When is it time to panic

volvoclearinghouse (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to mtn (Forum Supporter) :

Let's see...Google vs. Merriam Webster.

No further comment needed on that.

 

 

The Google Dictionary is Liscened from the Oxford English Dictionary.. if you search the google dictionary it will telll you the source at the bottom of the definiton page..   it is a highly credible source.

this is a dumb fight

volvoclearinghouse (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to mtn (Forum Supporter) :

Let's see...Google vs. Merriam Webster.

No further comment needed on that.

As for H1N1, despite only 1/4 of the population getting the vaccine, what happened to H1N1?  I sure don't ever hear about it anymore. 

 

As for H1N1, Apples and Oranges. Influenza viruses mutate much quicker than Coronaviruses. H1N1 was also not nearly as contagious or lethal. 

In reply to mtn (Forum Supporter) :

Slight correction, it may well have been as or more contagious, as somewhere around 50 million people got it, by CDC estimates.  Although the lethality of it does appear to have been lower. 

I am very much not an anti-vaxxer, but I also don't think that I'm a crazy nutjob because I haven't decided how I feel about being one of the first people to take a medication that was developed in an extremely rapid fashion.  If I were in charge of getting people to voluntarily get this vaccine right away, I would be planning for that trepidation way more than trying to convince anti-vaxxers or expecting that everyone would just roll up their sleeves, no questions asked.

In reply to wae :

Well said. 

As one of the articles I linked talked about, there's different ways to "speed things up".  You can throw more money and resources at it, up to a point.  But there's also "wrong" ways to speed it up, like cutting corners.  If they want people to have confidence in this thing, then the "message" needs to not be "we're doing this as fast as we can" or "we're fast-tracking this thing", because to a lot of folks this sounds exactly like the old joke that a Project Manager is someone who thinks 9 women can get together and in one month make a baby. 

Uh... Ya'll realize that they're still doing clinical trials on this, right? They're not just unrolling it without any testing (well, China is doing that with their army, but we (and UK with the Oxford vaccine) are not China).

wae said:

I am very much not an anti-vaxxer, but I also don't think that I'm a crazy nutjob because I haven't decided how I feel about being one of the first people to take a medication that was developed in an extremely rapid fashion.  If I were in charge of getting people to voluntarily get this vaccine right away, I would be planning for that trepidation way more than trying to convince anti-vaxxers or expecting that everyone would just roll up their sleeves, no questions asked.

Kind of this.

wae said:

I am very much not an anti-vaxxer, but I also don't think that I'm a crazy nutjob because I haven't decided how I feel about being one of the first people to take a medication that was developed in an extremely rapid fashion.  If I were in charge of getting people to voluntarily get this vaccine right away, I would be planning for that trepidation way more than trying to convince anti-vaxxers or expecting that everyone would just roll up their sleeves, no questions asked.

I get that, but by the time any vaccine is available to the general public, hundreds of thousands of first responders and other higher-risk people will have had it.

Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:

wae said:

I am very much not an anti-vaxxer, but I also don't think that I'm a crazy nutjob because I haven't decided how I feel about being one of the first people to take a medication that was developed in an extremely rapid fashion.  If I were in charge of getting people to voluntarily get this vaccine right away, I would be planning for that trepidation way more than trying to convince anti-vaxxers or expecting that everyone would just roll up their sleeves, no questions asked.

I get that, but by the time any vaccine is available to the general public, hundreds of thousands of first responders and other higher-risk people will have had it.

Which is all well and good for now.

I've gone through the process to get medications approved for use, my dad was a guinea pig for an anti rejection drug. All of a sudden, 7 years in, 30+% of the guinea pigs developed cancer. And they weren't rushing to get some early market share and working against a pandemic when they were developing that medication.

So excuse me if I have some doubts about something being pushed through to treat a virus when we still don't understand the virus. 

How's that AIDS vaccine we've been working on since the 80s coming along?

Pharmacologically, that is an Apples and Horses comparison there, RevRico. Many, if not most anti-rejection drugs (I'm assuming we're talking about organ transplants) are carcinogenic. And they're a relatively recent development - the first being just azithromiacin (or penacillan?) and a steroid. 

Vaccines, even those for coronaviruses (of which there haven't been any) have been around since the 1800's. They're not even really a drug. This would be like comparing brakes (prevention of an accident) to a dent remover (treatment after an accident). 

(That is a crappy analogy)

I think you really need input on this from someone who is more familiar with what exactly these vaccines do.  I believe with these types of "drugs" their primary method is to create immune reactions without the obvious downsides.  In that case, any downsides would be pretty apparent early one.  From what very little I know, I would expect the biggest worry of failure would be it not lasting as long as they wanted (early trials have already shown anti-bodies).

Since these sound very similar to how flu vaccines work (again with my very limited knowledge) I would expect, worse case, those (very rare in the case of flu vaccines) side effects which generally involve (somewhat ironically) flu type symptoms.  As with the flu, the long term side effects of the virus itself is likely WAY higher then the that of the vaccine.

This sort of vaccine should not be compared with other "drugs" for side effects. An anti-rejection drug is obviously going to be some sort of immunosuppressor which has some pretty obvious potential dangers.  Where I used to work, we had a drug for osteoporosis that strengthened bone (it actually stopped the natural process of destruction of bone).  As you can imagine, weird side-effect could be possible.  The one, rather horrible, and fortunately rare, that scared me a bit was, and I kid you not, the literal disintegration of the jaw bone! (yes, JUST the jaw bone).

aircooled said:

I think you really need input on this from someone who is more familiar with what exactly these vaccines do.  I believe with these types of "drugs" their primary method is to create immune reactions without the obvious downsides.  In that case, any downsides would be pretty apparent early one.  From what very little I know, I would expect the biggest worry of failure would be it not lasting as long as they wanted (early trials have already shown anti-bodies).

Since these sound very similar to how flu vaccines work (again with my very limited knowledge) I would expect, worse case, those (very rare in the case of flu vaccines) side effects which generally involve (somewhat ironically) flu type symptoms.  As with the flu, the long term side effects of the virus itself is likely WAY higher then the that of the vaccine.

This sort of vaccine should not be compared with other "drugs" for side effects. An anti-rejection drug is obviously going to be some sort of immunosuppressor which has some pretty obvious potential dangers.  Where I used to work, we had a drug for osteoporosis that strengthened bone (it actually stopped the natural process of destruction of bone).  As you can imagine, weird side-effect could be possible.  The one, rather horrible, and fortunately rare, that scared me a bit was, and I kid you not, the literal disintegration of the jaw bone! (yes, JUST the jaw bone).

Yes, this exactly. 
 

The big risks with a vaccine are this: 

1. It doesn't work, or it wears off too quickly
2. An ingredient in it is an unknown allergen
3. If it is a live vaccine (and there haven't been live vaccines administered commonly in the US in a long time), that it infects first. See the Cutter incident - but we're unlikley to get a live vaccine. 
4. Injuries from the shot itself- but that could be from anything you use a needle for, it is not a vaccine risk so much as a needle risk. And this is not a big risk, I"m just putting it here.

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

aircooled said:

I think you really need input on this from someone who is more familiar with what exactly these vaccines do.  I believe with these types of "drugs" their primary method is to create immune reactions without the obvious downsides.  In that case, any downsides would be pretty apparent early one.  From what very little I know, I would expect the biggest worry of failure would be it not lasting as long as they wanted (early trials have already shown anti-bodies).

Since these sound very similar to how flu vaccines work (again with my very limited knowledge) I would expect, worse case, those (very rare in the case of flu vaccines) side effects which generally involve (somewhat ironically) flu type symptoms.  As with the flu, the long term side effects of the virus itself is likely WAY higher then the that of the vaccine.

This sort of vaccine should not be compared with other "drugs" for side effects. An anti-rejection drug is obviously going to be some sort of immunosuppressor which has some pretty obvious potential dangers.  Where I used to work, we had a drug for osteoporosis that strengthened bone (it actually stopped the natural process of destruction of bone).  As you can imagine, weird side-effect could be possible.  The one, rather horrible, and fortunately rare, that scared me a bit was, and I kid you not, the literal disintegration of the jaw bone! (yes, JUST the jaw bone).

Yes, this exactly. 
 

The big risks with a vaccine are this: 

1. It doesn't work, or it wears off too quickly
2. An ingredient in it is an unknown allergen
3. If it is a live vaccine (and there haven't been live vaccines administered commonly in the US in a long time), that it infects first. See the Cutter incident - but we're unlikley to get a live vaccine. 
4. Injuries from the shot itself- but that could be from anything you use a needle for, it is not a vaccine risk so much as a needle risk. And this is not a big risk, I"m just putting it here.

Isn't "provokes too much immune response and makes you feel rather ill for a few days" also a risk - if normally a minor one?

MadScientistMatt said:

 

Isn't "provokes too much immune response and makes you feel rather ill for a few days" also a risk - if normally a minor one?

I don't know for sure if that is that is the actual reason (sounds very reasonable though), but yes, that would likely be one of the possible side effects (very rare with current flu vaccines though).  Should be no were NEAR as bad as actual COVID though.

aircooled said:

MadScientistMatt said:

 

Isn't "provokes too much immune response and makes you feel rather ill for a few days" also a risk - if normally a minor one?

I don't know for sure if that is that is the actual reason (sounds very reasonable though), but yes, that would likely be one of the possible side effects (very rare with current flu vaccines though).  Should be no were NEAR as bad as actual COVID though.

I'd imagine that those for which it is provoking an extreme immune response would be the ones that would have the severe cases of Covid, so likely more important for them to get it. 

Not sure if that made sense, and I'm not sure if there is any truth to that. Just a theorization.

This guy died of COVID. I remember listening to his radio show late at night. 

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/texas-born-country-music-radio-host-bill-mack-dies-from-covid-19/287-502f33b3-f879-473d-a3b7-f57ab9c8fc05

Who's next? 

In reply to Snowdoggie :

Dude. Seriously. 
 

Step. Away. From. The. News. 
 

Edit to add: I'm recovering from COVID-19, and I'm in a better headspace than you are.

You need to pull away for your own health.

But then again, late night radio has never been the same since Art Bell died. 

In reply to Snowdoggie :

That sucks, my father was a big fan of his. 

How many upvotes until you are actually recognized as an infectious disease expert on a car forum? 

In reply to Recon1342 :

Seriously this. Stop watching the news. "If it bleeds; it leads!" has never been more appropriate than it is today.   
 

Don Henley: Dirty Laundry 

"We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blond
Who comes on at five
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye
It's interesting when people die
Give us dirty laundry"

Steve_Jones said:

How many upvotes until you are actually recognized as an infectious disease expert on a car forum? 

About the same number that gets you a PhD in Psychology from determining a person's mental state from a few posts on an internet board. 

Steve_Jones said:

How many upvotes until you are actually recognized as an infectious disease expert on a car forum? 

How many snarky comments before one gets a time out?

(mtn's snarky comment count goes up by 1)

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

Steve_Jones said:

How many upvotes until you are actually recognized as an infectious disease expert on a car forum? 

How many snarky comments before one gets a time out?

 

 

Depends if you're one of the favorites or not. 

Snowdoggie said:

But then again, late night radio has never been the same since Art Bell died. 

You believe the propaganda that he died, huh?

( )