Did they publish the mRNA code?
Isn’t it pretty easy to sequence anyways? Assuming you can get a hold of a vaccine sample.
If it’s patented the sequence would need to be public.
Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December
371–380 of 446 posts
Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December
#372Well just like I don't immediately update to the latest OS I think I'll wait for the beta testing to happen :)
That’s fine, as long as you don’t expect other people to limit their lives in lockdowns because of your choices.
Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a way to package the vaccine that would "prove" proper handling all through the chain of custody? Sort of the biological equivalent of the shock tags moving companies put on boxes containing fragile items. Given how sensitive to temperature this vaccine is, I would like some reassurance that no one mishandled it along the way.
It's not proof to you, but Pfizer is shipping the vaccine in boxes that monitor temperature and location and transmit it to them so they can watch it. I trust that they wouldn't allow risky doses to be used. The risk to them of something bad happening and the public losing trust in the vaccine is too great.
I'm less concerned about Pfizer mishandling it than medical facilities and doctor's offices which may not be used to dealing with doses that are temperature sensitive to such an extreme.
You know, the nurse who queues up a few doses at a time and then gets delayed in actually administering them.
Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December
#374Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually don't think the federal government has the power to require it. However, private companies and schools can impose whatever safety requirements they feel prudent for their employees, customers, and students. Which may of course make life difficult for those who don't want to go along.
State governments probably have the power to require it.
You may be right although I have a hard time seeing that happening politically. IANAL, but the relevant case law seems to be Jacobson v Massachusetts (1905) upholding mandatory smallpox vaccinations which AFAIK has never been superseded. [1] That said, the US Supreme Court also upheld a Virginia law that authorized the involuntary sterilization of “feeble minded” persons in state institutions in 1927. It's hard to imagine similar laws passing muster today, probably for 14th Amendment reasons.
Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December
#375Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to several studies, that's not true. "Two new studies demonstrate how severity of disease is predictive of longer-lasting antibody production and detail how immunity wanes over time but may exist for up to 7 months." https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/10/studies-... https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/duration-isola... There's also evidence of re-infection https://www.thelancet.com/j…
Your first link only focuses on (the easier to test) antibodies, and doesn't mention T cell memory, which is the much more important factor in long-term immunity. And of course there are going to be individual cases of reinfections with 55+ million cases.
Your logic checks out, but are there peer reviewed papers that back up your argument? This isn't my field, so I'm not aware of any.
Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December
#376Well just like I don't immediately update to the latest OS I think I'll wait for the beta testing to happen :)
There is a known zero day in the current version that is being actively exploited in the wild. If your system is sufficiently air gabbed waiting is probably fine, but otherwise would you risk it?
Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its likely, that, like the flu jab, those most at risk will get it first. The vast majority of diligent users here will not be beta testers. Depending on how it works that is. It might be more effective to jab those most likely to transmit the disease first. (E.g. medical workers, children before Christmas meeting the family) or it might be better to jab those most at risk first.
Medical workers will get it first, as without them we can’t vaccinate the rest of us.
I wonder if it's really that smart to give our healthcare workers a minimally tested vaccine first.
Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
As much as OP's comment is wacko crazy, it's in everyone's best interest if people speak honestly. This whole white-lie-in-the-public-interest never turns out well. If there was one reason attributable to the USSR's downfall, it's this attitude. Because socialism was better, it was okay to lie in its defense, and this lead to the equivalent of hyperinflation on both the corruption and the truthiness fronts. The rapid…
Agree that it's best for society if we don't shame people for voicing their beliefs, and that wasn't my intent. I actually think OC made a valid point - that is, there is an extremely small chance this vaccination causes long term effects, and therefore, if every individual were to act independetly according to their own self-interest, they would avoid the vaccine. This is true for all vaccines, and reminds me of the…
Sort of. It's a quantitative argument, and that's not how the numbers work out. In the US, about 1 in 30 people have had a reasonably confirmed case of COVID (10 million out of a bit over 300 million). The odds of being exposed to it are significant at this point, unless you're locked up in a bunker in the mountains.
If you do catch it, the risks of long-term disability are pretty high too. We don't know a lot about long COVID, but the known numbers on long COVID there are concerning.
1) Vaccines are 95% effective.
2) We didn't see any side effects in 30k person studies.
It's hard to run numbers where the "extremely small chance this vaccination causes long term effects" are greater than p(catching COVID) * p(long COVID).
There was a tragedy of the commons when there were a few dozens confirmed cases of COVID. There was virtually no individual risk to going out and partying, and if everyone did that, it would double in 5 days. Everyone went out and parties until the personal risks were high, and the collective costs of those decisions were huge.
In this case, though, we're comparing the risks of an engineered and rigorously tested vaccine against those of a relatively poorly understood new virus. I can't work any sensible numbers where it doesn't make sense to take the vaccine from that argument.
The only place where I could run reasonable numbers for a reason to wait is:
1) If you can afford to 100% quarantine at home
2) You want to pick between vaccines, waiting for a better one
Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December
#379Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heart complications (inflammation): up to 60% (after removing pre-existing) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/... Mental illness: 20% within 5 weeks https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0... Chronic Fatigue: 50% at 10 weeks https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.29.20164293v...
Thanks for the links. So how do I know these value are abnormally high compared to say a severe flu? I've read in the thread on hn that posted about the mental illness results that the values for a severe flu are 13%. And what implications do, say, a "lower left ventricular ejection fraction, higher left ventricle volumes, and raised native T1 and T2" have? Why is that worse than the risk of potentially (without know…
> Why is that worse than the risk of potentially (without knowing any probabilities obviously) developing autoimmune conditions as a result of taking the vaccine?
Well, in the 20,000 dosages in the pfizer vaccines, I believe there was no autoimmune conditions found. I think Moderna was the same. If that's your concern, maybe steer clear of the AstraZeneca/ChAdOx1 vaccine.
There are two main components to the vaccine, the RNA itself, and the proteins it causes the cell to make. Both naturally break down and are removed from the body very quickly--in hours to days from my understanding, so one could use that to conjecture that longer term effects are perhaps less likely in this case and something like that would show up sooner.
We're not really comparing flu stats vs. covid stats. I'd argue these things are not good whether they come from a severe flu or covid, so that seems like a red herring? Here our choice is "what is more likely to mess me up badly, a vaccine designed, tested and peer reviewed with a do-no-harm mindset, or the virus behind a pandemic that has killed more than a million people worldwide."