Will you take the mRNA Vaccine Immediately When Available?

Panacea Financial Contract Review
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Do you plan on taking either the Moderna or Pfizer mRNA vaccine immediately when available?

  • Yes

    Votes: 170 77.6%

  • No

    Votes: 49 22.4%
  • Total voters
    219
Members do not see this ad.
Birdstrike said:
What "Sanofi Pasteur mRNA vaccine" in the Philippines are you referring to? Because I just looked this up and all I'm finding is information on a live (not mRNA) vaccine in the Philippines from Sanofi Co. that itself isn't harmful, but makes kids have more severe cases of Dengue fever.
Click to expand...
So we have evidence vaccines can actually be harmful, even using traditional methods. Yikes.
 
People seem to be freaking out about this "warpspeed" concept. Perhaps that wasn't the best name, as people/media/social-media have translated it to "reckless" speed. But from what I've seen, and by no means am I an expert in vaccines or virology, is that they've simply done the stages of vaccine funding and development in parallel, instead of in sequence. Whereas normally you take months/years to get funding, then do phase one. Then wait months/years for more funding, then phase 2 and so on, until years go by and finally you've completed phase 3.

But this time, the front-loaded with all the funding and did them simultaneously. That doesn't mean they had to commit to putting out a vaccine that failed any of the three phases or showed danger in any of the three. It does not mean that at all. It just speeds up what was previously a ridiculously long, burdensome system full of red tape and funding struggles.

It doesn't seem to me we haven't shifted from "how it should be done" to a new way that's reckless. Could we have shifted from an older inefficient system, to a better, more efficient one? I don't know. So far, it appears that way.
 
Birdstrike said:
I'm your guinea pig. I got the Pfizer shot 6 days ago and I feel fine. That's my n of 1.

Harmful virus, versus harmful vaccine. Assess the risk. Choose.
Click to expand...
All of my concerns are liable to be proven unfounded, but as of now we don’t have all of the answers. Time will tell, and the volunteers, or “guinea pigs,” are certainly providing useful information for the rest of us.
 
southerndoc said:
Generally vaccines require 2 years of safety data. The mRNA vaccines used only 2 months of data.
Click to expand...
That's true. The long term safety portion can't be done in parallel, obviously. It requires time. But they made a risk assessment and had to choose between:

A) Unchecked COVID which is on pace to kill 600,000 more Americans in the next 24 months, versus

B) An mRNA vaccine which has caused zero deaths in the first 2 months in 20,000 patients, but might have some amount of deaths in months 3-24, or which could very well continue to be zero, or close to it, in months 3-24.

Decisions on this scale are often not easy. But this one is really easy.
 
Birdstrike said:
That's true. The long term safety portion can't be done in parallel, obviously. It requires time. But they made a risk assessment and had to choose between:

A) Unchecked COVID which is on pace to kill 600,000 more Americans in the next 24 months, versus

B) An mRNA vaccine which has caused zero deaths in the first 2 months in 20,000 patients, but might have some deaths (or zero) in months 3-24.

Decisions on this scale are often not easy. But this one is really easy.
Click to expand...

Also consider the fact that of severe vaccine related adverse events (think Guillam Barre, etc.) the vast vast majority have occurred in the first 2 months. Of course mRNA vaccines are new, so that may or may not apply, but the risk based on everything (data, technology, mechanism of action) is vanishingly small.
 
BAM! said:
Here are some factors I believe people have concerns about, off the top of my head.

We have no data on long term side effects. Are there autoimmune issues?
In the NEJM article they followed 8k of the 40k with a symptom diary. Not sure why now everyone? out of convenience? I suppose this is enough.
Do we trust industry sponsored data? Pfizer and Moderna have a lot riding on this.
What's in this 'proprietary' nanolipid formula. Will this cause long term side effects?

Overall, I think these risks of long term side effects are born purely out of caution. I can't think of any reasonable reason not to get it except that it is still in the 'unknown' category. Given its reported effectiveness, I got mine this morning.
Click to expand...

I think both are great options and will get whichever comes to me first. I disagree with your take on pfizer's data though. Moderna has a lot riding on this. For Pfizer this is a drop in the bucket that is their profits. Their name/reputation matters a lot more to them then profits from this vaccine.
 
Anybody s/p Pfizer vaccine having a lot of fatigue? It takes all my energy to drag myself to the gym which is unlike me and I just feel washed. It’s not severe but kind of like how you feel when you’ve been on a string of nights and switched...which I just did so maybe I’m just being paranoid...
 
Groove said:
Anybody s/p Pfizer vaccine having a lot of fatigue? It takes all my energy to drag myself to the gym which is unlike me and I just feel washed. It’s not severe but kind of like how you feel when you’ve been on a string of nights and switched...which I just did so maybe I’m just being paranoid...
Click to expand...
The nurse who gave me mine yesterday said she had a good bit of fatigue the day after. Same with the anesthesiologist who lives next door.

I feel fine, minus the sore arm which is no worse than my last Tdap.
 
Groove said:
Anybody s/p Pfizer vaccine having a lot of fatigue? It takes all my energy to drag myself to the gym which is unlike me and I just feel washed. It’s not severe but kind of like how you feel when you’ve been on a string of nights and switched...which I just did so maybe I’m just being paranoid...
Click to expand...
If you're having fatigue from the shot, isn't that likely a sign of a healthy immune response?
 
Birdstrike said:
I'm your guinea pig. I got the Pfizer shot 6 days ago and I feel fine. That's my n of 1.

Harmful virus, versus harmful vaccine. Assess the risk. Choose.
Click to expand...
Many young physicians are doing the math. My age group of 25-34, less than 2,000 people have died of covid. Absolutely no reason to force us into these vaccines for at least two years, preferably 6-10. With the current trend in medicine, it seems I may be up against the full weight of the health-care industrial complex. Do the anti-fascists among us recognize the irony of this situation?
 

Attachments

  • 8D0493CA-4DEC-4F8E-8736-E3FC302A9CB9.jpeg
    8D0493CA-4DEC-4F8E-8736-E3FC302A9CB9.jpeg
    45.5 KB · Views: 91
Spikebd said:
Many young physicians are doing the math. My age group of 25-34, less than 2,000 people have died of covid. Absolutely no reason to force us into these vaccines for at least two years, preferably 6-10. With the current trend in medicine, it seems I may be up against the full weight of the health-care industrial complex. Do the anti-fascists among us recognize the irony of this situation?
Click to expand...
I didn't say you should be forced to take this vaccine. I'm pro-freedom. But my post wasn't even about that. My post was about weighing the effects of approving the vaccine for emergency use, or not approving it, on the population as a whole.
 
Groove said:
Anybody s/p Pfizer vaccine having a lot of fatigue? It takes all my energy to drag myself to the gym which is unlike me and I just feel washed. It’s not severe but kind of like how you feel when you’ve been on a string of nights and switched...which I just did so maybe I’m just being paranoid...
Click to expand...
Yes as I said before, I did. Resolved by 72 hours.
Birdstrike said:
If you're having fatigue from the shot, isn't that likely a sign of a healthy immune response?
Click to expand...
This is what I’m hoping! That all my symptoms mean I have a heck of an immunity building.
Angry Birds said:
I can't wait to get the second dose. Covid is exploding at my hospital
Click to expand...
Yes!!! At mine too.
 
Groove said:
Anybody s/p Pfizer vaccine having a lot of fatigue? It takes all my energy to drag myself to the gym which is unlike me and I just feel washed. It’s not severe but kind of like how you feel when you’ve been on a string of nights and switched...which I just did so maybe I’m just being paranoid...
Click to expand...

Maybe you have Covid...
Spikebd said:
Many young physicians are doing the math. My age group of 25-34, less than 2,000 people have died of covid. Absolutely no reason to force us into these vaccines for at least two years, preferably 6-10. With the current trend in medicine, it seems I may be up against the full weight of the health-care industrial complex. Do the anti-fascists among us recognize the irony of this situation?
Click to expand...
Are your parents still alive? Frankly being able to see mine soon is enough to convince me to get it.

So I had Covid at the beginning of the month. Minimal symptoms, to the point that I get it that you can’t rely on people to self-isolate based on symptoms. Maybe one day I was sick enough to not go for a run. Anyway, I just got vaccinated today (I had originally intended on deferring it for a while, but the hospital I’ve been working at this week had plenty and made it super easy for us to get. Since I have little confidence in an ongoing robust supply system, and I think it’ll be required for work and travel soon, I figured might as well go for it). My arm is about as sore as a typical tetanus shot, otherwise no side effects. Didn’t bother me at all during the second half of my shift.
 
Spikebd said:
So we have evidence vaccines can actually be harmful, even using traditional methods. Yikes.
Click to expand...

It seems disingenuous and incorrect to suggest as you did earlier that there was a prior mRNA vaccine which caused harm. This doesn't seem to be the case. At best the information you posted is unhelpful, at worst someone could read it and assume a prior mRNA vaccine harmed children and avoid getting vaccinated themselves. Do you want to update your post with more accurate information or post a link that describes what you're referencing?
 
Birdstrike said:
People seem to be freaking out about this "warpspeed" concept. Perhaps that wasn't the best name, as people/media/social-media have translated it to "reckless" speed. But from what I've seen, and by no means am I an expert in vaccines or virology, is that they've simply done the stages of vaccine funding and development in parallel, instead of in sequence. Whereas normally you take months/years to get funding, then do phase one. Then wait months/years for more funding, then phase 2 and so on, until years go by and finally you've completed phase 3.

But this time, the front-loaded with all the funding and did them simultaneously. That doesn't mean they had to commit to putting out a vaccine that failed any of the three phases or showed danger in any of the three. It does not mean that at all. It just speeds up what was previously a ridiculously long, burdensome system full of red tape and funding struggles.

It doesn't seem to me we haven't shifted from "how it should be done" to a new way that's reckless. Could we have shifted from an older inefficient system, to a better, more efficient one? I don't know. So far, it appears that way.
Click to expand...
Ah "Warp Speed." Let's break this down a bit. Usually vaccines take several years to produce. For example, the fastest vaccine ever was the mumps vaccine, which took 4 years. It took 2 years to attenuate the mumps vaccine. Pfizer developed the mRNA vaccine in 2 days using a computer. Then you have to gather enough patients to give the vaccine to such that you have enough power in the data. This was dramatically shortened because, well let's face it, we have so many freaking cases in the US and tons of volunteers for the vaccine. Therefore it was easier to enroll tens of thousands of people at the drop of the hat in an environment where the disease is so rampant one can get adequately powered data. Next, though there was much less paperwork and red tape in the 60s, the 2020 government has allowed the mRNA vaccines to jump to the front of the regulatory lines further speeding this through.

So "Warp Speed" is really a combination of technology, an pandemic ripe for clinical trials, and a gentle push from the government. Understanding the factors allowing for a 1 year vaccine development timeline assuaged my own concerns with receiving it.

Day 2, no symptoms. not even a sore arm.
 
GeneralVeers said:
Not sure the science behind people on here who've had COVID getting the vaccine. Why not save the limited doses for those not immune or st risk?
Click to expand...

Well, isn't it the case that the antibodies from getting COVID might only last so long?
 
Spikebd said:
Many young physicians are doing the math. My age group of 25-34, less than 2,000 people have died of covid. Absolutely no reason to force us into these vaccines for at least two years, preferably 6-10. With the current trend in medicine, it seems I may be up against the full weight of the health-care industrial complex. Do the anti-fascists among us recognize the irony of this situation?
Click to expand...
Immunizations are rarely needed for one's individual health. They are necessary for population health and have repeatedly ended pandemics, drastically stopped the spread harmful diseases, and saved countless lives. Just because you may be young and healthy does not mean that you won't contribute to the continued spread of covid-19 if you are infected. Our world is in crisis. In order to save lives, restore the economy, and have the freedom to go out to eat with friends and family without fear of spreading this deadly disease depends people must consider what's best for population health.

But hey... Who cares if the world has pretty much shut down, business close, people keep dying, hospitals are overwhelmed, and kids can't get a real education by attending school without crazy restrictions? As long as the people are in their 20s and 30s are healthy, why not just keep letting people die needlessly and destroy the economy? Who wants to risk the tiny chance of long-term effects in oneself to save countless lives of others?

Is that your point? Because that's all I took away from you post.

But you do you man. The rest of us will be out here doing what is very clearly best for everyone as a whole.
 
Get the vaccination. Do it voluntarily. Do it because you're smart. Do it because you're educated. Do it because you don't believe every stupid thing you read on the internet. Do it because you're a medical professional and as such are a leader in your community (whether you realize it or not). And quit imagining crap and making paralytic, fear-based life decisions. Millions have had this shot now. Man up, put your big boy pants on, deal with a sore arm for one day, and get this damn vaccine so we can get back to some semblance of a normal life in 2021.
 
Last edited:
KGflyboy said:
Immunizations are rarely needed for one's individual health. They are necessary for population health and have repeatedly ended pandemics, drastically stopped the spread harmful diseases, and saved countless lives. Just because you may be young and healthy does not mean that you won't contribute to the continued spread of covid-19 if you are infected. Our world is in crisis. In order to save lives, restore the economy, and have the freedom to go out to eat with friends and family without fear of spreading this deadly disease depends people must consider what's best for population health.

But hey... Who cares if the world has pretty much shut down, business close, people keep dying, hospitals are overwhelmed, and kids can't get a real education by attending school without crazy restrictions? As long as the people are in their 20s and 30s are healthy, why not just keep letting people die needlessly and destroy the economy? Who wants to risk the tiny chance of long-term effects in oneself to save countless lives of others?

Is that your point? Because that's all I took away from you post.

But you do you man. The rest of us will be out here doing what is very clearly best for everyone as a whole.
Click to expand...
First, we have repeatedly been told that even if people get vaccinated we still have to remain locked down, still have to mask, still need to socially distance, etc. Does the vaccine prevent spread? Or just prevent severe infections?

Do you get the prevnar vaccine every year? How about the shingles vaccine? Why isn’t that best for everyone as a whole?

Anyone who wants to get vaccinated should go do it, that’s wonderful. I’m optimistic it will work and all of my concerns will be unfounded. But when brand new mRNA tech is being used, it’s madness to fault somebody in a low-risk group to defer or decline vaccination.
 
Last edited:
DrDrummer said:
It seems disingenuous and incorrect to suggest as you did earlier that there was a prior mRNA vaccine which caused harm. This doesn't seem to be the case. At best the information you posted is unhelpful, at worst someone could read it and assume a prior mRNA vaccine harmed children and avoid getting vaccinated themselves. Do you want to update your post with more accurate information or post a link that describes what you're referencing?
Click to expand...
The original post has been edited to reflect that the Sanofi Dengue vaccine is NOT an mRNA vaccine.
 
Spikebd said:
it’s madness to fault somebody in a low-risk group to defer or decline vaccination.
Click to expand...
No, it is not "madness" to fault someone in a low risk category to decline a vaccination. I'm in a low risk age group, run 60-70 miles per week, have medical risk factors, and a BMI of 20. I don't fear COVID for myself, at all. But I don't want to spread the virus to others. So I traded one day of arm soreness for the benefit of public health.

Perhaps as a Christmas present to your elderly patients, relatives, and neighbors you get the vaccine so you don't spread a virus to them that could kill them?
 
Last edited:
Birdstrike said:
No, it is not "madness" to fault someone in a low risk category to decline a vaccination. I'm in a low risk age group, run 60-70 miles per week, have medical risk factors, and a BMI of 20. I don't fear COVID for myself, at all. But I don't want to spread the virus to others.

Perhaps as a Christmas present to your elderly patients, relatives, and neighbors you get the vaccine so you don't spread a virus to them that could kill them?
Click to expand...
We’re no longer allowed to critically evaluate the evidence and ask questions about new therapies? Has science failed mankind, or has mankind failed science? We just base important decisions about our health off of rhetorical sloganeering about Christmas?
 
KGflyboy said:
Immunizations are rarely needed for one's individual health. They are necessary for population health and have repeatedly ended pandemics, drastically stopped the spread harmful diseases, and saved countless lives. Just because you may be young and healthy does not mean that you won't contribute to the continued spread of covid-19 if you are infected. Our world is in crisis. In order to save lives, restore the economy, and have the freedom to go out to eat with friends and family without fear of spreading this deadly disease depends people must consider what's best for population health.

But hey... Who cares if the world has pretty much shut down, business close, people keep dying, hospitals are overwhelmed, and kids can't get a real education by attending school without crazy restrictions? As long as the people are in their 20s and 30s are healthy, why not just keep letting people die needlessly and destroy the economy? Who wants to risk the tiny chance of long-term effects in oneself to save countless lives of others?

Is that your point? Because that's all I took away from you post.

But you do you man. The rest of us will be out here doing what is very clearly best for everyone as a whole.
Click to expand...
That is a problem due to man-made disproportionate overreaction to this virus. If covid had an actual ifr of 1% then sure it may make sense. But with knowledge for months that covid ifr is much lower AND being less deadly than flu towards kids and young adults, it does NOT make sense to keep the world shut down at all.
 
Spikebd said:
We’re no longer allowed to critically evaluate the evidence and ask questions about new therapies?
Click to expand...
Of course we are. So far, you've only posted a fear-based post that "proves" an American mRNA vaccine is bad, that isn't even from America, and isn't an mRNA vaccine. What I haven't seen you post about is the safety and efficacy paper in NEJM on the Pfizer vaccine, or critically evaluate that, which is actual evidence.

Spikebd said:
Has science failed mankind, or has mankind failed science?
Click to expand...
Posting an off the wall question that distracts from what's being discussed here might be philosophy, but it isn't science. Answering this question gets us no closer to whether it's a good idea to take a COVID vaccine or not.

Spikebd said:
We just base important decisions about our health off of rhetorical sloganeering about Christmas?
Click to expand...
This question is just another distraction from:

Risk of COVID to you: Near zero.
Risk of a COVID vaccine to you: Near zero.
Risk of COVID to the elderly being passed from you to an elderly patient, family member or neighbor: Not near zero.
 
Last edited:
Birdstrike said:
Of course we are. So far, you've only posted a fear-based post that "proves" an American mRNA vaccine is bad, that isn't even from America, and isn't an mRNA vaccine. What I haven't seen you post about is the safety and efficacy paper in NEJM on the Pfizer vaccine, or critically evaluate that, which is actual evidence.


Posting an off the wall question that distracts from what's being discussed here might be philosophy, but it isn't science. Answering this question gets us no closer to whether it's a good idea to take a COVID vaccine or not.


This question is just another distraction from:

Risk of COVID to you: Near zero.
Risk of a COVID vaccine to you: Near zero.
Risk of COVID to the elderly being passed from you to an elderly patient, family member or neighbor: Not near zero.
Click to expand...

Here’s a link to the Pfizer FDA report. It’s interesting and I encourage every one of us who is interested to read some of the highlights towards the end of the paper.


Known benefits:
1. The Pfizer vaccine has been shown to decrease rates of Covid-19 infection in vaccinated individuals > 7 days following dose 2
2. Decreased severe COVID-19 in individuals receiving at least one dose


Unknown Benefits/Data Gaps: (my highlights)
1. Duration of protection - no clear evidence yet if protection lasts longer than 2 months.

Does this mean we need repeated vaccinations every few months, or each year?

2. Effectiveness in the face of a changing pandemic.

Will the vaccine be efficacious versus a variant of the S protein? It appears we don’t know, and this is now a real concern with the news of a new strain out of the UK.

3. Vaccine effectiveness against long-term sequelae of COVID-19.

“COVID-19 disease may have long-term effects on certain organs, and at present it is not possible to assess whether the vaccine will have an impact on specific long-term sequelae of COVID-19 disease in individuals who are infected despite vaccination.“

4. Effect on mortality.

“A larger number of individuals at high risk of COVID-19 and higher attack rates would be needed to confirm efficacy of the vaccine against mortality.”

5. There is currently no definitive evidence vaccination reduces transmission of Covid.

Unknown risks:
It’s not known if the vaccine is safe in pregnant individuals, pediatric patients younger than 16, and immunocompromised individuals.

It doesn’t appear the vaccine poses any vaccine enhanced risk, but the FDA cautions that this cannot be definitively determined if this will hold true over time.

The study participants will be re-evaluated after 18 months (or two years, I wasn’t sure) to more definitively assess for safety.

If the pandemic changes and becomes more devastating than it already is, maybe my opinions change and I decide to vaccinate. It’s all fluid. As things currently stand, I won’t fault any provider from wanting to wait at least 2 years for a more definitive safety assessment. A caveat, this is only for the Pfizer vaccine.
 
So we know for a fact that the Immune response to the antibody is stronger and longer lasting than the immune response to actual infection?

Asking because without long-term data, I'm not sure how we would know this, especially as it relates to T and B cell immunity.
 
GeneralVeers said:
So we know for a fact that the Immune response to the antibody is stronger and longer lasting than the immune response to actual infection?

Asking because without long-term data, I'm not sure how we would know this, especially as it relates to T and B cell immunity.
Click to expand...
I think the Pfizer studies showed much higher antibody production after the vaccine than after Covid-19 infection. There may be more info out there related to your question that I have not seen. More antibodies presumably means stronger immune response. I don't think anybody would have any data at this point comparing actual infection rates over time post vaccine vs post infection. So probably no direct conclusion about being longer lasting at this point.

Antibodies produced after infections or vaccines do generally decrease over time, so I certainly hope having the larger initial antibody production response after vaccination will ultimately be shown to provide better or longer lasting protection from infection.
 
Last edited:
Spikebd said:
First, we have repeatedly been told that even if people get vaccinated we still have to remain locked down, still have to mask, still need to socially distance, etc. Does the vaccine prevent spread? Or just prevent severe infections?

Do you get the prevnar vaccine every year? How about the shingles vaccine? Why isn’t that best for everyone as a whole?

Anyone who wants to get vaccinated should go do it, that’s wonderful. I’m optimistic it will work and all of my concerns will be unfounded. But when brand new mRNA tech is being used, it’s madness to fault somebody in a low-risk group to defer or decline vaccination.
Click to expand...
No... That's factually incorrect. Nobody said we will continue to be locked down despite vaccines. I'm not suggesting we get to go back to normal after getting the shot. I'm suggesting mass immunity will get us back to normal. Nobody has ever claimed if heard immunity is achieved and the pandemic ends we will remain locked down. On the contrary, every public health official I've been following routinely states that our best chance of ending the pandemic is a successful vaccine, which seems much more rational than what you just posted.

Furthermore, the pneumonia vaccine and shingles vaccine is a distraction from my point. Of course there are exceptions. The fact remains many of our vaccines, such as polio, measles, and many more were administered as population health measures and successfully ended pandemics or help control seasonal outbreaks.

I never suggested getting the shingles vaccine would help the population as a whole... But then I again I think you already knew that and just don't want to address the fact the shingles vaccine is not even remotely similar to a vaccine developed in order to end a pandemic.
 
Last edited:
Spikebd said:

Here’s a link to the Pfizer FDA report. It’s interesting and I encourage every one of us who is interested to read some of the highlights towards the end of the paper.


Known benefits:
1. The Pfizer vaccine has been shown to decrease rates of Covid-19 infection in vaccinated individuals > 7 days following dose 2
2. Decreased severe COVID-19 in individuals receiving at least one dose


Unknown Benefits/Data Gaps: (my highlights)
1. Duration of protection - no clear evidence yet if protection lasts longer than 2 months.

Does this mean we need repeated vaccinations every few months, or each year?

2. Effectiveness in the face of a changing pandemic.

Will the vaccine be efficacious versus a variant of the S protein? It appears we don’t know, and this is now a real concern with the news of a new strain out of the UK.

3. Vaccine effectiveness against long-term sequelae of COVID-19.

“COVID-19 disease may have long-term effects on certain organs, and at present it is not possible to assess whether the vaccine will have an impact on specific long-term sequelae of COVID-19 disease in individuals who are infected despite vaccination.“

4. Effect on mortality.

“A larger number of individuals at high risk of COVID-19 and higher attack rates would be needed to confirm efficacy of the vaccine against mortality.”

5. There is currently no definitive evidence vaccination reduces transmission of Covid.

Unknown risks:
It’s not known if the vaccine is safe in pregnant individuals, pediatric patients younger than 16, and immunocompromised individuals.

It doesn’t appear the vaccine poses any vaccine enhanced risk, but the FDA cautions that this cannot be definitively determined if this will hold true over time.

The study participants will be re-evaluated after 18 months (or two years, I wasn’t sure) to more definitively assess for safety.

If the pandemic changes and becomes more devastating than it already is, maybe my opinions change and I decide to vaccinate. It’s all fluid. As things currently stand, I won’t fault any provider from wanting to wait at least 2 years for a more definitive safety assessment. A caveat, this is only for the Pfizer vaccine.
Click to expand...
These are valid questions. In my opinion, the associated risk of these unknowns, is small. I suppose it's possible, that despite having had the vaccine 7 days ago with no significant side effects, that suddenly 1 year later I develop a severe complications. But it seems very unlikely.

But honestly, I don't see what the big deal is. I took the shot 7 days ago. Nothing bad has happened. If my fear level prior to the first shot was 0.0001%, it's now zero. But I suppose if you're that risk averse, then by all means wait for 2 years of safety data.

But if so, I don't see how you go to work with the risk of getting COVID, take any form of transportation, or eat any food you haven't had more than two years of allergy-free safety-experience with. After all, all those activities also pose low, but non-zero, risks of death.
 
Last edited:
Groove said:
Anybody s/p Pfizer vaccine having a lot of fatigue? It takes all my energy to drag myself to the gym which is unlike me and I just feel washed. It’s not severe but kind of like how you feel when you’ve been on a string of nights and switched...which I just did so maybe I’m just being paranoid...
Click to expand...

Nope
 
wamcp said:
That is a problem due to man-made disproportionate overreaction to this virus. If covid had an actual ifr of 1% then sure it may make sense. But with knowledge for months that covid ifr is much lower AND being less deadly than flu towards kids and young adults, it does NOT make sense to keep the world shut down at all.
Click to expand...
it's like you've never seen a CXR from a covid patient. Those lungs are not healing without scarring.

Mortality is NOT the only important endpoint.
 
BAM! said:
PCR is pretty good in general. You worry more about false negatives than false positives. false positives will be more likely in immunoassays.
Click to expand...
"Pretty good" doesn't equal zero false positives. But since you're nitpicking, you can replace "PCR" with "any type of COVID" test.

A good reason to get a COVID vaccine despite having tested positive (with any type of COVID test) is because of the potential for false positives (of any type of COVID test). You might think you had "asymptomatic COVID" and are protected with natural immunity, but might actually have had a false positive test and therefore no natural immunity.
 
Birdstrike said:
Happening right now:

"Hey, I've got a great idea. Let's replace a man-made overreaction to a virus, with a man-made overreaction to a vaccine, put it on social media and amplify it!"
Click to expand...
I welcome you to take a break from injecting steroids into the backs of obesity and visit my ED to witness the "overreaction to the virus." See 1/3 of the beds are filled with boarders. See the intubated patients waiting for a 50% chance to die in the ICU. See the patients coming back 1 month after the fact with unremitting chest tightness and SOB.
 
Last edited:
BAM! said:
it's like you've never seen a CXR from a covid patient. Those lungs are not healing without scarring.

Mortality is NOT the only important endpoint.
Click to expand...
Of course mortality is not the only end point. Of course many covid patients survive and have permanent lung scarring. But isn't it also true, that even more survive, don't have any lung scarring or ever even need a chest x-ray?
 
GeneralVeers said:
Not sure the science behind people on here who've had COVID getting the vaccine. Why not save the limited doses for those not immune or st risk?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree with you. In a rational world I would've waited. Unfortunately, I've been disapointed time and time again hoping for any rationality in this country's response...

BAM! said:
PCR is pretty good in general. You worry more about false negatives than false positives. false positives will be more likely in immunoassays.
Click to expand...
Birdstrike said:
"Pretty good" doesn't equal zero false positives. But since you're nitpicking, you can replace "PCR" with "any type of COVID" test.

A good reason to get a COVID vaccine despite having tested positive (with any type of COVID test) is because of the potential for false positives (of any type of COVID test). You might think you had "asymptomatic COVID" and are protected with natural immunity, but might actually have had a false positive test and therefore no natural immunity.
Click to expand...
I think there's some nuance to it. Yes, people working in research labs or w/ frequent exposure to covid+ patients might harbor some contaminant, non-infectious sars2cov RNA in their nasopharynx, but most of the cases labeled as 'false-positive' are actually people who've recovered. So it's a false-postive for active infection imo. (This doesn't go for the antigen tests, which I'm guessing are going to eventually be recognized for having absolutely dismal performance characteristics.)
 
Spikebd said:

Here’s a link to the Pfizer FDA report. It’s interesting and I encourage every one of us who is interested to read some of the highlights towards the end of the paper.


Known benefits:
1. The Pfizer vaccine has been shown to decrease rates of Covid-19 infection in vaccinated individuals > 7 days following dose 2
2. Decreased severe COVID-19 in individuals receiving at least one dose


Unknown Benefits/Data Gaps: (my highlights)
1. Duration of protection - no clear evidence yet if protection lasts longer than 2 months.

Does this mean we need repeated vaccinations every few months, or each year?

2. Effectiveness in the face of a changing pandemic.

Will the vaccine be efficacious versus a variant of the S protein? It appears we don’t know, and this is now a real concern with the news of a new strain out of the UK.

3. Vaccine effectiveness against long-term sequelae of COVID-19.

“COVID-19 disease may have long-term effects on certain organs, and at present it is not possible to assess whether the vaccine will have an impact on specific long-term sequelae of COVID-19 disease in individuals who are infected despite vaccination.“

4. Effect on mortality.

“A larger number of individuals at high risk of COVID-19 and higher attack rates would be needed to confirm efficacy of the vaccine against mortality.”

5. There is currently no definitive evidence vaccination reduces transmission of Covid.

Unknown risks:
It’s not known if the vaccine is safe in pregnant individuals, pediatric patients younger than 16, and immunocompromised individuals.

It doesn’t appear the vaccine poses any vaccine enhanced risk, but the FDA cautions that this cannot be definitively determined if this will hold true over time.

The study participants will be re-evaluated after 18 months (or two years, I wasn’t sure) to more definitively assess for safety.

If the pandemic changes and becomes more devastating than it already is, maybe my opinions change and I decide to vaccinate. It’s all fluid. As things currently stand, I won’t fault any provider from wanting to wait at least 2 years for a more definitive safety assessment. A caveat, this is only for the Pfizer vaccine.
Click to expand...
This analysis shows that Pfizer is doing a good job. They are reviewing the interim 2 month results and not drawing long term conclusions. This establishes trust!

Reading this and being fearful is akin to the patient who closely scrutinizes the fine-print-side-effects on a medication bottle and now thinks his dizziness and palpitations are from 325 mg of Tylenol.
 
Last edited:
GeneralVeers said:
So we know for a fact that the Immune response to the antibody vaccine is stronger and longer lasting than the immune response to actual infection?

Asking because without long-term data, I'm not sure how we would know this, especially as it relates to T and B cell immunity.
Click to expand...
I think they're drawing this conclusion by comparing titer levels.
 
BAM! said:
I think they're drawing this conclusion by comparing titer levels.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Do the antibodies drop off significantly faster with infection versus the vaccine? Also do antibody levels make a difference as far as long term immunity? There's so much we don't understand about immune response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AlmostAnMD
RFK's new vaccine panel...recommends.....RSV vaccine for kids?!
Replies
39
Views
4K
Pinner Doc
Pinner Doc
DocEspana
AITA? A thread for when you just need to know
2
Replies
69
Views
6K
DocEspana
DocEspana
Elbrus
  • Poll Poll
Are physical therapists working with you in the ED?
Replies
18
Views
2K
old_boy
old_boy
Tenk
When the scribe asks if you enjoy working in the ED
Replies
3
Views
2K
RustedFox
RustedFox
thegenius
Did any docs take the QBI deduction on their taxes?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Mount Asclepius
Mount Asclepius
Top