Are You Going to Get The COVID Vaccine?

So are you going to get the COVID vaccine?

Poll Options

  • 1230
    Yes
  • 270
    No
  • 102
    Only if it comes free with a OLED 75INCH

Comments

  • Is this vacccine different to other vaccines? apart from the spelling?

    • +88 votes

      more vitamin C
      .

    • This is a vaccine developed in about one tenth the time of other vaccines. That's the main difference.

      I will take it but I will not be an early adopter. Happy to wait and see how well it works in US and UK.

      • ✈️

      • +95 votes

        This is a vaccine developed in about one tenth the time of other vaccines. That's the main difference.

        they didn't start from zero. Existing vaccine developments were built upon which had been through initial development stages for virus with similar attack vector/design

        It also had about 1000x more immediate staffing, funding, priority etc etc than 'other vaccines' you're likely referencing

        • I disagree. I believe they did start from very close to zero. We have never had a working coronavirus vaccine (neither SARS not MERS received anywhere near this amount of attention or funding, and we all but gave up on the common cold). It's why it's a fascinating scientific advance. No mRNA vaccines (which is what the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are) have ever been approved for human use by the FDA before this (and technically they still aren't fully approved, just emergency authorisation) - this is actually ground breaking stuff and completely new technology for human use.The astrazeneca vaccine is much closer to what we have for other diseases but that only got approval in the UK 3 days ago.

          You can throw all the money you want at it, but you can only shorten trial time by so much. The best phase 3 trial data we have is at like 8-10 weeks of data - Moderna vaccine was authorised with a median 2 month follow up. Pfizer announcement made 6 weeks ago said they had 4 weeks of data. Astrazeneca's vaccine has a median follow up for 3.4 months. We literally don't know anything more than that - throwing money at it won't do anything to speed up this process. We still have to wait and see.

          You are also underestimating how much it costs to bring "other vaccines" to the market. While covid has certainly gotten our attention, a throwaway claim that it has "1000x" more funding and resources is extremely unlikely. While the covid vaccine research is certainly very well funded and likely exceeds that of other diseases the magnitude is nowhere near what you have suggested, and there is real diminishing returns in these ventures. For example, we have 30+ concurrent vaccines and a tonne of duplication of the process.

          • @Fiximol: Fiximol:

            RE: 'We literally don't know anything more than that - throwing money at it won't do anything to speed up this process. We still have to wait and see.' (and your text preceding that) …

            That is not entirely true. In a relatively unprecedented move (at least in modern times), the UK 'threw money at it' and conducted what is called a 'challenge trial' of one of the COVID-19 vaccines in healthy humans. For the benefit of those who don't know what that is, it is where you vaccinate healthy volunteers, then you actively try and infect them with live virus a few weeks later. That trial provided far more valuable information ('confirmation', of sorts) that the vaccine is indeed > 90% effective. So we do not 'still have to wait and see'. That trial has been done. We have seen.

            • @GnarlyKnuckles: We have seen that it was effective X days after exposure. Pfizer data was based on a whooping seven days after a second dose. The Moderna vaccine has much better data (>2 months post second dose) - but that's not the same as 'other' vaccines. We have not seen how long the protective effect may last for or if 3rd or subsequent boosters are needed it's still a wait and watch game.

              The Astrazeneca COVID vaccine, which was approved in the UK on 30 December, was not part of the challenge trial and I can't see any data from any COVID challenge trials released or published. From what I can find, it seems they are still stuck at ethics (as one would expect). Given that they have actual phase 4 data and dozens of ongoing phase 3 trials, unless all three of the Pfizer, Moderna and Astrazeneca vaccines fail miserably (I haven't looked at the Sinopharm or Sputnik ones because I am wary of the reliability of the reporting I can find online), they might never get the ethics approval.

              We are making progress, but it is still early stages. This is a waiting game, and there is actually a prize for playing the waiting game. As more and more vaccines hit the market and more and more information becomes available, the Australian Government has more choice as to which vaccine(s) to adopt and what price they are willing to pay for it. There are also concerns about vaccine injuries with the COVID vaccines since the government has indemnified the companies - with very scant details on how the patient is actually protected (you can't sue the pharma, you have to go through the Government)

              I am pro-vaccine, but I am also uncomfortable about how little we know.

              • @Fiximol: Fixi, re

                'We have not seen how long the protective effect may last for …'

                Given the genetically/structurally functionally constrained nature of the 'spike' protein (which is the antigenic target of all COVID-19 vaccines), and historical successes when targeting functionally constrained and protective proteins with vaccines against other viruses, it is reasonable to assume that the protective antibodies generated by the vaccination—and perhaps more importantly the B cells that 'stand by' ready to make more of them if the virus is encountered—will last for many years.

                Re

                'From what I can find, it seems they are still stuck at ethics (as one would expect).'

                That is incorrect. I can assure you that the trial was conducted, entirely as planned/scheduled, and the results were very good. I personally doubt that the UK would have embarked on mass vaccination before the vaccine has been officially approved (it still has not been officially approved; in an unprecedented move the UK is kinda' defining the mass vaccination of all the oldies in the UK as a 'clinical trial'—purely to 'get around' the standard requirement for approval), without the results of that challenge trial.

                Re

                'This is a waiting game, … (etc.)'

                I suggest that it is not. We now have multiple vaccines that are known to be both safe and effective, based on rigorous large-scale studies/trials, including—arguably the most compellingly—an actual challenge trial. The quicker a vaccine is made available to willing Australians, the better. I cannot understand why we are waiting until March. It makes no sense. I wonder if many people here in Australia will contract and die from COVID-19 before the vaccine is made available here. I hope not.

                • @GnarlyKnuckles: There is a difference between biological plausibility and actual observed effect, while there is reason for optimism it is not the same as clinically proven. Even the CDC has acknowledged "We won’t know how long immunity produced by vaccination lasts until we have a vaccine and more data on how well it works." - this was updated 29 December 2020.

                  I can find no evidence of the challenge trial being conducted. Clinicaltrials.gov shows 17 listings for COVID vaccine in UK but nothing related to challenge trials. It has certainly been talked about, but everything pointed to, at the earliest, a January 2021 start - the Lancet has a shocking typographical error referring to Jan 2020, considering the article was published Oct 2020. BBC concurs with the January 2021 start date. The UK decision on the Pfizer was indeed made in the absence of any human challenge trials. The Astrazeneca approval was [supposedly])https://www.sbs.com.au/news/astrazeneca-coronavirus-vaccine-cleared-for-emergency-use-in-uk) based on their clinical trial data. The UK challenge trial website has nothing tangible or informative.

                  Not everyone - certainly not those in regulatory fields, share your view that they know enough about these vaccines (or even COVID). Perhaps your confidence lies in believing that a challenge trial has happened when in fact, it has not. And even if it had happened, it won't necessarily tell you anything about duration of effect since the challenge trial is just a snapshot. The most valuable thing to come from the challenge trial might be knowing the minimum viral load required for infection or being able to study the infection from the start.

                • @GnarlyKnuckles:

                  I cannot understand why we are waiting until March. It makes no sense.

                  Given the success we have had in suppressing the virus here I completely understand why we are waiting until March. Why rush?

                  I wonder if many people here in Australia will contract and die from COVID-19 before the vaccine is made available here.

                  Depends on how many more liars & idiots we have causing outbreaks.

                  I hope not

                  So do I.

                  • @Chandler:

                    Given the success we have had in suppressing the virus here I completely understand why we are waiting until March. Why rush?

                    I would certainly not call the ludicrous failure of the Victorian State Government to conduct effective 'hotel quarantine' a 'success we have had in suppressing the virus here'. The entire state (businesses, schools, hitherto 'essential' things like funerals and weddings, etc.) was shut down for about a year. Hundreds of people died; often under conditions of unprecedentedly horrific loneliness and clinical isolation. A 'second wave' of this nature could well afflict NSW if the vaccine is not rolled out ASAP.

                    Depends on how many more liars & idiots we have causing outbreaks.

                    It is not only these types of people/events that cause outbreaks. Cricket matches with unnecessary crowds spring to mind, among other forms of severe state government mismanagement (see above).

                    • @GnarlyKnuckles:

                      I would certainly not call the ludicrous failure of the Victorian State Government to conduct effective 'hotel quarantine' a 'success we have had in suppressing the virus here'.

                      Was the failure of the hotel quarantine directly due to the Government, or due to incompetent (and I mean that word literally, not derogatorily… well, maybe both) staff?

                      A 'second wave' of this nature could well afflict NSW if the vaccine is not rolled out ASAP.

                      And what initiated this 'second wave'? Are the outbreaks in NSW not due to people breaking quarantine/isolation, lying about their whereabouts and other (profanity)?

                      It is not only these types of people/events that cause outbreaks. Cricket matches with unnecessary crowds spring to mind, among other forms of severe state government mismanagement (see above).

                      Whilst I disagree with some of the government's actions, who is to blame for people not listening to well publicised public health advice (i.e. social distancing)?

                      We get enough people whining about nanny state's (go read some of the whining about Victoria's lockdown) but then when the doors get opened we instead get whining about the Government letting us punch ourselves.

              • @Fiximol:

                There are also concerns about vaccine injuries with the COVID vaccines since the government has indemnified the companies(sydney.edu.au) - with very scant details on how the patient is actually protected (you can't sue the pharma, you have to go through the Government)

                It can potentially take a long time to get compensation for vaccine injuries tho, with a lot of court time and costs. 7+ years from vaccine injury to compensation in these UK cases:
                https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/09/ministers-lo...

                Australia was quicker tho at 4 years for this case involving both pharma and govt:
                https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-06/settlement-for-saba-b...

            • @GnarlyKnuckles: "That trial provided far more valuable information ('confirmation', of sorts) that the vaccine is indeed > 90% effective"

              In healthy individuals under the age of 50 (what was that demographics "risk" in the first place)?!?

              How much data on at risk individuals actually at risk of COVID (ie 70+ years old)?!?

          • @Fiximol: Scientists have been working to develop vaccines for coronaviruses for decades.

            Just because a breakthrough has occurred now, you are rejecting it?

            Funny, I wonder if you would turn down a new cancer treatment using stem cells, because it hasn't been tested on millions of people.

            • @ILikeCheapStuffs: I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was rejecting it. I have said that I will take it, I just won't be the first, and I have stated I am pro vaccine.

              I have never said anything about the number of people in the trial, but about how long they have had the vaccine for. So I don't understand your point of needing to treat lots of people. They are two separate things. Sometimes you can compensate for one with the other, sometimes you can't - this is a case where you can't.

              I am in favour of scientific rigour. The evidentiary base for the covid vaccine is currently not good compared to what we have accepted as gold standard for vaccines. It will get better once we have more observations over time. The question is whether it is good enough for how desperate you are - and relatively speaking Australia is not that desperate.

              There is nothing wrong with exercising caution (first, do no harm), the question is whether you are desperate enough as a population to roll the dice - and it is most certainly a dice roll (it always is), both at the patient level and population level. The best we can do is go into it as best informed as possible.

              You probably won't find any regulatory body who will accept an anti cancer drug if the data says that all patients are alive 7 days after they received the second dose of treatment. This is literally the level of evidence that was published for the Pfizer vaccine. I am sure FDA and EMA and the likes have more data than this but unless they can time travel faster than we can they won't have much more than 3 months of data. Once it gets to Australia we would have hopefully closer to 6-9 months of phase 3 and 4 data and be able to make a more informed decision.

              There are also other considerations as to which vaccine candidate should be adopted. For example, adopting the Pfizer vaccine is a larger logistics challenge than adopting the Astrazeneca vaccine due to manufacturing (CSL can make the astra vaccine locally. They don't have the tech to make the Pfizer vaccine) and storage requirements (Pfizer requires deep freezing at -70 degrees until 30 days before you need it. Astra you can keep in a fridge), and the astrazeneca vaccine was approved literally 4 days ago in the UK. So, waiting has paid off already in the availability of a new candidate that is just as effective in trials, much easier to make and distribute (a real issue given our low population density) and 5-8 times cheaper than the mRNA vaccines that were all the rage.

              • @Fiximol: I think you are forgetting the fact that most of the data is proprietary and not available to the uneducated general public.

                • @zeggie: They are published in peer review journals. The abstracts (their brief summary upfront) is written in mostly lay language, so I believe everyone can understand most of the key points. This is the best evidence that is available to inform your general medical practitioner, specialist, and everyone else outside of the very few select people in regulatory agencies who may have access to unpublished data.

                  Pfizer - primary efficacy reported 7 days after second dose, but they have been around for the longest (by a few weeks) so they should have similar duration of follow up as the other two vaccines, albeit not available in the public domain. Currently has the highest roll out in the Western world AFAIK, so there should be plenty of data coming in soon. They do report some safety data for up to 2 months, though.

                  Astrazeneca - median 3.4 months follow up, and 2.0 months after the second dose, with a somewhat counterintuitive dose-response profile. The standard dose + standard dose regimen had a lower efficacy than a low dose + standard dose regimen. Still, looks promising given the other benefits over the mRNA vaccines I listed before. Will see a lot more information once rollout gets going.

                  Moderna - at 21st Nov 2021 they met the regulatory requirement for having 2 months of data, so logically right now they would have around 3.5 months of data (no amount of resources can change this fact), of which the latest 1.5 months would only be available to regulatory bodies at the moment.

                  I also think the regulatory bodies do a pretty solid job at summarising these things. E.g. CDC, Australian Government NHS in UK - though there is currently a bit of furore about 12 weeks vs 3 weeks for second dose in the UK.

                  • @Fiximol: I'm aware of all that. You missed my point.

                    A lot of your concerns will be addressed in data not available to the general public. Why? Money.

                    • @zeggie: I am not sure I understand your point. So you are suggesting that pharma companies somehow have all this hidden data but they are not releasing it to anyone, including those who are going to buy their product? Or somehow regulatory bodies are withholding information? For what purpose?

                      Unless the data is bad or negative, publication of the data is always going to make them more money, and if it IS bad - then we should be concerned.

                      • @Fiximol: My point is your posts flip between vaccine efficacy and the vaccine dangers ie. adverse reactions constantly.

                        Research publications are primarily concerned with the former.
                        Regulators are primarily concerned with the latter. There will be significant information not publicized.

                        • @zeggie: Research publications are not primarily concerned with efficacy. Safety is just as, if not more, important. Especially in planned mass innoculations like this - for example, we would expect to see 300+ cases of a 'rare' adverse event with a 1 in a million chance if everyone in the US was innoculated. The title for all these publications reflect these, as they are "Safety and efficacy of…" and "Efficacy and safety of…", so I don't agree that they have an efficacy bias. They go hand in hand and the problem with data maturity applies equally to both, so I don't see any issue with discussing both of them. "Is it safe? Does it work?" are the first 2 questions we always ask, in whichever order (usually followed by "How much is it?"). You are right in that regulators do care about safety first, but it doesn't mean they don't care about efficacy.

                          While there are cases where companies have 'commercial in confidence' information released only to regulators, I think that because this is such an abnormal situation - the whole world is literally watching the development of these vaccines - it is unlikely to be the case here. Vaccine acceptance is not particluarly high in the US (depending on time of survey it's somewhere between 50-70%) - and I argue any sign of deception, dishonesty or even hesitancy is going to do a lot of damage that regulators and public health officials would like to avoid. They have to convince people to take the vaccine - and withholding information would not help the cause, IMO.

                          Instead, I think we are likely to get too much data as opposed to too little, it will just be a matter of time. The later comers will have to dislodge the incumbent (it's why they all want to be first to market) and to prove that they are better in order to get a market share, and one of the best ways is to have better data, which will then pressure the incumbent to release their data. If Janssen or J&J comes out with 6 months of data, Pfizer will be pressured to release their 6 month data to show that they are better/no worse etc. We might even see some Sputnik vs Pfizer data for academic/political purposes :P

                • @zeggie: Re:

                  … most of the data is proprietary and not available to the uneducated general public.

                  While personally I would have omitted the word 'uneducated', zegs speaks the absolute truth there. Here are a few facts that most peeps who have spent a few years in medical research will be aware of/can verify are true:

                  1. The vast majority of data generated is in fact never published, for various reasons. This may begin to change with the recent emergence of 'pre-publication' sites/services such as medRxi et al.; but such a change is by no means guaranteed.

                  2. Because of the patenting process, and the fact that securing a patent is often a very long road, a great deal of data/results cannot be 'publicly released' (read 'published') until many years after they were generated. What I mean here is that a patent cannot be sought/granted after an idea/concept/data are made 'publicly available'. Patents can only be successfully applied for and issued before that is done.

                  3. Zeg's allusion to money is essentially, well, right on the money. Unless it is highly likely (a near certainty in fact) that a large financial windfall will follow the publication of data, a commercial company will tend to hold off on doing it; in case it actually has the opposite effect, or unforeseen effects, etc.

                  4. It often takes many years before data that is generated is actually published in a peer-reviewed journal. The average would be somewhere between 2 or 3 years, in my humble estimation. No need to take my word for it though; simply consult a few recent 'full-texts' published in Medline-indexed peer-reviewed journals, and you will note that the actual studies were almost always conducted at least 1 year (and usually more than 2 years) before that same article was published.

          • @Fiximol: Unless you are a specialist in the field, all you said can only be taken with a grain of salt.

            Tons of people are forming opinions by reading and soforth instead of trusting the scientists to do their job.We dont question the science that our mobile phones or cars come out why is it so different with science when the vaccines (at least the ones in Australia) are being properly peer reviewed?

            Yes, if you are scared about it dont get first in line, like people getting lasic surgey - nothing is risk free - but be honest that this decision is based on fear and a wait an see attitude rather than a bunch of facts that are taken from various sources and misinterpreted to reinforce your opinion.

            For a start, the very first line you typed is wrong - in relation to the Oxford Vaccine they literally advised the BBC they werent starting from zero and explained why. It also addresses a lot of other concerns you have raised.

            https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55041371

            Im not going though all the points you raised but they appear to be all simillarly contentious.

            • @Franc-T: I am not a specialist in vaccines, nor have I claimed to be one. My opinion is my own and do not constitute any medical advice. I am not even a medical doctor. I have no duty of care here, so don't sue me. :D

              What I do have is knowledge on how drug development and marketing approval works (mostly in Australia). And contrary to popular belief there is actually not that much specialist involvement in terms of time spent on the project (usually).

              The evaluator(s) at TGA who looks at this data are unlikely to be a medical practitioner who is a vaccine specialist (too busy, too many conflicts of interests, not necessarily knowledgeable in the areas that are important to regulator). Instead they are much more likely to be someone experienced in dissecting literature and peering behind the layers - specialists in medical literature if you will. They will comb through all the data that is coming in from the vaccine manufacturers, and prepare a report for the higher ups in the TGA. Occasionally they will request advice from an expert subcommittees such as the TGA vaccine advisory subcommittee - which is where medical specialists get involved (note that this does not always happen but I imagine the subcommittee to be involved for the covid vaccine). It is worth noting that even here, consumer opinion matters. We have a consumer representative on all of these advisory boards so every stakeholder (including us lay civilians) has a say. The panel members might have a week or so to digest the report (though they have expertise in the field therefore they may already know a lot of the content of the report), and might discuss this for a few hours (maybe a bit more for covid). Comparatively the TGA evaluator(s) would have spent weeks and months with this.

              The advisory board is just that - advisory. Therefore, the person making the final decision is still going to be our health minister, who might have other concerns (costs, logistics, politics etc).

              I typed a lot - you will have read that I said the astrazeneca vaccine is not based on new tech. The "starting from zero" was very much a discussion on the mRNA vaccines, which are currently the most commonly administered one in the West. If it seems like I am rambling, it's because I am. Sorry!

              This is not fear, but precaution. My biggest concern is maturity of data which is easily solved by patience - the TGA has stated that so far no company has given them the full data package, but they are getting rolling data, which is pretty consistent with my viewpoint. Everything else (logistics, costs, insurance) can be managed somehow by throwing money at, though I actually have no clue who would be responsible for organising the rollout and that is also a bit concerning to me. This thing is going to be a logistical nightmare. Health is a state issue, but approval and buying is a federal issue. I am not sure I can trust them to play nice based on what we have seen so far.

              • @Fiximol:

                This thing is going to be a logistical nightmare.

                I don't think it is. I think what you will find happens is that in March millions of doses of vaccine are delivered to Australia, as planned, then they are rapidly administered to those who want them (via the standard administrators; hospitals and GPs etc.), beginning with the elderly and health workers, then everyone else.

                What exactly to you foresee being a 'nightmare'?

                • @GnarlyKnuckles: Getting doses from shore to warehouse to pharmacy/medical centre and then to patient - within 5 days of thawing for Pfizer and 30 days of thawing for Moderna (or ensure we have deep freezing mobile storage of sufficient size). Ensuring cold chain of millions of doses of vaccine is maintained. Getting the vaccine to people in rural areas. Additional staff will have to be hired/trained/retrained to handle and administer the vaccines in a timely fashion.

                  In the US, the Army took the lead in logistics. India ran drills on vaccination rollout. UK did poorly in their rollout - and they are much smaller geographically than Australia. We can't rely on our existing pharmaceutical logistics system, it's not designed for this level of rollout.

                  This is an issue that has been discussed in many theoretical instances for Australia e.g. the conversation and the College of GPs. There are many stakeholders in this - Linfox and DHL, Toll. PwC, the accounting firm will be involved to data track. This is a huge undertaking. I am hopeful in that they are all working on making it work, but the proof is in the jabbing.

                  Anyone who has worked pharmacy might cringe at the idea of DHL being involved. Maybe they have improved though. :D

                  • @Fiximol: Fiximol:

                    I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this, and we will have our answer as to who was right by the end of March or thereabouts. I believe there is sufficient infrastructure in place in Australia to enable everyone who wants one to get a specific vaccine once it has been delivered—as has happened every single year with the flu jab for more than a decade—and I also believe we have enough freezers to store it, and 'eskis' with which to move it about.

                    • @GnarlyKnuckles: I don't think we need to disagree, I don't think we are on different sides. I am not saying 'It can't be done' rather 'There are issues that we have to overcome, and with enough planning we can' - but it doesn't stop it from being a nightmare to organise!

                      If we get the Astrazeneca vaccine (or something similar that only needs normal fridge temp), logistically this would be a lot easier than the mRNA vaccines, and I am sure this would weigh in favour of particular types being approved/ordered.

                • @GnarlyKnuckles: I find the negs this comment has attracted a bit odd.

                  Consider the inherently more complex and labour/cost-intensive nature of hundreds of thousands of 'potentially infected' peeps fronting up for semi-invasive COVID-19 swab tests, having those swabs taken, getting those swabs tested via PCR at patholothy labs, all 'on-the-double' ('ASAP') … Australia-wide.

                  That has all actually happened already … not exactly seamlessly, but it has happened. That complex series of events is infinitely more complex than simply administering a vaccine to each person who wants it.

                • @GnarlyKnuckles:

                  What exactly to you foresee being a 'nightmare'?

                  Have you forgotten about the toilet paper debacle?

                  The masses didn't know how to shop, are you excepting the same imbeciles to patiently queue and vaccinate?

              • @Fiximol: Interesting insights, thanks Fiximol

          • @Fiximol: You're just plain wrong. Off the top of my head the "spike" targeting vaccine moderna based this off of was developed back in 2017. AstraZeneca/Oxford is based off an adenovirus vaccine that they've been using (and have trialed several times) for years.

            • @Autonomic:

              The astrazeneca vaccine is much closer to what we have for other diseases but that only got approval in the UK 3 days ago.

              As noted, I have acknowledged this. However the Astrazeneca vaccine is not currently the most common vaccine administered (again, it has been mere days since they have been authorised for use anywhere. India also just approved their use yesterday). The mRNA ones are currently, far and wide the most commonly used COVID vaccine (excluding Sputnik or the Sinopharm ones). The Pfizer mRNA vaccine is also the only one to have both FDA and EMA authorisation. This proportion will change once India vaccination rolls out, and as time moves on.

              I have also acknowledged the logistical and cost superiority of the Astrazeneca vaccine (and maybe comparable efficacy though it has a odd dose-response profile) compared to the mRNA vaccines and that of the three currently available, it is the most promising one for a mass rollout (certainly for resource poor countries). This is in spite of it not being authorised by the FDA (though this appears to have been because Astrazeneca pissed off the FDA) or EMA yet.

              This whole landscape is changing so rapidly, a fourth or fifth company could drop their data any time and the whole situation may shift again. My whole point from the very first post is there is no reason for Australia to rush in - we are in a more fortunate position than the US, UK and Europe in general with regards to COVID cases. I can even make an argument that we should be 'good global citizens' and prioritise those with higher need (US, UK, Europe) and let them have the mRNA vaccines which can only be made in fewer facilities while we will wait for ones that we can make cheaper locally :p

              • @Fiximol: You ignored the comment on the Moderna vaccine. The spike proteins they used to generate the anti-bodies was developed in 2017, in response to MERS. That's why they were able to develop the vaccine in 2 days.

              • @Fiximol: I think part of the problem concerning self research into specialised fields is the fact that we are not well versed in the literature and do not have the years of study needed to have an informed opinion on these topics. Reading through articles and publications can only give so much of the total picture.

                Getting it straight from the horses mouth, from people who study these things for a living, has been much more education and time efficient for myself. Give the following a read if you're interested.

                https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/kdm82i/askscien...

                Respondents to the various questions are associate and assistant professors from various universities.

                They do share some of your concerns and I believe their responses are both educational and level headed.

                • @eggnbacon: Thanks for the resource. If they share my concerns, that's good to know I am not alone. Having clicked through some of them, they are relying on the same published data as I am, so they are coming to similar conclusions (which is always a good sign).

        • 9 women together can't give birth in 1 month

      • Will wait for you to take it. Do let me know in June or July

      • This is a vaccine developed in about one tenth the time of other vaccines. That's the main difference.

        I thought that, and I was wrong. The drug companies had an existing vaccine platform they'd been working on for years, the Chinese leaked the sequenced viral genome in January 2020 (and promptly punished the doctor who leaked it) and a couple of weeks later we had the vaccine candidates ready for testing in February.

        If that sounds quick, it's not - we do a similar thing for the flu shot each year. Last year's flu shot consisted of:

        an A/Brisbane/02/2018 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus
        an A/South Australia/34/2019 (H3N2)-like virus
        a B/Washington/02/2019-like (B/Victoria lineage) virus
        a B/Phuket/3073/2013-like (B/Yamagata lineage) virus

        The TGA made the call in October 2019 on what to include in the vaccine, the drug companies grafted parts of the newly-discovered flu strains (that's the 2019 part in their name) on to an existing vaccine platform, and millions of people (including me) took it.

        The only difference is the Covid vaccines use newer platforms (but that have been around for years) but that have already been taken by tens of thousands of people by now.

        • the Chinese leaked the sequenced viral genome in January 2020 (and promptly punished the doctor who leaked it)

          Is that the doctor who mysteriously died?

      • CarlSagan42 is a vaccine specialist who happens to stream Mario on the side. Here is his take on it:
        https://youtu.be/c_IeRaYPhAs?t=14

        Its an easy watch and is cool to see an actual professional's opinion.

      • people need to stop spreading misinformation, you dont have the qualifications to comment on how long it took and where they started and stuff

      • Yes. Like how they make new flu vax EVERY YEAR. Or how they've had coronovirus data and vax for decades.
        The main difference is you and everyone dono't care about every other vax
        But the nutcases made this all a big conspiracy.

      • Agreed. FDA usually approves a vaccine with 10+yrs of solid testing.

        So this over hyped COVID vaccine either
        has 1/10 the effectiveness OR
        has 10 times the risk

        People need to admit they are double standard in comparing the development of COVID vaccine and others vaccine/ treatment and understands by allowing this less tested vaccine to go to market there are a bigger risk for people who takes it.

        • FDA usually approves a vaccine with 10+yrs of solid testing.

          The time period would depend entirely on the success and rate at which the various stages (1, 2 and 3) of the vaccine trials are performed and validated in.
          This would be a combination of available funding, medical researchers and participants for the trials.

          How could there not be some increased development speed if
          a) some of the vaccines in development had already undergone stage 1 trials for the underlying implementation
          b) the massive increase in funding and priority given to this vaccine development to increase both funding and researchers concurrently working on it
          c) trial stages performed in quick succession due to the urgency of the current pandemic in many countries, without the need to go find additional funding at the end of each stage to proceed to the next

          Also, one would have to assume as our medical technology gets better our ability to quickly develop solutions should also be improved right? Wouldnt be 'warp speed' otherwise ;)

          So while I think this vaccine is developed 'quick', the 1/10th the time thing is not just a direct linear timeline comparison you can make against any other previous vaccine

    • Yes. MRNA (Trojan Horse) - genetically modifying us

      • Yes, literally: "Moderna's technology platform inserts synthetic nucleoside-modified mRNA into human cells." - MODeRNA

        • aldidroid, re:

          'Yes, literally: "Moderna's technology platform inserts synthetic nucleoside-modified mRNA into human cells." - MODeRNA'

          May I respectfully ask whether you know the difference between mRNA and DNA? Based on your post, I strongly suspect that you do not.

        • mRNA isn't the same as DNA, and it can't combine with our DNA to change our genetic code. However, mRNA isn't the same as DNA, and it can't combine with our DNA to change our genetic code. It is also relatively fragile, and will only hang around inside a cell for about 72 hours, before being degraded.

    • Proudly made by Gollum.

  • Should be compulsory.

    • Who knows what the unpublished comments say. But I'm sure that a very brief search for medical ethics would reveal this is against the fundamental ethical principles which guide medicine, and almost all reasonable ethical principles of how human beings should be governed, treated, or violated.

      • I actually clarified further in another comment that it was a tongue in cheek comment and went on to discuss airlines wanting it to be a requirement when traveling. It seems the local troll took it too personal and someone reported him.

        It also revealed who was antivax and it was a lot more than I was expecting.

        • It wasn't me. I never report people.

        • Clears, re:

          … airlines wanting it to be a requirement when traveling.

          Qantas has openly stated their intention to require exactly that (on national television aired in Australia more than a week ago), and I would be extremely surprised if the vast majority of other airlines worldwide do not do exactly the same thing/impose the same requirement. Though it has not yet been 'floated' (as far as I am aware), I am fully expecting that some sort of confirmation will be entered in passports, affirming that the passport-holder has been vaccinated.

          I would fully endorse (and even applaud) such a measure, whole-heartedly.

          • @GnarlyKnuckles: Proving you've had the vaccine would be the more difficult part for airlines, so having a stamp in a passport is a good idea. I can't see airlines getting access to the Australian Immunisation Register to verify it happening.

            • @Clear: My thinking exactly.

              • +1 vote

                @GnarlyKnuckles: The older ones amongst us might remember the 'yellow book' that you needed to produce to get visas for many countries - to show you had certain vaccines. Each country was a bit different, but from memory they all included smallpox, yellow fever and no doubt a few others.

                I suspect we will have the same thing. it wont be compulsory, but if you want a visa then you need to have had it. I dont think there is likely to be much disagreement about this; if you want the freedom to choose not to have a vaccine then you must also accept the freedom of a country to chose who to allow to travel to that country.

                There is some interesting legal discussion going on about whether employers can require it of employees and, if so, in what circumstances. That is likely where the area of debate is likely to happen

          • @GnarlyKnuckles:

            I would fully endorse (and even applaud) such a measure, whole-heartedly.

            So what other essential services would you support being taken away from unvaccinated people? Public transport, libraries, healthcare and hospital treatment? Seems like a dangerous line to cross.

            People have a right to travel under the freedom of movement. Airlines cannot do whatever they want as a "private business" because almost every airline is government funded or supported. This means they have a responsibility to act within the public interest - which does not extend to forcing medical treatment onto everyone without knowing their individual medical history.

            What about overstayed visas, dual citizens, or expatriates who need to return to their home country? They cannot be legally prohibited from entering their home country, and leaving them stranded or expecting them to make their own way home on a boat comes dangerously close to violation of human rights and international law.

            I suggest you perhaps rethink what you "wholeheartedly endorse and applaud". Your rights to feel safe do not trump other people's rights to be treated as equal citizens under international law.

            • @SlavOz:

              So what other essential services would you support being taken away from unvaccinated people? Public transport, libraries, healthcare and hospital treatment?

              Hmmm. Attending a library could hardly be considered an 'essential service', and I am not sure why you seem to be suggesting that by advocating a requirement for vaccination prior to international plane travel I am advocating 'essential services … being taken away from unvaccinated people'. May I respectfully ask, SalavOz, how you would feel about your immunocompromised 78-year-old grandmother travelling on an 18-hour international flight along with a large cohort of passengers who were not required to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2? To me this is reminiscent of the 'common sense' regulations that apply re children attending day-care/schools etc. in Australia.

              To reiterate, I most certainly do 'wholeheartedly endorse and applaud' a requirement for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination prior to any international travel to or from Australia; whether that be by plane or boat. None of the things/scenarios you allude to above 'trump' the sensibility of requiring all international travelers to be vaccinated prior to embarking on that travel—to minimise the possibility that they will infect their fellow travelers.

              • @GnarlyKnuckles:

                Attending a library could hardly be considered an 'essential service'

                Not everyone has their own computer or internet. Many people rely on libraries to get pretty much anything done these days - pay bills, apply for jobs, communicate etc. It's definitely an essential service.

                'essential services … being taken away from unvaccinated people'

                This is exactly what you're advocating. Air travel is an essential service. It keeps the economy going, enables people to seek advanced medical treatment overseas, see their family, study abroad, move away from dangerous partners, etc. It is a vital part of everyday living which you are suggesting we take away from anyone who doesn't volunteer as a gunea pig for an untested vaccine.

                It's a dangerous line to cross. Safety-wise, there's no difference between air travel and travel via a train or bus. You're still trapped inside a metal tube with other people, so for consistency you'd also have to ban public transport for anyone who isn't vaccinated. Like I said, where do you draw the line? How long until we have a portion of the population living as 2nd class citizens again? Must we keep making the same mistakes history has taught us?

                May I respectfully ask, SalavOz, how you would feel about your immunocompromised 78-year-old grandmother travelling on an 18-hour international flight

                Flying has always been a risky activity. The general consensus is that you fly at your own risk. If my grandmother wanted to fly that desperately she would me more than willing to take that chance. 78 year olds are already close to the end of their life and they know it.

                That being said, given the drastic change in circumstances, I'd be quite happy if airlines offered reasonable measures to stop infections while travelling. Better cleaning, spacing seats apart, even mandatory masks for the entire flight. That would definitely be a reasonable requirement. Mandating the entire population to receive medical treatment is not reasonable.

                None of the things/scenarios you allude to above 'trump' the sensibility of requiring all international travelers to be vaccinated

                They do though. They literally border very close to human rights violations. Not allowing foreign citizens to go back to their own country or forcing anyone who needs to go overseas to build a raft and sail the ocean on their own is gross negligence by the government and breaks countless international laws.

        • Understood.

          I don't know how I feel about making it compulsory.

          Compulsory to travel on commercial airlines, sure. Maybe that makes good sense, and is within the legal framework allowing private companies to demand certain medical requirements are met for travelling passengers.

          As for compulsory in the sense of the Gestapo are coming to my door to vaccinate me… Let's just say the day that happens I'll no longer be wondering how I'm going to die, and I'm sure it won't be from covid.

          • @ozbjunkie: The next big debate is going to be can employers force you to have the vaccine if you want to return to work. They've already been doing it with COVID tests even though they shouldn't.

      • There are also ethical considerations on the other side. The health of the many vs the rights of an individual. Is it ethical to let a pandemic continue rampaging through the community because poorly educated individuals refuse a vaccine?

        Doesn't the government have an obligation to protect as many as possible. Isn't that why they lock up murderers?

        • We have freedoms that are accompanied by our social responsibility. You don’t get one without the other. I will get vaccinated.

        • ILikeCheapStuffs:

          Your post is "kinda' abstract/out there", yet very insightful. I like it a lot. It is somewhat philosophical.

      • But I'm sure that a very brief search for medical ethics would reveal this is against the fundamental ethical principles which guide medicine, and almost all reasonable ethical principles of how human beings should be governed, treated, or violated.

        You might want to check that.

        The harm from non vaccination is insane. The older generations saw the damage disease brings first hand. Doctors still see it.

        Doctors were the people that pushed for mandatory vaccination.

        We have lost 1.2 million people prematurely from covid so far. Let the old and healthcare workers protect themselves first. Force it on people who cross boarders to reduce transmission and eventually remove quarantine. Then when stocks are high enough and the vulnerable are inoculated, force everyone else to develop heard immunity to protect those too at risk for the vaccine.

        • Do no harm is about action, not inaction.

          Autonomy is about client choice.

          If you have a brain tumour which will 99% likely kill you and I'm a surgeon with 99% ability to completely remove the tumor, you still get a choice. Autonomy.

          Even if the consequences of me "not forcibly applying a medical procedure" to you are "harm".

          It does intrigue me that you claim doctors pushed for mandatory vaccination. Was this individual doctors, or an official position of major medical organisations?

          Someone needs to read up on their medical ethics, might be me, might be you, might be both, and might even be the doctors.

          Do no harm, in my understanding, refers to actions rather than inaction, an does not outweigh autonomy.

          Autonomy is the reason you can actually leave hospital any time (except a mental health facility under certain laws).

          Pretty sure I can refuse to get vaccinated. Even if I have to go a few no gloves few rounds with some doctors.

          • @ozbjunkie: Harm:

            Your interpretation is too literal. "I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm" rules out any treatment were the patient is further injured as part of the treatment, like surgery.

            "Practice two things in your dealings with disease: either help or do not harm the patient" Is a far better interpretation.

            Autonomy:

            Autonomy is about informed consent, not choice. Most doctors won't give their patient every treatment option, as it is a confusing waste of time. There can be hundreds. Doctors assess their patients, use their professional judgement then present the treatment or treatments that they believe is best.

            If you had autonomy as you describe you could smoke in hospital. Or drink in hospital. Or walk around naked in hospital. Or do heroin in Hospital. Or commit assisted suicide in hospital.

            Pseudoscience:

            You are right, there are doctors who promote pseudoscience. There are many psychological ways it can help without destroying the doctor patient relationship like referring a patient to a clearly mental health professional can.

            And you are right, there are many non doctors involved in industry lobbying.

            But there is no science behind antivax. If you ever have a doctor push antivax propaganda, please, please please report them to their regional medical board as if they can't properly source scientific material to make their diagnoses, they are dangerously incompetent and most likely deadly.

            Yes, we need to be careful with a new vaccine like the currently under tested covid vaccines. That's why it is being rolled out to the people who's life depend on it first, like front line health workers, the elderly and soon to be people who insist on crossing boarders. Even if 0.1% have an adverse effect, it is better than the 1%+ death rate of covid. And with such a large sample size we should discover the negative side effects far quicker.

            Refusal of assistance:

            Yes. Of cause you can refuse assistance. It is the whole concept of informed consent. But when hysterical misinformation takes hold, professional associations push government to introduce laws to limit the damage these ideas can cause. Like refusing schooling to unimmunised children.

            Have you met a politician? They are great at talking but usually have very shallow knowledge on apart from their passion topic. Most have very little knowledge of public health. You have way too much faith in politicians and their staffers if you think they are the ones who pushed for compulsory vaccination.

    • vaccine manufacturer are not ready to take any responsibility for side effect. how can it be made compulsory.

  • +29 votes

    You first.

    • +31 votes

      This. People who want it should have it.

      But this is a new untested product. People should have the right to say no until it has been in use a few years to see if there are any side effects.

      I'm not fond of those who want to force others to take an injection of some brand new product into their body.

      • +3 votes

        use a few years

        a few years for 10000 people, or a few months for several million?
        what do you intend to see with regards to side effects than arent present within a few months (the time we already will have between current US and UK rollouts to when its available/approved here)
        We essentially get an additional proving period by watching UK/US rollouts and any 'side effects' that may be identified.

      • But this is a new untested product.

        This is incorrect. It has been tested, but the whole process has been accelerated. Please have a read of this from The New England Journal of Medicine : https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

        • medicines need like 10 years to get real data of potential side effects. I want the vaccine but not the first or even second generation.

          I was one of the first ppl to use a particular medication in Australia. It'd been used in Europe for 4-5ish years and my specialist was super excited about it landing in Aus. Used it. didn't work. whatever. a year after, it was discovered that it was causing severe liver damage in some people. FDA approves a lot, but has actually rejected it. It's use has been severely restricted/ banned in most countries. I'm lucky that I didn't suffer liver damage, but I'll never be a guinea pig again

          • +15 votes

            @CheapskateQueen:

            medicines need like 10 years

            citation required.

            I was one of the first ppl to use a particular medication in Australia

            $1 million bucks says it wasn't a vaccine. Probably a Protease Inhibitor where the side affects are well known and documented.

            • @zeggie: this reply is too dumb to warrant a response beyond this

              • @CheapskateQueen: Aw, don't like it when people question your "facts"?

                • @zeggie: you're a mess.

                  how you managed to conclude that it was "probable" that the medication i was referring to was to do with any particular thing is beyond me. that in itself was laughable. You are wrong, as I hope, for your sake, you realised was "probable".

                  as for "betting a million bucks" that when I referred to a "particular medication" was not a vaccine.. I mean, I can't even know what to say. While a vaccine may fall within a subset of the generic term of "medication", given the topic of discussion, and the point i was making about my experience with new drugs without long term testing, I, as would all other logical people with an ability to argue persuasively, would have, without a doubt, specifically referred to it as a vaccine if that was in fact the case.

                  I'm only replying because I'm bored on a walk, but I'm done now.

          • @CheapskateQueen: How long would you like to wait to confirm the potential side effects of lots and lots of people dying from COVID?