When will upsers be able to receive the covid-19 shot?

[Spanky250]

I like to use the NIH website, which publishes plenty of contradictory information, btw, but that's kind of how science works.

I've read the Imperial College predictive model, and knew right away that it had flaws. Even it didn't call for wide spread lock downs when it predicted 2 million deaths in the US within a short period. Keep in mind, this is the model most government agencies decided to base their responses on.

Oxford's predictive model, lead authored by Dr. Sunetra Gupta, has been far closer to the reality of the pandemic, as that model factored in some pre-existing cross immunity. As such, I have found Oxford's Centre for Evidence Based Medicine is a good source of information. Plus, you have some 50,000 + experts and clinicians who signed on to the Great Barrington Declaration, also partly authored by Dr. S Gupta, and Professors from Harvard and Stanford.

Once you take the time to learn about the fundamentals of an issue, you can gather information from any source. I simply disregard the conclusions made by journalists (as they aren't supposed to conclusions, it turns a news article into an opinion piece) and use the facts, guided by my understanding of the issue, to formulate my opinions on the matter.

I could go on about how to determine whether or not a source is credible, but we'll save that for another class.

So you base your opinions on computer models? Really? Like the ones that said the polar ice caps would be gone by the year 2000?

 

[zubenelgenubi]

So you base your opinions on computer models? Really? Like the ones that said the polar ice caps would be gone by the year 2000?

Is that what you got out of that post? Interesting. I like to understand the methods used by others to make the claims they make. Models are not entirely useless, the ones that more accurately reflect reality can reasonably be used to help guide decisions. The Oxford Model has been much closer to reality, so I am more apt to put stock in the author's views on the pandemic. They have shown that they have a better grasp of all the factors involved.

I think it's pretty clear that climate models leave much to be desired. We always seem to be about a decade away from total annhilation. I put as much stock in those predictions as I do in the predictions of the second coming.

 

[Spanky250]

Is that what you got out of that post? Interesting. I like to understand the methods used by others to make the claims they make. Models are not entirely useless, the ones that more accurately reflect reality can reasonably be used to help guide decisions. The Oxford Model has been much closer to reality, so I am more apt to put stock in the author's views on the pandemic. They have shown that they have a better grasp of all the factors involved.

I think it's pretty clear that climate models leave much to be desired. We always seem to be about a decade away from total annhilation. I put as much stock in those predictions as I do in the predictions of the second coming.

You're right, models aren't entirely useless, just mostly useless.

I will concede that I'm more apt to put some faith in one that is totally independent with zero government backing. Our government is almost totally corrupt and dishonest, if they say something is the truth then it's almost certainly a lie.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

You're right, models aren't entirely useless, just mostly useless.

I will concede that I'm more apt to put some faith in one that is totally independent with zero government backing. Our government is almost totally corrupt and dishonest, if they say something is the truth then it's almost certainly a lie.

I agree with your sentiment about government. I think it's more about agendas rather than just lying for the sake of it. That's why I think it's important for everyone to think critically about information that is presented. In most ways I think it is the interpretation of the facts that matters most, and interpretation is guided by values. If you value what the government offers, and are aligned with valuing a more powerful government, then you are more willing to accept what government officials say, especially when it's designed to lead people to want more government.

 

[The Driver]

I agree with your sentiment about government. I think it's more about agendas rather than just lying for the sake of it. That's why I think it's important for everyone to think critically about information that is presented. In most ways I think it is the interpretation of the facts that matters most, and interpretation is guided by values. If you value what the government offers, and are aligned with valuing a more powerful government, then you are more willing to accept what government officials say, especially when it's designed to lead people to want more government.

Government scientists warned us we could see this level of death from this pandemic... and here we are... So...

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Government scientists warned us we could see this level of death from this pandemic... and here we are... So...

After they continued to adjust their predictions for months. Took them almost a year to get it figured out. Assuming the reported numbers do indeed match the reality.

 

[Brownslave688]

Government scientists warned us we could see this level of death from this pandemic... and here we are... So...

They knew of this treatment since April but the FDA refused to approve studies or approve it for use for covid.

Cheap hair lice drug may cut risk of COVID-19 death by 80 percent: study

Earlier studies have found similarly promising results.

www.google.com

 

[zubenelgenubi]

They knew of this treatment since April but the FDA refused to approve studies or approve it for use for covid.

Cheap hair lice drug may cut risk of COVID-19 death by 80 percent: study

Earlier studies have found similarly promising results.

www.google.com

“'All we have are observational studies and clinicians’ opinions,' said University of Sydney professor Andrew McLachlan, the Daily Mail reported."

It was good enough for masks. Lol.

 

[Brownslave688]

“'All we have are observational studies and clinicians’ opinions,' said University of Sydney professor Andrew McLachlan, the Daily Mail reported."

It was good enough for masks. Lol.

That’s all they have because no one has approved real studies being done.

 

[The Driver]

After they continued to adjust their predictions for months. Took them almost a year to get it figured out. Assuming the reported numbers do indeed match the reality.

Sounds a lot like the people who whine on reddit that their "package is in the same town and I don't have it yet!?" Or "I saw three different UPS trucks and none of them stopped at my house!!!"

Maybe it's because it's a novel virus and they were still learning about it. They're still learning about it now.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Sounds a lot like the people who whine on reddit that their "package is in the same town and I don't have it yet!?" Or "I saw three different UPS trucks and none of them stopped at my house!!!"

Maybe it's because it's a novel virus and they were still learning about it. They're still learning about it now.

That sounds a lot like those women who make excuses for their abusive husbands or boyfriends.

We've had plenty of knowledge about corona viruses, respiratory illness, and how viruses spread in general. They've literally been studying this very virus in a lab since as early as 2012. Yet, they were willing to gamble with people's livelihoods, and lives, in order to conduct experimentation on virus containment protocol, without the informed consent of the people involved in the experiment. In fact, they lied about how long the lock down and mask mandate experiments would go on (two weeks) and what they hoped to accomplish (flatten the curve to prevent hospitals being over run) just to get people to comply.

Now that those things have proven not to have an impact, they keep lying and telling us it must continue. I personally wouldn't be making excuses for people who apparently wield such absolute power, and have yet to show that they can do so with any degree of competence.

 

[Brownwifey]

I think this has already been covered in the thread but I want to weigh on on the safety of current Covid 19 vaccines being rolled out by Pfizer and Moderna. Here goes: Neither Pfizer nor Moderna vaccine contains live virus. In my professional opinion, the risk in getting the vaccine is miniscule.

Some vaccines do inoculate an individual with a VERY SMALL amount of live virus to induce an immune response and make antibodies specific to a particular virus. This is an mRNA vaccine containing no actual virus. Messenger RNA is used as a blueprint within a cell to make (in this case) an inactive spike protein with the same morphology as Covid 19. The body mounts an immune response, creating antibodies to the foreign spike protein. The individual now has antibodies against the spike protein part of Covid 19. The beauty is the mRNA used to do this never enters the nucleus of a cell and once it does its job its eliminated along with the cloned spike protein. There is a second dose administered weeks later to increase protection from ~80% to ~95%. This is an outstanding result.

I suspect these early vaccines are mRNA due to lower safety concerns (no live virus) and should have fewer side effects. These types of vaccines are not common due to the stringent storage (-60 to -80) and handling requirements (time sensitive stability when thawed).
Will there be minor side effects? Yes. Would I get vaccinated? In a heartbeat. My turn is imminent.

UPSers are essential workers. My husband will make sure he signs up when offered.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I think this has already been covered in the thread but I want to weigh on on the safety of current Covid 19 vaccines being rolled out by Pfizer and Moderna. Here goes: Neither Pfizer nor Moderna vaccine contains live virus. In my professional opinion, the risk in getting the vaccine is miniscule.

Some vaccines do inoculate an individual with a VERY SMALL amount of live virus to induce an immune response and make antibodies specific to a particular virus. This is an mRNA vaccine containing no actual virus. Messenger RNA is used as a blueprint within a cell to make (in this case) an inactive spike protein with the same morphology as Covid 19. The body mounts an immune response, creating antibodies to the foreign spike protein. The individual now has antibodies against the spike protein part of Covid 19. The beauty is the mRNA used to do this never enters the nucleus of a cell and once it does its job its eliminated along with the cloned spike protein. There is a second dose administered weeks later to increase protection from ~80% to ~95%. This is an outstanding result.

I suspect these early vaccines are mRNA due to lower safety concerns (no live virus) and should have fewer side effects. These types of vaccines are not common due to the stringent storage (-60 to -80) and handling requirements (time sensitive stability when thawed).
Will there be minor side effects? Yes. Would I get vaccinated? In a heartbeat. My turn is imminent.

UPSers are essential workers. My husband will make sure he signs up when offered.

You are the first person I have come across who has made the claim that the mRNA is eliminated or that it does not enter the nucleus. I have read a few different explanations on how these vaccines work, including the CDC's, and none have elaborated on that point. Can you link to your source?

I think most people are concerned that we don't know the long term side effects. If the active elements of the vaccine were to simply be "eliminated", I would think that saying so, and explaining how that happens, and how they know that it happens, would go a long way towards earning more trust from, at very least, healthcare workers and maybe even the more skeptical members of the general public.

 

[Brownwifey]

You are the first person I have come across who has made the claim that the mRNA is eliminated or that it does not enter the nucleus. I have read a few different explanations on how these vaccines work, including the CDC's, and none have elaborated on that point. Can you link to your source?

I think most people are concerned that we don't know the long term side effects. If the active elements of the vaccine were to simply be "eliminated", I would think that saying so, and explaining how that happens, and how they know that it happens, would go a long way towards earning more trust from, at very least, healthcare workers and maybe even the more skeptical members of the general public.

I hear you and understand your skepticism. We are definitely in uncharted territory here. BUT, there is a body of work dealing with similar viruses, there is adequate trial data for emergency rollout, and in my opinion, the risk has been mitigated as much as humanly possible. Yes, I work in this field. I don't think the real concern is long term side effects. Your body ends up with antibodies to a specific virus (the same result as other vaccines). The real concern would be for unknown initial side effects which pose a significant health risk (highly unlikely). Trials have shown both vaccines to be safe with typical minor side effects associated with similar vaccines in healthy adults. As far as how messenger RNA works, its basic molecular biology. Google "protein synthesis" to learn more about the translation step ( mRNA is the template for antisense strand, etc). I seriously want to stay away from debating information disseminated from CDC or other government agencies.

Bottom line is folks can argue til the cows come home about the pros and cons of getting the vaccine. It comes down to personal choice. I have worked in this field for over 20 years and consider myself to be a cautious person. Just wanted to share my personal opinion that given the data available on current vaccines available I wouldn't hesitate to give it to my family. Take that for what its worth.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I hear you and understand your skepticism. We are definitely in uncharted territory here. BUT, there is a body of work dealing with similar viruses, there is adequate trial data for emergency rollout, and in my opinion, the risk has been mitigated as much as humanly possible. Yes, I work in this field. I don't think the real concern is long term side effects. Your body ends up with antibodies to a specific virus (the same result as other vaccines). The real concern would be for unknown initial side effects which pose a significant health risk (highly unlikely). Trials have shown both vaccines to be safe with typical minor side effects associated with similar vaccines in healthy adults. As far as how messenger RNA works, its basic molecular biology. Google "protein synthesis" to learn more about the translation step ( mRNA is the template for antisense strand, etc). I seriously want to stay away from debating information disseminated from CDC or other government agencies.

Bottom line is folks can argue til the cows come home about the pros and cons of getting the vaccine. It comes down to personal choice. I have worked in this field for over 20 years and consider myself to be a cautious person. Just wanted to share my personal opinion that given the data available on current vaccines available I wouldn't hesitate to give it to my family. Take that for what its worth.

I guess one of the concerns is that personal choice may be taken away.

I'm not looking to debate the information put out by agencies, just mentioning that it is pretty sparse.

I appreciate you sharing your views on the matter, and you do sound like you have relevant knowledge, unlike a lot of people who post on here. Thank you.