COVID Vaccine (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cogito said:
2 million after two weeks means to vaccinate 330 million will take 330 weeks or over 6 years. (I know there need to be two shots per person, but also not everyone will get the vaccine.)
Click to expand...
The COVID-19 herd immunity threshold is 60-70%, right? So not everyone needs to be vaccinated.
 
asicer said:
The COVID-19 herd immunity threshold is 60-70%, right? So not everyone needs to be vaccinated.
Click to expand...
It is certainly 60-70% if you are a time traveler and come from 5 years in the future where this piece of information has been studied and tested.

Right now, they are all guesses. With each new COVID variant that appears which is more infectious (seems to be the trend - UK, South Africa), the vaccination threshold goes up. If it takes 5 years to get 60% of the world vaccinated, there *may* be a strain that randomly becomes as infectious as measles and now you are looking at 95% vaccination rates for herd immunity.

So it is much better to get as many people as possible protected around the world in the shortest period of time.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
And it just so happened to be the same group of people blatantly breaking the rules and holding massive 10,000 person weddings and street parties while not caring about the spread of COVID. How surprising!
Click to expand...

huh? you got all that from that one link?
 
Bob Noel said:
huh? you got all that from that one link?
Click to expand...
From many news reports and Facebook posts by the people who got the vaccines bragging about them.

“ParCare, a well-known network of six clinics that serves Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in Brooklyn and upstate Orange County, openly bragged that it had 3,500 doses of the Moderna vaccine.”
https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-covid-20201226-eg3fuoc5mzex5ofqvnalslvape-story.html

“But it’s clear that those vaccinated by ParCare include prominent Orthodox leaders. Rabbi Hershel Schachter and Rabbi Mordechai Willig, both head teachers at Yeshiva University, were vaccinated at ParCare last week, and the network tweeted a video of their vaccinations. Neither Schachter, 79, nor Willig, 73, is a frontline health care worker or nursing home resident or worker, the two categories currently eligible for vaccines.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/half-...clinic-under-investigation-unsure-whats-next/
 
Last edited:
Wait.

You mean we don’t live in a dystopia where the rich and powerful will find ways to get it before others at higher risk?

LOL!

That article is only the beginning of that silliness.

When you ramp up logistics big enough to cover the planet — it doesn’t matter how many GPS trackers you slap on a box, a whole bunch are magically going to go missing.

Imagine the “fun” when the fake texts start flying soon... just wire transfer me some money, I have a secret stash...

And that’s the low hanging fruit / disorganized crime level.

Or maybe some nation-states bickering over which one gets how much per capita...

Certain large companies have already started lobby efforts aimed at claiming their staff are more “essential” than smaller companies doing the same jobs...

Gonna all be quite entertaining...

Wife’s hospital already found “an error” in their ranking sheet where the C-level managers, no patient contact, were way above the patient contact staff on the priority list.

A very good person got that stopped. He’s the sort who doesn’t mind being in the middle of it and knows there are folks well above the C-levels watching those who let it slip by without noticing or saying anything, and they just saw that and took notes about who fixed it...

Hmm. A mysterious spreadsheet error, eh?

Somebody’s on the naughty list...
 
charheep said:
Fauci has admitted that the 60% immunity was a lie to get people interested in taking a vaccine. He has now stated its 90% (or higher) for herd immunity.

Fauci defends COVID-19 herd immunity goals (nypost.com)
Click to expand...

Fauci didn't help himself with those quotes, but there's no established standard for herd immunity. 60%, 80%, 98%... Does 60% offer more protection than 10%? You bet. Is 80% better than 60%? Of course. At what point will we be free from this virus? Honestly, 100%. But until you get 100%, it is all relative.

Ask 10 experts and I don't think you'll get one consensus answer of what constitutes herd immunity other than a range "75% to 95%" or something like that. Again, because it is all relative.
 
denverpilot said:
Imagine the “fun” when the fake texts start flying soon... just wire transfer me some money, I have a secret stash...
Click to expand...
You don't need access to vaccines (or anything else, for that matter) to send that sort of text.
My understanding is that is already happening.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
You don't need access to vaccines (or anything else, for that matter) to send that sort of text.
My understanding is that is already happening.
Click to expand...

Yup. And the ones that say you were exposed, and all sorts of other fun...

(We’ve had the discussion over in the tech section a couple of times about texts — SMS/iMessage (not the same thing) — and why they’re untrustworthy always, as well as Caller ID. Mix in a little bit of virus paranoia and there’s all sorts of entertainment value.)
 
Then there are those who say no how no way. Strange, but predictable, that there would be these two diametrically opposing positions.
 
kyleb said:
Fauci didn't help himself with those quotes, but there's no established standard for herd immunity. 60%, 80%, 98%... Does 60% offer more protection than 10%? You bet. Is 80% better than 60%? Of course. At what point will we be free from this virus? Honestly, 100%. But until you get 100%, it is all relative.

Ask 10 experts and I don't think you'll get one consensus answer of what constitutes herd immunity other than a range "75% to 95%" or something like that. Again, because it is all relative.
Click to expand...

It is not so much relative as it relates to uncertainties in some of the critical quantitative factors. It will be somewhat difficult to precisely say what the vaccination rate needs to be to achieve herd immunity, because it requires a precise knowledge of R0 for the virus, and also depends on the weighted average efficacy of the vaccines deployed (assuming they prevent infection as well as symptomatic disease.) The best guess for R0 for SARS-CoV-2 is between 2-3 (although some estimates are as high as 5.7). This is based on rates of exponential growth of the initial phase of the epidemic in several different world populations. (Data I've looked at for the 50 states in the U.S. suggest R0 is closer to 3 than 2.) Herd immunity is achieved at 1-1/R0 so that means somewhere between 50%-67% population immunity is required. If vaccines are say, 70-90% effective on average, then the necessary immunization rates must be between 56-96% to achieve herd immunity, depending on the exact combination of R0 and efficacy chosen to make the calculation. But, the higher the immunization rate, the easier it will be to suppress outbreaks when they will occur. So the reality is that to be sure of essentially eradicating outbreaks of the disease we will need very high rates of compliance. Science is brutal that way.
 
chemgeek said:
So the reality is that to be sure of essentially eradicating outbreaks of the disease we will need very high rates of compliance.
Click to expand...
But that doesn't necessarily mean 100%, right? The system can tolerate a certain amount of tinfoil hat crazies, no?
 
PlasticCigar said:
I volunteered but they didn’t pick me. :-(
One of the reasons I volunteered was to get a vaccine against COVID because I don’t want it. I don’t think I would have volunteered during Phase I or II, though.

I’m curious if @steingar would like to explain how he would have done a better job with the vaccine? Considering the virus has been known to exist for less than a year and we have TWO vaccines already with 95% efficacy from a Phase III trial, that’s pretty freaking remarkable.

As far as distribution goes, if the current trends continue a lot of people won’t need the vaccine because those who survived will have antibodies.

Stay safe out there.
Click to expand...
It's fortunate that you're allowed to participate in the trial without suspending your medical. In Canada, participating in a drug trial automatically grounds you (but on the other hand, you're allowed to have any vaccine once it's approved by Health Canada without the need for separate approval from Transport Canada, so the second a new C19 vaccine is approved for distribution, it's automatically approved for pilots and controllers).

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/me...vaccines-aviation-medical-certificate-holders
 
wsuffa said:
It was only a matter of time....

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/cor...nvestigates-reports-of-line-skipping/2801988/
Click to expand...

NYS had enough vaccine to cover a 25 year old healthy politician, I can't get too bent out of shape about someone immunizing 60 year old Rabbis. God knows they are at a high risk of both getting the disease and spreading it.

Most of the anger from the top state and city buerocrats is the result of him beating them on administration rates. As someone who disagrees with the unneccessarily complicated multi-tiered administration plan, I applaud anyone who gets the vaccine into arms. NYS should have enough vaccine to cover every nursing home in the state, if there is still a facility that hasn't been covered, that's all on the state officials, not on that clinic in NYC.
 
I'm not going to name anyone here, but it's a basic point of professional ethics not to use your professional credentials to try to add credibility to hypotheticals or WAGs. It doesn't matter if you're an M.D., Chief Surgeon at Johns Hopkins, or the head of the WHO — science isn't about personal opinions, but peer-reviewed research.
 
David Megginson said:
I'm not going to name anyone here, but it's a basic point of professional ethics not to use your professional credentials to try to add credibility to hypotheticals or WAGs. It doesn't matter if you're an M.D., Chief Surgeon at Johns Hopkins, or the head of the WHO — science isn't about personal opinions, but peer-reviewed research.
Click to expand...
Most of us who are not medical professionals don't have the time or expertise to review and evaluate peer-reviewed research, so I, personally, appreciate knowing what people's professional qualifications are. I've been around long enough to know that credentials are not an automatic guarantee by themselves, but they provide at least a tentative indicator of credibility, pending comparison with other knowledgeable sources.
 
asicer said:
But that doesn't necessarily mean 100%, right? The system can tolerate a certain amount of tinfoil hat crazies, no?
Click to expand...

100% compliance will not likely be achievable, but the long-term risk of an unvaccinated individual becoming infected starts to drop dramatically once you get to around 2/3 of the required population immunity level. At lower levels of population immunity the gains are pretty small, although significant.
 
I'm not a doctor, and I am certainly not an anti-vaccer, just a retired scientist, but I do read a couple of medical journals, including the British and New England journals.
The testing for the vaccines was seriously flawed, done in such a way that it's virtually impossible for the test to fail. That's the conclusion of both journal articles.
The esteemed Dr. Fauci is closely $$$$ affiliated with Modena. Check out the financial reports for yourself.
Neither vaccine will prevent someone who as been vaccinated from spreading the disease.
There has obviously been no testing for long term effects, which can be a serious issue with any vaccine. Remember the problems with the "live" polio vaccine decades after people were vaccinated?
A couple of flu vaccines in the last 15 years have killed more people than they cured.
Personally, I'm going to wait awhile.
 
chemgeek said:
It is not so much relative as it relates to uncertainties in some of the critical quantitative factors. It will be somewhat difficult to precisely say what the vaccination rate needs to be to achieve herd immunity, because it requires a precise knowledge of R0 for the virus, and also depends on the weighted average efficacy of the vaccines deployed (assuming they prevent infection as well as symptomatic disease.) The best guess for R0 for SARS-CoV-2 is between 2-3 (although some estimates are as high as 5.7). This is based on rates of exponential growth of the initial phase of the epidemic in several different world populations. (Data I've looked at for the 50 states in the U.S. suggest R0 is closer to 3 than 2.) Herd immunity is achieved at 1-1/R0 so that means somewhere between 50%-67% population immunity is required. If vaccines are say, 70-90% effective on average, then the necessary immunization rates must be between 56-96% to achieve herd immunity, depending on the exact combination of R0 and efficacy chosen to make the calculation. But, the higher the immunization rate, the easier it will be to suppress outbreaks when they will occur. So the reality is that to be sure of essentially eradicating outbreaks of the disease we will need very high rates of compliance. Science is brutal that way.
Click to expand...

Those estimates for R0 were based on people developing clinical disease. Based on the large discrepancy between 'confirmed cases' and antibody positive individuals in the early stage of the epidemic, I believe the actual R0 (including asymptomatic cases) to be considerably higher than the 2-3 that was published at the time. For the herd-immunity question, the asymptomatic carriers are relevant. And as you point, out the actual effectiveness of the vaccines at cutting transmission is unknown and a factor in determining where we need to get. Another factor is that the population is not homogenous in their degree of interaction with other humans. A retiree living in some holler up in West Virginia doesn't have the same risk of spreading the virus as a bartender in a college town. That heterogeneity of 'participation' actually reduces the herd immunity threshold somewhat. I wish Fauci stuck with 'we are not certain where the actual number is, but lets move in that direction and see when we stop seeing sustained outbreaks'.

Fauci is very talented at giving his detractors ammunition. Same thing with the flap about mask usage. Early on, we assumed that this thing behaved like SARS where people were for the most part not infectious prior to showing clinical symptoms. Also, we assumed that people are not stupid and are able to self-isolate once they develop symptoms of viral infections. We were wrong. The data from outbreak investigations in the spring showed that the serial interval for covid-19 was shorter than the incubation period and we saw documented cases of presymptomatic spread. We also saw that the second assumption about human behavior was wrong*. We also started to get observational data from hospitals that managed to cut in-hospital transmission by requiring universal masking. Unfortunately, rather than stating that 'the data and our understanding is evolving and this is what we should do', he said this thing about 'preserving PPE'. Made no sense then, makes no sense now, but it gets some people even further wound up about a person that figures prominently in some conspiracy theories about the disease.







* a friends daughter just made it through 7 months of working at starbucks without having a known exposure until one of her knucklehead coworkers showed up sick after a known exposure. Yes, people are dumb and put others at risk, even if they have paid sick-leave.
 
Shepherd said:
I'm not a doctor, and I am certainly not an anti-vaccer, just a retired scientist, but I do read a couple of medical journals, including the British and New England journals.
The testing for the vaccines was seriously flawed…
Click to expand...
Again, please don't use credentials (even "retired scientist") to try to support a personal opinion, unsubstantiated by peer-reviewed research. When you post this, you're posting it as just another retired guy with a controversial opinion, and it's 100% irrelevant that you're a retired scientist or that you read a couple of journals. You should know perfectly well from your career that science doesn't work that way.
 
I'm sorry. What part of "I read the medical journals" didn't you understand?
I'm just relaying, in short form rather than cut and paste entire articles (Illegal, BTW), from the journals.
It's not my opinion.
 
Palmpilot said:
Most of us who are not medical professionals don't have the time or expertise to review and evaluate peer-reviewed research, so I, personally, appreciate knowing what people's professional qualifications are. I've been around long enough to know that credentials are not an automatic guarantee by themselves, but they provide at least a tentative indicator of credibility, pending comparison with other knowledgeable sources.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, YouTube is full of MDs abusing their degrees to spread misinformation. Please ignore them. Science doesn't work that way. If you want lit reviews, get them from trusted institutions like the CDC or WHO or your local public health authority or major research hospitals, not rogue individuals looking for attention.

Note I'm not saying that individuals can't express personal opinions on medical matters (I do all the time); it's just that it's ethically wrong to use your credentials or experience to try to reinforce them.
 
denverpilot said:
Wait.

You mean we don’t live in a dystopia where the rich and powerful will find ways to get it before others at higher risk?

LOL!

That article is only the beginning of that silliness.
(Snip)
Certain large companies have already started

Somebody’s on the naughty list...
Click to expand...
I have heard tell of one company where the CEO threatened to fire a couple of people if they couldn't get the Covid vaccine to the staff (about 5000 people) because they needed to "get back to the office and working NOW". Fortunately, the head of HR has common sense and b^||s big enough to take on the CEO. This is, mind you, a professional company where the staff is already working - from home. But I have no first-hand facts.
 
Shepherd said:
I'm not a doctor, and I am certainly not an anti-vaccer, just a retired scientist, but I do read a couple of medical journals, including the British and New England journals.
The testing for the vaccines was seriously flawed, done in such a way that it's virtually impossible for the test to fail. That's the conclusion of both journal articles.
Click to expand...
Can you provide specific citations to those articles? Or at least which issues of those journals they appeared in?
 
Shepherd said:
I'm sorry. What part of "I read the medical journals" didn't you understand?
I'm just relaying, in short form rather than cut and paste entire articles (Illegal, BTW), from the journals.
It's not my opinion.
Click to expand...
Cherry picking a few points from articles to back an opinion isn't a lit review. I'm not saying it's not OK to have a contrarian opinion; it's just wrong to use credentials or abuse published articles to try to make that opinion sound more credible than other people's. If you care to do a proper lit review and submit it for evaluation by other virologists (I'm assuming you're a retired virologist or similar), by all means, go ahead, but don't try to confuse laypeople in forums like this with a fog of false credibility.
 
David Megginson said:
Cherry picking a few points from articles to back an opinion isn't a lit review. I'm not saying it's not OK to have a contrarian opinion; it's just wrong to use credentials or abuse published articles to try to make that opinion sound more credible than other people's. If you care to do a proper lit review and submit it for evaluation by other virologists (I'm assuming you're a retired virologist or similar), by all means, go ahead, but don't try to confuse laypeople in forums like this with a fog of false credibility.
Click to expand...
I wasn't confused by his statement about his background, because he didn't specify which branch of science he retired from, and scientists don't always agree, in any case. Anyone can subscribe to medical journals, as far as I know. As a layman, I don't know what to make of the opinions he's relaying without reading the actual sources.
 
Palmpilot said:
I wasn't confused by his statement about his background, because he didn't specify which branch of science he retired from, and scientists don't always agree, in any case. Anyone can subscribe to medical journals, as far as I know. As a layman, I don't know what to make of the opinions he's relaying without reading the actual sources.
Click to expand...
Early this fall, a C-list celeb (former Canadian Shark Tank or Dragons' Den or whatever) tweeted that since he had a degree in engineering, he was qualified to contradict public health on the trend of COVID cases. He didn't see the start of a spike at all (that was just a few weeks before the C19 caseload rose to record levels, exactly as public health had been warning).

You see this all over the place. A&P's (AMEs here in Canada) have a saying that "The most dangerous thing in aviation is an aircraft owner holding a Phillips screwdriver" (note that this isn't a dig against owners doing authorised or supervised maintenance with appropriate training). For accidents, we have the concept of "The Killing Zone" (around 400 hours, when your confidence has increased, but your decision-making ability hasn't caught up yet). The military talks about "unknown unknowns" (not even knowing that you don't know something). Alexander Pope wrote about the same idea 300 years ago:
A little learning is a dangerous thing.
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring;
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.
Click to expand...
In all cases, the point is that people who know just a little bit about a topic can be the most dangerous, because they have too much confidence but not enough real knowledge or experience to back it up. They know more trivia about a topic than the average person, so think they start acting like experts (or at least, semi-experts), but the little bit they know actually ends up making them act more ignorantly than people who know less about the topic — but at least those other people know that they don't know a lot.
 
David Megginson said:
Again, please don't use credentials (even "retired scientist") to try to support a personal opinion, unsubstantiated by peer-reviewed research. When you post this, you're posting it as just another retired guy with a controversial opinion, and it's 100% irrelevant that you're a retired scientist or that you read a couple of journals. You should know perfectly well from your career that science doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. If opinions are going to be posted, I put a lot more credence in those coming from people with a scientific background and perhaps an advanced degree or three reading and interpreting the literature. What I object to is the incredible amount of covid-related crap getting posted all over the internet from conspiracy theorists who so clearly have had no scientific training whatsoever.

Competence matters.
 
Shepherd said:
I'm not a doctor, and I am certainly not an anti-vaccer, just a retired scientist, but I do read a couple of medical journals, including the British and New England journals.
The testing for the vaccines was seriously flawed, done in such a way that it's virtually impossible for the test to fail. That's the conclusion of both journal articles.
Click to expand...
Links, please?
Shepherd said:
The esteemed Dr. Fauci is closely $$$$ affiliated with Modena. Check out the financial reports for yourself.
Click to expand...
Why does that matter? How has it affected the work? Was Dr. Fauci involved in the emergency use authorization? If so, how? Does that affect the Pfizer (and other vaccines coming out)?
Shepherd said:
Neither vaccine will prevent someone who as been vaccinated from spreading the disease.
Click to expand...
Do you have evidence for that? Links? To the best of my knowledge, that hasn't been proven, or disproven, yet. Even if it doesn't prevent the spread, it seems people aren't getting very ill after they get the vaccine. That's still a win.
Shepherd said:
There has obviously been no testing for long term effects, which can be a serious issue with any vaccine. Remember the problems with the "live" polio vaccine decades after people were vaccinated?
Click to expand...
Well, someone has to make a choice- lots of people sick and dead now, or fewer sick later. Besides, people have been working on this for 30 years now (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1690918/ )
The problems with the live polio vaccine is that the virus wasn't properly inactivated: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/

Shepherd said:
A couple of flu vaccines in the last 15 years have killed more people than they cured.
Personally, I'm going to wait awhile.
Click to expand...
Since you have access to the journals, could you please share links to them?


I've not yet heard of any medicine, vaccine, or treatment that worked for everyone in the population. Even something such as aspirin has side effects on apart of the population
https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1082-3/aspirin-oral/aspirin-oral/details/list-sideeffects

You're a scientist. Big whoops. That, and a few dollars, buys coffee at Starbucks. I'm a scientist too. Big whoops too.
 
Frankly, all the opinions in the world make no difference to me. I’m a lab rat in this experiment.

Moderna asked for volunteers to determine the efficacy of their Vaccine. I signed up for it, was selected and by random chance I got the Vaccine. If it doesn’t help, it doesn’t change my thoughts on why I volunteered. If it does, I’m glad. If it stops me from being in an ICU if I come in contact with the bug, great. If I grow a third eye in the middle of my forehead next year, that’s a shame.

I’ve survived an engine failure over downtown Cincinnati with my pregnant wife and young daughter and another time was revived by an AED after my heart stopped so the risk of some horrible fate from a Vaccine is not a big deal. I look at it as about the same as being run over by a bus in the UK because I looked the wrong way before stepping off the kerb.

Everybody has their own risk assessment process. Mine is the risk of being dead from COVID-19 with my age and history is higher than some unknown complication from a Vaccine approved for use without 10 years of results of a gazillion Vaccinations.

Others make different assignments. OK by me. Their choice.

Oh and BTW for every “official” published doomsday prediction about the Vaccines, I would guess there’s 10 or 100 or who knows how many that say it’s the best thing to do.

Even more prevalent are the “We don’t know what will happen long term” crowd who are the typical handwringing “experts” who are given airtime or print space just to fill up media needs. I seldom see the so-called journalists ask those “experts” what they suggest be done. If on the rare occasion the interviewer does ask, the answer seems to be the “expert” doesn’t have a better idea.

I found this thread has done pretty much what I desired and expected. I’ve learned a lot. Hope I learn more.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Stop it. A logical well-reasoned argument backed up by facts has no place in this forum.

Cap'n Jack said:
Links, please?

Why does that matter? How has it affected the work? Was Dr. Fauci involved in the emergency use authorization? If so, how? Does that affect the Pfizer (and other vaccines coming out)?

Do you have evidence for that? Links? To the best of my knowledge, that hasn't been proven, or disproven, yet. Even if it doesn't prevent the spread, it seems people aren't getting very ill after they get the vaccine. That's still a win.

Well, someone has to make a choice- lots of people sick and dead now, or fewer sick later. Besides, people have been working on this for 30 years now (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1690918/ )
The problems with the live polio vaccine is that the virus wasn't properly inactivated: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/


Since you have access to the journals, could you please share links to them?


I've not yet heard of any medicine, vaccine, or treatment that worked for everyone in the population. Even something such as aspirin has side effects on apart of the population
https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1082-3/aspirin-oral/aspirin-oral/details/list-sideeffects

You're a scientist. Big whoops. That, and a few dollars, buys coffee at Starbucks. I'm a scientist too. Big whoops too.
Click to expand...
 
GaryM said:
I don't agree. If opinions are going to be posted, I put a lot more credence in those coming from people with a scientific background and perhaps an advanced degree or three reading and interpreting the literature. What I object to is the incredible amount of covid-related crap getting posted all over the internet from conspiracy theorists who so clearly have had no scientific training whatsoever.

Competence matters.
Click to expand...
No, that's even more dangerous. If an obvious tin-hat wearer posts something, you know it's B.S. If someone with a doctorate in medicine or science posts a personal opinion (not just pointing to existing, well-vetted research and guidance), it's probably still B.S., but the credentials trick you into taking it more seriously (as you just admitted).

Science isn't about individual credentials and opinions — it's the process and community verification that matters. If someone with a grade 3 education points you to a page on the CDC web site (or similar), that post has 1000× the value of someone with a doctorate saying "here's my theory, and you should listen to me, not because I've been part of a detailed peer-reviewed process, but because, you know, I have a degree so I'm important."
 
It is OK, of course, for health professionals to post about their personal experiences fighting C19, as long as they don't try to draw broader scientific conclusions from that. I'm always interested to hear testimony from the front lines.
 
GaryM said:
I don't agree. If opinions are going to be posted, I put a lot more credence in those coming from people with a scientific background and perhaps an advanced degree or three reading and interpreting the literature. What I object to is the incredible amount of covid-related crap getting posted all over the internet from conspiracy theorists who so clearly have had no scientific training whatsoever.

Competence matters.
Click to expand...
Regardless of stated credentials, there's no way to gauge competence on an internet discussion forum. I'm a physician, but virology, epidemiology, and vaccine science are way outside of my areas of expertise, so I likewise take an MD posting COVID information here, if there are any MDs posting COVID information here, with several grains of salt. Suffice it to say that I don't come to aviation discussion forums for reliable information of any aspect of medical practice.
 
Shepherd said:
...
Neither vaccine will prevent someone who as been vaccinated from spreading the disease.
There has obviously been no testing for long term effects, which can be a serious issue with any vaccine. Remember the problems with the "live" polio vaccine decades after people were vaccinated?
Click to expand...


I'm not a doctor nor do I play one on TV.

But a couple of comments:

"don't know" means just that, don't know.

Did any of the vaccine trials include a test objective evaluating the ability to spread the virus?

Did any of the vaccine trials include a test objective wrt long term effects?

To the best of my knowledge, the answer to both questions is "no".

"don't know" means just that, don't know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top