I wasn’t arguing anything. I was just pointing out that even a seemingly small danger from the vaccine pushes up on being as dangerous as the virus for children. Despite some people thinking “it’s worth it”, doctors have an ethical duty to the patient in front of them.
If that were the case, I think you’d hear about it through the FDA.
Vaccines can be very effective; the measles vaccine is 97%, and the polio and tetanus vaccines are upwards of 99%.
I could be wrong - I’m not trying to be a conspiracy theorist. I’m just saying I personally wouldn’t be surprised if we hear more about corners being cut and research practices being abandoned out of haste. I trust that it’s a good vaccine; my only skepticism is about how effective it actually is, especially given the time frame and the amount of capital investment at stake.
Drug companies are highly regulated and have a lot of oversight. Someone in marketing can’t just “spin” trial results.
What is more likely is that the drug might not be as effective when applied to the general population instead of the trial group.
I understand that drug companies are regulated, but they’re regulated by people who are under extraordinary pressure. In these times, I no longer trust institutions alone - I don’t frankly see how anyone can, especially after these last four years. And yes, I understand there are different agencies other than FDA looking at the results. At the risk of being a concern troll, I generally trust the system; I just wonder if the pressure to get something out on the market isn’t bending the usual processes. That’s a rational worry, IMO.
In any case, it won’t stop me from getting the first version of the vaccine. Sign me up.
This is really important point. Those under 18 won’t be getting the vaccine until basically last as a group. By that point a lot more testing will be done and likely billions of adults will have the vaccine already.
Moderna is just starting its testing for 12-17 year old children. They aren’t rushing to give the age group showing the least affects from COVID-19 the vaccination.
Somehow my initial question did not get addressed. I was never questioning the safety aspect, nor even the claimed effectiveness. What I am wondering about is whether, they had taken the time to study different dosing protocols (different sizes, 2, 3, or 4 weeks between doses, perhaps three doses) might they get an even more effective vaccine.
I am also not saying they shouldn’t go with what they’ve got; but they still ought to be looking into those other questions.
If they’re at 90% effect right now, why spend the time and money to tweak it? At least not randomly. If there is evidence to suggest a particular approach might achieve a significant improvement then perhaps it makes sense, but 90% is quite sufficient for the vaccine to be effective at its job.
Those resources may be more effectively used for other studies and approaches.
With just one protocol it takes a large sample and months of time to get sufficient statistical power for a reliable determination of efficacy. You’re talking about delaying implementation for literally years to maybe tweak efficacy up a bit.
Not a direct answer, but this link gives good ideas on how to think about it:
Yes, in time you may get more effective vaccines or treatments. This is true. However, delay will certainly cause more deaths. So, you give the vaccine even if it kills a few thousand while work continues on more effective/safer versions.
Normally in drug research you don’t want to do this, but this time Jeff Goldblum has it right.
This would a complete disaster for COVID control. Fortunately, the testing to date is sufficient to rule that out.
The Cutter tragedy (polio vaccine manufacturing mistake) killed ten children and pushed back the overall polio vaccination program by at least five years.
Manufacturing of vaccines is more careful now.
I think the biggest risk of something similar would be use in populations not included in clinical trials — say, babies. That’s not likely.
What about nonagenarians? They weren’t, I think, in trials. Will it be a on-label use to give a first generation COVID vaccine to someone who is 95? Anyone know?
That article talks a lot about the need to educate, to build trust that the vaccine is safe. That true, but that doesn’t factor into speed of implementation. There will be far more demand than supply in the early stages. I’m not in a high risk category, so I fully expect to be waiting for many months for mine. But if some vaccine skeptic doesn’t want their dose, I’ll be happy to have it now while they take as long as they want to educate themselves, or to reach whatever comfort level they are happy with that more and more safety data is accumulating.
Here is a factual blog post about something that will be a real problem in implementation. Not that the vaccine is under-safe due to the shortened testing cycle, but that the vaccine will be wrongly blamed for every adverse medical thing that happens to anyone who received it. IMO this is gonna be yuge once the CT crowd get ahold of it.
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/12/04/get-ready-for-false-side-effects
What is CT crowd? Is that short for anti-vaxxer?
Wait, never mind, Conspiracy Theory Crowd.
Yeah. Conspriacy theory. Sorry. Of which anti-vaxxing is just one small faction.
in this case the much more worrisome group is not the anti-vaxxers. It’s the COVID is a hoax, Bill Gates’s mind control chips in every shot, it’s all a left wing plot, etc. All of which is being promulgated by a variety of actors mostly because it’s enormously profitable for them to push this nonsense.
It seems that for most of last week, the news has reported that the US will act re: approving vaccines sometime NEXT week. I think this morning’s paper said Thursday 12/10.
But I haven’t heard/read anything saying what is being done between now and 12/10. I know this thread is asking whether things have been too fast, but at this point, what is preventing the US from acting next Wednesday instead of Thursday. Or today? Are studies being completed, assessments being made, or what? I would think that would be a critical fact to at least allude to in the news reports.
There was discussion of why Britain authorized the vacc before the US, and the suggestion that our process is better/more thorough - but I did not see any explanation of that to explain this final week.