Jump to content

Are vaccines the light at the end of the tunnel?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BigAl94 said:

Air Industry travel pass available within weeks, interesting article

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56165563

Makes zero sense over a paper verification. 

 

Who is responsible for inputting and verifying the data in an electronic system for the tens of millions who currently have nothing more than an easily-forged unofficial paper card? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, deadzone1003 said:

Aren't the vast majority of "long-haulers" were hospitalized?  In the other words the virus has advanced to their lungs and the rest of their body.  If the vaccines allows your body to fight the virus before it gets to the "pneumonia" stage of the virus, the probability of being a long-hauler is greatly reduced.  If you are unvaccinated and caught the virus, get it treated as early as possible.  You may ask your doctor about Ivermectin as an anti-viral for outpatient treatment.  The Federal Government had nixed the drug for treatment for covid-19 earlier, but has changed their mind and have left it up to the patient and doctor.  Currently, this is the drug of choice for outpatient use through many parts of the world.  Do your own research and decide for yourself. 

No, if you read up on it many of the long haulers had mild cases, some were even asymptomatic and only found out that they had had Covid when they went to the doctor because of long haul symptoms (antibody tests).

 

If you remember some of the early research last year out of Germany found that mild and even asymptomatic cases had evidence of inflammatory cardiac damage.  That was one of the main reasons the big 10 initially pulled their football season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, deadzone1003 said:

Aren't the vast majority of "long-haulers" were hospitalized?  In the other words the virus has advanced to their lungs and the rest of their body.  If the vaccines allows your body to fight the virus before it gets to the "pneumonia" stage of the virus, the probability of being a long-hauler is greatly reduced.  If you are unvaccinated and caught the virus, get it treated as early as possible.  You may ask your doctor about Ivermectin as an anti-viral for outpatient treatment.  The Federal Government had nixed the drug for treatment for covid-19 earlier, but has changed their mind and have left it up to the patient and doctor.  Currently, this is the drug of choice for outpatient use through many parts of the world.  Do your own research and decide for yourself. 

 

No, as others have stated, even minimally symptomatic people have had long term effects.

 

And there's not much "get treated as early as possible"

 

Ivermectin is probably not going to end up being a miracle drug either.  The published results are like IIRC mortality rate in critically ill from 30% to 25% or something like that.  Yes great results for a drug (if it's true, it may end up like all the other drugs that have been tried so far and be unreproducible), but it's not the miracle cure some people are hanging onto.

 

Vaccines are the miracle cure. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, UnorigionalName said:

Ivermectin is probably not going to end up being a miracle drug either.  The published results are like IIRC mortality rate in critically ill from 30% to 25% or something like that.  Yes great results for a drug (if it's true, it may end up like all the other drugs that have been tried so far and be unreproducible), but it's not the miracle cure some people are hanging onto.

 

Vaccines are the miracle cure. 

 

And, you're already seeing the inevitable reports in underserved parts of the US of people buying Equine or Bovine Ivermectin to save money (and possibly to self medicate). Not in the mood to look it up, but the reported doses for coronavirus were substantially higher as I recall than the doses used for human parasite control. Someone will make dilution errors, and we'll find out what the blood-brain barrier exclusion rates are in people...

Edited by markeb
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, markeb said:

 

And, you're already seeing the inevitable reports in underserved parts of the US of people buying Equine or Bovine Ivermectin to save money (and possibly to self medicate). Not in the mood to look it up, but the reported doses for coronavirus were substantially higher as I recall than the doses used for human parasite control. Someone will make dilution errors, and we'll find out what the blood-brain barrier exclusion rates are in people...

Humans do take this drug for parasites.  South Africa had recently banned this drug for covid-19 because people were apparently taking it in liquid form from the jugs of Ivermectin which they give to their animals.  Of course, they overdosed, but South Africa apparently rescinded this ban (or probably modified it so you are not allow to take it in liquid form, but in tablets.)  If you get sick with covid-19 and are unvaccinated, what options do you have at the early stage of the disease?  Take 2 Tylenols every 4 hours?   At the outpatient stage of the disease, we do not have any options except wait, drink plenty of fluids, and if you are young, take some aspirin as an anti-coagulant.  Since this is a FDA-approved drug, it is considered safe if prescribed by your doctor.  Whether you think it is effective against covid-19, best to do your own research and decide for yourself.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, deadzone1003 said:

Humans do take this drug for parasites.  South Africa had recently banned this drug for covid-19 because people were apparently taking it in liquid form from the jugs of Ivermectin which they give to their animals.  Of course, they overdosed, but South Africa apparently rescinded this ban (or probably modified it so you are not allow to take it in liquid form, but in tablets.)  If you get sick with covid-19 and are unvaccinated, what options do you have at the early stage of the disease?  Take 2 Tylenols every 4 hours?   At the outpatient stage of the disease, we do not have any options except wait, drink plenty of fluids, and if you are young, take some aspirin as an anti-coagulant.  Since this is a FDA-approved drug, it is considered safe if prescribed by your doctor.  Whether you think it is effective against covid-19, best to do your own research and decide for yourself.  

 

I don't know your background and you don't really know mine. Wouldn't have commented if I I hadn't done my own research, triggered in part by reports of the use of a non-FDA approved veterinary formulation in humans. Ivermectin is used in the US orally for treatment of River Blindness and strongyloidiasis and is safe and effective at those dose level.

 

The in vitro studies found that Ivermectin incubated with infected Vero/hSLAM cells for 48 hours saw a 5000 fold reduction in viral RNA. Calculating out from bioavailability, those levels are 50-100 times the maximum oral dose used in people. There are studies showing greater concentrations of the drug in the pulmonary tract, which would at least support a potential therapeutic pathway. There are studies showing benefit to the use of Ivermectin, but all that I've read are essentially retrospective studies, the benefit in several was marginal at best, and all recommend a real placebo controlled study. Hence the guidance for physicians' decision; no evidence of harm at the approved dose, limited evidence of effectiveness. There are years worth of studies showing antiviral effects of Ivermectin, mostly in the lab.

 

The drug is considered safe if prescribed by your physician at the labelled dose; if much higher doses are required for effect, there's no evidence of safety, and you'd definitely be into informed consent territory. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, deadzone1003 said:

Humans do take this drug for parasites.  South Africa had recently banned this drug for covid-19 because people were apparently taking it in liquid form from the jugs of Ivermectin which they give to their animals.  Of course, they overdosed, but South Africa apparently rescinded this ban (or probably modified it so you are not allow to take it in liquid form, but in tablets.)  If you get sick with covid-19 and are unvaccinated, what options do you have at the early stage of the disease?  Take 2 Tylenols every 4 hours?   At the outpatient stage of the disease, we do not have any options except wait, drink plenty of fluids, and if you are young, take some aspirin as an anti-coagulant.  Since this is a FDA-approved drug, it is considered safe if prescribed by your doctor.  Whether you think it is effective against covid-19, best to do your own research and decide for yourself.  

One could go to their physician and make arrangements for an antibody infusion.  Those a very effective in early stage illness. While generally they are used in the hospital they could be given on an outpatient basis. However, most physicians will not use them because they do not know who will progress, and by the time they progress it is too late to effectively use them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

We are trying to focus on vaccines here.  Ivermectin discussions best left elsewhere IMO. 

 

I agree, but there's always been a fine line between responding to something that's inherently misleading, or leaving it alone. The mods do not have the time or technical background to referee, and I don't know that they'd delete it as unrelated to the topic for that reason. But I'll bite my keyboard...

Edited by markeb
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mimbecky said:

This is good news.  We have a trip planned Feb 2022 and the boards regarding travel to Australia and NZ aren't hopeful at all.  I read they have closed their borders for the most part already through 2021 but I am not sure if that is legitimate news or just people "talking".

Yes, consider our borders closed to international travelers for 2021 - except movie stars/makers and sport people - cricket, tennis, football. We in Oz have a travel bubble with New Zealand where they can travel here without quarantine but atm it's not reciprocal. When it becomes two way I have planned a NZ road trip but I don't expect that will happen until our spring (it will be too cold before then anyway).

Although not having a crystal ball, I expect borders may open next year but it will most likely be very selective and dependent on a countries' virus suppression success.

There has been recent informal talk, between cruising industry reps and government, in the local news of limited local cruising recommencing but I'm not holding my breath that anything will happen soon, keeping in mind the Ruby Princess debacle (Over 600 cases, 28 dead).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, D C said:

While I understand the perspective, we're a year into this, we have vaccines, we have a new administration, and he's no more committal than he was on day 1.  

What exact commitment do you want?

 

An exact date?  

 

No way to tell exactly how things are going to go with the variants, still more information to be gained about vaccine performance when it comes to the real world, infections, asymptomatic cases, transmission, etc. 

 

Lots of models, lots of new data coming in, but it is an ever evolving situation with a race between number of vaccinations and the transmission of variants and potential development of new variants.

 

I think that we are entering an fairly dangerous period with lots of infections around the world during a time when those infections will encounter more and more vaccinated people, creating the potential for virus variants self selecting for vaccine resistance.  

 

Those the reason for more distancing, masks, etc to continue to be used even as vaccines are rolling out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nocl said:

Science is not stagnant.  At the start of the epidemic they literally had not information about COVID 19 so they treated it like other similar diseases  Influenza, SARS, etc.  With those illnesses masks were not needed.  FLU because it is mostly passed by surface contact, and SARS because symptoms develop prior to a person being infectious (also the reason why temperature checks were used early on).  

 

Things changed as more information was gained about COVID.  Mask use because emphasized once it was realized that people could be infectious before symptoms developed.  As well as that there were a large number of asymptomatic cases that could also pass the illness on.  Those facts made masks necessary.

 

One major use for masks was to cut air velocity during exhaling to increase effective distance during social distancing.  It also cuts the amount of virus received if one does encounter someone that is infected.  Even somewhat loose fitting masks provide some protection.

 

The reason for two masks is very simple.  Disposable Surgical masks (those blue ones that many are using) do a good job of filtering but tend not to have tight seals.  Cloth masks do not do as good a job of filtering, but can do a better job of sealing around the edges of surgical masks, as well as helping the surgical masks seal better. Combined they result in much better protection.

 

If one is using a well fitted N95 mask then two are not required.

 

The whole reason for the recommendation is because of the new variants, especially the UK variant that has been proven to be far more contagious than the original version.  A viral load that would not infect someone with the original strain, will infect someone with the UK strain.  Thus the new recommendations concerning masks.

 

Knowledge is gained, recommendations get changed that is how science works.

 

Of course your previous comments referring to people as sheep for following recommendations certainly shows that you really have no interest in understanding the reasoning behind the changes.  Only using the fact that they have changed to attack the recommendations.

Thank goodness science has not remained stagnant.  Think of the first vaccinations so long ago, penicillin and the difference it made in WWII, Jonas Salk and the polio vaccine that almost eradicated that scourge of my childhood.

What is sad it the politicization of COVID in almost every action.  The medical community has done its best to learn and enact best practices with cooperation in the US often weak.  The US and Canada are a bit different than say the UK as the response is much more organized and implemented by the state's and local communities.  The creates disagreements as to the policies and opitics for all who observe often from far away.

I prefer as little involvement an my life by government as possible. But wearing a mask is a teeny tiny price to pay to get us past this pandemic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VitaminSea53 said:

I have enjoyed reading and learning through this thread.  I wonder is this thread  breaking a record for number of posts / views on Cruise Critic?

 

Good question! I suspect there have been others, but this one has remained surprisingly civil and on topic for seven months (with occasional lapses). That's probably some sort of record!

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, markeb said:

 

I agree, but there's always been a fine line between responding to something that's inherently misleading, or leaving it alone. The mods do not have the time or technical background to referee, and I don't know that they'd delete it as unrelated to the topic for that reason. But I'll bite my keyboard...

Mark, I understand and I am not one to point at anybody for responding here to enhance the thread or science discussed.  I am as guilty as anybody here of sometimes going off track to get involved in a science discussion. So my comment was just one to refocus as we seemed to be going sideways on Ivermectin. 

 

And then I remember comments from others following the thread.  The very good direction from Ken and others to keep it more understandable and focused.  Vaccines and Return To Cruising and the factors involved.  I have been trying! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, nocl said:

I think that we are entering an fairly dangerous period with lots of infections around the world during a time when those infections will encounter more and more vaccinated people, creating the potential for virus variants self selecting for vaccine resistance.  

I agree that this is the elephant in the room right now.  The more transmissible versions of the virus (like UK variant for example) have been out there for awhile.  Even before a lot of vaccinations in the UK happened.  But could it morph into something else in vaccinated people?  Maybe so but can it get a true resistance against vaccine polyclonal antibody responses and T-cell responses?  And to become actually more deadly?  Or will it cause mild to moderate Covid only? 

 

I am definitely a bit concerned as anything can happen.  But not overly concerned at this point in time.  If a new vaccine-resistant variant arises, the current vaccine technology can be applied pretty quickly to match it.  The new vaccine can be tested quickly now according to FDA (and other regulatory agencies will likely follow).  It can be used as a booster in those vaccinated or as the primary vaccine in those not yet vaccinated.  Or mixed in a vial together.  Or prime boost.  A lot of options.  Science and medicine will get this little viral bugger!

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, VitaminSea53 said:

I have enjoyed reading and learning through this thread.  I wonder is this thread  breaking a record for number of posts / views on Cruise Critic?

Well we are at 3150 posts so pretty good following.  We were never even labelled a "hot topic" by the editors!  It seems we are competing with the thread Captain's Club Power Up Points at over 2000 posts.  Funny!😀

Link to post
Share on other sites

FDA professional staff view the J&J vaccine candidate as safe and effective and are recommending an EUA ahead of the advisory committee meeting on Friday.

 

From the WAPO (should be a free article for now). https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/02/24/johnson-and-johnson-vaccine/

 

Some concerns noted as to public perception due to somewhat lower efficacy numbers, but these trials occurred with the circulation of some of the variants, and still had great results against the most significant disease outcomes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With what looks like a high probability of approval of an EUA for J&J, possibly as early as this weekend, and the already approved  Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, some random, hopefully not too technical thoughts, on what's next in the US.

 

First, if J&J meets most of its delivery targets, and Pfizer and Moderna stay on track, they will arguably produce enough vaccine to meet US needs. Absent an unmet need, I personally think these are the three EUAs for the US. That doesn't mean that Novavax, for instance, can't go through a full clinical trial and submit a full BLA for licensure in 2-3 years, but the way the law is written, you need an unmet medical need for an EUA. My only caveat on a subunit vaccine like Novavax is if it ultimately appears "safer" in some population. But the safety profiles on these novel vaccines have been very good to excellent so far.

 

What about variants? These three have made it to a point that the FDA appears willing to allow them to bridge their previous safety and efficacy trials to new antigens produced basically under the same methodology. So the two mRNA candidates can produce additional mRNA for different SPIKE configurations, perform small scale clinical trials, and go back for amendment to their previous filings. Same for J&J. I don't know if that will extend to two or more mRNA or vectored vaccines in the same vial, and what will be necessary for that modification; there's guidance out, but I haven't looked for that level of detail.

 

IMHO, that means that AZ is not going to get an emergency approval in the US, and it may well have to modify antigens and repeat trials. I don't know if the FDA guidance would allow bridging in the US as I don't believe they have a filing for approval here. European authorities may allow them to change antigens and bridge.

 

I will be the first to admit that when this thread started in July, I was more than a little skeptical that we'd be where we are this week. Especially with what everyone thought was the lead horse coming up lame on the backstretch. For those of you who've not witnessed up close the perils and pitfalls of vaccine development, this is a miracle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard a few people say they won't take the vaccine as long as it has only an EUA. 

Any idea when any of them would have full approval? 

I personally think it is an excuse but maybe that would make a difference for some people.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Thank You for 25 Years - Click for Fun Stuff!
      • Forum Assistance
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: Crystal Cruises - New! Luxury Bahamas Escapes
      • ICYM Our Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Explore the Remote World with Hurtigruten!
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...