AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Sigh…I added a wink emoji. I figured my phrasing would make it clear I understood that!
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Wenche
- Start date
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
No it is not reasonable. There has been no vaccine in history with long term effects that were not immediately (first few weeks to couple months) obvious.
That includes ADE (the RSV issue, kind of a special case but also known very quickly - just took an infection a few weeks after vaccination) - but these vaccines were specifically made to avoid that. And we would definitely know about that at this point.
The mRNA vaccines are fantastically safe and there will be no long term effects other than beneficial immunity.
It was extremely reasonable to not want to be the first in line for the vaccine in late 2020 (I personally would have waited for two months just to be sure, if I had somehow been able to get it early). Now, we know they are safe.
Note with the J&J we knew about the safety issues within a month or two of wide rollout.
Last edited:
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
There was no real governance of vaccine development back in the 1960s, and in fact it was these early mistakes which led to the Phase 1/2/3 clinical trial system. Not to mince words: the Phase 1/2/3 clinical trial system is EXCELLENT. If anything, it always errs on the side of an overabundance of caution with regards to safety.
The hardest part of vaccine trials in the modern age is getting enough DATA to run the proper statistics and have a large enough sample size to evaluate for side effects. The (incorrect) argument going around in anti-vax groups is that these vaccines were rushed into production, and therefore they cannot be safe. I'm going to lay out below exactly why that argument is wrong.
1) the bulk of the molecular research (pre-Phase 1) was already done, because 10+ years ago the original SARS scared the crap out of everyone in virology. There were lots of grants and lots of money poured into understanding that coronavirus, and that paid off in spades when it came to SARS-CoV-2. While there are differences in the viruses, they are close cousins and the bulk of all this prior research could be properly leveraged to understand the basic life cycle of SARS-CoV-2, how it bound to and infected cells, how it replicates it's DNA, etc.
2) Phase 1 clinical trials were already done or prepped in regards to molecular targets for SARS (see #1 above). The only thing that happened here was that the genetic sequence for the S-protein from the original SARS virus was swapped out for the one in SARS-CoV-2. Phase 1 trials then underwent at typical pace (which is quick - Phase 1 is just basically "toxicity" trials, to make sure there isn't something obvious in the formulation of the vaccine that will immediately kill test subjects). These were exceptional for the mRNA vaccines, and brought up zero concerns about toxicity. In fact, the limited side-effect profile data was better than traditional vaccines. From a molecular biology standpoint, this makes sense. There is less in the mRNA vaccines for a person to react to, far fewer components.
3) Phase 2/3 - in COVID-19 these were combined, which is what many people focus in on to say things were "rushed". This is a cherry-picked argument because they don't know how these things work. For vaccine trials, you MUST give the vaccine to a population, and it has to be an "at risk" population. What do I mean by that? I mean specifically that the virus must be present in the population. If it is not, you cannot collect the key end-points: how well the vaccine protects against A) mortality/death (goal #1), B) morbidity/hospitalization (i.e. severity of sickness, goal #2), and C) overall infection rate (goal #3).
Phase 2/3 are always limited in speed by how fast you can collect data. So if you have VERY low incidence of a virus, it will take years or even decades to collect enough data to have statistical power to determine if the vaccine is effective for your 3 goals, and to what degree. If, however, you are in a pandemic and the virus is literally everywhere, that data collection goes incredibly rapidly. THIS KEY POINT is why these vaccines were able to come through Phases 2/3 very quickly. Their efficacy and safety data were quickly collected, and on a very large number of people, and proved to be excellent against the original Wuhan virus (waning some since as the new variants have mutations - but still excellent by historical standards).
Approval for use in the general population (i.e. FDA approval) happens based upon analysis of the data by a non-biased, experts-filled group at the FDA. Every person in this group must have no financial or other incentives tied to any company, university, or non-profit associated with the vaccine, it's basic research, and data collection. They truly aim for as unbiased as possible a group to comb through the data, and then make a recommendation. The reputation of these individuals is on the line, and they take their work very seriously. There is no evidence that anyone in the FDA groups that gave recommendation to approve these vaccines had anything but the best intentions, and no evidence that they cut any corners. The vaccines were approved by overwhelming majority votes (I believe they were unanimous for adult usage) by each FDA group for each vaccine, based upon strong efficacy and excellent safety data.
Phase 4 - this is the phase we are in now, after the medication or vaccine has been approved and is in use. Monitoring and statistical data collection and analysis continues. There are some side effects, like the rate blood clots with the adenoviral-based vaccines, which just don't show up until you have much larger numbers of people (millions, vs. the 10s of thousands in Phases2/3). In the past, drugs have been removed from the market after rare but life-threatening complications are noted from Phase 4 data.
The American Cancer Society also has a good write up on how a Trial is structured (since they are often at the forefront of new medications):
Types and Phases of Clinical Trials | What Are Clinical Trial Phases?
Clinical trials are usually conducted in distinct phases. Learn about each phase here.
www.cancer.org
To answer your question: given where we are now, and the boatloads of data we have on these vaccines, I no longer believe anyone has a rational argument against being vaccinated in the 12 and older group. 5-12, I will support vaccinating that group given the R value of Omicron just to reduce transmission of the virus to more at-risk populations. 5 and under I DO NOT support vaccination in this group. The preliminary data in the 5 and under group is just very underwhelming. It's shown to be well-tolerated and safe, but doesn't appear to offer the same kind of protection it does in older children and adults. This group (5yo and under) is so low-risk from COVID-19 that the vaccine would have to offer pretty much perfect protection to meet the benefit to risk ratio needed to get approved.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Things are not quite as black and white as you are stating them.
Problems do happen with vaccines, although they are rare. The last major recall that I was around for was the Rotavirus vaccine, and it was found to cause problems discovered in Phase 4 data collection, years after it was on the market.
Historical Safety Concerns | Vaccine Safety | CDC
Read more about past vaccine safety concerns, how they have been resolved, and what we have learned.
www.cdc.gov
scottf200
Well-Known Member
Another way to look at the nation. I posted an earlier version of this some time ago. Below based on data from 1-Nov-2020 to 14-Jan-2022
I don't know what to make of N. Dakota. ICU way up (red) but cases not (green). Guessing lack of testing or lack of reporting.
www.ft.com
I don't know what to make of N. Dakota. ICU way up (red) but cases not (green). Guessing lack of testing or lack of reporting.
Surge of US Covid hospitalisations masks ‘incidental’ infections
Admissions hit record high but some patients are seeking care for reasons unrelated to virus
www.ft.com
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
“ Shortly after it was licensed, some infants developed intussusception (rare type of bowel obstruction that occurs when the bowel folds in on itself) after being vaccinated.” I guess I am assuming this occurred in a month or two. I can’t see “shortly after” referring to a period of years, though please correct me if I am wrong.Things are not quite as black and white as you are stating them.
Problems do happen with vaccines, although they are rare. The last major recall that I was around for was the Rotavirus vaccine, and it was found to cause problems discovered in Phase 4 data collection, years after it was on the market.
Historical Safety Concerns | Vaccine Safety | CDC
Read more about past vaccine safety concerns, how they have been resolved, and what we have learned.
So, this acute life-threatening (fun fact: my very healthy and fit younger brother had one in his 20s - very rare - thankfully modern medicine saved him) adverse event occurred just shortly after administration of the vaccine AFAICT. Attribution took longer, perhaps years, but that was not something my statement ruled out. My statement stands without modification, unless I need correction on the timeline here.
Nothing in my statement suggested that there were not problems with vaccines on occasion. Problems with vaccines are not rare at all. J&J is the most recent example.
My point is they make themselves known early. How quickly they are noticed and acted upon is dependent on the systems in place to catch rare events. I think it is clear that those are working well at this point, though perhaps for the rotavirus vaccine they were not.
A lot of the anti-vaxxers focus on nebulous “long-term” effects which do not show up right away. These do not exist nor have they ever in all of vaccination history, AFAIK. That’s my point - not that vaccines are somehow inherently safe (definitely not true in general, though tradeoffs may still be in their favor).
We’re very lucky that the mRNA vaccines are fantastically safe with no serious adverse events known to exist (unless someone is allergic to the ingredients of course). And at this point we know we will not “discover” anything long-term. It just does not happen.
Last edited:
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
No, it was not 1-2 months, it took years to tease out the association of this vaccine with the side effect. It was rare, and not observed in the Phase 3 clinical data. The time frame for the intussusception after vaccine administration was up to 1 year, AND it was not common.
So, my point is that I don't agree with your statement that side effects always make themselves known early. They do not, and often they can be hard to distinguish from statistical noise until your data set is orders of magnitude larger.
I would also not come to the same conclusions about mRNA vaccines that you are coming to (and I do not know any physician that would either). Biological effects, especially subtle ones, can take years and sometimes even decades to fully present themselves and be associated with a cause. Biological systems are infinitely more complex than just about anything else we know, cause and effect relationships are very difficult to tease out in many cases.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Perhaps up to 1 year, but it sounds like usually 1-2 weeks (which would validate my statement). It's also not very rare! 1/20k - 1/100k is actually pretty common:
"There is also a small risk of intussusception from rotavirus vaccination, usually within a week after the first or second dose. This additional risk is estimated to range from about 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 100,000 US infants who get rotavirus vaccine."
Rotavirus Vaccine and Intussusception | CDC
Intussusception is a type of bowel blockage; the condition is rare. There is a small risk of intussusception from rotavirus vaccination, usually within a week after the first or second dose. Most infants who get rotavirus vaccine have no problems.
www.cdc.gov
Perhaps this is not in reference to the same vaccine? But in any case it seems to me that the timeline for side effects would be very similar regardless of whether this is the same vaccine in question (it looks like it took one year for it to be pulled):
Wikipedia:
" In 1998, a rotavirus vaccine (RotaShield, by Wyeth) was licensed for use in the United States. Clinical trials in the United States, Finland, and Venezuela had found it to be 80 to 100% effective at preventing severe diarrhea caused by rotavirus A, and researchers had detected no statistically significant serious adverse effects. The manufacturer of the vaccine, however, withdrew it from the market in 1999, after it was discovered that the vaccine may have contributed to an increased risk for intussusception, or bowel obstruction, in one of every 12,000 vaccinated infants.[27]"
I'm of course always absolutely open to correction - I want to be sure that I am making correct statements for something of high import like this, but so far I don't see evidence that my statement is incorrect based on the historical record. Happy to hear about a counterexample in the record. The last time this conversation came up in this thread, there were no counterexamples given. I still wonder if there is one.
Of course it's possible (there's a first time for everything!). I'm saying that based on the historical record, we have every reason to believe that the mRNA vaccines will maintain their safety profile. But if they do not, it would be the first time in history that that has ever occurred for a vaccine.
Again, to be clear, I'm claiming that they occur early, very soon after vaccination, not that they are identified as a side effect early.
"There has been no vaccine in history with long-term effects that were not immediately (first few weeks to couple months) obvious."
So for this specific example, an infant who got an intussusception 2 weeks after vaccination would have an immediately obvious side effect. Even if it were not known to be tied to the vaccine (potentially for years in the case of poor surveillance), the side effect was noticed, and obvious, immediately, and it's still a side effect of the vaccine even if it's not known to be one. There's a huge amount of surveillance & scrutiny on the mRNA vaccines. If there were an issue, we'd know at this point. I'm not worried about poor surveillance.
In keeping with my statement, it's possible that there are many people out there wandering around with major current injuries from the mRNA vaccines (that's the only type of side effect that has ever occurred with vaccines), and we just haven't noticed yet (to be clear, I don't think this is actually happening). Though extremely unlikely because of the extreme scrutiny, it HAS happened before with vaccines. However, that would be less surprising than some future side effect coming up years down the road (which has never happened in history).
Last edited:
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
1:20-1:100k would never show up in Phase 3 data as a statistically significant blip. Intussusception does happen, and it was hard to tease out the cause in this case. I'm assuming you are not a father, and have not seen how many vaccines we give infants (defined as 1 yo or younger), and all the doctor visits they get, and exams, etc. etc.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS IMMEDIATELY OBVIOUS TO ANYONE.
Now you are just wanting to argue, to "save face" or something I guess.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
No, I actually am just looking for a counter-example. My original statement remains valid, AFAIK. I agree that a casual reader could misinterpret it, but the meaning is clear. It does NOT claim that vaccines can't cause side-effects with long-term consequences. It simply is a claim that injuries from vaccines occur in the short-term, even if they are not immediately causally tied to the vaccine. This is important for countering most of the anti-vax propaganda, because they prey on fear, uncertainty & doubt.ow you are just wanting to argue, to "save face" or something I guess.
Pretty sure intussusception is immediately obvious.
I can definitely understand misreading my statement - it could probably be phrased more clearly. However, I have not changed what I meant here, and that meaning seems supported by the evidence.
Another way to say it would be: if you make it past the first couple months after the mRNA vaccine, you don’t have to worry about side effects. They’re not going to happen. So far, that appears to be the case for all recipients.
(And whenever I have made this statement in this thread, I’ve specifically highlighted ADE as an exception. But obviously we would know about that now.)
Last edited:
By the way….
I just finished reading this excellent page-turner on the inside story of the development of the Covid vaccines. It includes not just the last couple of years but also the key prior discoveries over the last 20 years that cleared the way for the mRNA and the viral vector (Adenovirus) vaccines.
I just finished reading this excellent page-turner on the inside story of the development of the Covid vaccines. It includes not just the last couple of years but also the key prior discoveries over the last 20 years that cleared the way for the mRNA and the viral vector (Adenovirus) vaccines.
Last edited:
This pandemic has put a lot of new focus on how viruses evolve and some people are looking at the history of viruses. I read an article last year that human DNA shows signs of ancient viruses that are either extinct or minor viruses today, but were once bad enough to cause a lot of harm. I only read part of it and was going to get back to it, but I lost track of it. It was very interesting.
It's a commentary on the times we live in that satire is not always obvious. Some things have actually happened in the real world in the last few years that would have been considered over the top for a source like the Onion 10 years ago.
The COVID vaccines are probably the most monitored vaccines in history, plus this has been the largest scale roll out of any vaccines in history. More shots in more arms in a shorter period of time than ever before. At this point we'd probably be seeing some canaries in the coal mine if the mRNA vaccines had any long term consequences.
We are seeing long term consequences from getting COVID. Lots of them. I was listening to NPR yesterday while out running errands and they were talking about the increase in disabled people in this country thanks to COVID.
Some of the long term consequences are not fully known yet. One is that having COVID has been shown to decrease male fertility. How widespread that is is not known yet, but we might see a decline in population over the next few decades because of infertility. Which isn't a bad thing for the planet, I've thought the world was above it's long term carry capacity for humans for some time now. Because some populations avoided large outbreaks because of early measures and vaccine uptake and others got hammered hard with infections, we may see an imbalance in fertility.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Sure you do:
“Dr. Fauci answered, “If you look at the history of vaccines, you know that virtually all long-term adverse effects of a vaccine occur between 15 and 30 days after you get the dose – 45 days at the most. When you get a vaccine allowed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), such as with the emergency use authorization, you have to wait 60 days from the time half the people in the trials got their last dose and observe safety before it can be used on the public. If almost all of the long-term adverse effects occur within 45 days, you’ve gone beyond that if you wait 60 days, so the chances of there being long-term effects are vanishingly small.””
Dr. Fauci weighs in on potential long-term side effects : Oregon Health News Blog
Some people in Oregon are hesitant to receive the new COVID-19 vaccines. Some don’t want to be “first in line” to receive a new vaccine and may be concerned about long-term side effects. These are …
covidblog.oregon.gov
I wasn’t making any bold pronouncement, of something I came up with. It’s just generally accepted knowledge amongst experts on vaccines and I was repeating it. And it’s not hard to find many other medical doctors making the same statement.
Still, we should follow the science, and if there are verified counterexamples it would be interesting to review them. It sounds like the intussusceptions were definitely within 60 days of vaccination, before dropping to baseline rates of incidence. But if there is data to the contrary, it would be interesting.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
Recent massive volcanic eruption of Hunga-Tonga-Hunga might be significant. It seems it's not done erupting and it might cause a cold summer (a year with no summer).
No certainty of that but as we've seen in past waves winter has been worse for the infection rates (higher rate of infection being worse, promoting infection).
The year 1816 is known as the Year Without a Summer because of severe climate abnormalities that caused average global temperatures to decrease by 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1 °F).
No certainty of that but as we've seen in past waves winter has been worse for the infection rates (higher rate of infection being worse, promoting infection).
The year 1816 is known as the Year Without a Summer because of severe climate abnormalities that caused average global temperatures to decrease by 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1 °F).
I'm not suggesting that level of destruction this year, but it might be enough to lower temps in North America and Europe again and keep people indoors sharing viruses longer into spring, or even summer, and then keep us indoors earlier in the fall like one or two giant super long winter(s).
Last edited:
Thanks, for the in depth reply. I am a math and science guy and want to know expert opinions. Is "natural" immunity i.e getting Covid, a better "immunity" than getting vaccinated? Some people have not wanted to get the "booster" because they do not want to keep putting "stuff" in their bodies and figure if they get Covid they will be okay because they are otherwise young and healthy and they are already vaccinated. My argument has been that is a hard way to get extra immunity.There was no real governance of vaccine development back in the 1960s, and in fact it was these early mistakes which led to the Phase 1/2/3 clinical trial system. Not to mince words: the Phase 1/2/3 clinical trial system is EXCELLENT. If anything, it always errs on the side of an overabundance of caution with regards to safety.
The hardest part of vaccine trials in the modern age is getting enough DATA to run the proper statistics and have a large enough sample size to evaluate for side effects. The (incorrect) argument going around in anti-vax groups is that these vaccines were rushed into production, and therefore they cannot be safe. I'm going to lay out below exactly why that argument is wrong.
1) the bulk of the molecular research (pre-Phase 1) was already done, because 10+ years ago the original SARS scared the crap out of everyone in virology. There were lots of grants and lots of money poured into understanding that coronavirus, and that paid off in spades when it came to SARS-CoV-2. While there are differences in the viruses, they are close cousins and the bulk of all this prior research could be properly leveraged to understand the basic life cycle of SARS-CoV-2, how it bound to and infected cells, how it replicates it's DNA, etc.
2) Phase 1 clinical trials were already done or prepped in regards to molecular targets for SARS (see #1 above). The only thing that happened here was that the genetic sequence for the S-protein from the original SARS virus was swapped out for the one in SARS-CoV-2. Phase 1 trials then underwent at typical pace (which is quick - Phase 1 is just basically "toxicity" trials, to make sure there isn't something obvious in the formulation of the vaccine that will immediately kill test subjects). These were exceptional for the mRNA vaccines, and brought up zero concerns about toxicity. In fact, the limited side-effect profile data was better than traditional vaccines. From a molecular biology standpoint, this makes sense. There is less in the mRNA vaccines for a person to react to, far fewer components.
3) Phase 2/3 - in COVID-19 these were combined, which is what many people focus in on to say things were "rushed". This is a cherry-picked argument because they don't know how these things work. For vaccine trials, you MUST give the vaccine to a population, and it has to be an "at risk" population. What do I mean by that? I mean specifically that the virus must be present in the population. If it is not, you cannot collect the key end-points: how well the vaccine protects against A) mortality/death (goal #1), B) morbidity/hospitalization (i.e. severity of sickness, goal #2), and C) overall infection rate (goal #3).
Phase 2/3 are always limited in speed by how fast you can collect data. So if you have VERY low incidence of a virus, it will take years or even decades to collect enough data to have statistical power to determine if the vaccine is effective for your 3 goals, and to what degree. If, however, you are in a pandemic and the virus is literally everywhere, that data collection goes incredibly rapidly. THIS KEY POINT is why these vaccines were able to come through Phases 2/3 very quickly. Their efficacy and safety data were quickly collected, and on a very large number of people, and proved to be excellent against the original Wuhan virus (waning some since as the new variants have mutations - but still excellent by historical standards).
Approval for use in the general population (i.e. FDA approval) happens based upon analysis of the data by a non-biased, experts-filled group at the FDA. Every person in this group must have no financial or other incentives tied to any company, university, or non-profit associated with the vaccine, it's basic research, and data collection. They truly aim for as unbiased as possible a group to comb through the data, and then make a recommendation. The reputation of these individuals is on the line, and they take their work very seriously. There is no evidence that anyone in the FDA groups that gave recommendation to approve these vaccines had anything but the best intentions, and no evidence that they cut any corners. The vaccines were approved by overwhelming majority votes (I believe they were unanimous for adult usage) by each FDA group for each vaccine, based upon strong efficacy and excellent safety data.
Phase 4 - this is the phase we are in now, after the medication or vaccine has been approved and is in use. Monitoring and statistical data collection and analysis continues. There are some side effects, like the rate blood clots with the adenoviral-based vaccines, which just don't show up until you have much larger numbers of people (millions, vs. the 10s of thousands in Phases2/3). In the past, drugs have been removed from the market after rare but life-threatening complications are noted from Phase 4 data.
The American Cancer Society also has a good write up on how a Trial is structured (since they are often at the forefront of new medications):
Types and Phases of Clinical Trials | What Are Clinical Trial Phases?
Clinical trials are usually conducted in distinct phases. Learn about each phase here.
To answer your question: given where we are now, and the boatloads of data we have on these vaccines, I no longer believe anyone has a rational argument against being vaccinated in the 12 and older group. 5-12, I will support vaccinating that group given the R value of Omicron just to reduce transmission of the virus to more at-risk populations. 5 and under I DO NOT support vaccination in this group. The preliminary data in the 5 and under group is just very underwhelming. It's shown to be well-tolerated and safe, but doesn't appear to offer the same kind of protection it does in older children and adults. This group (5yo and under) is so low-risk from COVID-19 that the vaccine would have to offer pretty much perfect protection to meet the benefit to risk ratio needed to get approved.
According to the speculation I've seen Tonga-Hunga is probably a VEI-6 and partially underwater. The VEI scale is like the Ricther scale for volcanoes. The last VEI-6 was Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991. The biggest eruption then was just before a typhoon blew through, which enhanced the fallout damage in the Philippines, but probably diminished the injection into the atmosphere. Even so we did see a drop in global temperatures. Here in 1993 we had a weird summer. We had one week of very hot weather in May, then it cooled off and rained all summer with temps never getting much above 75 F.
Tambora was a VEI-7 (the only one since 1257). They are rare compared as measured by human history. It had the double whammy of being very big, plus being almost right on the equator. That was the perfect storm to affect the climate. The 1257 eruption (Mt Salamas) may have affected climate too, but it was in the middle of the Medieval Warming period. That lasted from about 1175-1275, but there was a small dip in global temperatures for a few years around the 1250s.
Mt St Helens 1980 eruption was a VEI-5. Those happen about once a decade.
We might see a small dip from Tonga-Hunga. But it will more likely be like it was in 1992 and 1993. A little cooler, but not dramatically so.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
That's a loaded question in the medical community right now. "Natural" immunity is probably a bit better if you can make it through without death or long-term consequences (and we will be hearing about people's long-term problems from COVID for literally decades). The molecular biology behind this statement is that in natural immunity you are developing a broader antibody profile because you are exposed to more than just the S-protein, which is what the vaccine contained. The problem with that approach is there is about a 1 in 200 chance of death by going the natural immunity route (overall population - much worse for 65+, better for under 40 with no comorbidities like obesity, diabetes, etc). Given the piss-poor overall health of our population in general, and with deaths from COVID pushing 1 million to date, this is NOT a good idea (to go the natural route).
What we know for fact is that if you previously had COVID, or if you are immunized (all 3 shots), you still have a very good chance of coming down with the Omicron variant. So why get immunized you might ask? The devil is in the details. My colleagues still practicing, tell me that they are simply not seeing anyone that's been fully vaccinated on a ventilator or in the ICU. The vaccinated patients go home earlier and with fewer problems. I just recovered from having (likely - I didn't test) Omicron, and I can tell you that it was just like a cold (except I could not smell, and had diminished taste). My business partner, who claimed he had COVID back in early 2020, tested COVID positive and he has been miserable, going on 2.5 weeks now. He is now telling me he is having COVID-related depression (it's real, don't ignore it).
The above goes for unvaccinated teenagers as well. Everyone I know doing pediatric ICU work tells me it is only the unvaccinated teens they are seeing in the ICU. And that's the downside to Omicron - while it appears less lethal overall, it does appear to infect children more than Delta and previous variants would.
As a side note - please people go get vaccinated. Everyone I know is burned out in the medical field. They have hit the limit of their empathy for those that are not vaccinated. I'm not saying you are going to get "worse" care if you come into the hospital and haven't been vaccinated, but they are just tired of dealing with the people that:
1) tell them the vaccine doesn't work, is dangerous, etc. etc. and then in the next breath yell at them for not giving them ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, etc. etc. THEY HAVE NO SYMPATHY LEFT FOR THESE PEOPLE, and it is now showing.
2) people that beg them to give them the vaccine after they are hospitalized (it doesn't work at that point)
Physicians are 97-98% vaccinated. These are like the "insiders" of the medical field. If they are getting themselves and their families vaccinated, that's a really REALLY good sign that they believe the science and consider the risks low.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
You say that like it's done producing ash/dust for the year. It's still active and it remains to be seen how much activity it will do going forward.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Sure you do:
“Dr. Fauci answered, “If you look at the history of vaccines, you know that virtually all long-term adverse effects of a vaccine occur between 15 and 30 days after you get the dose – 45 days at the most. When you get a vaccine allowed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), such as with the emergency use authorization, you have to wait 60 days from the time half the people in the trials got their last dose and observe safety before it can be used on the public. If almost all of the long-term adverse effects occur within 45 days, you’ve gone beyond that if you wait 60 days, so the chances of there being long-term effects are vanishingly small.””
Dr. Fauci weighs in on potential long-term side effects : Oregon Health News Blog
Some people in Oregon are hesitant to receive the new COVID-19 vaccines. Some don’t want to be “first in line” to receive a new vaccine and may be concerned about long-term side effects. These are …covidblog.oregon.gov
I wasn’t making any bold pronouncement, of something I came up with. It’s just generally accepted knowledge amongst experts on vaccines and I was repeating it. And it’s not hard to find many other medical doctors making the same statement.
Still, we should follow the science, and if there are verified counterexamples it would be interesting to review them. It sounds like the intussusceptions were definitely within 60 days of vaccination, before dropping to baseline rates of incidence. But if there is data to the contrary, it would be interesting.
This is simply an assumption, not actual fact. And Fauci should not be making that clear-cut a statement. The appropriate statement would be "To date we have not been able to associate any long-term adverse affects of any vaccine, however this is something this is very difficult to study because of the incredibly large number of variables involved." I'm sorry, but long-term effects are so multifactorial that they are EXTREMELY difficult to tease out. It's the most common theme in medicine I know. Fauci is playing the political game and doesn't want to scare people away from vaccines, that's appropriate.
Fauci's statement might also be considered wrong, by some people. There is a growing body of evidence that the Anthrax vaccine that was given to the military in the late 1990s and early 2000s is associated with gulf-war syndrome and exacerbates PTSD. Those are things that show up FAR later than the window you attribute. This is an on-going hotbed of research, and you will find opinions about it with data to support both sides of the argument published and easily obtained by a Google search, so I'm not going to re-hash that here.
Another example - look how long it took us to prove that vaccines were NOT associated with Autism. That was a 15 year research pathway. Why? Because you MUST conduct longitudinal trials to tease something like this out. There is no possible other study that is appropriate, and you MUST collect a ton of data to tease out the statistics properly. RCTs are not valid to answer that kind of question.
CLASSIC example from my own research - we've been working on things for 50+ years and we STILL don't know what triggers Type 1 diabetes long-term. That is another incredibly multifactorial problem.
I'm sorry, but you are making a conclusion based upon your own personal biases and not based upon any reasonable scientific knowledge. I understand that's probably because you have an engineering background and are used to working with systems that are far less complex that biological systems, but your conclusions are unproven. And in the scientific community, unproven == WRONG until proven otherwise. It's the classical conundrum of proving that the null hypothesis is null.
Similar threads
