• 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."

Discussion Which COVID-19 vaccine did you get?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

COVID Vaccine

  • Moderna

    Votes: 43 36.8%
  • Pfizer

    Votes: 54 46.2%
  • Johnson & Johnson

    Votes: 8 6.8%
  • AstraZeneca

    Votes: 5 4.3%
  • Not eligible yet

    Votes: 5 4.3%
  • QAnon/Bill Gates' nanobots conspiracy option

    Votes: 2 1.7%

  • Total voters
    117

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
22,749
995
126
I think this may surface in time.

I do wonder how a vaccine was developed so quickly, previously scientists were saying 2-5 years best case scenario. Also after SARS nothing was done and it took many, many years for vaccine research to get anywhere.

Maybe I'm just a little skeptical, and perhaps since governments were throwing money at the problem it this resolved fairly quickly.
We make a brand new flu vaccine every year. They don't take 2-5 years to develop. Vaccine development and production is not a complex task. It is a really well-known and really fairly simple process.

The only thing that was skipped was the waiting periods between steps in the process. Skipping the waiting periods is a financial-risk, not a health-risk.

Each vaccine test stage and production stage is very expensive. So, the normal method is to wait until the previous stage is approved to move on. This time, the waiting was removed, meaning that everything was done at financial risk. If you move from step A to step B before the results for step A being approved, then you might need to redo step B. Redoing work is very costly and companies don't like throwing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into the trash. In this case, the governments and inter-company agreements basically said they'll get paid whether or not the vaccine is a success. So you can move onto step B before step A was deemed successful.

And some vaccines did fail and did not make it to the market. This shows that we had all the necessary testing steps in place.
 
Last edited:
Dec 10, 2005
20,885
2,334
126
I think this may surface in time.

I do wonder how a vaccine was developed so quickly, previously scientists were saying 2-5 years best case scenario. Also after SARS nothing was done and it took many, many years for vaccine research to get anywhere.

Maybe I'm just a little skeptical, and perhaps since governments were throwing money at the problem it this resolved fairly quickly.
It's not like they started from scratch. mRNA vaccines have been under development for years, and there had already been early work on a SARS vaccine to jump off of. Development on a SARS vaccine stalled because it was no longer prevalent enough to test a vaccine in people, and you're not going to test it in people when there would be no way to gauge benefit.

Not all problems will be solved by dumping pools of money on people, but it will certainly grease the wheels.

The high prevalence of COVID-19 also helped a lot - more chances for an event and more events allowed the trial to hit it's primary efficacy endpoint sooner.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
27,627
4,673
126
I think this may surface in time.

I do wonder how a vaccine was developed so quickly, previously scientists were saying 2-5 years best case scenario. Also after SARS nothing was done and it took many, many years for vaccine research to get anywhere.

Maybe I'm just a little skeptical, and perhaps since governments were throwing money at the problem it this resolved fairly quickly.
I mean what you should be wondering is what else we could fix if we spent money in that way rather than more and more exotic ways of blowing each other up!
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
22,749
995
126
The high prevalence of COVID-19 also helped a lot - more chances for an event and more events allowed the trial to hit it's primary efficacy endpoint sooner.
Yes, that is an important detail. For more slower-spreading, more rare diseases, you need much more time to actually measure effectiveness. You need about 100 people in the control group to get the disease to be able to get some decent statistics. A fast-spreading disease only takes a few months to reach 100 sick people. A slow-spreading rare disease is a waiting game.

Suppose a fast spreading disease like Covid infects one placebo group person per day. Then the effectiveness study takes 100 days (just over 3 months) to gather data. Now suppose a slow spreading rare disease infects one placebo group person per week. Then the effectiveness study takes 100 weeks (just over 23 months) to gather data.
 

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
5,715
3,940
136
I haven't had covid AFAIK. I received my first Pfizer shot on Thur. and took a tylenol that night just in case. I'm a side sleeper so I slept on my opposite arm to prevent pain. The next day my arm was a little sore so I took another tylenol. As the day and night went on the pain went away. I slept on my opposite arm again on friday night. My arm felt fine on Sat. and was able to sleep on both arms without any issues.
Not directed at you specifically, but I am dismayed at how we have become a society of complete fucking wimps. "My arm was a "little" sore, so drugs". Really?

Unless I've got a fever which should be addressed, or body aches that really hammer me, I'm not turning to "drugs" even OTC stuff for arm this is "a little sore".

This season's flu shot left my arm "a little sore" for 3 days, and yea in the arm I sleep on as I'm also a side sleeper. Got my first COVID shot in the other arm because I had a choice. Second shot, no choice as it was drive-thru.
 
Dec 10, 2005
20,885
2,334
126
Suppose a fast spreading disease like Covid infects one placebo group person per day. Then the effectiveness study takes 100 days (just over 3 months) to gather data. Now suppose a slow spreading rare disease infects one placebo group person per week. Then the effectiveness study takes 100 weeks (just over 23 months) to gather data.
Another option for lower prevalence diseases is to enroll more people to get more statistical power to see a smaller signal, but that comes with its own hurdles.
 

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
5,715
3,940
136
We make a brand new flu vaccine every year. They don't take 2-5 years to develop. Vaccine development and production is not a complex task. It is a really well-known and really fairly simple process.
Actually I don't think it is a brand-new vaccine every year, but a base vaccine that has been tweeked for the strains expected in the coming year. The "base knowledge" to create a vaccine is proven, and it only takes tweeks to tailor it for the target virus.
 
Last edited:

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
9,177
1,810
126
The press is big on efficacy rates of each one, but there are too many variables in how that number was derived. From when, and where in the world the trials were conducted.

This 7-minute video makes it clear, that every one of them is 100% effective in keeping you out of the hospital or morgue.
AZ and the China vaccine definitely seem worse.

I'm intending to get J&J just because I only want to go through it once.
 

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
5,715
3,940
136
AZ and the China vaccine definitely seem worse.

I'm intending to get J&J just because I only want to go through it once.
The good news is that every one of the COVID vaccines is 100% effective in keeping you out of the hospital or morgue.

The one to get, is the one you can get. It's not a buyers market, at least not yet.
 

allisolm

Elite Member
Administrator
Jan 2, 2001
23,711
1,793
136
  • Like
Reactions: Artorias

balloonshark

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2008
4,682
1,032
136
Not directed at you specifically, but I am dismayed at how we have become a society of complete fucking wimps. "My arm was a "little" sore, so drugs". Really?

Unless I've got a fever which should be addressed, or body aches that really hammer me, I'm not turning to "drugs" even OTC stuff for arm this is "a little sore".

This season's flu shot left my arm "a little sore" for 3 days, and yea in the arm I sleep on as I'm also a side sleeper. Got my first COVID shot in the other arm because I had a choice. Second shot, no choice as it was drive-thru.
I only took the tylenol as a preventive measure that first night. Sleep is something I really value since most nights I toss and turn dozens of times from shoulder pain from due to having an old bed and a mind that won't shut down. I took one the 2nd day since I knew I had to carry and set up a new PC I bought as a gift for my nephew.

To be honest I rarely take tylenol and usually end up giving most of it away to family. Most of the time I end up tossing the majority of it out when expired because I take so little. I'm on a blood thinner so I have to be careful about taking pain relievers. I would say I average less than one a month and I'm being generous.
 

Mloot

Diamond Member
Aug 24, 2002
3,026
9
81
I might, eventually, get the vaccine, but I still have high levels of antibodies from my bout with Covid a year ago. I don't really feel a pressing need to get one just yet.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,841
1,325
126
I will get Pfizer within a few days, will report back shortly if there are any problems.
 
Nov 8, 2012
19,206
4,194
136
Pfizer. Got 2nd dose Friday of last week.

Both doses were the same - very slight arm pain where the shot was. Aside from that, felt great.
 

pete6032

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2010
5,255
1,081
136
Dec 10, 2005
20,885
2,334
126
And your point is?
Also, it seems like only a literal handful needed hospitalization, likely due to complications from pre-existing conditions. How many would have had more severe cases if they hadn't been vaccinated? Also not clear how soon after vaccination they got sick.

Regardless, the linked article does not support the claim of the development being rushed (in a bad way). And we know the vaccines are not 100% effective. The key element of the trials, besides the excellent safety profiles, is that no one on trial in the vaccine arm required hospitalization or died.

Seems like the vaccine is largely working as intended and tested. Unfortunate that the article chooses such a negatively framed headline for a lay audience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spacehead
Feb 4, 2009
29,434
9,973
136
Also, it seems like only a literal handful needed hospitalization, likely due to complications from pre-existing conditions. How many would have had more severe cases if they hadn't been vaccinated? Also not clear how soon after vaccination they got sick.

Regardless, the linked article does not support the claim of the development being rushed (in a bad way). And we know the vaccines are not 100% effective. The key element of the trials, besides the excellent safety profiles, is that no one on trial in the vaccine arm required hospitalization or died.

Seems like the vaccine is largely working as intended and tested. Unfortunate that the article chooses such a negatively framed headline for a lay audience.
I think a lot of people miss this point. Generally speaking these vaccines are incredibly effective but that does not mean life long total immunity.
95% is just that 1 in 20 will still get it.
The important takeaway is to my understanding nobody who has been vaccinated has died from COVID and nearly none have been hospitalized. This is great news and that is the important goal for this moment.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY