unhealthy. I take the vitamin regime recommended by Dr. Mercola, and the Critical Care team at the Eastern Virginia Medical University. The Critical Care team developed both a treatment protocol for sick patients (MATH+) to be used by doctors, and a recommended protocol for individuals for keeping your immune system healthy so that you don't get sick. This came out of their successful treatment of Covid patients. 

What frightens me is what's coming 6 months to a few years down the road. This vaccine alters your immune system. Because this is an emergency approval of an experimental vaccine, and because the last phase of testing is only now beginning (basically the millions getting the shot now are the test pool as they will somehow be tracked by the government to discover the results), no one knows what will happen. Many immunologists (and I know one personally) fear that people will begin dying of cancer at a higher rate within 6 months. We all have cancer cells in our body that our bodies find and destroy all the time. One's body may not be able to accomplish this with a compromised immune system. This is one reason why people develop cancer and serious diseases after a period of high stress in their lives (death, divorce, loss of job, etc). I'm concerned that in the future, a routine illness will be fatal if my immune system is compromised. It will be very hard to prove the vaccine is the culprit when the numbers of deaths from other causes start climbing because the immune system has been weakened. This all is more risk than I'm unwilling to take just to have a milder form of the virus.

I know if I take it, it will not keep me from getting the virus, it just lessens the severity of the symptoms to the point I may well get it, not know it and spread it. The effectiveness they quote is based on whether you develop antibodies, not whether it prevents you from getting the disease which was the standard for the traditional vaccines we are used to receive. Why the change? I believe many of us have already have immunity from having Covid-based colds and flu in the past. Covid was first identified in 1965 so it has been around in one form or another for a very long time, with new variations popping up over the years. Plus immunity from actually having a "wild" disease normally outlasts whatever "immunity" I'd get from a vaccine. 

This is just my two-bits, if you find it helpful, great, if you disagree, I totally support your right to make a choice. That is all I want for my family - the right to make my own informed choice.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

DKJ said:


> What frightens me is what's coming 6 months to a few years down the road. This vaccine alters your immune system.


I'm not getting the vaccine because I'm feeling especially adventurous. My immune system is already altered. I lost my spleen due to a bad fall on a ski slope. I've been getting what my doctor called "old lady shots" for the past 40 years. It could be that covid-19 might be the end of me without the vaccine.

So, in your medical opinion, would you recommend that I get the vaccine or take my chances of surviving covid without a spleen?


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

All vaccines "alter your immune system". That's the point of a vaccine. Anyway, I'm not personally concerned about the death rate of covid. It's too low in my age group to be a major concern. What I am concerned about are the long term issues from getting covid. Lung issues, heart issues, brain changes, and who know what else. For me, the risk of the vaccine is lower than the risk of long term covid side effects.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

todd_xxxx said:


> All vaccines "alter your immune system". That's the point of a vaccine. Anyway, I'm not personally concerned about the death rate of covid. It's too low in my age group to be a major concern. What I am concerned about are the long term issues from getting covid. Lung issues, heart issues, brain changes, and who know what else. For me, the risk of the vaccine is lower than the risk of long term covid side effects.


*HP Pavilion P2-1310*

You really need to open the case and see what you have now. It might be one 4GB module, and it might be two 2GB modules. It it's two 2GB modules you'll need to buy two 4GB modules. If you have one 4GB module now then you only need to buy one 4GB module. and you'll have to match speed with the existing module.

Don't buy memory from a local computer store. You can get it for half the price online.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

Nevada said:


> *HP Pavilion P2-1310*
> 
> You really need to open the case and see what you have now. It might be one 4GB module, and it might be two 2GB modules. It it's two 2GB modules you'll need to buy two 4GB modules. If you have one 4GB module now then you only need to buy one 4GB module. and you'll have to match speed with the existing module.
> 
> Don't buy memory from a local computer store. You can get it for half the price online.


You may have posted this in the wrong thread


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

todd_xxxx said:


> You may have posted this in the wrong thread


Oops!


----------



## alderum (Jan 15, 2021)

todd_xxxx said:


> No, they don't always. Sometimes they become much more virulent, sometimes less, and sometimes stay the same. The problem, for the virus, is that if they become more virulent, they can kill the host before the can spread, which eventually kills the virus. That is irrelevant to what you said though. Viruses mutate. That's it. To say they only mutate in one "direction" is not true.
> 
> The





todd_xxxx said:


> You keep saying that but "they" said nothing of the sort. "They" said no one knows yet. That's a long way from it being clear that it won't. And btw, this is wrong too: "ps in the vaccine studies they started logging side effects 41 DAYS after the initial dose. Add kicked out everybody that was made sick by it." If you don't want to take the vaccine, don't. But spreading nonsense you "learned" from facebook doesn't help anyone.


Actually, I'm quoting reputable scientists who are interviewed on the Highwire with Del Bigtree. I highly recommend watching this show. The FB comment is funny though. I haven't looked at FB in years. I recommend people stop looking at it. It's amazing!!!


----------



## alderum (Jan 15, 2021)

todd_xxxx said:


> No, they don't always. Sometimes they become much more virulent, sometimes less, and sometimes stay the same. The problem, for the virus, is that if they become more virulent, they can kill the host before the can spread, which eventually kills the virus. That is irrelevant to what you said though. Viruses mutate. That's it. To say they only mutate in one "direction" is not true.


I understand your confusion. Viruses are what help us evolve our immune systems to live on this planet. They are a parasite but they do not aim to kill the host. If a host has a lot of sickly compromised cells, think an old elk at the end of a long winter, they're vulnerable to death. So a virus sweeps through and strengthens the strong and culls the weak. I think the more important story here is how sickly the American people are with their toxic foods, toxic drugs and toxic stress.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

alderum said:


> I understand your confusion. Viruses are what help us evolve our immune systems to live on this planet. They are a parasite but they do not aim to kill the host. If a host has a lot of sickly compromised cells, think an old elk at the end of a long winter, they're vulnerable to death. So a virus sweeps through and strengthens the strong and culls the weak. I think the more important story here is how sickly the American people are with their toxic foods, toxic drugs and toxic stress.


I appreciate the response, but I'm not confused. You said viruses always become more virulent. They don't.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

todd_xxxx said:


> I appreciate the response, but I'm not confused. You said viruses always become more virulent. They don't.


You are correct. Sooner or later some mutation will cause most viruses to not infect humans at all. Many pandemics died out over the centuries for that reason. Viruses are not intelligent and don't know what they need to do to become more virulent, so mutations are completely random.


----------

