Hi, actual scientist here. I figured I should chime in since some room temperature (C, not F) IQ shit is being tossed around this thread.
Quote (StayPositive @ Mar 3 2021 04:24pm)
The only way the pandemic ends is with herd immunity of 80%+. It’s unfortunate there are so many scientifically illiterate people out there who will drag the pandemic out longer, but I guess societies have always had to deal with dead weight. If you’re able to get the vaccine, you won’t spread it, and you wouldnt burden the hospital system with your sick ass, so makes so much sense just to do it if you’re able to. No excuses outside of just ignorance really.
Bolded part we still don't have enough data to say conclusively, but preliminary data seems to suggest this. Agree with the rest of the takes.
Quote (dirTyMan @ Mar 3 2021 04:30pm)
I don’t think people are scientifically illiterate.
There is a difference between the typical anti vaxxer and those are hesitant to take this one.
This vaccine is rushed, hasn’t gone through the normal testing for vaccines and we don’t know the long term implications of it.
As a healthy, young person who as minuscule chances of complications from getting covid Im hesitant to take a vaccine with limited information.
Having questions about any vaccine is legitimate. Constantly finding questions to get out of taking a vaccine and/or deliberately engaging in confirmation bias puts one into the category of acting in bad faith.
The vaccine was "rushed" because the magnitude of the public health emergency demanded a solution (accelerating the pace of the clinical trials). The actual technical manufacturing of the mRNA contents in the vaccines themselves took ~2 days. The 2 days number isn't because they rushed it, but rather because the technology is so advanced at this point that mRNA printer go brrrrrrrr and that's it. They had a very solid foundation of scientific data to work with when transitioning to vaccination for COVID, as they were originally trying to make cancer vaccines. With respect to the virus itself, the original SARS in 2003 and MERS from 2012 provided researchers with a good understanding of the virology of sarbecoviruses (SARS-CoV-2, the viruses that causes COVID-19, is one of these). This in turn helped researchers identify which parts of the virus would make good vaccine targets (the spike protein). All of the information+technological advances set science up for a rapid start to the vaccine manufacturing process.
We don't know the long-term implications of it because we haven't lived out the long term. This would require having a crystal ball. This sets anyone up for the gamble of getting a vaccine vs the actual virus. We know a lot more about the long-term complications that can happen after recovery from COVID-19 (despite the lower risk of death for younger vs older people). Long-term, semi-permanent/permanent damage (long COVID / long haulers) is so prominent that the US Congress allocated $1.1 billion to the NIH for a long COVID-specific research initiatives to help us actually grasp the magnitude and biology of this specifically. Not a gamble worth taking by volunteering to be a possible participant in that research by getting COVID-19 unnecessarily.
Quote (KrWWW @ Mar 3 2021 04:36pm)
The FDA still hasn't fully cleared the vaccine so the military had to let members refuse to take it or something
Wat
Quote (Secksii @ Mar 3 2021 05:34pm)
It doesn't mean you're immune, it significantly lowers your chance of getting covid.
We should expand on this, since efficacy as a descriptor is misleading. Everything below taken from the Lancet and Secksii's post later in the thread, though it's worth restating:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00075-X/fulltextA statistic of 95% efficacy =/= 95% of people are protected. If we vaccinated a population of 100,000 and protected 95% of them, that would leave 5000 individuals diseased over 3 months, which is almost the current overall COVID-19 case rate in the UK. Rather, a 95% vaccine efficacy means that instead of 1000 COVID-19 cases in a population of 100,000 without vaccine (from the placebo arm of UK trials, approximately 1% would be ill with COVID-19 and 99% would not) we would expect 50 cases (99·95% of the population is disease-free, at least for 3 months).
Quote (dirTyMan @ Mar 3 2021 07:15pm)
I don’t trust anything the government says to be honest with you.
Experts are also wrong all the time.
These same experts are the ones who stated that masks do not impact your oxygen intake and breathing capacity.
Which is wrong, I mean I did a study back on this in school which clearly indicated oxygen consumption is reduced from wearing a mask.
Not that I am anti mask.
"I'm not anti-mask, but here are all these anti-mask talking points from my "research" by the way, but I also won't link it even though its published."
Link your study then since you evidently know better than the entire scientific community regarding masks. When you're done finding your "research" you can take a look with your own two eyes at a dude wearing 6 surgical masks while hooked up to telemetry to see how the oxygen level thing is horseshit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5npQivAmcE - When you inevitably conjure up a reason why this is fake, consider keeping it yourself next time.
Also, if the mask thing was remotely true, then physicians, nurses, etc wouldn't wear surgical masks when doing actual surgery, otherwise they'd all be passing out. We woulda figured that one out a long time ago.
Also, just because experts aren't 100% accurate all the time doesn't give you the license to disregard the consensus of the entire scientific community lol
Quote (KrWWW @ Mar 3 2021 07:29pm)
It's definitely being rushed, they don't even deny it
Oh fuck yea dude you totally got us!!!! That's super epic fortnite POGGERS brother thats all of science EPICALLY OWNED
Maybe if brainlets like you followed public health guidance and didn't spread the virus like wildfire, scientists could wait longer before asking regulatory agencies for vaccine approval to better gauge if there might be any long term effects. Since case counts are through the roof in the west, we don't have that luxury anymore.
Quote (dirTyMan @ Mar 3 2021 05:52pm)
I guess my question is why would I, a healthy individual with an under 1% chance of complications, take a vaccine with undetermined long term side effects?
Under 1% chance of death, not complications. The rate of complications is currently unknown, but the sheer premise of Long COVID/long hauling should be enough of a deterrent. The virus itself can infect many tissues of the human body (lungs/respiratory tract, brain, blood vessels, kidneys, testicles, and more), which is why there are so many weird sets of symptoms in so many different people. Gonna guess that you're biologically male, so here's some preliminary evidence that the virus (or your own immune system) can mess up the testicles:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33134901/ and
https://academic.oup.com/humrep/advance-article/doi/10.1093/humrep/deab026/6125160 - the 2nd one addresses men who have recovered and aren't actually dead.
Avoiding shit like that in your own body (rinse/repeat for every tissue/organ that the virus can infect) should also be a good motivator to getting vaccinated (in addition to protecting others and not being a selfish prick).
Quote (Subban2 @ Mar 4 2021 02:14pm)
Wat bout the peaness problem
See above but balls instead
Quote (Subzer0isGG @ Mar 3 2021 07:07pm)
Because if you don't, people like SP will try and shame you
As he deserves to be since he's clearly acting in bad faith.
"Let's not protect the vulnerable and accelerate the end of the pandemic, but instead protect the feefees of anonymous lobotomy patient hockey posters on d2jsp.org and prolong the pandemic more" - you 2021
Quote (KrWWW @ Mar 3 2021 07:58pm)
I agree that scientists and researchers trust their findings and putting their careers on the line for this vaccine, I'm just saying they haven't done the steps for side effects
Big pharma puts billions of dollars a side for potential law suits
"tHeY hAvEnT dOnE tHe sTePs fOr tHe sIdE eFfEcts"
What "steps" should they do? Better hurry up and tell us so we don't vaccinate more people without doing more "steps"
Quote (Subzer0isGG @ Mar 4 2021 02:15pm)
Literally not available for us for many more months. Not like we can go get it. Ya cow.
Quote (Bruin @ Mar 4 2021 02:19pm)
yes, the canadian gov't has royally fucked this vaccination
maybe if they converted to £ or usd before trying to pay for the vaccine they would've got further lol
It's worth noting that Canada used to have significant domestic vaccine production capacity until Brian Mulroney's admin sold off the university spin-off labs (which had been producing vaccine components for other vaccines for a very long time) to big pharmaceutical companies:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/we-took-our-eye-off-the-ball-how-canada-lost-its-vaccine-production-capacity-1.5204040It's also worth noting that Harper's admin (after the 2009 swine flu pandemic) noted this as an issue at the very top of the list with respect to pandemic preparedness, but elected to do nothing about it.
That privatization is what essentially boxed in Trudeau into being reliant on other countries for vaccine doses. He should have also threw money at domestic vaccine production efforts the moment the pandemic started, but didn't. It's almost as if politicians have vested financial interests that compel them to ignore scientists and decrease scientific funding/government holdings in scientific enterprises. They're all guilty, but Trudeau didn't start the problem. He just made it worse. He's since thrown money at domestic vaccine production, but it's too little too late for COVID-19. Hopefully that investment is fully realized and comes in handy when the next pandemic happens.
Quote (Subzer0isGG @ Mar 4 2021 02:20pm)
Lol. Trudeau was banking on China to save us. Like a complete moron.
And he'll somehow be voted in again.
He wasn't entirely reliant on China, but also relied on western mRNA vaccine producers in the EU. He was afraid Trump was going to ban vaccine exports to Canada, especially after possible re-election. The problem is that the EU producers essentially did the same shit (save doses for EU countries, lol UK), leaving Canada entirely reliant on China after that happened. Sinovac (the Chinese-produced vaccine in question) has a lot of shady efficacy percentages thrown around from various trials conducted in various countries, so I'm still extremely skeptical of data surrounding it.
Quote (Meatstick @ Mar 4 2021 02:34pm)
Canada is getting 500k of the AstraZeneca vaccine this week, and as of right now it’s not recommended for 65+ because it hasn’t been reviewed for that age group yet.
Not sure their plan to roll them out but these doses will expire by May, and we ordered 24 million more
We should have another 2million doses by May
It wasn't recommended by adults 65+ initially because not enough of people in the trials from that age group
actually got sick for the trial data to have any meaningful interpretation. This led to Germany/France only recommending it for adults under 65 years old. The UK released new data that convinced French officials to recommend it for 65+. German officials are under pressure to do the same, and I would expect Canadian regulators to feel the same pressure soon.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-older-adults-51614699357Quote (dirTyMan @ Mar 4 2021 02:37pm)
Going to be a lot sterile people soon.
I hope you're one of them so I don't have to intellectually demolish your fuck trophies too
Quote (Meatstick @ Mar 4 2021 02:39pm)
Sorta feels like most Governments are just winging it... and obviously the richest countries will throw money at the problem and get their hands on vaccines first.
I’m not defending any political party (as if the conservatives would be any better lol), just saying that it’s coming and it’s not like we’ll be way behind in vaccinating our population compared to the U.S or anywhere else
See the part about politicians being incentivized against investing money/resources into science
Quote (dragoneth @ Mar 4 2021 02:44pm)
we just gave all the canadian doses to the elderly in old folks homes
which i dont mind they are most vulnerable and can be test subjects
but if they get the good vaccine and then they are like oh here you get the 60% effective one and be on your way ... fuck that i do mind
idk im kind of on the fence about the whole vaccination thing i want it but if im putting shit in my body to prevent something i dont want 60% effective one hell im probably at a 50/50 chance to get it now 60/40 isnt much better
the only way i can even see the 60% one being worth taking is if you can take it to try and help hold you over until you get the 95% effective vaccine but do u wanna risk taking both? were worried about side effects of one of them down the road
if thats not the case id rather canada not spend any money on it cause i dont want half effective vaccinated people like IM GOOD TO GO spreading that shit everywhere thinking i got the vaccine im free of covid
which is whats likely to happen imo they mass vaccinate with the shitter vaccine and then open up the country with 60 something effectiveness on the vaccine and its a shit show
and then there is the variant strains do they work are they even less effective on those? like there is so much research thats needs to be done hell u might take one of the original vaccines and be fucked because u cant take a new one a year later that covers all the variant strains ect ect while the originals only cover the first strain or the original couple leaving you vulnerable .... its a lot to consider i want to get vaccinated but im not going to rush to whichever is the first available unless i feel its a good choice
The "test subjects" are the people in the clinical trials. Everyone else isn't a guinea pig and this isn't some lab experiment on a massive scale. This is a public health emergency that we have to address and has been since the very beginning.
I am legitimately concerned about people being forced to go back to work in an effort to restart the economy with non-mRNA vaccines, as this still has the potential to cause undue harm via infection for those receiving vaccines with <95% efficacy. With that being said, however, scientists were praying for at least 50% efficacy, so all vaccines that we're talking about have outperformed expectations. See the earlier post about how efficacy =/= percent effectiveness from Secksii. There is no data yet on combining an mRNA vaccine with any of the others, and just about everyone is advising against that currently. We may have to revisit this when we talk about the variants and the likely need for a booster or additional vaccines to address them.
With respect to the variants, the UK variant is covered by all vaccines, so don't be worried much about that in terms of vaccine efficacy. It's the South African/Brazil variants (or any other variant with the E484K mutation) that are the most concerning currently. Moderna is already working on developing a booster for this, and I assume other companies/labs will follow suit as more research emerges.
Quote (Subzer0isGG @ Mar 4 2021 03:21pm)
And drago. The Johnson and Johnson vaccine is 66% effective BUT gives you a big protection if you still catch the virus. Something like 88% less severe symptoms with it.
Also, the reason it's being pushed and considered a game changer is that it only requires a single dose. And can be stored at room temperatures. So more remote areas can be vaccinated more easily.
66% efficacy, see the post, etc. It's 88% effective at preventing death and hospitalization. It likely makes any infection after vaccination much more mild and reduces severity of symptoms. We also need to note these numbers are across all geographies, which averages in the reduced efficacy against the South African/Brazil variants. Higher efficacy in places where those variants aren't dominant (yet).
The single dose and regular refrigerator storage components are worth noting as well. This can be used to reach rural areas where people are unlikely to return for a 2nd dose of a mRNA vaccine or experience difficulty in getting to a clinic for the 1st dose in the first place. Developing countries also stand to benefit here.
Quote (dirTyMan @ Mar 4 2021 03:34pm)
Just an FYI having healthy vitamin D levels is a major protectant from severe covid symptoms.
I think a majority of hospitalizations are either low or deficient in vitamin D.
And over 60% of North Americans are vitamins D deficient.
There has been a correlation, not causation, between vitamin D levels and severity of COVID-19 symptoms. Google "spurious correlations" to understand this point better since you google half the shit you believe anyways
Many people are deficient in vitamin D (long before the pandemic), so it's not a bad idea to supplement with it. Very hard to OD with OTC vitamin D.
Quote (SharpNips @ Mar 4 2021 03:35pm)
That sounds like a valedictorian speech of the graduating class of joe Rogan university
GORILLA NOISES INTENSIFYQuote (dirTyMan @ Mar 4 2021 03:39pm)
There are numerous studies done. Tons even on first page of google.
Imagine if the government advocated for being proactive instead of reactive.
Eat well, get appropriate micronutrient levels, have a healthy bf %, go exercise.
If you had a shred of scientific literacy in your brain you'd understand that blind googling shit about science and medicine without the prerequisite skills to interpret what you're reading is a recipe for disaster. Correlation, not causation. Vitamin D is notoriously difficult to study via RCT due to confounding factors (latitude, diet, outdoor activity level, patient compliance), so the jury is still out.
Imagine if your government actually took your taxpayer money and improved the education system (instead of spending it all on drone striking Yemeni weddings or helping the US do that) so people like you didn't fall through the cracks.
Quote (dragoneth @ Mar 4 2021 03:41pm)
so its a 66% chance to give you 88% less severe symptoms
yeah im still a pass on that
Depending on the distribution in your area, you may not be offered a choice. If you get offered any of them, get it. 66% is better than 0%.
Quote (SharpNips @ Mar 4 2021 03:49pm)
I’m not disputing it, I haven’t reviewed the literature enough myself to have an informed opinion on it.
I just know Joe has a hard on for Vit D
holy FUCK, some self-awareness. NICE
Quote (dirTyMan @ Mar 4 2021 03:52pm)
It’s because it’s actually that good.
It’s one of the only supplements I had advised clients to take in the past because you will actually see a noticeable improvement in performance and mood.
Oh god you advise people??? They're all fucked and deserve refunds yesterday. You don't know if those people were legitimately vitamin D deficient and the extent of their subsequent physiological disregulation or if you just placebo-effected them...
Quote (dragoneth @ Mar 4 2021 04:46pm)
ok i guess thats not too bad then
id still rather be 95% to never catch it but i guess 88% less severe symptoms if you are in that 34% is decent
Thank you for engaging responsibly. You are an example of someone with legitimate concerns that should be taken at face value.