COVID Covid-19 vaccines: excitement or fear?

[Astronuc]

Incidentally, use of the J&J vaccine has been slow to pick back up after its reauthorization 5 days ago; in my area at least, they are just starting to use it today. I'm not sure if they stopped shipping them ("delevered"ing), but the pace reported so far this week is down even from last week in both "delivered" and "administered". I think "delivered" is reported the next day whereas "administered" is supposed to be within 72 hrs but, sometimes lags more. And unless I'm missing it, "delivered" isn't broken down by type.

JNJ is being offered at my place of employment. However, I know colleagues who went through the state/county program already, and they received Pfizer or Moderna depending on which site they visited.

 

[wukunlin]

Everyone at my workplace got jabbed with the Sinopharm vaccine the other day. People can refuse to get the vaccine but they have to put their name down for it.

 

[JT Smith]

I am not sure that makes sense from an individual perspective. It certainly depends on the numbers. If p₁ is the probability of exposure between now and when a "better" vaccine is available...

...A different question is whether it is better for society if you go now with what's available or wait. That's a classic Prisoner's Dilemma problem.

The probability of exposure for me given my situation is very, very low. Like I said, another couple of months of keeping my head low is not a big deal for me. I know that's not so easy for many other people.

The question of what's best for society is to a great extent outside of my control. I know that there is a large fraction of our population who will refuse to be vaccinated. So community transmission at some level will probably be a reality for some time to come. I can't do anything about that.

If almost everybody were on board with getting a vaccine I would happily take any of the available vaccines since herd immunity would then be the primary goal. But since that's not likely to be a reality the best approach for me is to protect myself personally to the best extent possible. Or at least that's what I believe. I could be wrong. Risk assessment is something humans are quite poor at. I'm human.

 

[berkeman]

The probability of exposure for me given my situation is very, very low. Like I said, another couple of months of keeping my head low is not a big deal for me. I know that's not so easy for many other people.

If almost everybody were on board with getting a vaccine I would happily take any of the available vaccines since herd immunity would then be the primary goal. But since that's not likely to be a reality the best approach for me is to protect myself personally to the best extent possible.

Your position seems reasonable to me, since you are able to keep clear of others until you get the vaccine. I work part time in EMS, so I got my shots as soon as I could. Be well.

 

[bhobba]

Different vaccines, different countries, different breakeven points.

Exactly. Different vaccines, different characteristics, e.g. the Oxford is cheap (about $3 per dose) and relatively easy to manufacture. It has a low probability blood clotting issue, requires the second dose 12 weeks later for maximum effectiveness, and is about 83% effective at preventing getting Covid. The Pfizer is more expensive (about $20.00 per dose), only requires a second dose 3 weeks later and is about 95% effective at preventing Covid. The J&J requires just one shot, has the same blood clot issue as Oxford (it is at a lower level - 86 out of 25 million doses for the Oxford in Europe vs 8 out 7 million for the J&J in the US), is still cheap at about $10.00 per dose (remember you need one-shot) and is about 75% effective at preventing Covid. Here is the kicker. All seem 100% effective at preventing hospitalisation. I saw an interview with a doctor in India where a very virulent strain is running wild. He has had both the normal and the new strain. Since he had the normal strain before and still had some immunity from that, he fought the new strain off without problems. While only about 2% of the Indian population has been vaccinated, he has noticed that those who were vaccinated, even with the new variant, only got Covid mildly. So it may be all vaccines provide excellent protection, even for the new varients, against getting seriously ill. To me, that is the main issue - not how effective it is in getting Govid - Pfizer wins on that - but in preventing serious life-threatening cases.

Where I am in Aus, the risk vs reward, on a selfish basis (not thinking also about the economy) or not considering the quarantine measures may break down at any time, is not to bother vaccinating - it is eliminated here for all practical purposes. The economy must fully open sometime, so everyone needs to be vaccinated - eventually. We can wait and let people decide for themselves which vaccine they want. I personally would go for the J&J vaccine simply because you need one shot. A rather crass reason - but having to schedule another appointment with my GP for a second shot is a pain. It's a non-issue in Aus because J&J is not one of the vaccines available.

It is interesting how the general public looks at getting vaccinated in Aus - I will do a separate post about that.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Here is what Australians currently think of getting vaccinated:
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...willing-to-get-pfizer-or-astrazeneca-vaccines

You can make up your own mind if it is reasonable. Personally, I think it underestimates the chance of Covid escaping quarantine and wrenching havoc as happened in Victoria. Just my view.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

As an aside, 3000 people a week are dying in the US from Covid. If everyone in the US were vaccinated with J&J, there would be about 130 fatalities, or about 7 hours worth.

Here is another interesting statistic - the risk of Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) from flying:
https://www.healthline.com/health/dvt-and-flying#dvt-and-flying

Here is the risk of dying from DVT:
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/data.html

With Covid, we have less flying:
https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/po...ndustry-impact-and-policy-responses-26d521c1/

This, of course, will be reflected in a reduction of the risk of getting DVT and dying. While I have not done the detailed calculation, I think it likely the risk of dying from vaccine blood clots is lower than the extra risk when the airline industry recovers. Food for thought.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Vanadium 50]

There was a meeting between the bosses and lawyers on a separate topic (Can we require a 15-day quarantine for people returning from India? The answer was "No, but") The issue of whether we can require mandatory vaccination came up. I was not at the meeting, but I did get a summary. The answer was: "Legally probably, but it is a bad, bad, bad idea."

The big issue is liability. If the employer requires the employee to participate in an experimental medical procedure - and that's what the EUA is - and then gets sick or dies, the liability could be enormous. Juries won't like the idea of employers requiring elective medical procedures, especially experimental ones, so the best thing to do is to keep this far away from a jury.

The lawyers recommended "encouragement" over "requirement". Things like time off for vaccination and changes of duty. For example, instead of firing Prof. Jenny McCarthy (who may be tenured which opens up a can of worms in and of itself), a university can say "OK, but we have to protect our students, so you're not allowed in the classroom, However, we are still paying you, so we want you to spend your day calling alums seeking donations."

 

[berkeman]

The big issue is liability. If the employer requires the employee to participate in an experimental medical procedure - and that's what the EUA is - and then gets sick or dies, the liability could be enormous. Juries won't kike the idea of employers requiring elective medical procedures, especially experimental ones, so the best thing to do is to keep this far away from a jury.

This ties into my post that you replied to. It seems that an accelerated full approval has multiple benefits. I wonder if the EUA can be deemed an extended stage-3 trial...

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/coronovirus-vaccine-progress.992484/post-6487132

 

[Mayhem]

I'm probably not getting the vaccine. It appears to be the narrative that I can still infect others if I get vaccinated. But I can also do that if I'm not vaccinated, and since I'm in an age group and demographic that has 0% chance of getting seriously ill from this disease, I'll take my chances.

 

[pinball1970]

I'm probably not getting the vaccine. It appears to be the narrative that I can still infect others if I get vaccinated. But I can also do that if I'm not vaccinated, and since I'm in an age group and demographic that has 0% chance of getting seriously ill from this disease, I'll take my chances.

If you get vaccinated you have a reduced risk of passing it on.
If don't get vaccinated you have an extremely good chance of passing it on and keeping this thing going.
https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1112

 

[Mayhem]

If you get vaccinated you have a reduced risk of passing it on.
If don't get vaccinated you have an extremely good chance of passing it on and keeping this thing going.
https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1112

Give it a year.

 

[pinball1970]

Give it a year.

We have had since Dec 2019 and 3.1 million deaths. Now we have vaccines. What is it you are waiting for? More deaths?
On the 0% risk thing, I would look at stats for deaths regarding children, it's not zero, also variants in the future may have higher virulence in your age group?
No one knows.

 

[Mayhem]

We have had since Dec 2019 and 3.1 million deaths. Now we have vaccines. What is it you are waiting for? More deaths?
On the 0% risk thing, I would look at stats for deaths regarding children, it's not zero, also variants in the future may have higher virulence in your age group?
No one knows.

The entire situation is very speculative and continues to be so. So I'm not doing something irreversible to myself until we know better.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The entire situation is very speculative and continues to be so

I'm sorry, but that's just a cop-out. It's equivalent to the statement "because we don't know everything we don't know anything."

If you want to be taken seriously on a science forum, you will have to be much more specific. For example, the following statements can be discussed in a less woolly way than your statement:

• I don't believe Covid-19 exists.
• I don't believe that the vaccines provide any protection.
• I believe that the risk of side effects is larger than being reported, and here is my evidence.
• I believe I am in such a low-risk category it's not worth my time or trouble.

 

[Mayhem]

I'm sorry, but that's just a cop-out. It's equivalent to the statement "because we don't know everything we don't know anything."

If you want to be taken seriously on a science forum, you will have to be much more specific. For example, the following statements can be discussed in a less woolly way than your statement:

• I don't believe Covid-19 exists.
• I don't believe that the vaccines provide any protection.
• I believe that the risk of side effects is larger than being reported, and here is my evidence.
• I believe I am in such a low-risk category it's not worth my time or trouble.

I definitely believe it exists. I also think it has been blown out of proportion by the media. That doesn't mean it isn't serious. It just means that we are not viewing it particularly objectively.

I think the vaccines continue to be poorly understood and our desire to end this mess is clouding our judgement.

I believe that the side effects are not properly understood as new findings associated with vaccines are reported regularly.

Yes. I also spend most of my time alone and I am tested regularly and so far all tests have been negative. If I get sick with anything, I stay home like a normal person and I only go out for essentials unless someone else can provide for me.

 

[George Jones]

I have a vaccination appointment on Thursday with my provincial health authority. I do not know what will be offered, but I will accept whatever is offered. My wife, who is younger than me, also has registered with the provicial health authority, but no appointment has been booked. I suspect this is two to three weeks away. She has also registered with local pharmacies for AstraZeneca, but supplies have run out in my small, isolated city. She will accept whatever offer happens the quickest.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I definitely believe it exists. I also think it has been blown out of proportion by the media.

It has. So what? You can choose to view it objectively.

I think the vaccines continue to be poorly understood

Again, you're going to have to be more specific if you want a serious discussion on a science forum.

Is it how effective they are? We know that: it varies between a factor of 5 and 20, depending on the exact vaccine.

Is it short term side effects? We know that too. Tens of percent of the population gets tired, achy or has a light fever or chills. Serious side effects? About four cases per million for the "worst" vaccine. If you are female If you are male, the effects are too small to see.

Is it long term side effects? How do you know that in a decade the vaccine won't cause your skin to turn purple and your nether regions to shrivel? You don't. By the same token, how do you know the same thing won't happen if you get infected? You don't. We will never have perfect knowledge.

new findings associated with vaccines are reported regularly.

Yes, at the 10^-6 to 10^-7 level.

 

[Mayhem]

It has. So what? You can choose to view it objectively.Again, you're going to have to be more specific if you want a serious discussion on a science forum.

Is it how effective they are? We know that: it varies between a factor of 5 and 20, depending on the exact vaccine.

Is it short term side effects? We know that too. Tens of percent of the population gets tired, achy or has a light fever or chills. Serious side effects? About four cases per million for the "worst" vaccine. If you are female If you are male, the effects are too small to see.

Is it long term side effects? How do you know that in a decade the vaccine won't cause your skin to turn purple and your nether regions to shrivel? You don't. By the same token, how do you know the same thing won't happen if you get infected? You don't. We will never have perfect knowledge.
Yes, at the 10^-6 to 10^-7 level.

What do you define as serious side effects? I know people personally who were bedridden for weeks after taking the vaccine and then were fine afterwards. I'd say that's a serious side effect.

 

[pinball1970]

What do you define as serious side effects? I know people personally who were bedridden for weeks after taking the vaccine and then were fine afterwards. I'd say that's a serious side effect.

Did they end up in ICU?
Anecdotal evidence only gets you so far in terms of decision making. There are studies involving large numbers regarding the vaccines, Lancet, BMJ and others here is one on side effects.

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n363
One from the Lancet

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltextDid you look at the other paper?

 

[Vanadium 50]

What do you define as serious side effects?

I would define it as "requiring hospitalization". That draws the line in arguably about the right place, and has the advantage that it is more likely to have statistics tracked than other definitions. I would also say that anyone who is bedridden for multiple weeks should see a doctor, and if the doctor decided a hospital is not appropriate we have a professional judgment as to severity. (By the way, you say you know multiple people who were bedridden for multiple weeks. How many people? How many weeks?)

But let's turn it around - at what threshold for hospitalization do you draw the line? 50%? 10%? 1%? 10^-3? 10^-4?10^-10? In your opinion, how safe does it need to be?

 

[Mayhem]

I would define it as "requiring hospitalization". That draws the line in arguably about the right place, and has the advantage that it is more likely to have statistics tracked than other definitions. I would also say that anyone who is bedridden for multiple weeks should see a doctor, and if the doctor decided a hospital is not appropriate we have a professional judgment as to severity. (By the way, you say you know multiple people who were bedridden for multiple weeks. How many people? How many weeks?)

But let's turn it around - at what threshold for hospitalization do you draw the line? 50%? 10%? 1%? 10^-3? 10^-4?10^-10? In your opinion, how safe does it need to be?

You're right. I guess it's pretty arbitrary where we draw the line. I suppose the logical place to draw it is where the vaccines are not more dangerous than the virus (which it doesn't seem to be on AVERAGE).

 

[russ_watters]

I'm probably not getting the vaccine...I'm in an age group and demographic that has 0% chance of getting seriously ill from this disease...

[separate post] ...blown out of proportion by the media.

The claim of 0% chance of getting seriously ill is false and a person who has viewed enough media over the past 14 months to conclude the pandemic is overblown has to know it's false. One of the more significant storylines that was played-up by the media is spotlighting that young, seemingly healthy people can die from COVID. So now we have to dig into why you would say this. I see three possibilities:

1. You're so eyes-open anti-vax that you are willing to lie to promote the beliefs (still begs a why? question though).
2. You're so eyes-closed anti-vax that you are incapable of processing and storing facts that don't support your beliefs.
3. You're just messing with us and don't believe these things you are saying.

The first type can't be helped. The second, maybe, by jamming reality down their throat until they have no choice but to swallow it. But in either case, nothing that you say can be taken at face value because anything could be a lie or misunderstanding of reality. Take this for example:

I know people personally who were bedridden for weeks after taking the vaccine and then were fine afterwards. I'd say that's a serious side effect.

If such a side effect existed, it would have been recorded in the clinical trials. More likely - if you aren't just plain making it up - you know people who received a dose of the vaccine but got sick with COVID before it took hold and your brain has twisted that into the vaccine causing COVID. Just in case it needs to be said: the vaccine isn't effective instantly and isn't 100% effective in preventing people from getting COVID.

... I also spend most of my time alone and I am tested regularly...

Why would someone who spends most of their time alone be tested regularly? That makes no sense and raises further questions about whether you are being forthcoming with us or are just messing with us.

 

[Mayhem]

Why would someone who spends most of their time alone be tested regularly? That makes no sense and raises further questions about whether you are being forthcoming with us or are just messing with us.

I'm doing some lab assistant work for a research group so I have to get tested.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm doing some lab assistant work for a research group so I have to get tested.

So...you were lying/purposely misleading when you said you spend most of your time alone?

 

[Mayhem]

So...you were lying/purposely misleading when you said you spend most of your time alone?

No, the majority of my hours are still spent alone.

 

[russ_watters]

No, the majority of my hours are still spent alone.

So that eliminates option 2 and means you are being openly dishonest. Why?

 

[Mayhem]

So that eliminates option 2 and means you are being openly dishonest. Why?

I'm not being dishonest. You misconstrued what I said. Most of my time does not mean all of my time.

 

[russ_watters]

No, the majority of my hours are still spent alone.

Honesty is an affirmative duty to the truth. There are no loopholes where you can say something purposely misleading and still consider it honesty. If nobody taught you this before, now you know.

You are saying things that are purposely misleading and that is dishonest. So my question is why are you doing this?

 

[Mayhem]

Honesty is an affirmative duty to the truth. There are no loopholes where you can say something purposely misleading and still consider it honesty. If nobody taught you this before, now you know.

You are saying things that are purposely misleading and that is dishonest. So my question is why are you doing this?

Nothing I said was purposely misleading. If you were misled by it, that's on you. Anyway I'll stop it here because you're just making dang up now.