Covid-19: Treatments, Cures, and Vaccines

The primary demographic target is any healthy human being, with emphasis on those 65+. I do not see your point.

What I see is the reason why we should not rush out vaccines and drugs without years and years of study. Like other vaccines, we will likely find that a version that provokes a less aggressive response, but will provide some protection will eventually be needed.

In trying to produce a universal vaccine in under 9 months, the goal was to protect as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. We all accepted that problems like this were almost certainly going to happen given the timelines and demands.

 

That's for sure! I'd like to know more about these cases. The Pfizer vaccine is definitely not like the flu shot. A lot of my colleagues have developed fevers, myalgias, etc. after the 2nd shot. I just had some injection site pain with both shots, but the number of folks with more significant, but benign, reactions are much, much more common Tha the flu shot.

With that said, I can't imagine these symptoms causing deaths with appropriate and fairly simple interventions even in the most frail individuals. Nausea/vomiting can lead to fluid depletion, but some IV fluids will take care of that. Fevers and myalgias can be treated with Tylenol, Ibuprofen, etc. and really shouldn't cause death even if untreated.

 

They are talking about “terminally ill”, not just in nursing homes.

On the one hand, these are probably the most vulnerable of the vulnerable even in nursing homes. On the other hand “terminally ill” means they are pretty much expected to be dead within 1 year of whatever their terminal ailment is. So an argument can be made these people should actually be last in line. In a way, nursing homes have people that are both first and last on the scale.

 

Thank you for continuing to inject actual knowledge into these discussions from a medical professional. I greatly appreciate it and find it useful for conversation.

 

Thanks! My colleagues and I have read the data on side effects, but we were nevertheless surprised by the intensity of them once we experienced them ourselves. Our thought is that this may be an issue when the general public starts receiving these shots. We've all had numerous patients who refuse the flu vaccine because "I took it once and it gave me the flu" (i.e. they had a benign vaccine reaction to the shot). This is gonna be many times worse. We all think that more should be done to warn the public about vaccine side effects, or else we'll both see EDs getting flooded with people with vaccine side effects as well as people who become mistrustful of vaccines.

On a separate note, Norway is reporting more post-vaccination deaths, I think it's up to 29 now and they're lowering the at-risk group's age to 75. This is, again, concerning. While I understand the need not to fear-monger, I believe it's being underreported right now and it's important for the sake of public trust to be transparent with information like this. We saw what happened when the CDC/Surgeon General was not transparent about the reason they didn't recommend masks early on in the pandemic.

There's good reason that mRNA vaccines can generate a more robust immune response than traditional vaccines, as one mRNA strand can be translated into numerous pieces of immunogenic proteins. However, keep in mind that the virus doesn't directly kill people, it's mostly our immune reaction to the virus that does. So with that said, should it be the goal to generate a robust enough immune response to not catch it at all, or should we actually aim to generate just enough immune response to prevent the worst cases? After all, without the most severe cases, COVID would be just a harmless cold, and we're seeing now from the Norwegian reports that the immune reaction to the vaccine itself can potentially be deadly. This debate is further complicated by the effect of vaccine robustness on herd immunity. Even if a weaker vaccine is safer overall, is it worth it if it cannot protect those who cannot or will not get the vaccine as you're not preventing infections, but only severe cases?

I'm rambling a bit, and I believe that mRNA vaccines are the way of the future, but I think there's a lot more work we need to do to understand it more.

 

This is a great point, and goes back to my previous statement about how vaccines are not normally rolled out after 9-10 months because questions like the one you pose above really should be answered, or at least have some understanding of the answer, before a shot even goes into an arm. For example, and I understand the example in contrary to your question, but there is a different formulation for seniors for the Flu shot, correct?

I also wonder, if in subsequent generations, after everyone has had this thing once (if they survive and return to normal) or had the vaccines previously, will the impact of this virus in the human body be diminished, or worse? Put another way, is the flu virus so much less deadly because we have been exposed to it for well over 100 years and our immune systems are adapted....even if only partially, rendering it "just a bad cold+fever" for a few days and then nothing for most under 65???

I am not saying I know, I am asking questions. But, I do know that any vaccine intended for mass distribution really should be studied for much, much longer than any of these shots going in people's arms have been to date. Not that I will not take it when offered, as I am much more concerned about the stats I heard yesterday indicating as many as 10% of those infected do not return to their normal lives following infection. When you think about 24 million Americans already infected, that 10% number starts to get pretty big.

 

It's good to see at least a few differing opinions on this vaccine rollout. This aligns more to my way of thinking. This basically is the vaccine trial in real time.
What Vaccine Trials?

 

There was a phase 3 trial and preliminary data. Stop spreading fake news.

Your “source” here is not a journalistic site. It’s a site created by 3 random people who were apparently banned from the comments section of the Guardian, and they hide behind pseudonyms. Brilliant.

https://www.newsguardtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Off-Guardian.pdf

 

Well, if you don't mind being a guinea pig, it's all good. But it seems like what we're heading for is a vaccine for a virus that kills the elderly and frail now suddenly not recommended for the elderly and frail? WTF?

 

Seems to me that there would be far more reports of side effects. Every local news station would be reporting on someone who experienced the 'surprised intensity" you reference. Seems to be a disconnect somewhere.

 

This is where you are wrong and why discussion of this topic becomes so difficult.

1. People need to stop stating that this virus kills the elderly and frail in a way that suggests that these are the only people to die from it. It potentially kills everyone.
2. Worse than mischaracterizing this as a virus that "kills the elderly and frail", it is causing long term disruptions (and possibly permanent) in humans, as high as 10% of those infected in the latest data, and there seems to be no differentiator between severe COVID and mild COVID when it pertains to these longer term impacts.
3. There is no way to segregate the most at-risk populations, so unless people are willing to simply accept a Soilent Green reality where everyone not only over a certain age, but of a certain co-morbidity group is just given death sentences to ensure hospitals doe not get overwhelmed, we must identify and deploy interventions sufficient to counter the severity of the impact of this virus.

Now, I am not an expert in virology, vaccines, medicine, etc....I am an engineer with Physics and Math degrees. So, the furthest from knowledgeable on this subject than just about anyone on this board. That said, one can read about past vaccine development and one can quickly understand that we have BARELY started the learning process about theses vaccines, their proper uses, their negative side effects and their long term health impacts. So, I agree with you in the sense that we are embarking on one of the largest vaccine trials in human history. And, I suppose if I were a 25 year old in perfect health, I would probably take the risk of not taking this shot for a year or two as we learn more. Unfortunately, I am near 60, been on the lowest dose BP medication, I am pre-diabetic but with only medication and self-control I have an A1C routinely now between 5.6-5.8 and I have spent a lifetime battling asthma. I will willingly volunteer to become part of this trial and hope that I am in the vast majority who bare no immediate ill effects and not small minority who suffer nearly time zero issues with the shot.

 

The numbers do show that after the 2nd dose, something like 60% see symptoms while the vaccine induces immunity. But the key is those symptoms to not include viral pneumonia, which is generally how COVID kills or causes hospitalization. You generally just get a crappy day or two with fever and/or chills.

That is after the 2nd dose. I know a handful that have received their 1st dose and had zero issues at all (other than some tightness where the needle went in), they are 1-2 weeks from the second dose so we’ll see how that goes for them.

 

got it. I have read where there is more 'discomfort' with the J&J vaccine but its just 1 shot and you're done.

 

This is why I posted the links in the Coronavirus Florida thread about hospitals that are not giving appointments because they don't have supply. They have to keep vaccine for the second shot because, otherwise, the first dose becomes worthless.

 

Eli Lilly has not published the results through a peer review publication yet, but this seems to be encouraging information. There was a total of 995 staff and residents who participated in this trial.

Drug Prevents Coronavirus Infection in Nursing Homes, Maker Claims

 

Dr. Fauci is back and seems relieved.

 

Astrazenica/Oxford vaccine delivery delay has EU threatening to limit exports of Pfizer vaccine from their borders. Good news is that companies seem to be substantially ramping up to gain market share while it is there and pfizer booster to combat variant seems to be a foregone conclusion.

Big story is rapid pace with which they can now do vaccines using mRNA. Didn't realize they had the first vaccine ready in 42 days from date of getting virus dna. Advancing that technology to speed up the design of the drug may have big ramifications on personalized cancer drugs going forward.

Furious at AstraZeneca, the EU plans to bring in vaccine export controls | Fortune

EU fury
AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine is still awaiting approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), whose opinion should appear later this week, but the EU has already ordered up to 400 million doses of the stuff.

Around 80 million of those doses were supposed to be delivered in the first quarter of this year, but on Friday AstraZeneca informed EU leaders that it would only deliver 31 million doses during this period. EU officials reportedly said the company was blaming production problems at a Belgian plant.

Coming as it did on the heels of a Pfizer/BioNTech supply reduction—due to the need to re-tool a Belgian factory so as to increase its output—AstraZeneca's announcement put a big hole in the EU's short-term vaccination plans. Figures such as the embattled Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte started talking about lawsuits.

That heads of state are threatening a drugmaker with legal action for a drug that hasn't yet been approved speaks volumes to the frayed relations.

 

Cures? There is no cure for a virus. Any virus.

 

Oklahoma trying to return its $2m stockpile of hydroxychloroquine

 

'We've discovered vaccine side-effects Pfizer wasn't aware of'

More potential issues with the vaccine.

"The new side-effects range from paraesthesia – a nerve condition causing a tingling sensation or ‘pins and needles’ – to facial nerve paralysis."