I was tempted to ask that, but I wanted to concentrate on the general principles. I think most of the Q1/2 stuff will be made to government pre-orders. I'm sure there will be get-arounds - like registering as a key worker in an appropriate tax haven somewhere, or being a PL footballer with asthma. But not for most people.
Fair point. You'd hope doses are only allowed to make into private practitioners down the line, but yep hard to believe money won't buy you access.
SARS-CoV-2 dislikes this opinion
Likely at least in some countries but I'd hope this will be well down the line with government/health priorities the first consideration.
Assuming there are no surprises before they get approval the only real concern is that a very rare side effect will reveal itself once millions of people get it. Then it would either be withdrawn or the risk of use is less than the risk of administration (in once case an attenuated flu vaccine resulted in an elevated risk of GBS but the risk was even higher if you catch flu so we carried on I think). If the vaccine required redevelopment I'd guess that would need a new testing regime and approval taking months/years.
Agreed. I'd say we will have little choice at least initially.
Yes. Yes there is. And fake vaccine etc etc etc etc
I'll get it as soon as it's available for my age group, which will be next summer at best.
I can understand that view. That's actually why I framed the answers the way I did.
You're not far off, though there are a few more layers in the priority list as drawn. The real rollout is already expected to look a bit different. They'll start using Pfizer (if approved) as soon as it arrives, which is the first half of December. But the logistics are such that initially they'll probably only be able to ship it to hospitals and it will have to be used in the hospital - which probably means hospital healthcare workers first, and care home staff/residents later.
Sorry abut that - I should have noticed your location setting!
Thanks, that all makes sense. You can understand concerns about the speed with which the vaccines were developed, even if they prove unfounded. Say some side effect did manifest itself- could this potentially be weeks, months, years or even decades down the line? What level of prevalence of a serious side effect is allowable in an authorised vaccine?
Nothing is impossible but from what I have read side effects of vaccines almost always reveal themselves withing 2 months of being given a shot. So long term side-effects aren't really long-term but rather so rare that they are only found when huge numbers of people get the vaccine e.g. something that occurs only once in 1,000,000 times the vaccine is given won't necessarily occur if phase 3 trials of e.g. 40,000 people. What happens when this sort of side-effect is found I'm assuming how serious the illness/disease the vaccine protects us from is a major consideration e.g. you would accept more serious side-effects for an Ebola vaccine than you would for a flu vaccine (or cold vaccines if we ever develop them).
While I sympathise with no arguments I think that when necessary I side with the yes argument, with suitable safeguards. If nothing else we might need it to test the 2nd/3rd wave of covid vaccines as (hopefully) natural infection wanes, thus slowing down testing.
Yeah, I have to say I hadn't fully understood the need for the 2nd / 3rd wave vaccines. I understood that not everyone will be able to get a vaccine in 2021 even if all three of the vaccine providers get approval, but I didn't understand quite how much. If you combine together Pfizer's 1.3bn, Moderna's 500m - 1bn and Astra Zeneca's 3bn, best case scenario you'll have 5.3bn manufactured, with 5-20% of that potentially spoiling and double doses bringing you to around possible vaccination for 2.2-2.5bn people. So a little over a third of the adult population, and Fauci confirmed child vaccination is part of the plan, so a quarter of the total population.
The three frontrunners all have significant issues. The mRNA products (especially the Pfizer) aren't practical logistically for most of the world - and even in Europe/the US they'll be tough. They have significant short-term side-effects (fever, aches) with lots of people talking about needing the next day off work. Uptake will tumble massively if that turns out to be a common (or even a well publicised!) problem.
I'm sure it's a small proportion, but I've heard some horror stories about long COVID in otherwise extremely fit and healthy young individuals i.e. even though the death rate will be low, there is still a risk of life changing effects of getting the virus. That's why I'd rather just get the vaccine as soon as I possibly can.
Hmmm, they won't be able to get it to all the vulnerable though. That's not just people with auto-immune diseases and those undergoing cancer treatment etc, it will include pregnant women. We don't know yet if the vaccines will reduce transmission, but they might.
It will be a very small proportion of course. There's danger in everything, you could die from a whole host of things young, but you probably won't.
From their recent press releases the Moderna vaccine requires -20C (well within the capability of even a home freezer) and will remain stable for 30 days in a 2-8C refrigerator. That's not a big logistical challenge.
Yeah I guess you'd settle for a couple or a few days of feeling rough to be vaccinated. You can see coverage of any rare side effects being magnified given the sheer volume of people set to be taking the vaccines. Just looking at some old meds I was on and it warns of certain side effects experienced by 1 in 10 people, then 1 in 100...Even a 1in 10,000 side effect will be quite a chunk of people with these vaccines. Maybe it's just like the risk of getting run over when you cross the road though I suppose.
I hadn't looked at it that way, but fair point. Although saying that, if you got ripped off on a gramme of coke it was usually glucose or talc or something non-harmful.I might've sold someone a bag of speed for the price of coke back when I went to parties. Huge profit and he came back for more of it.Yeah I guess you'd settle for a couple or a few days of feeling rough to be vaccinated. You can see coverage of any rare side effects being magnified given the sheer volume of people set to be taking the vaccines. Just looking at some old meds I was on and it warns of certain side effects experienced by 1 in 10 people, then 1 in 100...Even a 1in 10,000 side effect will be quite a chunk of people with these vaccines. Maybe it's just like the risk of getting run over when you cross the road though I suppose.
One of a our neighbors (university educated by the way) told me on Saturday that she will wait a decade before getting vaccinated, if at all. She swore to me that laser and shockwave therapy that encourages blood flow around the body, and gargles with a bit of ginger and lemon is enough to keep the virus at bay.
But what makes you think you know better? A few headlines you read of scientists you didn't know existed?
“Hi Guys. It’s been a while. I’ll keep this brief because I’m typing with my tongue...”I think I'll be getting vaccinated imminently, probably within 2-4 weeks I'd imagine. Will be pfizer I'd guess, looking at the options.
Will keep you guys updated as I begin my descent into an acute demyelinating disease.
Again, we need to see the details to interpret properly but that all seems very good indeed.
Don't you think science generally helps us find good answers to difficult questions, or at least better than the ones we tend to invent in our own heads or hear from the man down the street?
What's also very encouraging is Moderna has 12 other mRNA based vaccines in testing. If this is approved it bodes well for the platform the rest, and others in the future, are being built on.
