Here's a COVID thread for you

[GT_EE78]

No idea. We don't know anything about the possible long term effects of the vaccine and very little about the possible long term effects of the Covid virus itself. Only time will tell. However, we do know that the vaccines have not gone through a full approval process yet and that they were developed unlike previous vaccines.

last year is first time humans had ever taken mRNA, it's a new technology of sorts.
last i heard Novavax was expected to get EUA this month. it's plant based DNA from a tree bark in south america.
one in UK has completed phase 2 and is a traditional vaccine made from dead virus cells.

 

[forensicbuzz]

And here we go in circles again. We ended the control group, so we’ll never know if there are any long term side effects. To me, I’m not worried about dying from Covid, but the long term side effects some people get worry me a lot…so I got the vaccine. But, if I didn’t, I wouldn’t care who else got it or not - I could wear a mask, keep my distance, and still be safe forever. Or not and roll the dice, but that would be my decision. Nobody else should be worried of others and their decisions. If you are, then get the vaccine. If you’re still scared of other people, then also wear a mask and keep your distance. It’s an easy calculus for everyone - you can be as safe as you want and you are in full control of that. Nobody needs to know other people’s business.

I vehemently disagree with this. They ended the control group because it was the ethical thing to do. Besides, with the number of people vaccinated, any potential side effects should become apparent in the group population. There wasn't a need to continue the control group and keep them at risk when anomalies and potential side effects will bubble up as outliers in the population. If an unusually large percentage starts expressing an effect, it should be clear whether that was vaccine-related or just normal occurrences.

 

[forensicbuzz]

last year is first time humans had ever taken mRNA, it's a new technology of sorts.
last i heard Novavax was expected to get EUA this month. it's plant based DNA from a tree bark in south america.
one in UK has completed phase 2 and is a traditional vaccine made from dead virus cells.

Well, I got the J&J vaccine, so my technology wasn't new.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

Long term issues often start with shorter term issues. Concerning the virus the known facts of short term issues that have turned into longer term issues are

• Permanent Heart Damage
• Permanent Brain Damage
• Circulatory issues in appendages (Covid Toes and Fingers)
• Permanent Lung Damage
• Oh, if your dead there is some debate if that is a long term issue

Now Lets list all the short term issues with the Vaccine that we know about in numbers that are comparable in percentages that can turn into long term issues

If I am weighing the odds, Get the Damn vaccine every time.

 

[RonJohn]

I vehemently disagree with this. They ended the control group because it was the ethical thing to do. Besides, with the number of people vaccinated, any potential side effects should become apparent in the group population. There wasn't a need to continue the control group and keep them at risk when anomalies and potential side effects will bubble up as outliers in the population. If an unusually large percentage starts expressing an effect, it should be clear whether that was vaccine-related or just normal occurrences.

I don't think that is how a control group is supposed to work. Is it your contention that anyone who decides not to get the vaccine is now in the control group? If there is a two to three year long term effect, will it be apparent because of who got and didn't get the vaccine? Will the effects not be affected by age? Will the effects not be affected by environmental and social factors? Is it possible that social and environmental factors might cause someone to decide not to get the vaccine? If some non-vaccinated people subject to a common environmental factor do not have some condition, does "science" attribute that to the vaccine, or to those environmental factors?

I doubt there are long term effects. I got the Pfizer vaccine. However, you are making the same arguments that people made early on in the pandemic related to early trials with some medicines. People said it was immoral to give potential "miracle" drugs to only a percentage of people in a study. I don't know how long vaccine control groups usually last, but they made an announcement that they were ending the control groups early for the COVID vaccines. If it is acceptable science to end this control group early, then why do other vaccine control groups last longer? That is the exact same argument made about the "miracle" drugs.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I don't think that is how a control group is supposed to work. Is it your contention that anyone who decides not to get the vaccine is now in the control group? If there is a two to three year long term effect, will it be apparent because of who got and didn't get the vaccine? Will the effects not be affected by age? Will the effects not be affected by environmental and social factors? Is it possible that social and environmental factors might cause someone to decide not to get the vaccine? If some non-vaccinated people subject to a common environmental factor do not have some condition, does "science" attribute that to the vaccine, or to those environmental factors?

I doubt there are long term effects. I got the Pfizer vaccine. However, you are making the same arguments that people made early on in the pandemic related to early trials with some medicines. People said it was immoral to give potential "miracle" drugs to only a percentage of people in a study. I don't know how long vaccine control groups usually last, but they made an announcement that they were ending the control groups early for the COVID vaccines. If it is acceptable science to end this control group early, then why do other vaccine control groups last longer? That is the exact same argument made about the "miracle" drugs.

No. And, I agree that's not how control groups are supposed to work.

Control groups are supposed to help differentiate effects by giving you something to compare to. When your actual treated population is 250,000,000+ people, there is enough data to allow statisticians to determine whether an effect is normal (naturally occurring) or likely due to the vaccine. We normally use control groups because the subject population is relatively small and you can't differentiate naturally occurring events from vaccine-induced events.

That's what I'm saying. With such a large subject population, we really don't need a control group for differentiation.

(unethical is not amoral. Ethics and morality are not equivalent).

 

[RonJohn]

No. And, I agree that's not how control groups are supposed to work.

Control groups are supposed to help differentiate effects by giving you something to compare to. When your actual treated population is 250,000,000+ people, there is enough data to allow statisticians to determine whether an effect is normal (naturally occurring) or likely due to the vaccine. We normally use control groups because the subject population is relatively small and you can't differentiate naturally occurring events from vaccine-induced events.

That's what I'm saying. With such a large subject population, we really don't need a control group for differentiation.

I disagree with that. It is very possible that there will not be enough randomness in the vaccinated and non-vaccinated groups to positively identify the vaccine as a reason.

As far as ethics or morality, I have read stories of parents who child has a disease, such as a unique form of leukemia. When told that their child is certain to die in a short time span, they search for new or alternative treatments. I remember at least a couple of those in which a treatment was being studied for potential FDA approval. (Some of the treatments are just total bunk) The parents appeal to doctors and to the FDA to allow their child to be treated with said treatment. When refused, they take their kids to Mexico to get the treatments. I don't remember any of those stories in which the child survives, but if you are thinking about the ethics: Is it more unethical to allow a person in their 30s who is unlikely to suffer significant harm from COVID to remain unvaccinated or is it more unethical to tell a parent whose child is certain to die that they cannot use a medicine because the FDA has not yet reviewed the paperwork from the manufacturer? It is my opinion that IF the science of clinical trials matters, then it should be followed EVERY time. If the science of clinical trials doesn't really matter, then there is no reason to prohibit a person who has a terminal illness from doing whatever they want to do.

It might work this time for COVID, but mixing science up for political or societal pressure will not end well. The next time there is some concern, people will push to use the same shortcuts. Several times from now, the shortcuts will be the norm. If the normal FDA approval process is necessary, it should be followed EVERY time. If it isn't absolutely necessary, then it should be modified for all approvals.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I disagree with that. It is very possible that there will not be enough randomness in the vaccinated and non-vaccinated groups to positively identify the vaccine as a reason.

As far as ethics or morality, I have read stories of parents who child has a disease, such as a unique form of leukemia. When told that their child is certain to die in a short time span, they search for new or alternative treatments. I remember at least a couple of those in which a treatment was being studied for potential FDA approval. (Some of the treatments are just total bunk) The parents appeal to doctors and to the FDA to allow their child to be treated with said treatment. When refused, they take their kids to Mexico to get the treatments. I don't remember any of those stories in which the child survives, but if you are thinking about the ethics: Is it more unethical to allow a person in their 30s who is unlikely to suffer significant harm from COVID to remain unvaccinated or is it more unethical to tell a parent whose child is certain to die that they cannot use a medicine because the FDA has not yet reviewed the paperwork from the manufacturer? It is my opinion that IF the science of clinical trials matters, then it should be followed EVERY time. If the science of clinical trials doesn't really matter, then there is no reason to prohibit a person who has a terminal illness from doing whatever they want to do.

It might work this time for COVID, but mixing science up for political or societal pressure will not end well. The next time there is some concern, people will push to use the same shortcuts. Several times from now, the shortcuts will be the norm. If the normal FDA approval process is necessary, it should be followed EVERY time. If it isn't absolutely necessary, then it should be modified for all approvals.

What are you trying to convince me of? My comment is that not allowing those in the control group to get the vaccine just so you can do "good science" is unethical. It's not amoral or immoral, just unethical. I understand these people knew what they signed up for, but that doesn't make it unethical on the part of the researchers. Almost nothing you've said has anything to do with what I've written.

I didn't say anything about the FDA or approval or politics or societal pressure. I didn't say anything about shortcuts. What I DID say is that when you have a large enough affected population, you don't need a control group to recognize the difference between random effects and vaccine-related effects. I posit a quarter to half a billion test subjects is plenty statistically valid.

 

[RonJohn]

What are you trying to convince me of? My comment is that not allowing those in the control group to get the vaccine just so you can do "good science" is unethical. It's not amoral or immoral, just unethical. I understand these people knew what they signed up for, but that doesn't make it unethical on the part of the researchers. Almost nothing you've said has anything to do with what I've written.

I didn't say anything about the FDA or approval or politics or societal pressure. I didn't say anything about shortcuts. What I DID say is that when you have a large enough affected population, you don't need a control group to recognize the difference between random effects and vaccine-related effects. I posit a quarter to half a billion test subjects is plenty statistically valid.

I don't buy that a quarter/half/full billion test subjects will yield good statistical data. What do you compare that data to? If you only compare vaccinated to non-vaccinated people then there are probably going to be other factors involved. It appears to me that some large portion of non-vaccinated people in the US are going to have some social habits that are very similar. Will the vaccine by itself explain any statistical differences or will social/eating/drinking/etc. habits play a role? Compare vaccinated people in the US to non-vaccinated people in other countries and there are a whole slew of other factors to compare differences. I also don't see it as unethical to not give a control group the vaccine for whatever the normal control group period is. That was the same argument that people made for treating everyone with hydroxychloroquine.

My point was that I don't understand why it is OK in this particular case to not follow procedures and to follow strict scientific procedures. As an example, I listed that the FDA has denied unapproved treatments to dying children because those treatments have not been fully tested and approved. My question is why it is OK to not follow the normal procedures in this case? If the normal procedures are necessary, then they should be followed no matter what the case is. If the normal procedures are too bureaucratic and cumbersome, then why are they not reduced to what is appropriate and necessary in all cases?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I vehemently disagree with this. They ended the control group because it was the ethical thing to do. Besides, with the number of people vaccinated, any potential side effects should become apparent in the group population. There wasn't a need to continue the control group and keep them at risk when anomalies and potential side effects will bubble up as outliers in the population. If an unusually large percentage starts expressing an effect, it should be clear whether that was vaccine-related or just normal occurrences.

You vehemently disagree with what? I didn’t say the control group should have been left in place. I was merely pointing out with no control group in place, if cancer clusters pop up in a year let’s say, we’ll never be able to know where it came from. I too agree if there were any short or medium term effects of any significance we would have seen them.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I mean, why would you ever use Chinese vaccines when there are other options? Who knows what they put in their bodies.

World’s Most-Vaccinated Nation Activates Curbs as Cases Rise

This vacation destination has closed schools and canceled sporting activities for two weeks as infections surged.

www.bloombergquint.com

 

[MWBATL]

What long term effects are you concerned about and how long should we wait before taking the vaccine to know if your concerns are valid?

If i understand correctly, you'd have to wait a few years before you could feel secure that there were no long term effects to worry about. Like maybe 5 years?

If I was 21 and not going anywhere internationally, and my parents were vaccinated, I'd think about it.

Claims of severe long term problems from covid have been (not surprisingly) greatly exaggerated. GREATLY exaggerated.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I don't buy that a quarter/half/full billion test subjects will yield good statistical data. What do you compare that data to? If you only compare vaccinated to non-vaccinated people then there are probably going to be other factors involved. It appears to me that some large portion of non-vaccinated people in the US are going to have some social habits that are very similar. Will the vaccine by itself explain any statistical differences or will social/eating/drinking/etc. habits play a role? Compare vaccinated people in the US to non-vaccinated people in other countries and there are a whole slew of other factors to compare differences. I also don't see it as unethical to not give a control group the vaccine for whatever the normal control group period is. That was the same argument that people made for treating everyone with hydroxychloroquine.

My point was that I don't understand why it is OK in this particular case to not follow procedures and to follow strict scientific procedures. As an example, I listed that the FDA has denied unapproved treatments to dying children because those treatments have not been fully tested and approved. My question is why it is OK to not follow the normal procedures in this case? If the normal procedures are necessary, then they should be followed no matter what the case is. If the normal procedures are too bureaucratic and cumbersome, then why are they not reduced to what is appropriate and necessary in all cases?

History

 

[Deleted member 2897]

History

But things change in the environment too. If a cancer cluster pops up or anything like that, you can’t simply compare it to historical averages and say it’s an anomaly. Otherwise there no point to control groups. Just consider unvaccinated people as the heroes of our control group. (I’m NOT advocating that, just making a little humor…)

 

[forensicbuzz]

This is what I was vehemently disagreeing with: " We ended the control group, so we’ll never know if there are any long-term side effects."

I think there will be enough data to be able to establish what effects the vaccinated people see are caused by the vaccine. I disagree with RonJohn too, in that a billion test subjects are absolutely enough data to identify any effects.

 

[forensicbuzz]

But things change in the environment too. If a cancer cluster pops up or anything like that, you can’t simply compare it to historical averages and say it’s an anomaly. Otherwise there no point to control groups. Just consider unvaccinated people as the heroes of our control group. (I’m NOT advocating that, just making a little humor…)

The reason for control groups is because the sample population for the study is usually small and you need a differentiator. When you get enough data, you no longer need the control group to identify relevant events.

 

[armeck]

 

[Deleted member 2897]

The reason for control groups is because the sample population for the study is usually small and you need a differentiator. When you get enough data, you no longer need the control group to identify relevant events.

Study groups being small can certainly benefit from the use of control groups. But group size in and of itself is only 1 part of why control groups exist. Its a false assertion to say if a group is large enough, you don't need a control group. Conversely, ideally you want conditions between the two groups to be as identical as possible...which isn't remotely possible in this case. Furthermore, the notion that we're going to force tens of thousands of people against their will to not take a vaccine that is at minimum highly effective and highly safe is ludicrous. So there's that.

 

[Fatmike91]

So there is an empty vaccine factory just sitting around waiting to make covid vaccines?

I love the comments on Twitter. I guess it makes everyone feel good... yeah we’re saving the world!

/

 

[Fatmike91]

delete