COVID19 - To Vaccinate or To Not Vaccinate

healthyhannah__ wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

healthyhannah__ wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "allow room for this conversation to happen." The conversation WAS happening. People responded to the inaccurate information with accurate information. Allowing a conversation to happen doesn't require validating fears that are not grounded in reality. In instances where there is no information to support a particular set of claims, that can and should be pointed out.

I don't think anyone is denying that anti-vax information isn't out there and it isn't causing some people to avoid medical treatments that will save lives. We obviously know it is out there and we know that people are being harmed by it. It's obvious that people are being told stuff like this.

I just skimmed the thread and from the replies I thought Kermit was telling people to not get the vaccine. I found their original post and realized that was not the case at all. They laid out their concern, tied it to Gardisil claims (risky) and pasted 3 sites as an example of where the claims came from. This is common among young people.

Many could argue that the "accurate information" being provided in this thread is not accurate at all. That is the world we live in. Everyone has opinions and you can find dozens of articles to back up your claim, regardless of its accuracy.

I have dealt with dozens of straight-up anti-vaxxers. I didn't catch this drift from this Kermit person. Concern and claims are two different things. I didn't see any claims. This seems like a "don't shoot the messenger" situation in my opinion.

"Many could argue" literally anything. That doesn't mean anything is true.

Who is arguing that simply having an article to back up your claim is sufficient? What is at issue is the quality of the information in the article. These are things that can be assessed.

There is a ton of information online. The solution isn't to throw up your hands and decide everyone has opinions and truth is subjective. If you're claiming that it's legitimate to question this vaccine because Gardisil has been linked to infertility, then the quality of the evidence linking Gardisil to infertility is incredibly relevant.

kimny72 wrote: »

Theo166 wrote: »

@kimny72 thanks for educating me that mRNA vaccines are a new approach to vaccines. Maybe my head was in the sand but I didn't realize that aspect of this issue. I guess after I already recovered from COVID, I hadn't really followed this aspect of the crisis.

For others interested, I just found this article/paper that goes into some detail on the benefits of the mRNA approach
mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology

It's really fascinating stuff, even to someone like me who doesn't know a lot of the scientific terminology! The beauty of it seems to be that you use the same base for everything, and then just "plug in" the blueprint for whatever virus part you want manufactured. And you could put multiple blueprints in one shot, streamlining vaccinations. There is also talk that it theoretically could be used in cancer treatment, but I believe that is more aspirational, and I'm not really clear on how it would work :smile:

Instead of the mRNA coding for the COVID spike protein, it would code for a protein that cancer cells make, so the immune response would attack those cancer cells, although there are other ways also used (involving making changes to some immune cells) so that the immune system acts more strongly.
https://www.technologynetworks.com/biopharma/articles/developing-an-mrna-vaccine-for-cancer-immunotherapy-345704

healthyhannah__ wrote: »

I am a nurse and received the vaccine last week.

To say I was not hesitant would be a lie. Many nurses in my department has similar concerns. Luckily we were assured that all was well, but not everyone has access to medical journals like we do.

Most people just have Google, which we all know can be dangerous. People forget how powerful online articles and word-of-mouth can be. I have had several women recently inquire about the vaccine in regards to fertility. Many have declined it for now. This is an ongoing issue.

While most claims continue to be debunked, you really cannot blame young people for thinking twice.

This is coming from someone who fully supports the Covid-19 vaccine.

I believe @kermit124 was attempting to address claims that they heard, which is a quality I see in many patients. I feel like they are being brought down for having these concerns, which is equally ineffective.

The rumors with Gardasil are still ongoing for their demographic. Once the word got out that there "could be a link between the HPV vaccine and fertility" it spread like wildfire. I believe @kermit124 was laying out those articles to show which information their generation has been receiving. I have seen one of those articles shared on Instagram recently. I hate to say it, but it is true. They are really being told that they might not be able to have children. I don't think reprimanding them for their concerns is productive, but I also am used to hearing this.

Allow room for this conversation to happen since many of you may be hearing similar thoughts from your young loved ones looking to conceive.

It's a tough time in this world of over-information to sift out fact and fiction. Let's work together with grace!!!

I couldn’t disagree more. Responsible social media platforms are blocking and banning this sort of information just to stop it from spreading like wildfire.

Without getting into language that would violate the site rules, I don’t know what is wrong with people, but it’s clear from the past several years that polite conversation isn’t helping, and in fact seems to facilitate the spread of the poison. People who have deliberately detached themselves from scientific authority and attached themselves to crazy rumor-mongering and conspiracy theories are not just theoretically dangerous, they are actually dangerous.

I also find someone saying they “are just a young person thinking about starting a family who wants input” to be ingenuous. A person of normal intelligence, functioning normally, who really felt that way would be asking a doctor about her fertility, not trying to spread rumors online.

My husband had this sort of conversation with his father recently and had to tell him that if he didn’t stop being ridiculous (he is in his 80s, a lung cancer survivor with very little lung left, and would almost certainly die if he got Covid) and get the vaccine, he was not going to visit him. I have another friend who had to tell her mother - who is an RN and currently a nurse for terminally ill children! - that if she didn’t lay off the QAnon and get the vaccine, she was certainly not welcome to travel out of state to see her grandchildren.

The situation is scary, and pretending that these unfounded, nonsensical “concerns” are based in normal thinking or are a form of normal behavior is not something I’m going to do. The people doing it need to be aware that it’s dangerous and they are hurting people, just like someone who goes out drunk driving every day needs to be stopped.

kimny72 wrote: »

As to the concern that the vaccines were created so quickly... The long timeline typical for vaccine development isn't spent creating the vaccine, it's spent getting money and permissions to conduct trials and ramp up production. Most of the years involved are spent applying for and waiting for grants, and applying for and waiting for authorizations. Because the entire world was on hold, money was thrown at any research and trials immediately, and requests for permissions were moved to the front of the line. The corners cut were mostly bureaucratic, though the trial times were shortened a little.

The technology and ingredients in the mRNA vaccines have been worked on for years, they were just waiting for someone with deep pockets willing to pay for the final steps. And the J&J vaccine is basically the ebola vaccine they have been administering for a decade, with the virus protein (I think I'm using the right term there) switched out. Both are the culmination of years of work, not hastily thrown together experiments.

Work on the COVID-19 vaccine began in 2003 during the first SARS outbreak. That's how they knew to target the spike protein this time around.

healthyhannah__ wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

healthyhannah__ wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "allow room for this conversation to happen." The conversation WAS happening. People responded to the inaccurate information with accurate information. Allowing a conversation to happen doesn't require validating fears that are not grounded in reality. In instances where there is no information to support a particular set of claims, that can and should be pointed out.

I don't think anyone is denying that anti-vax information isn't out there and it isn't causing some people to avoid medical treatments that will save lives. We obviously know it is out there and we know that people are being harmed by it. It's obvious that people are being told stuff like this.

I just skimmed the thread and from the replies I thought Kermit was telling people to not get the vaccine.

She was suggesting it was not safe or that people who might otherwise get the vaccine should be concerned that it is unsafe: "It seems unrealistic for scientists to suggest that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe for women longterm when we haven't even seen it run its course for a year yet."

Also, the "just asking question" thing is a very common approach to anti vax arguments, as is the "these other people say" or "experts claim" (with no legitimate supporting evidence provided) or the like, and those were all present.

I am curious about who these AU researchers are, as that seems somewhat specific. Not that I really care. My own problem is that I would like to get vaccinated and probably won't even have the opportunity for some time. If people are trying to push the vaccine on Kermit, she can give hers to me (yes, I know that's not possible).

lemurcat2 wrote: »

healthyhannah__ wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

healthyhannah__ wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "allow room for this conversation to happen." The conversation WAS happening. People responded to the inaccurate information with accurate information. Allowing a conversation to happen doesn't require validating fears that are not grounded in reality. In instances where there is no information to support a particular set of claims, that can and should be pointed out.

I don't think anyone is denying that anti-vax information isn't out there and it isn't causing some people to avoid medical treatments that will save lives. We obviously know it is out there and we know that people are being harmed by it. It's obvious that people are being told stuff like this.

I just skimmed the thread and from the replies I thought Kermit was telling people to not get the vaccine.

She was suggesting it was not safe or that people who might otherwise get the vaccine should be concerned that it is unsafe: "It seems unrealistic for scientists to suggest that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe for women longterm when we haven't even seen it run its course for a year yet."

Also, the "just asking question" thing is a very common approach to anti vax arguments, as is the "these other people say" or "experts claim" (with no legitimate supporting evidence provided) or the like, and those were all present.

I am curious about who these AU researchers are, as that seems somewhat specific. Not that I really care. My own problem is that I would like to get vaccinated and probably won't even have the opportunity for some time. If people are trying to push the vaccine on Kermit, she can give hers to me (yes, I know that's not possible).

IMO, someone who is telling others that "many" unnamed experts are recommending a certain course of action is going beyond "just asking questions."

cwolfman13 wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

As to the concern that the vaccines were created so quickly... The long timeline typical for vaccine development isn't spent creating the vaccine, it's spent getting money and permissions to conduct trials and ramp up production. Most of the years involved are spent applying for and waiting for grants, and applying for and waiting for authorizations. Because the entire world was on hold, money was thrown at any research and trials immediately, and requests for permissions were moved to the front of the line. The corners cut were mostly bureaucratic, though the trial times were shortened a little.

The technology and ingredients in the mRNA vaccines have been worked on for years, they were just waiting for someone with deep pockets willing to pay for the final steps. And the J&J vaccine is basically the ebola vaccine they have been administering for a decade, with the virus protein (I think I'm using the right term there) switched out. Both are the culmination of years of work, not hastily thrown together experiments.

This is something that I'm surprised more people aren't aware of. Not only have mRNA vaccines been worked on for years, all kinds of vaccine research for various things is continuously ongoing...and a lot comes down to $$$ for funding.

I have a high school friend who works on this kind of stuff in Chicago (I think that's where he is now...he always seems to be moving around)...I remember when people first started talking about the vaccine and how it could take years and he was like, "nah...we have the science...we just don't have the money."

I know you know this, Wolfman, but I’m commenting for the general conversation.
Another factor in the speed of the Covid trials is that there’s so much infection in so many places, i.e., it’s a pandemic.
Normally, a vaccine goes through some safety testing in vitro (tested on cells in dishes) or something of that nature, then small-scale safety tests on humans. The large scale tests are mainly for effectiveness.
At that stage, many people sign up for the trial, and they’re split in two groups. One group gets the vaccine, the other gets the placebo (looks the same, even the people giving the shot don’t know which is which).
Then the researchers have to wait until there are enough cases in the trial group to see that there’s a statistically significant difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated subgroups, in infection, severity or both.
If the vaccine is for a virus that’s uncommon or geographically unpredictable, that can take a really long time of waiting and monitoring. With Covid, in a pandemic, there are enough cases in enough places that the cases stack up quickly, so statistically significant differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated subgroups show up much faster.

There are multiple reasons this vaccine has been fast: New mRNA technology (years in the making), scientists in adjacent fields getting involved in development and dropping their other work to do so, international collaboration between companies that usually compete and keep secrets, vast infusions of money, and the differences in the trial speed because it's a pandemic . . . among others, probably.

IMO, all this costs us is the possibility of finding out about really tiny, specialized bad reactions in sub-populations (small numbers of unusual people), or very long term side effects. It's not common for vaccines to have long term side effects - highly unusual, in fact. But we do have indications that the disease itself will have long-term side effects, and higher mortality for some fairly common subgroups (elderly, diabetic, etc.). We're balancing what is believed to be a small risk (long term or unknown small-group consequences of vaccine), with a much bigger risk (long term and moderate-sized group consequences of the disease)..

@ythannah

Believe me, we all have a former friend like that.

I avoid like the plague.




no pun.

RetiredAndLovingIt wrote: »

I am curious, how do you convince someone who refuses to get the vaccine, because they believe “it really isn’t a vaccine”? Not me, I am fully vaccinated.

Why bother trying to convince anyone? There isn’t enough to go around, let someone who wants it have it.