• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

NON_POLITICAL China Coronavirus THREAD

Page 562 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Dec 10, 2005
20,967
2,435
126
Exactly.
1) The mRNA vaccines were not tested against the other variants. So, we don't know their effacy.
2) The J&J vaccine will likely have boosters, so it will likely be as effective or more than the mRNA vaccines.
Point 1 is one of the big reasons you cannot compare the efficacy between the approved vaccines (and generally speaking, it's bad practice to compare the results between clinical trials in a head-to-head manner). Point 2 - unless they run head-to-head trials, it's almost certain that no one would ever be able to make a claim of better efficacy relative to another vaccine. The mRNA vaccines are also having boosters developed against new variants.
 
Dec 10, 2005
20,967
2,435
126
I can see people being a bit concerned, as at the end of the day, companies care more about the shareholders, and at the start it was basically a battle to be first. Now I think it matters a bit less because it's not like only one company has a vaccine in use, they have multiple so they at least all get a piece of the pie. But if one company had decided to patent it or something then it would be problematic as it shuts out all the other companies. It seems everyone is playing ball in this respect though.

I'd like to think that these companies DO care about their reputation enough that they really made sure it's 99.999% safe before releasing it and pretty sure they did. All eyes are on them to make sure the vaccine is safe, and actually works so screwing it up and it being linked to negligence would probably be practically the end if the company.

Overall I'm not really that worried myself. Originally I wanted to wait as long as I can juuuuust in case they later on discover that there's some kind of long term effect that takes long to surface, but at this point I feel that risk is near zero. Once it becomes available for my age group, I'll be going for it. I have an aunt with terminal cancer that I'd like to visit, and also have a friend who has a dad with medical issues, that I'd like to hang out with, but I only want to do it once I'm vaccinated. I'll also feel better about visiting my parents. My dad is somewhat high risk as well.
If you want to be extremely cynical, and think that the pharma companies are acting out of a purely monetary motivation: 1) the companies are not making a lot on the vaccines compared to their other products; 2) the companies make a lot of money on their other products; and 3) they stand to make a lot of money on products under clinical development. Points 2 and 3 rely on maintaining a good reputation with healthcare practitioners. The clinical trials are run by physicians - good luck getting them to sign up to help run a trial if you flush your reputation down the drain. Good luck getting physicians to prescribe your product for their patients that need it when they no longer trust the integrity of your company and the data supporting the approved drugs. I'm sure shareholders would be thrilled with that sort of outcome.

Regarding the patent stuff - that has almost nothing to do with any of this. And almost certainly, the companies are holding patents on numerous vaccines they're developing. Patenting doesn't prevent cross-licensing.

Regarding safety: it's all about risk/benefit profiles, not absolute risk. If there was no virus running around, the vaccine would be all risk and no benefit. The trials each enrolled tens of thousands of people with placebo controls. Nothing really stood out as abnormal for a vaccine, nor crazy compared to other approved vaccines. I'd get the vaccine ASAP.

Quite the arrogant strawman there, showing a lack of nuance and that you follow authority more than science itself. You might prefer a satisfycing response. I demand near-perfection from an industry whose job is to save as many possible and has plenty of money to throw around for failsafes.

One can support having people the vaccine yet be concerned these singularities because the most vulernable or have a surprise predisposition are precisely the ones most likely to have a complication.
I do follow the science, which supports my position. I'm not applying some logical fallacy of appealing to authority - I actually know what I'm talking about, since I work in this area and have a degree that helps me understand the underlying science. The industry has an excellent track record on vaccines, the trials have supported that, and I'm sure the real-world evidence that continues to be gathered further supports that position.
You do know what the fact check is? The layman cannot do the fact check precisely because of privacy.
It is not hysteria to expect the experts and pros to be prepared to deal with unexpected reactions.
By definition, lay people cannot fact check this because they won't understand. That's why we have experts doing the data analysis and whatnot. And getting independent experts to fact check does not require opening up every patient's medical records for the public to imbibe over some stupidly insane ideas.

The reason science works is because it prevents people from wandering away with concocted BS. They that works is by checking others via peer review. Take away the enforced transpency and that's when humans default to more normal behaviors. In this, the need to make the heavy sales.
The transparency of science comes from the repeatability. In this case, double-blinded clinical trials, sponsored by pharma companies, were run out of independent centers who gathered data. That data was then analyzed by the companies and reanalyzed independently by the FDA. And we continue to gather data on their work by monitoring outcomes in the real world. And if you're concerned about the sales stuff: commercial has nothing to do with the data analysis, clinical trial monitoring, or regulatory filings.

At the end of the day, an adverse event that is occuring at no higher than the typical background level is pretty much no concern and almost impossible to link the vaccine (especially when it didn't show up in the trials). People trying to do their analysis by random news article are doing nothing but throwing fuel onto the fires of speculation, allowing rumors to fester before experts can reasonably be expected to adjudicate. The blind speculation reduces transparency by increasing the amount of noise in the public discourse.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
10,000
6,041
136
I swear I read something posted in this thread that stated the mRna vaccines can get boosters for variants easier than the J&J traditional vaccine. Did I misread that or did someone post bad info?
 

Stopsignhank

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2014
1,992
862
136
I was able to get an appointment for my son with autism. My wife and I were able to get the shots because we are caretakers for him, but he was not eligible. We saw that they were going to open up the tier so that people who would have a difficult time getting treatment because of their disability would be eligible. My wife said, "Can you imagine him in the hospital, stuck there by himself" That thought scared the bejesus out of me so this morning I was one of the first ones to sign up for an appointment this morning.
 
Feb 4, 2009
29,836
10,379
136
I swear I read something posted in this thread that stated the mRna vaccines can get boosters for variants easier than the J&J traditional vaccine. Did I misread that or did someone post bad info?
Yes and no, to my understanding Pfizer and Moderna are confident they can rapidly modify their vaccines if needed. However that doesn't mean it is better at fighting the viruses we currently have. As before J&J has been tested against our current virus and it works well. 100% effective at preventing hospitalization and death.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
30,156
3,560
126
A girl I'm dating that works in a school in NYC got her vaccine appointment last week - but it's not until middle of May. Which is weird because I went on dates with two other girls that work in NYC schools last month that both had both shots already. Not sure where the disconnect is, I'll have to ask her for more details.

I will get the vaccine first chance I can when the general pop can get it in NJ. I really doubt that's going to be May 1st though, or even in May at all. It's going to be really hard to get appointments I am guessing when the general pop opens up. I also really want one of the mRna vaccines, not the J&J.
I had the same idea, so I was OMG excited when the first chance I saw was for Moderna, Feb. 4. An hour later I got shot #1, I was all over it... drive through. Tomorrow, I'm 14 days past shot #2, and "fully vaccinated." Still haven't gotten adventurous, but am planning a couple of B&M shopping trips.

I think you'll have options as long as you can determine which vaccine they are going to give you. I knew it was Moderna before I signed up.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
30,156
3,560
126
I swear I read something posted in this thread that stated the mRna vaccines can get boosters for variants easier than the J&J traditional vaccine. Did I misread that or did someone post bad info?
I haven't read anything about how J&J can and will tweak and update for variants going forward but have heard many times that the mRNA vaccines can do this pretty simply by altering the RNA cocktail they include in the nanoparticles.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
30,156
3,560
126
So, what do you guys think about the AZ/Oxford covid vaccine brouhaha happening now? I mean, one would think there must be something to it if a dozen or so countries have halted its usage unless and until their agencies reapprove usage, considering the dire situation in Europe. However, the WHO and top level EU guidance is that there's no reason to think that the vaccine is unsafe, none at all. I have to think somebody's not being forthright. What's really going on with this?
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,546
10,478
136
So, what do you guys think about the AZ/Oxford covid vaccine brouhaha happening now? I mean, one would think there must be something to it if a dozen or so countries have halted its usage unless and until their agencies reapprove usage. However, the WHO and top level EU guidance is that there's no reason to think that the vaccine is unsafe, none at all. What's really going on with this?
The UK has stuck it about 16 million people and hasn't seen any issues. Either there is a batch problem or they've irrationally panicked. Haven't seen enough info to be entirely sure either way but sort of lean to irrational panic given euro countries handling of this vaccine. Regardless given most EU nations infection trajectory stopping vaccinations would seem to be highly irresponsible right now.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
30,156
3,560
126
The UK has stuck it about 16 million people and hasn't seen any issues. Either there is a batch problem or they've irrationally panicked. Haven't seen enough info to be entirely sure either way but sort of lean to irrational panic given euro countries handling of this vaccine. Regardless given most EU nations infection trajectory stopping vaccinations would seem to be highly irresponsible right now.
This is no time to go irrational! I hope that shakes out fast.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
10,000
6,041
136
Girl in NYC that had a vaccination appointment set for middle of May found one available at a Walgreen's this Friday and booked it. Apparently Walgreen's just got a bunch of stock as they had lots of availability.

I have a rare disease called Achalasia, and I haven't been on the FB support group for it in a while so I hopped on to see what was up. People were discussing how it qualified them for the vaccine. I forgot this disease is being recognized as an immune disorder, so that means I qualify. I checked everywhere in my area in NJ though, nothing is available right now. Boo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante
Dec 10, 2005
20,967
2,435
126
Girl in NYC that had a vaccination appointment set for middle of May found one available at a Walgreen's this Friday and booked it. Apparently Walgreen's just got a bunch of stock as they had lots of availability.

I have a rare disease called Achalasia, and I haven't been on the FB support group for it in a while so I hopped on to see what was up. People were discussing how it qualified them for the vaccine. I forgot this disease is being recognized as an immune disorder, so that means I qualify. I checked everywhere in my area in NJ though, nothing is available right now. Boo.
I've heard you often have to keep checking in multiple places. My parents originally registered with their county health department's waiting list, then found appointments in May through NYS, then 2 days later were offered appointments at a local county site. So at least now, they've gotten their first of 2 shots.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
22,802
1,031
126
So, what do you guys think about the AZ/Oxford covid vaccine brouhaha happening now? I mean, one would think there must be something to it if a dozen or so countries have halted its usage unless and until their agencies reapprove usage, considering the dire situation in Europe. However, the WHO and top level EU guidance is that there's no reason to think that the vaccine is unsafe, none at all. I have to think somebody's not being forthright. What's really going on with this?
Irrational vaccine fears. It happens to many vaccines and has stopped some vaccines entirely. The percent of people with blood clots after getting that vaccine is LOWER than in the general population. But, the people have heard blood clots and have made up their minds: they'd rather die from Covid than have a potentially LOWER chance of blood clots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

local

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2011
1,791
451
136
So, what do you guys think about the AZ/Oxford covid vaccine brouhaha happening now? I mean, one would think there must be something to it if a dozen or so countries have halted its usage unless and until their agencies reapprove usage, considering the dire situation in Europe. However, the WHO and top level EU guidance is that there's no reason to think that the vaccine is unsafe, none at all. I have to think somebody's not being forthright. What's really going on with this?
I've done a bit of reading on this, nothing today yet so any breaking revelations would not be covered here. Anyway, I think this is an interesting conundrum. On the one had you have people having blood clotting issues that are occurring at a rate near normal background expectations. That sounds innocent enough. But the flip side of that is these people are have the same very rare combination of blood clotting and blood thinning at the same time and they, I think, are mostly healthy and in their 30's. The issues appear to be showing up in about the same time window as well, 2-3 days after the shot. So while on the surface the clotting issues wouldn't necessarily pop up on the radar the combined similarity does point to the vaccine being a candidate for the cause.

Once that has been established what is the responsible thing to do? Europe was already on edge about the AZ vaccine due to previous missteps and now you are vaccinating people with something that is linked to this rare blood disorder and deaths. These vaccines are being scrutinized by the public harder than any previous vaccine that I am aware of and AZ has basically lost the public relations battle at this point. If this was happening in the US and we continued to vaccinate while saying it was safe could you imagine the number of lawsuits that would be flying?

Either way it is interesting and super unfortunate for AZ that mainland Europe is going to have a pretty negative outlook for them no matter what is determined.

Irrational vaccine fears. It happens to many vaccines and has stopped some vaccines entirely. The percent of people with blood clots after getting that vaccine is LOWER than in the general population. But, the people have heard blood clots and have made up their minds: they'd rather die from Covid than have a potentially LOWER chance of blood clots.
It's not the clotting it is the specific type of clotting with blood thinning and it is the same for all the cases within a similar window of being vaccinated. If it was just random clotting I don't think anyone would be saying anything.
Compared to the status on 11 March 2021, additional cases (as of Monday, 15 March 2021) have now been reported in Germany. Analysing the new data status, the experts of the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut now see a striking accumulation of a special form of very rare cerebral vein thrombosis (sinus vein thrombosis) in connection with a deficiency of blood platelets (thrombocytopenia) and bleeding in temporal proximity to vaccinations with the COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
22,802
1,031
126
It's not the clotting it is the specific type of clotting with blood thinning and it is the same for all the cases within a similar window of being vaccinated. If it was just random clotting I don't think anyone would be saying anything.
The normal population has an incidence rate of deep vein thrombosis of about 1 case per ~12,000 people in a month. Astrazeneca vaccinated people so far are 1 case of deep vein thrombosis per ~1,000,000 people.
 

local

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2011
1,791
451
136
The normal population has an incidence rate of deep vein thrombosis of about 1 case per ~12,000 people in a month. Astrazeneca vaccinated people so far are 1 case of deep vein thrombosis per ~1,000,000 people.
DVT is not he same as CVT combined with ITP so those rates cannot be compared.

I'm not personally on the side of stopping vaccinations, you have a higher chance of death driving 100 miles than whatever this clotting thing is but my risk tolerance is not the same as everyone else.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
8,172
3,172
136
I wonder if there isn't a bit of EU-nationalism about the panic over Oxford/'AZ vaccines. Owing to hostility to anything with a UK-connection, due to Brexit. Plus some pandering to anti-vaxx sentiment in general, which is very strong in some EU countries (especially France). Really don't see that they can afford the luxury of picking-and-choosing vaccines given how out-of-control the pandemic seems to be in places like the Czech Republic and Hungary.

The whole thing seems to me to be a competition to see who can be the most inept at dealing with the pandemic, out of the US, UK, and the EU. The US seems to be falling behind in the contest, now it's lost its biggest "asset" in that regard, and the UK, which was heading for the top of the incompetence league, seems to have been overtaken by several EU countries.

Edit - though I heard that the death-counts are being seriously under-counted in Latin America.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,546
10,478
136
I wonder if there isn't a bit of EU-nationalism about the panic over Oxford/'AZ vaccines. Owing to hostility to anything with a UK-connection, due to Brexit. Plus some pandering to anti-vaxx sentiment in general, which is very strong in some EU countries (especially France). Really don't see that they can afford the luxury of picking-and-choosing vaccines given how out-of-control the pandemic seems to be in places like the Czech Republic and Hungary.

The whole thing seems to me to be a competition to see who can be the most inept at dealing with the pandemic, out of the US, UK, and the EU. The US seems to be falling behind in the contest, now it's lost its biggest "asset" in that regard, and the UK, which was heading for the top of the incompetence league, seems to have been overtaken by several EU countries.

Edit - though I heard that the death-counts are being seriously under-counted in Latin America.
I get the sense that the the EU is mostly peeved that AZ could not meet it's euro production targets due to technical difficulties. At the same time vaccines are leaving the continent from Pfizer because some places got ahead of them. Supposedly EU nations are sitting on 20-30M AZ doses though so the question of what they are doing and why are they dinging the US for not shipping out our stock when they're not using what they've got seem to be valid as well.
 

Kaido

Elite Member & Kitchen Overlord
Feb 14, 2004
45,407
2,714
126
My local clinic finally upgraded to the new COVID test. I get them done regularly for site visits; it was always the brain-tickler before, but now they give you a large Q-tip & have you do 10 swirls per nostril yourself (goes up less than inch!), no vertigo required!

The nurse said even after you get a vaccine, you still have to get a COVID test done before stuff like medical procedures, because you can still carry & spread it even though you are immune. Latest I've read is you get a 90-day-ish immunity once you get the virus, or a year if you get the vaccine.
 
Last edited:

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,498
399
126
It's one reason I haven't been in a hospital for over a year. My doctor wanted me to get a flu shot and provide them a blood draw for routine checkup purposes. I said no dice, no way, not until I'm vaccinated. In 4 days I'm officially totally vaccinated. I don't know if I'll bother with the flu shot, maybe. I'll give them that blood sample.
My wife said our doctors office stopped doing the car side waiting rooms and you have to go in the waiting room again. I ain't going to that place unless I'm bleeding out. They should never stop doing wait in the car even after the pandemic but wasting patients time is like a legal requirement for doctors, apparently so much so that patient safely also had to be compromised. Or maybe they felt patients weren't getting enough readings of 6 year old yachting magazines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,498
399
126
I'm fully vaccinated now (well, officially in 3 days, but realistically, yeah, fully) and I will continue to mask up in public, even outside, until we're practically at herd immunity. I really don't give a damn. My 3M N95's (bought for the wildfires in 2017 in N. CA) don't bother me at all. My glasses don't fog up, I can breathe in them fine, even doing aerobic exercise. If you can't see the bottom half of my face, so fucking what? If that bothers you, you have no imagination. In my mind, it's a public service announcement to do your part.
I read an anecdote on reddit awhile back where a guy got into a uber and the driver wasn't wearing a mask. The driver asked him if he believed in this mask BS. He told him absolutely, they hate that people are masked up because it defeats all their facial recognition tracking. After thinking about it for a minute the driver put a mask on, lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,498
399
126
I'd like to think that these companies DO care about their reputation enough that they really made sure it's 99.999% safe before releasing it and pretty sure they did. All eyes are on them to make sure the vaccine is safe, and actually works so screwing it up and it being linked to negligence would probably be practically the end if the company.

LOL, sorry but no. Obvious example is Bayer knowingly gave tons of people HIV with their inflected blood products and basically nothing happened to them. I'd say most people consider them a trustworthy brand.

I'm not to worried about these particular vaccines (and the risk of inaction is clearly significant) but if you're counting of on the hand of justice and reputation to keep massive powerful corporations in check I think you'd be disappointed. I'd say its more likely the government would give them a huge pass on these even if they did F up big time than they do in other cases as well. Big emergency and all that.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY