A promising vaccine on the horizon? Even Dr. Fauci is encouraged by the results so far

[SRF]

11 hours ago, ATC cruiser said:

So who’s going to be first in line for a rushed thru vaccine?

 

I will get it as soon as I can.

[SRF]

9 hours ago, ATC cruiser said:

I remember reading something about a month ago that said ⅓ of the population wasn’t interested in receiving it. Hopefully that’s not accurate. 

 

But with the vaccine, if they do not get it, THEY are at risk.  Not ME.

 

If they want to get it, go for it.

[SRF]

10 hours ago, ATC cruiser said:

I’m not saying it’s going to kill you, just don’t rush it. Besides even if it came out tomorrow I’m betting it would be at least six months before anyone that wasn’t a first responder, health care worker or most at risk would even be able to get one. So if cruising needs a vaccine before start up, it’s at least a year away.

 

AstraZenica expects to have 300 million doses of their vaccine available in Sept.  So if it were to work and be approved, there would be little to no waiting for anyone who wants it.

 

The FDA is allowing production before full approval to shorten the time until it is readily available.

 

Also, people talk about rushing the vaccine through.  They are just not going to do some of the long term testing before release.    So, when the release the vaccine, we may not know how long until the next dose.  But there will be test subjects several months ahead of the general population that they will be testing the antibodies levels on, so they will know before it is needed.

 

They are not "rushing" the safety testing.  Or on testing for actual immunity.

[SRF]

10 hours ago, clo said:

Unless it is federally mandated that number will never happen. It should happen.

 

Why?

 

Those that do not get the vaccine do not put me or you at risk.  Only themselves and others that do not get the vaccine or have immunity from having had it.  

 

If some one wants to be at risk, more power to them.  Darwin takes care of them over time. 😄

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, SRF said:

 

Why?

 

Those that do not get the vaccine do not put me or you at risk.  Only themselves and others that do not get the vaccine or have immunity from having had it.  

 

If some one wants to be at risk, more power to them.  Darwin takes care of them over time. 😄

No...vaccines aren't 100% effective...for example a typical year's flu vaccine is only about 50% effective...so any unvaccinated person puts everyone at risk, even those who are vaccinated. Further the amount of immunity provided by having had COVID-19 is unknown and there's concern that what immunity is provided may not last very long as antibody levels appear to drop quickly, so medical science isn't ready to say that having had COVID-19 provides protection against becoming infected again.

 

 

[cruisemom42]

42 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

No...vaccines aren't 100% effective...for example a typical year's flu vaccine is only about 50% effective...so any unvaccinated person puts everyone at risk, even those who are vaccinated. Further the amount of immunity provided by having had COVID-19 is unknown and there's concern that what immunity is provided may not last very long as antibody levels appear to drop quickly, so medical science isn't ready to say that having had COVID-19 provides protection against becoming infected again.

 

 

Exactly. I was about to post the same thing.

 

Sure, I will get the vaccine and will feel somewhat better if I have it. But I would feel more confident if I knew that 2/3 or even 3/4 of the general population, with whom I come into contact (assuming we no longer have to stay home/socially distance when a vaccine is available) have also had it, knowing that it is likely to be on partially protective.

 

 

[clo]

3 hours ago, ontheweb said:

He is not a politician, he is a scientist. I would hope he tells the truth.

And he's had to play the stupid game for decades. I think he does an amazing job at both.

[clo]

2 hours ago, SRF said:

  Darwin takes care of them over time.

Unfortunately too many of them have procreated by then 🙂 

[sfaaa]

19 hours ago, ATC cruiser said:

I remember reading something about a month ago that said ⅓ of the population wasn’t interested in receiving it.

Good. 1/3 less people clogging up the line for the new vaccine. I call this a plus.

[chipmaster]

6 hours ago, clo said:

And he's had to play the stupid game for decades. I think he does an amazing job at both.

 

Scientist rarely can NOT play some politics, publish  or perish, get funding or perish, sadly a scientist needs funding and publications, so there is politics.

[chipmaster]

22 minutes ago, sfaaa said:

Good. 1/3 less people clogging up the line for the new vaccine. I call this a plus.

 

And they will hog/clogl up the ICUs, something really wrong with that thinking.

 

Maybe at hospital admissions:  Q1:  Were you offered a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and declined it, if so no treatment for you!

[clo]

1 minute ago, chipmaster said:

 

Scientist rarely can NOT play some politics, publish  or perish, get funding or perish, sadly a scientist needs funding and publications, so there is politics.

I just read a long piece about his career. He's multi-talented for sure.

[clo]

1 minute ago, chipmaster said:

Maybe at hospital admissions:  Q1:  Were you offered a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and declined it, if so no treatment for you!

THIS^^^^^^^^^^ Just perfect IMneverHO 🙂 

[SRF]

23 hours ago, njhorseman said:

No...vaccines aren't 100% effective...for example a typical year's flu vaccine is only about 50% effective...so any unvaccinated person puts everyone at risk, even those who are vaccinated. Further the amount of immunity provided by having had COVID-19 is unknown and there's concern that what immunity is provided may not last very long as antibody levels appear to drop quickly, so medical science isn't ready to say that having had COVID-19 provides protection against becoming infected again.

 

 

As I have said before, flu vaccine is a BAD example.  The 50% figure is because there are hundreds of "flu" strains.  They pick 3 of them for the vaccine each year.  If they miss their guess, you are vaccinated against "flu" strains that are not really a big thing that year.  So the vaccine is not effective.

 

Most vaccines are more in the 80 - 95% effective, against what you are vaccinated against.

 

But again, if you are not vaccinated, YOU are at the greatest risk.

 

If the vaccine is only 50% effective, then it is worthless, as that is well below the level of herd immunity.

 

Vaccination is just one way to get herd immunity.  It is quicker, with less complications, but the end is the same.

[njhorseman]

7 minutes ago, SRF said:

 

As I have said before, flu vaccine is a BAD example.  The 50% figure is because there are hundreds of "flu" strains.  They pick 3 of them for the vaccine each year.  If they miss their guess, you are vaccinated against "flu" strains that are not really a big thing that year.  So the vaccine is not effective.

 

Most vaccines are more in the 80 - 95% effective, against what you are vaccinated against.

 

But again, if you are not vaccinated, YOU are at the greatest risk.

 

If the vaccine is only 50% effective, then it is worthless, as that is well below the level of herd immunity.

 

Vaccination is just one way to get herd immunity.  It is quicker, with less complications, but the end is the same.

Your statement "If the vaccine is only 50% effective, then it is worthless, as that is well below the level of herd immunity." is nonsensical. Even at 50% effectiveness a vaccine can save thousands of lives.

[Joebucks]

19 minutes ago, SRF said:

 

As I have said before, flu vaccine is a BAD example.  The 50% figure is because there are hundreds of "flu" strains.  They pick 3 of them for the vaccine each year.  If they miss their guess, you are vaccinated against "flu" strains that are not really a big thing that year.  So the vaccine is not effective.

 

Most vaccines are more in the 80 - 95% effective, against what you are vaccinated against.

 

But again, if you are not vaccinated, YOU are at the greatest risk.

 

If the vaccine is only 50% effective, then it is worthless, as that is well below the level of herd immunity.

 

Vaccination is just one way to get herd immunity.  It is quicker, with less complications, but the end is the same.

 

COVID is already starting to mutate according to the info out there. A quick spreading virus generally does not stay constant. Traditionally, they have become less deadly as the virus tends to evolve to spread, not kill its host. New strains are created and the vaccines do not help.

 

This is why flu vaccine gets brought up so often about it's relatively low effectiveness rate. Sure we can "do better" with a vaccine. If we already panic about a fraction of a fraction dying, will we resume normal life if a fraction of a fraction, cut in half are dying?

[navybankerteacher]

On 7/16/2020 at 8:27 AM, SRF said:

 

Why?

 

Those that do not get the vaccine do not put me or you at risk.  Only themselves and others that do not get the vaccine or have immunity from having had it.  

 

If some one wants to be at risk, more power to them.  Darwin takes care of them over time. 😄

Not absolutely correct.  Those who do not get a vaccine DO put others at risk.

 

Suppose a vaccine is just 50% effective,  your getting it will (just straight odds) cut your chances of getting infected in half.  For every thousand OTHER people who get it and become immunized, there will be 500 fewer people who might expose you.  If everyone else got the vaccine, your chances of being exposed is cut in half.

 

Adding the 50% chance that your vaccine will protect you to everyone else getting it means that a 50% effective vaccine will give you a 75% chance of not being infected.

 

I agree about the Darwinian effect - the unfortunate thing is that it takes too long.

Edited July 17, 2020 by navybankerteacher

[navybankerteacher]

28 minutes ago, Joebucks said:

 

...If we already panic about a fraction of a fraction dying, will we resume normal life if a fraction of a fraction, cut in half are dying?

Don’t you think that having half as many deaths is worth an effort?

With the US toll likely to hit 200,000 this year (and the likely long-term side-effects on survivors still to be seen), imposing a few limitations upon non-essential activities can be seen as “normal”.  

[Joebucks]

23 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Don’t you think that having half as many deaths is worth an effort?

With the US toll likely to hit 200,000 this year (and the likely long-term side-effects on survivors still to be seen), imposing a few limitations upon non-essential activities can be seen as “normal”.  

 

I don't believe I said that it wasn't worth an effort. My question was at what point can we resume normal life?

[clo]

10 minutes ago, Joebucks said:

normal life?

What are your requirements for that?

[navybankerteacher]

21 minutes ago, Joebucks said:

 

I don't believe I said that it wasn't worth an effort. My question was at what point can we resume normal life?

Perhaps when we stop losing thousands of lives each week because our haste to “resume normal life” has caused us to lose control of the situation.

 

How many hundreds/thousands of lives per week are you willing to see lost and still call things “normal”?

[JAMESCC]

Perhaps when we stop losing thousands of lives each week because our haste to “resume normal life” has caused us to lose control of the situation.
 
How many hundreds/thousands of lives per week are you willing to see lost and still call things “normal”?

And it's getting worse by the week. I cannot believe we sacrificed so much for 2-3 months only to squander it. If this is what we were going to do in the end we should have just done nothing for first 3 months. Sad crap, sad crap man.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Joebucks]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

Perhaps when we stop losing thousands of lives each week because our haste to “resume normal life” has caused us to lose control of the situation.

 

How many hundreds/thousands of lives per week are you willing to see lost and still call things “normal”?

 

We always lose thousands due to sickness though. Even with vaccines, we still lose people.

 

I'm just checking, if we cut COVID's deaths in half, we could resume normal life, right? What is the line in the sand?

[clo]

53 minutes ago, Joebucks said:

 

We always lose thousands due to sickness though. Even with vaccines, we still lose people.

 

I'm just checking, if we cut COVID's deaths in half, we could resume normal life, right? What is the line in the sand?

Again, I ask, what's your definition to "normal life"? Like it was last year? I'm totally guessing but would guess we will never go back to how it was then. If ever, way way down the road.

[lenquixote66]

4 hours ago, Joebucks said:

 

I don't believe I said that it wasn't worth an effort. My question was at what point can we resume normal life?

How do you define normal life ?