@Fotheringay-Phipps the wording of the thread title made me do a double take, it almost makes it sound like you’re comparing vaccination to a deliberate strategy of getting infected with the virus. Perhaps it would be a good idea to ask a mod to change it to clarify what I gather you are actually asking?
“For a COVID survivor, does it still make sense to get vaccinated?”
I’m not seeing the room for confusion in the title of the OP, which was based on my assumption that the reason for a covid survivor to get vaccinated would be that the vaccination is more effective than having been infected (e.g. that having been infected provided less than 95% protection, as compared to the Pfizer vaccine).
I was not suggesting anyone deliberately infecting themselves with covid. That seems idiotic, and it didn’t occur to me that anyone could think I would be suggesting that (especially since the OP itself it even more explicit as to what it’s about).
But if a mod wants to change the title to make that clearer, it’s fine with me.
I’m pretty sure I’ve been ill from Covid at the beginning of lockdown. We had numerous infections at work. Some of the people infected in March are still recovering. I was lucky in that sense. But this virus is no joke. I’m certainly going to take the vaccination when available. Even if only to protect others.
I agree and would agree even if I had tested positive. Because if it turns out that immunity only lasts a certain amount of time and requires a booster, I’d rather get my booster closer to when I need it than possibly “waste” the booster so close to when I was infected. Not that we know the duration or strength of the acquired immunity yet.
Fever is a common side effect. Fetal abnormalities would be a possible result.
What we can expect is that the vaccine will inadvertently be given to pregnant women, which will demonstrate no fetal abnormalities, and subsequently a note will be added that women should get the vaccine before becoming pregnant, but that no adverse fetal effects have been observed.
Another possible outcome would be that COVID infection could be associated with fetal abnormalities, but I think we would have observed that by now. Knowing that, we can also predict that vaccination is likely to be harmless, unless something else in the vaccine causes problems. Given that the first vaccines are mRNA vaccines, without much else, and that no odd problems have been demonstrated* for the approved vaccines, we can predict no problems with some confidence.
*An odd problem was demonstrated for the Queensland Vaccine. Which was not an mRNA vaccine, and had something else that caused a problem. Subjects developed a false-positive indication for HIV-AIDS. Development was halted.
Compared to normal for a drug that is, at best, going to make an incremental improvement in treatment?
Correct. That’s why the vaccines are, as of yet, authorized but not approved.
Compared to normal for a first generation vaccine for a disease that killed two million people on earth in the last ten months? Different answer.
As for Rushworth’s preference for the Moderna over the Pfizer, it wasn’t crazy that microbiologist Oveta Fuller, on the U.S. FDA advisory panel, voted just that way. Most scientific questions get less than 100 percent agreement among reasonably qualified observers, as here. However, most experts find that the evidence in the Rushworth/Fuller direction is weak, while the evidence is strong that all three vaccines, approved in the UK and./or US, are tremendously effective against severe COVID. ’
Mass vaccination is not just for individual benefit – which is all Rushworth seemed to look at – but is a public health measure to reduce the burden on hospitals, to help society economically, and to save lives. It has often been said that public health measures save more lives than medicine, and I think the COVID vaccine campaign will be an example…
I think Rushworth’s take was that the designs of the studies didn’t allow for strong evidence that the vaccines are tremendously effective against severe disease in the populations most vulnerable, which seems like a legitimate question to raise.
Did you read the OP?
Completing her nursing training is the upside for taking a novel vaccine for a novel disease she’s already had.
Potentially, someone could have a very nasty, even life-threatening reaction to the vaccine. So far those reactions have been VERY rare, but if they do occur they can be very serious. Which is why vaccines should be given in a proper setting with trained medical people and there needs to be a space for the vaccinated to hang around in for a bit to make sure that if something like that does happen assistance will be immediate.
The biggest feature of the vaccine is that (aside from extremely rare instances) it’s a hell of a lot safer than an actual covid infection. Also less miserable, painful, and potentially damaging.
Otherwise - the point about it being sometimes hard to verify who actually did or didn’t have covid applies from a public health standpoint.
Do you think this also holds true for children?
Yes, yes I do.
Last I looked, the percentage of children being killed or maimed by covid is still higher than the percentage of bad vaccine reactions.
While it is rare for children to have serious covid illness it can and does occur, and it occurs more often than life-threatening vaccine reactions.
I haven’t seen the numbers. How much more often? Is it something like twice, or more like a couple orders of magnitude?
It’s not unprecedented for vaccination against a disease to be recommended even in people who’ve previously contracted it.
An example is shingles, where those who’ve had an outbreak may benefit from shingles vaccine to lower risk of recurrences.
We know that in a small proportion of cases, people who’ve had a bout of Covid-19 have been reinfected. We don’t know what the level of immunity is in previously infected people, or how long it will last. The experts in this area think it will be beneficial to get vaccinated regardless of prior “natural” infection, and I’m willing to go with that for now.
I’m not sure what the point is in speculating about birth defects or other putative post-vaccination outcomes “lurking”, in the absence of evidence or plausible mechanism.
I don’t have the exact numbers handy and you could probably find them yourself on the internet just as quickly as I could. But a quick google later:
As of last week there had been a total of 21 life-threatening reactions to the vaccine with no fatalities. That’s a 0.001% of such a reaction.
As of the end of last year it looks like more than 2 million kids in the US have had covid. 1.3% of those had it bad enough to be hospitalized and 0.01% have died.
So… rough guess at present is that actually catching covid is an order of magnitude more dangerous for kids than getting the vaccine.
Keep in mind, too, that the vaccine so far has not shown any long-lasting or permanent damage to the body, but we definitely have a number of kids who survived covid but have permanent damage like impaired lung function, heart or other organ damage or so forth.
So yeah, vaccine is a LOT safer for the kids (baring some medical reason not to get a vaccine, like extreme allergic reactions).
And it is possible to contract Covid again, after you have recovered. A nurse I know has had it twice, confirmed by hospital lab tests and symptoms.
One vaccine is authorized for children 16 and over, another for 18 and over. No one is yet saying children should be vaccinated until trials have been completed on children and submitted for authorization.
I can help with that. He appears to be a fucking idiot (and junior physician in Sweden who just graduated from medical school in 2020) and you shouldn’t.
From here on August 4th, 2020:
Basically, covid is in all practical senses over and done with in Sweden. After four months.
They’ve almost doubled the deaths they had at that time and are currently projected to triple them in the next few months.
It does seem pretty clear that it’s a lot higher than the 95% claimed for the vaccines, though. And the evidence on how long the vaccine lasts is obviously a lot less than evidence for how long prior infection lasts, since the vaccine has been in existence a lot shorter.
Thanks! I should put up a website that says “take the vaccine! It’s great” and sign it Dr. R. Sport. Then, I could link to it here.
They had around 6000 then and around 9700 now, with the second wave dramatically tapering off. If you think you see a projection that almost doubles their deaths for the past ten months in the next few, please share the math. Otherwise, that sounds like misinformation.
They went for a good two months after that article of his with at most a handful of deaths a day. As an epidemic it was definitely over with for a while. Not done with, to be sure, as it showed when it come back. But the fucking idiot was proven far more right than wrong with most everything else in that article.
Sebastian Rushworth Hall of Shame!
@RitterSport, I’m assuming this tells you everything you need to know.