Covid-19 Vaccinations To Be Required?

[deadzone1003]

30 minutes ago, PaulMCO said:

Our county in Florida, just started an on line appointment registry for the 12,000 does it gets next week.  Has two choices a fixed appointment window and when that fills a wait list in case of cancellations.   They are giving the Moderna, this week to healthcare workers, and Pfizer next week.

Was surprisingly easy to snag an appointments for Wednesday by using their Web site, but I would assume the phone lines were jammed.  Will be interesting to see how the vaccine is executed with around 6,000 vehicles over a 3 day period descending on the county fairground

Sounds like a more sensible system to make sure all the vaccines are used up that were allocated for the day especially if they are dispensing Pfizer vaccine.  With everybody in their car, you don't have to worry about social distancing.  What happens if you do not have a car?

[pinotlover]

1 hour ago, GICNJC said:

In fact the fast test are not as effective primarily because you have to be further into your exposure for the test to determine you do have COVID.   To put it another way, there are pregency tests that reqire different minimum days to register positive.

From webMD dated 12/11/20:

 

Researchers found the agreement between the saliva and swab administered through the mouth was 93% and that sensitivity was 96.7%.  The swab administered through the nose and saliva had a result agreement of 97.7% with a sensitivity of 94.1%.

 

Are you searching only for the 100% perfect answer? 97.7% for a 20 minute wait versus a 2-7 day wait sounds very good to me. But I’m not a 100% only kind of guy.

[napoxoguk]

On 1/8/2021 at 3:30 PM, deadzone1003 said:

Have you considered just Googling "Sinopharm, Sinovac vaccine:" to see what you come up with if you think I am not credible.

I wonder what you come up with if you google that...

Your "50% efficacy" figure for Sinovac, for instance, is in fact the regulator threshold in Brazil, not the reported efficacy of Sinovac.

Sinovac's reported efficacy in Turkey is about 91%, and 78% in Brazil, which doesn't seem too impressive, but then again, Pfizer's efficacy in Brazil was also not quite 94 (something like 87.7, iirc). 

At any rate, at this point, given the opportunity, I'd be happy to get anything - Sputnik, Sinovac, Moderna, Oxford, whatever...

 

[deadzone1003]

20 hours ago, napoxoguk said:

I wonder what you come up with if you google that...

Your "50% efficacy" figure for Sinovac, for instance, is in fact the regulator threshold in Brazil, not the reported efficacy of Sinovac.

Sinovac's reported efficacy in Turkey is about 91%, and 78% in Brazil, which doesn't seem too impressive, but then again, Pfizer's efficacy in Brazil was also not quite 94 (something like 87.7, iirc). 

At any rate, at this point, given the opportunity, I'd be happy to get anything - Sputnik, Sinovac, Moderna, Oxford, whatever...

 

Just be careful.  The numbers are all over the place with Sinovac.  That 50% was just something I picked from an article concerning Chinese vaccine.  It had stated 50% in that article.  Currently, Indonesia has just approved Sinovac's vaccine (its called CoronaVac) when their studies show a 67% efficacy rate.  Brazil has reported a 78% efficacy rate a day or two ago, but now it is reporting 50.4%.  Everyone has to decide for themselves if what is being reported is correct.  Just to forewarn you, don't take any vaccine, take the one that fits you.  You have to determine if you are willing to go through some of those side effects or if you are not allergic to it.  Above all, study the efficacy report and see if the sub-group efficacy is high enough for your satisfaction.  Just because it says a efficacy of 75% doesn't mean it is 75% for everyone who takes it.  It is just the group average.  To give you a hypothetical example, let's say there was only two equal size subgroups for that 75% efficacy report.  One subgroup could have an efficacy of 100% while the other subgroup could have an efficacy of 50%.   When they average it out, it comes out to 75%.  If that subgroup at 50% only consisted of people over 65, do you think it would be wise to pick that when you can get a better one (if you are over 65) with a lower average efficacy rate, but a higher rate for your subgroup?   Also, I'm not sure if people really understand how efficacy numbers really means in terms of odds.  Granted the higher the rate the better it is.  For example, the Moderna vaccine is at 95% efficacy rate.  Well, to translate it to information which most Americans probably can understand is that for every 20 people in the Placebo group who got the virus only 1 in the Vaccine group got the virus (assuming equal size groups).  Now, if you look at a vaccine that is at 50%, it means for every 2 people in the Placebo group who got the virus, only 1 in the Vaccine group got the virus.  This is based on the formula ((P - V)/P x 100) = efficacy rate where P is the percentage of Placebo group getting the virus while V is the percentage of Vaccinated people getting the virus.  So, do your due diligence, study those efficacy reports and see if efficacy for your subgroup is satisfactory to you.  Now, if your only choice is that 50% vaccine, the general consensus is it is better to take it than not as it will probably help you by diminishing the severity of the disease.  Don't be so scared that you will take the first one that comes along. Get the right one for yourself.

[Tranquility Base]

Reports of a UK firm developing a vaccine in pill form.

Perhaps starting clinical trials this month.

Source: UK Telegraph.

 

That could be exciting news to keep an eye on.

 

[deadzone1003]

1 hour ago, Tranquility Base said:

Reports of a UK firm developing a vaccine in pill form.

Perhaps starting clinical trials this month.

Source: UK Telegraph.

 

That could be exciting news to keep an eye on.

 

Vaxart Inc. of South South Francisco already has their oral vaccine in Phase I clinical trials.  Afraid of taking shots? LOL  There is also a company in Pennsylvania that is developing an oral vaccine.  I guess these are for those anti-vaxxers who are just afraid of taking shots.  By the time these vaccines get to market, those people who wanted a covid19 vaccine may already have gotten it.  Let's see how it plays out.  

[Paulchili]

12 minutes ago, deadzone1003 said:

By the time these vaccines get to market, those people who wanted a covid19 vaccine may already have gotten it.  Let's see how it plays out.  

I am afraid these vaccines (shots or pills) will have to be used more than just twice.

The more options for now and for the future, the better.

[PaulMCO]

On 1/9/2021 at 12:04 PM, deadzone1003 said:

Sounds like a more sensible system to make sure all the vaccines are used up that were allocated for the day especially if they are dispensing Pfizer vaccine.  With everybody in their car, you don't have to worry about social distancing.  What happens if you do not have a car?

No car you wait until it is available at the hospitals or Publix supermarket (which is being done in 100 in the State of Florida).

 

Our county did 4500 people in 3 days with Pfizer and could have done more if it had the vaccine quantity.  Cars lined up into 11 bays with 2 cars per bay -- most likely minimum 2 people per car means 44 shots at one time.  EMT standing by in a holding area where you parked for 15 minutes in case of reactions.

About 50 sheriff personnel directing cars and check eligibility.

 

Very efficient comparing this to New York (Staten Island) where they had a tent and did one person every 15 minutes.

 

Edited January 14, 2021 by PaulMCO

[deadzone1003]

13 hours ago, Paulchili said:

I am afraid these vaccines (shots or pills) will have to be used more than just twice.

The more options for now and for the future, the better.

Paul, it seems you have an expectation that it will like a flu-like vaccine where it may be an annual event and not too effective or something akin to a booster shot a few years down the road?  In any case, having an oral vaccine makes it easier to swallow (sorry for the pun, I just couldn't help myself).

[Daniel A]

There's lots of good posts about the vaccines themselves, but I'm wondering if anybody has input as to whether vaccines will be required by Oceania for their earlier start up cruises.  I know the CEO of Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings said a while ago that they were exploring this as an option.  Has anyone heard anything further on that?

[Paulchili]

29 minutes ago, deadzone1003 said:

Paul, it seems you have an expectation that it will like a flu-like vaccine where it may be an annual event and not too effective or something akin to a booster shot a few years down the road?  

Something like that is very likely to be the case.

[LHT28]

40 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

There's lots of good posts about the vaccines themselves, but I'm wondering if anybody has input as to whether vaccines will be required by Oceania for their earlier start up cruises.  I know the CEO of Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings said a while ago that they were exploring this as an option.  Has anyone heard anything further on that?

It may depend on the CDC rules for sailing out of US ports   depending on the embarkation Country  if they require proof of vaccination to enter that Country

Still too many unknowns

JMO

[deadzone1003]

2 hours ago, Daniel A said:

There's lots of good posts about the vaccines themselves, but I'm wondering if anybody has input as to whether vaccines will be required by Oceania for their earlier start up cruises.  I know the CEO of Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings said a while ago that they were exploring this as an option.  Has anyone heard anything further on that?

Logically, I would think, a best case scenario, vaccinated passengers would be allowed to visit the ports while the unvaccinated will have to stay on the ship.  This is pure speculation as it will depend on the ports themselves and what CDC dictates.  I really don't see cruise ships visiting foreign ports until all passengers and crew members are vaccinated.  Even getting all crew members vaccinated seems to be a daunting task to accomplish.  Even if Oceania obtains their own vaccines for their crew members, getting them to take a vaccine they are not sure of is another story.  This is especially true if they know there will be an acceptable vaccine that will be available for them in short time.  It may well depend on how desperate everyone is.  

[deadzone1003]

Norway is reporting that some people who are old and frail are apparently dying from the mRNA vaccine due to the severity of its side effects.  So, if you are old and frail or if you have someone old and frail in your family, don't be in a rush to take that vaccine until you get more information from this developing story.  Do they even test people who are old and frail in the Phase III trials?  

 

Here is a link to the story:  https://norwaytoday.info/news/norwegian-medicines-agency-links-13-deaths-to-vaccine-side-effects-those-who-died-were-frail-and-old/

[Paulchili]

3 hours ago, deadzone1003 said:

Norway is reporting that some people who are old and frail are apparently dying from the mRNA vaccine due to the severity of its side effects.  So, if you are old and frail or if you have someone old and frail in your family, don't be in a rush to take that vaccine until you get more information from this developing story.  Do they even test people who are old and frail in the Phase III trials?  

 

Here is a link to the story:  https://norwaytoday.info/news/norwegian-medicines-agency-links-13-deaths-to-vaccine-side-effects-those-who-died-were-frail-and-old/

Strange that this should be a Norwegian side effect of the vaccine (Norway syndrome?) not observed or reported from any other country.

[njhorseman]

4 hours ago, deadzone1003 said:

  Do they even test people who are old and frail in the Phase III trials?  

No they wouldn't, any more than they would test pregnant women, infants or very young children. 

Any older adults in the trials would have to be relatively healthy.

 

Note: I read that one of the five doctors on the CDC vaccine advisory committee had voted against giving the vaccine to frail elderly people because it hadn't been tested in that group.

Edited January 15, 2021 by njhorseman

[deadzone1003]

1 hour ago, Paulchili said:

Strange that this should be a Norwegian side effect of the vaccine (Norway syndrome?) not observed or reported from any other country.

This is a developing story.  Maybe Norway was one of the first countries to get one of the mRNA vaccine so other countries could still be counting the bodies.  Let's see how it develops.  It is just sensible to hold off taking a mRNA vaccine if you are old and frail.  Just remember the human body  do not like foreign substances invading it even if it's motives are pure.  Apparently, it's reaction to this invasion (vaccine) is simply too much for the old and frail bodies to withstand.  I still think Moderna is one of the best vaccine out there, but also one of the riskiest.  I still plan to take it myself if a vaccine is required for cruising as it seems to fit me the best, but I don't plan to take my vaccine until Aug/Sept and I could change my mind if a vaccine comes on the scene that fits me better.  So Paul, if you are old and frail, do yourself a favor and just hold off taking a mRNA vaccine until more information is available. 

[njhorseman]

11 hours ago, deadzone1003 said:

Maybe Norway was one of the first countries to get one of the mRNA vaccine so other countries could still be counting the bodies

No. Vaccination programs were already underway in the UK and US well before Norway.

 

The UK was first (December 2 approval). The US approved the Pfizer vaccine December 11.  Both the UK and US began their vaccination programs immediately after approval. The EU didn't approve the Pfizer vaccine until December 21. Although Norway is not a member of the EU they are buying their vaccine from EU member country Sweden.

[njhorseman]

11 hours ago, deadzone1003 said:

I still think Moderna is one of the best vaccine out there, but also one of the riskiest

Given that there are only two vaccines approved for use in the US, it's also one of the worst but also one of the least risky...😏

[deadzone1003]

3 hours ago, njhorseman said:

Given that there are only two vaccines approved for use in the US, it's also one of the worst but also one of the least risky...😏

Everyone should be assessing each vaccine that fits their situation, meaning doing your due diligence.  Because there has never been a vaccine for a coronavirus, I always thought a totally new way of creating a vaccine will be required.  But I always believe because of this new way of creating a new vaccine, it may well be the riskiest because of its side effects, potentially new type of side effects - I have no knowledge to confirm this, but this is how I feel - the unknown has a way of scaring you.  Well, mRNA apparently succeeded in its efficacy side, but the long term side effects is still unknown.  It is a high risk, high reward situation.  I believe Singapore back in April signed up for Moderna, Pfizer, and Sinovac.  Moderna and Pfizer were the cutting edge approach to the situation while hedging their bet with Sinovac who has perhaps the longest history in trying to develop a vaccine for a coronavirus (Remember the original SARS virus?).  What vaccine are you planning to take? and why?

[pinotlover]

Deadzone;

 

Not all of us live in a major metropolitan area. Locally , we don’t get “ choices”. It’s Moderna only, in that local facilities don’t have the necessary infrastructure for the Pfizer vaccine. I likewise believe that those in Louisville and Lexington are almost exclusively getting the Pfizer vaccine. The available vaccines are being allocated out how how best they can be effectively administered. Maybe someday, but “ choice” doesn’t play much of a role currently. But, if one makes a choice to wait several months, then maybe along with a hefty drive more “choices” may be available.

[njhorseman]

20 minutes ago, deadzone1003 said:

Everyone should be assessing each vaccine that fits their situation, meaning doing your due diligence.  Because there has never been a vaccine for a coronavirus, I always thought a totally new way of creating a vaccine will be required.  But I always believe because of this new way of creating a new vaccine, it may well be the riskiest because of its side effects, potentially new type of side effects - I have no knowledge to confirm this, but this is how I feel - the unknown has a way of scaring you.  Well, mRNA apparently succeeded in its efficacy side, but the long term side effects is still unknown.  It is a high risk, high reward situation.  I believe Singapore back in April signed up for Moderna, Pfizer, and Sinovac.  Moderna and Pfizer were the cutting edge approach to the situation while hedging their bet with Sinovac who has perhaps the longest history in trying to develop a vaccine for a coronavirus (Remember the original SARS virus?).  What vaccine are you planning to take? and why?

 I surely won't take Sinovac since there's likely zero chance of of it being approved anytime soon, if ever, for use in the US. 

We really don't have the option right now to choose between Moderna and Pfizer . One will have to take whatever is available to you at the time you are scheduled to be vaccinated. That doesn't bother me one bit as I see little or no meaningful difference in either efficacy or safety between the two. At age 74 my goal is to be vaccinated as soon as my number comes up on the appointment schedule. If sometime down the road there are other choices then that's a decision to be made at that time, not now.

[1985rz1]

1 hour ago, deadzone1003 said:

  What vaccine are you planning to take? and why?

Moderna is all that is available in our area and not sure when vaccinations will be available appointments  for 1b priority.   Appointment for first shots were booked through February even before 1b priority opened up. 

[Daniel A]

Moderna was the only vaccine to show that even if you were in the 5.5% where it wasn't effective in preventing the disease, the vaccine blocks the illness from becoming severe.  Pfizer didn't look at that factor so it's an unknown at this point.  If I have a choice, I'll go with Moderna.

[pinotlover]

23 hours ago, deadzone1003 said:

Norway is reporting that some people who are old and frail are apparently dying from the mRNA vaccine due to the severity of its side effects.  So, if you are old and frail or if you have someone old and frail in your family, don't be in a rush to take that vaccine until you get more information from this developing story.  Do they even test people who are old and frail in the Phase III trials?  

 

Here is a link to the story:  https://norwaytoday.info/news/norwegian-medicines-agency-links-13-deaths-to-vaccine-side-effects-those-who-died-were-frail-and-old/

This was always recognized as an issue here in the US, an Europe as well. Here in KY, they actually debated not vaccinating the residents only the workers at the assisted living facilities.

 

Here was the simple dilemma they faced. If not vaccinated, those elderly would continue as virtual prisoners in the facilities. No outside guests or visitors. Most all the facilities said they didn’t have the capacity to isolate those that couldn’t/shouldn’t be vaccinated. Decision was to vaccinate them all. I believe a certain, hopefully small, mortality rate was always expected from the decision. With most any decision of this nature there had to be an acceptable mortality rate.