How willing are you to have the corona vaccine early on?

[specialmom]

I'm hearing good things about a vaccine (or two or three) on the way for covid 19.  How willing are you to have it with the first batch of them given after it is approved?  

[SeizureAdvocate]

Not me nor my husband. For me, just not enough people being tested on. I had bad bad side effects from the flu shot and refuse to put myself at risk. In addition my husband is on Lamotrigine and I doubt they can be positive it wont effect his levels of that med. CANT DO IT.

[AnxiousNoMore]

SeizureAdvocate  "For me, just not enough people being tested on" 30,000 people will be tested for this vax so there will be a lot of data.
Also people get sick at any time, so it isn't possible to pinpoint that your "bad side effect" was from the vax or was maybe something unrelated that you might have caught.
This vax will be different composition that the one you took, so will not have anything to do with it.

[Paxiled]

I do support that if you take any medication and then get something you've never had before it's most likely it's the medication, but I will say, the flu and covid are very different animals.  Although a ton of people still die who have influenza, virtually all of them are very old sick people usually already in hospitals and the very young who don't have strong immune systems developed yet.  Covid can get anyone at any age and any time and it's new so it hasn't evolved to a tamer form as influenza has over the many years it's been with us.  Now, it appears likely there won't be just one vaccine, as is the case with most vaccines we get.  This one might have several, as several are at the same point of development and are following similar expedited development.  One of the two American  companies that is starting trials is going to be pretty interesting, which is Moderna.  Their technology was developed by the gov't to try and find an HIV vaccine, which they never did.  Nobody has ever made a vaccine the way they are trying to do it, so nobody has ever been studied doing it this way.  The company is entirely supported by the gov't and venture capital, and is only a firm with a technology that everyone hopes does work because it will revolutionize vaccine making if it does.  It got going so quickly because they just took their technology from the HIV effort and applied it to covid.  But they've never ever come out with a product, and they don't have a lot of capacity to make them.  All the other vaccine programs all over the world are using older methods of making vaccines, and while there will always be some people who do have a bad reaction to vaccines, what most of them are vaccinating for is much much worse.  Some vaccines are for diseases most of us don't necessarily have to worry about, but with covid, while I won't be the first person in line, I will be in line.  If we don't beat this disease we can't have normal lives.  

[Paxiled]

And it's also not a matter of patriotism.  With disease we have to overcome tribal thinking.  It does no good for Americans to get vaccinated if the whole world doesn't get vaccinated assuming somebody is able to make a vaccine this more like the measles or polio vaccine than the flu vaccine, the latter which only gives very short-term immunity and only to the mutations in that particular year's vaccine.  We can see that with poli0, which should be gone by now but isn't because some countries for religious and tribal reasons won't get the vaccine.  We also see that with measles, which was pretty much gone in the US until some bogus scientist in England published a bogus paper that falsely claimed that vaccine caused autism.  That's where the conspiracy anti-vax movement of today came from, and so we not have measles among us again.  But it never went away because everyone all over the world never got it.  There are older reasons questioning the number of vaccines we get and the age at which we get them and how compressed the time period we get them, which has to do with the effect on the immune system, but that's a different matter and isn't anti-vax, it's more of appropriate vax.  For me, I'd really like to see covid go away.

[GuitarRox]

I'll get vaccinated.  My family will too and I'll encourage my friends.  Even if we have to continue being vaccinated yearly like with flu.  I don't care who makes money from the vaccine but for now, companies have committed to no cost/low cost. And if it's in the 90% range of efficacy, it won't matter who all gets it and who doesn't.  I'm ready to go, I'm ready to not have the fear of covid.

[AnxiousNoMore]

"And it's also not a matter of patriotism.  With disease we have to overcome tribal thinking." That is just your subjective take on this issue. It is irrelevant to me whether you have different reasons whether or not to vax, however that doesn't invalidate my reason.

[AnxiousNoMore]

No steps are being skipped in the US trials, but they are doing things concurrently that they would normally do consecutively. (Fauci mentioned that last week btw.) There is more risk for the people in the trials though, because of the concurrent program, but after the 30,000 person Phase 3 trial ends the same data will be available for prospective patients as would be in a normal trial that takes years. It's all hands on deck monitoring the vax progress instead of a slow FDA taking years to study things.
I don't know for sure, but am guessing that the FDA will not approve drugs trialed in foreign countries although I don't follow them. All I know for sure about that is the US market is so large that any company with a med goes for approval there.  
"once you've spent a ton of money to produce something, the pressure to use it becomes much greater to justify the expense" None of that is relevant to the FDA. They march companies to their tune not the other way around (although oxycontin was sort of an anomaly for numerous reasons, but none of its situation applies to a vax which doesn't have any addiction issues ot contend with.)

[Paxiled]

No, again, not how it works.  Most of our drug were not originated in the US.  Statins came from Japan.  Many of the worst drugs came from the English company GlaxoSmithKline.  This is a highly consolidated industry, so if you had to rely on US companies for drugs we wouldn't have many drugs.  Most drugs when we're not in a pandemic are developed by very small pharmaceutical companies backed by venture capital all over the world.  Sometimes we think a particular company came up with a drug because the marketing of drugs is an oligopoly, so when you do come up with a promising drug it must be licensed to one of the few giant pharma companies because they have complete control of getting drugs to doctors and drug stores.  The FDA will approve any drug that is brought to them no matter where produced to determine if it qualifies for sale in the US.  There are many drugs in use in Europe and other places that were never brought to the FDA but are in wide use elsewhere in the world.  Every country has a version of the FDA.  The FDA is the gold standard because the US is the only country in the world that doesn't regulate drug prices, so if you want to go for the gold, you have to come to the US where you can charge whatever you want.  But scientists and drug companies exist everywhere and they are just as good as the ones in the US.  Peace, all.

[AnxiousNoMore]

"No, again, not how it works.  " Again?
"The FDA will approve any drug that is brought to them no matter where produced to determine if it qualifies for sale in the US." I never said you can't produce a drug elsewhere.
The 30k person trial that I referred to is necessary.
Not sure what the rest of your post is about.

[Paxiled]

"am guessing that the FDA will not approve drugs trialed in foreign countries."  Don't know what you mean by your second point, of course it's necessary to do a trial, the question is, will the trial include all the different groups covid is affecting differently so we know it works for everyone?  It won't if they go too fast.  The quote above taken from your post might have misled folks to believe the FDA only approves drugs trialed or made in the US, which is what the rest is about.  For example, I believe the AstraZeneca/Oxford project, which has received US investment, looks to be planning to do their trials in India.  Won't affect at all whether or not it gets FDA approval, that will depend on whether or not they ask for it and if they do they jump through the proper hoops, not on where a drug's trials are held.  It seemed to me to imply a limit to who can produce drugs for marketing in the US.  I don't post to argue, but in case those who read these posts are confused or misled.  I know I would have been.  The again refers to a lot of misinformation on this new forum from various posters.  Hope that explains it for anyone who cares.  Peace, all, and stay healthy.

[CurfewX]

They didn't test for the longevity of antibodies in phase 2 because phase 2 is the safety phase only.  Phase 3 is the efficacy phase, during which they will test for antibody production and retention. They will be looking not only for antibody production, but for CD8 T-cell response, which is key to producing lasting immunity.

No comment about what's happening in other countries as I'm only familiar with the US clinical trials process.  

If anyone cares to follow the progress of vaccines being tested in the US, clinicaltrials.gov has the data available to the public.

[Paxiled]

Unfortunately, the pharma industry is so highly consolidated that "US trials" only covers two consortia right now.  The US has also invested in AstraZeneca/Oxford, which is an English company.  We have invested as well, I believe, in a French company.  You do that so you will have first dibs on the vaccine, because not enough will be capable of being produced for the world, and if it isn't worldwide, it won't be as effective as people move around.  And usually, in order to get a drug to Phase III, you have to do a very good Phase II.  Phase II is where drugs go to die.  It is usually much more stringent than it is for this vaccine, partly because venture capital money will be withdrawn if Phase II isn't pretty impressive.  Not this time.  But again, there's no choice with this one, it's just so contagious.  

[CurfewX]

I will absolutely LINE UP when it's released.  Regarding the development timeline, not one single step is being skipped or short-cutted.  They can't do that.  What is happening is that the paperwork portion of the process includes putting these vaccines up for review ASAP.  In other words, these vaccine trials jump to the front of the line, and get reviewed as a priority.  Sometimes, a drug development timeline includes a year of waiting in between phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 of the clinical trials.   Due to the urgency, at each phase completion, the data are being reviewed ASAP.

Phase 2 was the safety portion, and now we're on to Phase 3, the efficacy phase.  This will probably be a longer phase than phase 2, because safety problems generally manifest quickly.  Efficacy will need to be tested over a longer period of time, as those who receive the vaccine have potential COVID exposures over a period of months, and either do or do not contract the disease.

[Paxiled]

Yes, they are skipping steps.  Unfortunately, given how widely covid is spreading, that's not a bad thing.  But they have already skipped steps.  The problem is that countries are competing to be first, and companies are competing to be first, and countries are giving huge sums of money to companies to make the vaccine before it has proven to be safe or effective.  Meaning, the vaccines are already in mass production at the large pharmaceutical companies and they have no idea yet if they will work.  That is a skipped step, because once you've spent a ton of money to produce something, the pressure to use it becomes much greater to justify the expense (and the elevated stock prices of the chosen companies).  Phase 2 has already been short-cutted.  China is already injecting a vaccine with not proof of efficacy in their military as the guinea pigs.  So is Russia.  Moderna and Pfizer short-cutted their Phase 2, which had only moderate good results and they did not take the time to wait and see if the antibodies lasted -- it appears they don't last very long.  Phase 3 will also be short-cutted.  It usually takes years to make an effective vaccine because it takes a lot of time to properly vet your guinea pigs and with this virus, it will be especially important to test it on varied ethnic groups as it appears to affect different ethnic groups differently (also different blood types).  It's unlikely in a short amount of time, between now and November is the timeline, they will be able to overcome the extreme distrust of these types of experiments, for example, in the black community due to past history of abuse there and in many countries where religious extremist are already killing polio vaccinators.  So they will short-cut it, but again, this is not like other things so I do understand why they are doing this.  It does mean, as most epidemiologists have said when interviewed, that the first vaccines may not work very well.  And because so much money has already been invested, it may crowd out later participants from the market.  That is why I will wait for the guinea pigs first, but I can do that, I'm old and don't have to go to work.  Wish I could go to work, but alas, I can't.  But for those of you who will be first in line, bless you.  

[specialmom]

I'll take the vaccine.  I'm not going to be able to stop my kids from having a life.  They will be in school, have sports and would like to be social again.  So, I'll take the vaccine and I'll take it when it becomes available.  It's like, take my chances with covid or the vaccine.  Sigh.  

[AnnieBrooke]

If my son's school begins in person again (planned for November) I'll be in the same position you're describing, with a choice of two unappealing scenarios (if taken to the worst case). The school district has already warned that if they open in person in the fall, "there WILL be Covid cases -- not if but when." This means the choice is chancing getting Covid (being high-risk, not a so-what idea for me) or getting vaccinated with a first round that might not be the safest version they will eventually have. A friend went deaf from an early try at an antibiotic that was new on the market, which makes me leery of medical first tries. But if school begins in person, we'll have to do something.

[Jareddanton]

I wouldn’t take the first batch of the Covid vaccine. It is far too hastily made for my liking.

[auntiejessi]

I'm with Annie - probably not the first batch for me. I'm also someone who doesn't immediately update my phone when it comes out with a new update until everyone else has so I can hear if there are bugs. :)

Covid vaccine 2.0 is probably the one for me.

I am pro-vax, and get the flu shot every year. I got the actual real flu once non-vaccinated (I was tested for it because my fever was almost 103 as an adult) and that's enough for me, thanks. I got the flu after getting the vaccine once - not tested, but my roommate was and we assume I had it, too, and it was much milder.

Now I have other health conditions that would make the flu dangerous, so I'll definitely vax.

(I may have lost the point somewhere, if I ever had it.)

[Paxiled]

Not me.  Gonna wait.  Too much politics and conspiracy in this first wave of possibilities.  Chinese spying, Russian spying, governments giving huge sums of money to their favorite companies to produce vaccines that don't yet work.  First ones are likely not to work very well.  If you can wait, wait a bit.  First users of drugs suffer the most.  The bad stuff comes out over time.  On the other hand, when a vaccine comes out that actually proves to work, if that ever happens, I'm in.  Now, I'm one who has never gotten a flu vaccine because it doesn't actually work very well and I worry we get too many vaccines and what effect this has on overstimulating the immune system.  But with covid, first one that works, I'm in.

[AnxiousNoMore]

Quote from Jan 2012 article on Dr. David Agus fwiw. https://www.macleans.ca/society/health/the-end-of-illness/            "Every bout of flu leaves “ghostly marks,” aging your blood vessels and leaving you vulnerable to all kinds of inflammation-induced diseases later in life. So take the vaccine, and if you won’t do that, at least ....."
This is not the year to skip the flu vax imo. There will be lots of coughing once that season starts, and getting Covid concurrently would be tough.

[AnnieBrooke]

I always get the flu vaccine. Never want to get the flu again, it hits me so hard I have to sleep in the bathroom because I'm too weak to walk there. Never have had it in the years I've been vaccinated. But a brand-new hastily developed vaccine for anything has to be looked at carefully, and though I'm high risk for Covid, I don't like the way they're going about developing one.

[Paxiled]

Anxious, that can't help me any.  By the time they invented the flu vaccine I'd already had what was called the flu a whole lot, so if what you are saying is true, it was too late for me by the time they invented the vaccine.  What does he say about the inflammation caused by getting a ton of vaccines?  Flu vaccine has to be gotten every year, and the best it's ever done is 40-50%.  That's worse than tossing a coin.  The best way to avoid the flu is to avoid groups of people.  Most of us get it rarely once we leave school, but again, by the time you do leave school you've probably had it several times.  Hard to know, though, because I've never been to the doctor because of the flu and I've never been tested by a doctor for the flu.  I also grew up when the flu was what they called pretty much everything that couldn't be explained.  True influenza, who knows if any of us have ever had it since I'm guessing none of us was ever tested for it.  Now, this year my wife and I have had the discussion, is this the year to get the flu vaccine, and it might be.  This year I might do it.  But odds are better they guess wrong about the strains again, because that's the norm.  I fear covid could be like that, but am hopeful it won't be.  I also am pretty convinced that the corruption involved worldwide in the rush for a vaccine more for economic reasons than health reasons that is unique to covid will mean the first vaccines to come out won't work well and might be harmful, but I'm hopeful that also won't be the case.  The one that works though will probably not be the first few that become available, and so we'll all have a hard choice to make.

[AnxiousNoMore]

Not sure if 50% is the correct calculation, but will assume it is. 50% is not worse than tossing a coin - 50% means half of the time you don't get the flu whereas tossing a coin means you get the flu each time. I have finished with this discussion, since all the info I need comes from my health authority and I have 3 reasons to get the flu vax.
1 I don't like being sick.
2. I don't want aging blood vessels
3. I consider it patriotic to vax, since if everyone did it there would be no flu.            To each his own.  

[Paxiled]

You may be done, but you're incorrect, so I have to add one more thing.  You're math is incorrect and so is your science on this one.  The flu vaccine does not provide long-term immunity, so the flu hasn't gone anywhere despite the widespread use of the vaccine, nor will it.  Tossing a coin does not mean you get it each time.  It means it's a matter of luck, and sometimes you get lucky.  It doesn't mean you always get unlucky, and sometimes, as anyone who has tossed coins for money knows, you win all the time.  It's a measure of probability, and it is never zero.  I'm fine with you doing anything you want that doesn't endanger others, and getting the flu vaccine doesn't endanger anyone including you, most likely.  The patriotism of getting vaccinations refers to vaccinations for highly contagious illnesses that vaccines actually work for, but only if everyone gets one.  I get all of those.  The flu vaccine isn't one of those, which is why you have to get it every year.  Now I'm done.

[Paxiled]

Well, one more thing.  40-50% is the best it has ever done.  Most years it is closer to 20% effective.  The reason is they have to guess which mutations the flu will have in advance of the flu coming around so the vaccine will be ready.  Because influenza has been around so long, it has mutated a ton, and they usually guess wrong.  Whereas if you get the measles vaccine, it pretty much always works and so it is right to get that one, as an example.  But Peace to all and free choice on this one.  I don't believe I've ever had the flu since the vaccine was invented, but wouldn't really know for sure.  

[Paxiled]

Okay, just one more thing.  I'm really not trying to be nasty or mean here.  As I said on another post here, I'm morally and mentally exhausted with the extreme amount of misinformation intentionally being spread about the corona virus.  It's just beyond my ability now to take it anymore.  Let's all try and get our info as correct as possible and not fall into that trap, is I guess why I reacted this way.  And let's not accuse others of being unpatriotic by mixing apple and oranges.  Again, peace and good health to all.

[AnnieBrooke]

First batch of a vaccine prepared in haste without all the usual testing redundancies? Hm.