Jump to content

Are vaccines the light at the end of the tunnel?


Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

With all of your concerns you are free of course to not get vaccinated and take your chances with COVID.  It is completely your decision.  The COVID vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna are new technologies that are made of a piece of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA making the SPIKE protein.  They do not affect RNA as you state. They are made of RNA.

 

In 2018 it was shown that mRNA could be transgenerational in studies with Zebrafish, these fish are used because they have a 80% match to humans, have a similar disease profile and easier to study over multiple generations. This could mean in the future that mRNA vaccines and drugs could treat not just yourself but also your future offspring preventing hereditary diseases.

 

Studies have showed that mRNA can be used to alter DNA through a R-Loop in the treatment of cancer. This would mean that a mRNA drug could one day prevent cancer cells from duplicating halting the progression of cancer.

 

mRNA has been studied as both a treatment for infertility and as a contraception.

 

In theory the mRNA vaccine should have no effect either on DNA or be transgenerational as your bodies immune system should neutralise any vaccine infected cells.

 

Short term effects do not look serious at the moment. Long term effects are unknown in humans.

 

mRNA vaccines and drugs will be a huge leap forward in the treatment of people, however as with any technology it could be open to abuse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ken the cruiser said:

Here's an interesting CBS news interview today with Secretary Azar discussing what's next. Definitely starting to get a little excited as the "light" continues to get a little brighter. 

 

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on COVID-19 vaccine rollout and priorities - CBS News

Strictly speculation. The CDC meets next week and they will determine when the vaccines will be made available and the pecking order of who gets it, in what order.

It better be ironed out, here in the US, as if you listened to our new president, during the campaign, he said "We must get the virus under control before we can address the economy".

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

Strictly speculation. The CDC meets next week and they will determine when the vaccines will be made available and the pecking order of who gets it, in what order.

It better be ironed out, here in the US, as if you listened to our new president, during the campaign, he said "We must get the virus under control before we can address the economy".

Yes hopefully the CDC will be clear and decisive.  And then I hope that these recommendations are the high-level roadmap that the states all follow.   But why do I have a sinking feeling that it will be much more complicated and political and chaotic than that?  hmmmm....

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-vaccine-governors-determine-priority-health-secretary-alex-azar/

Edited by TeeRick
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2020 at 7:55 PM, OceanCruise said:

 

Up until this time there has never been a vaccine developed for any coronavirus such as SARs and the common cold. All vaccines have some risk but we really do not know what the long-term effects of the Covid vaccine will be, particularly a new type of vaccine that affects RNA. 

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund has paid out over 4 billion dollars since the 80's. 

https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/about/index.html

 

You are correct OC and I share your concerns.  I came across this today on another forum which wasn't wholly encouraging.

 

It's an emergency business tender for the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) requesting an IT system to track adverse reactions to the vaccines of which they say they expect high numbers.

 

https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:506291-2020:TEXT:EN:HTML&src=0

 

The tender short description reads:

 

"The MHRA urgently seeks an Artificial Intelligence (AI) software tool to process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs) and ensure that no details from the ADRs’ reaction text are missed."

 

The larger description reads:

"For reasons of extreme urgency under Regulation 32(2)(c) related to the release of a Covid-19 vaccine MHRA have accelerated the sourcing and implementation of a vaccine specific AI tool.

 

Strictly necessary — it is not possible to retrofit the MHRA’s legacy systems to handle the volume of ADRs that will be generated by a Covid-19 vaccine. Therefore, if the MHRA does not implement the AI tool, it will be unable to process these ADRs effectively. This will hinder its ability to rapidly identify any potential safety issues with the Covid-19 vaccine and represents a direct threat to patient life and public health.

 

Reasons of extreme urgency — the MHRA recognises that its planned procurement process for the SafetyConnect programme, including the AI tool, would not have concluded by vaccine launch. Leading to a inability to effectively monitor adverse reactions to a Covid-19 vaccine.

 

Events unforeseeable — the Covid-19 crisis is novel and developments in the search of a Covid-19 vaccine have not followed any predictable pattern so far."

 

What this says to me is 2 things.   One, they are expecting a high number of Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs). Two, we are clearly not logistically ready to roll out vaccines to millions of people if we don't have systems in place to properly record any adverse reactions.   We could end up vaccinating people and find that there are a lot of ADRs and they wouldn't get logged and flagged up by anyone and the roll-out would continue unabated in ignorance.  Not good.

 

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

What this says to me is 2 things.   One, they are expecting a high number of Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs). Two, we are clearly not logistically ready to roll out vaccines to millions of people if we don't have systems in place to properly record any adverse reactions.   We could end up vaccinating people and find that there are a lot of ADRs and they wouldn't get logged and flagged up by anyone and the roll-out would continue unabated in ignorance.  Not good.

 

 

It says 2 things to me: One, the anticipated sheer volume of immunizations (the denominator) will lend itself to more adverse reactions (the numerator), even if the actual rate is similar to other immunizations, and Two, contracting officers and officials all over the world are the same, and to get this through the hoops in time to use it (assuming there's an actual AI solution out there, which there may not be), you have to make it sound like the end of the world if you don't get this contract awarded.

 

Nothing to see here folks...

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, K.T.B. said:

 

Pfizer has already been flying in doses to the US from Belgium:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/faa-confirms-first-mass-air-204724978.html

My guess is for us in most parts of Alabama and other rural areas, we'll probably wind up getting the Moderna vaccine as theirs has a more obtainable cold storage requirement than the Pfizer vaccine.

 

Moderna said its vaccine is expected to be stable at standard refrigerator temperatures of 2 to 8 degrees Celsius (36 to 48°F) for 30 days, up from a previous projection of seven days. That contrasts with Pfizer Inc's vaccine candidate, which must be shipped and stored at ultra cold temperatures or on dry ice and can only last at standard refrigerator temperatures for up to five days.

 

But with a 94+% effectiveness rate, that sounds pretty good to me.

 

Moderna Vaccine Storage Requirements Enables Distribution in Rural America: U.S. Official | Top News | US News

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ken the cruiser said:

But with a 94+% effectiveness rate, that sounds pretty good to me.

 

 

Sale pitches always sound good

 

But after many years I think most of us have learned to be somewhat sceptical of promising figures coming from manufacturers.   This article provides a more down to Earth analysis of those 95% figures:

 

Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—let’s be cautious and first see the full data

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-and-first-see-the-full-data/

 

"Let’s put this in perspective. First, a relative risk reduction is being reported, not absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%. Second, these results refer to the trials’ primary endpoint of covid-19 of essentially any severity, and importantly not the vaccine’s ability to save lives, nor the ability to prevent infection, nor the efficacy in important subgroups (e.g. frail elderly). Those still remain unknown. Third, these results reflect a time point relatively soon after vaccination, and we know nothing about vaccine performance at 3, 6, or 12 months, so cannot compare these efficacy numbers against other vaccines like influenza vaccines (which are judged over a season). Fourth, children, adolescents, and immunocompromised individuals were largely excluded from the trials, so we still lack any data on these important populations."

 

 

I have to say that it seems a bit laughable to me to wax lyrical about a 95% effectiveness rate when that assessment has been made from only 95 people getting Covid out of an enormous sample of 30,000 people.

 

I think people who don't do their research read the headlines and think "well they tested 30,000 people and there was 95% effectiveness so that's great" but don't realise what actually happened.

 

Pfizer says it recorded 170 covid-19 cases (in 44,000 volunteers), with a remarkable split: 162 in the placebo group versus 8 in the vaccine group. Meanwhile Moderna says 95 of 30,000 volunteers in its ongoing trial got covid-19: 90 on placebo versus 5 receiving the vaccine, leading both companies to claim around 95% efficacy.

 

I guess this is the problem when trying to test a virus where a significant (20%-50%) of the population already had levels of immunity before Covid even came along (gained from past bouts of cold, Flu and ILIs) and where the vast majority of people have no symptoms or problems.

 

The only true way to test large numbers of people for the vaccines is to deliberately infect 1000s of people with Covid but that's not what has happened.

 

Each to their own but I don't personally feel too confident in vaccines where only 95 cases of Covid were involved in the trial.  Not as a basis for vaccinating millions and millions of people using "warp speed" processes !

 

Edited by KnowTheScore
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

Sale pitches always sound good

 

But after many years I think most of us have learned to be somewhat sceptical of promising figures coming from manufacturers.   This article provides a more down to Earth analysis of those 95% figures:

 

Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—let’s be cautious and first see the full data

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-and-first-see-the-full-data/

 

"Let’s put this in perspective. First, a relative risk reduction is being reported, not absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%. Second, these results refer to the trials’ primary endpoint of covid-19 of essentially any severity, and importantly not the vaccine’s ability to save lives, nor the ability to prevent infection, nor the efficacy in important subgroups (e.g. frail elderly). Those still remain unknown. Third, these results reflect a time point relatively soon after vaccination, and we know nothing about vaccine performance at 3, 6, or 12 months, so cannot compare these efficacy numbers against other vaccines like influenza vaccines (which are judged over a season). Fourth, children, adolescents, and immunocompromised individuals were largely excluded from the trials, so we still lack any data on these important populations."

 

 

I have to say that it seems a bit laughable to me to wax lyrical about a 95% effectiveness rate when that assessment has been made from only 95 people getting Covid out of an enormous sample of 30,000 people.

 

I think people who don't do their research read the headlines and think "well they tested 30,000 people and there was 95% effectiveness so that's great" but don't realise what actually happened.

 

Pfizer says it recorded 170 covid-19 cases (in 44,000 volunteers), with a remarkable split: 162 in the placebo group versus 8 in the vaccine group. Meanwhile Moderna says 95 of 30,000 volunteers in its ongoing trial got covid-19: 90 on placebo versus 5 receiving the vaccine, leading both companies to claim around 95% efficacy.

 

I guess this is the problem when trying to test a virus where a significant (20%-50%) of the population already had levels of immunity before Covid even came along (gained from past bouts of cold, Flu and ILIs) and where the vast majority of people have no symptoms or problems.

 

The only true way to test large numbers of people for the vaccines is to deliberately infect 1000s of people with Covid but that's not what has happened.

 

Each to their own but I don't personally feel too confident in vaccines where only 95 cases of Covid were involved in the trial.  Not as a basis for vaccinating millions and millions of people using "warp speed" processes !

 

That's OK if your confidence level is low regarding the various vaccines being tested, as you are entitled to your opinion as well. 

 

But like I said for us a 94+% effectiveness rate sounds pretty darn good, and if the FDA issues an EUA for either/both/any COVID vaccine, we'll be ready to get in line to receive our shots when one of the them winds up coming to our area. 

Edited by Ken the cruiser
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ken the cruiser said:

That's OK if your confidence level is low regarding the various vaccines being tested, as you are entitled to your opinion as well. 

 

But like I said for us a 94+% effectiveness rate sounds pretty darn good, and if the FDA issues an EUA for either/both/any COVID vaccine, we'll be ready to get in line to receive our shots when one of the them winds up coming to our area. 

 

100% effectiveness for serious disease.

Link to post
Share on other sites

KnowTheScore has decided now to come to this thread to post anti-vaccine comments .  He/she has made the rounds with these comments on several other threads. Classic trolling. KnowTheScore welcome to the thread.  And comment away as is your right to do so.   But I personally do not feel the need to take the bait or feed the bear who is trying hard to get attention everywhere.  I will avoid commenting back.  Other than this one comment.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, TeeRick said:

Yes hopefully the CDC will be clear and decisive.  And then I hope that these recommendations are the high-level roadmap that the states all follow.   But why do I have a sinking feeling that it will be much more complicated and political and chaotic than that?  hmmmm....

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-vaccine-governors-determine-priority-health-secretary-alex-azar/

You are unfortunately accurate in your prediction.

 

Florida leadership is doubling down on the lack of Covid 19 controls.

 

The University of South Florida MD/epidemiologist  (his name escapes me) just came out with a forecast of Florida hitting, once again, 15,000 new cases of Covid 19 a day in the second week of January.

 

I have concerns that cruising can not be restarted from Florida anytime in the next six months as cruiselines will find it difficult to board passengers that are unexposed to Covid 19. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, d9704011 said:

You bet!  I have KTS on Ignore and am hoping that others resist using the Quote button if they feel any need to respond to a post.

Wow, I had no idea there was an ignore button!  Learn something new everyday :) 

Does it hide all posts made by that person?

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

Wow, I had no idea there was an ignore button!  Learn something new everyday 🙂

Does it hide all posts made by that person?

You’ll see a note that you’ve ignored them. You’ll only see their post if someone quotes them. And the new software makes it much easier!

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Homosassa said:

You are unfortunately accurate in your prediction.

 

Florida leadership is doubling down on the lack of Covid 19 controls.

 

The University of South Florida MD/epidemiologist  (his name escapes me) just came out with a forecast of Florida hitting, once again, 15,000 new cases of Covid 19 a day in the second week of January.

 

I have concerns that cruising can not be restarted from Florida anytime in the next six months as cruiselines will find it difficult to board passengers that are unexposed to Covid 19. 

Thinking they might be best restarting with Europe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mimbecky said:

Wow, I had no idea there was an ignore button!  Learn something new everyday 🙂

Does it hide all posts made by that person?

To ignore a user: Click on your user name (mimbecky). Under Settings, click on "Ignored Users." Add the name of the user you wish to ignore.

 

On any thread in the future, there will just be a note that the ignored user has posted. You can read that post if you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Homosassa said:

To ignore a user: Click on your user name (mimbecky). Under Settings, click on "Ignored Users." Add the name of the user you wish to ignore.

 

On any thread in the future, there will just be a note that the ignored user has posted. You can read that post if you wish.

 

Easier with the new software. Click on their name, or on a computer with mouse, just hover over it. The middle option is "Ignore User". It will prepopulate them on your Ignored Users page. Click all the options and save.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2020 at 7:09 AM, nomad098 said:

 

In 2018 it was shown that mRNA could be transgenerational in studies with Zebrafish, these fish are used because they have a 80% match to humans, have a similar disease profile and easier to study over multiple generations. This could mean in the future that mRNA vaccines and drugs could treat not just yourself but also your future offspring preventing hereditary diseases.

 

Studies have showed that mRNA can be used to alter DNA through a R-Loop in the treatment of cancer. This would mean that a mRNA drug could one day prevent cancer cells from duplicating halting the progression of cancer.

 

mRNA has been studied as both a treatment for infertility and as a contraception.

 

In theory the mRNA vaccine should have no effect either on DNA or be transgenerational as your bodies immune system should neutralise any vaccine infected cells.

 

Short term effects do not look serious at the moment. Long term effects are unknown in humans.

 

mRNA vaccines and drugs will be a huge leap forward in the treatment of people, however as with any technology it could be open to abuse.

Care to provide a link to the zebra fish study.

 

My understanding of the use of zebra fish in 2018 was to use them for developmental tox studies using zebra fish embryo and that any transgenerational impacts were during treatments during the embryo developmental stage.  It is my understanding that the vaccines are currently not tested and certainly not recommended for pregnant mothers.

 

There are a number of drugs that have transgenerational impacts on zebra fish.  For example fluoxetine (FLX) exposure during early zebrafish development induces hypocortisolism for at least three generations

Edited by nocl
Link to post
Share on other sites

Get in. So pleased to hear this UK news. We’ll be banging on our GPs door the minute we get notification that we can get it. We have a cruise in April and if it goes (?????) and we’ve been vaccinated I’ll be getting those cruise clothes out. 

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

Care to provide a link to the zebra fish study.

 

My understanding of the use of zebra fish in 2018 was to use them for developmental tox studies using zebra fish embryo and that any transgenerational impacts were during treatments during the embryo developmental stage.  It is my understanding that the vaccines are currently not tested and certainly not recommended for pregnant mothers.

 

There are a number of drugs that have transgenerational impacts on zebra fish.  For example fluoxetine (FLX) exposure during early zebrafish development induces hypocortisolism for at least three generations

 

I will try to find the paper, I read it this past summer, when I was off down the rabbit hole looking into alternatives to chemotherapy and I remembered the paper last month when I saw a news report about using zebrafish to study scar healing. As soon as I find it I'll post.  

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
      • Forum Assistance
      • Q&A: Cruise Insurance with Steve Dasseos of TripInsuranceStore.com
      • 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
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...