Covid vaccination status for CF members

[Sailor-Gene]

Originally Posted by DomPerignon

Florida doctor dies after covid vaccine


https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/med...ne/ar-BB1czpeJ

DOM, Thanks for the statistics...

Experts say that 98.7% of people in the EU eat carrots and 99.3% of USA citizens have ingested carrots in 2018. Automobile deaths increased by 0.6% in 2018. It has been proven by the experts that the increased deaths are directly attributed to increased serum carotene in drivers having accidents. (As seen on msn.com)

I'm glad we got our shots!!

[Idlegreg]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

That cartoon is self explanatory and correct.


In Spain, I was thru a 50 days' complete lock down. Now there is a 22:00 - 06:00 curfew. Masks are obligatory everywhere in public areas.



And if/when we get vaccined, there will be more masks, more curfew and more masks. We have already been told this here - by the government.



Sorry, but I do not buy this.


Neither do I buy the fact that I am required by the law to wear a mask when I am walking - alone - in a park, while bars and restaurants are teeming with people laughing eating, drinking and spitting at each other.


There is point at which reason must click in. Or do we already live in Orwell's worst nightmare?

Barnakiel I am not defending all government rules or saying that they will always be logically consitant. The cartoon was not about Lockdown rules it was, what I believe is a deliberate attempt, to discourage Vaccine acceptance. Vaccines save lives and if there is enough take up in a population they can dramatically reduce the negative impacts of a disease. The cartoon suggests that a Vaccine is pointless unless it can give 100% protection to an individual with no other measures required and with no associated risks. My point is that we regularly accept as worthwhile many protective measures in life that don't come with those guarantees so why should it be different for Vaccines ? Greg (Sorry but the forum software seems to have decided that I cannot have any seperate paragraphs in this post - not sure what I did wrong)

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by sail sfbay

Here is a dissapointment.............wife and I (70 years old) obtained vacinnation appointments last week then 3 days later they were canceled. Now we have to wait and try to reserve again.

I am sorry to hear that.

I noted above that I already have my first shot and should get my second in a couple of weeks. My Wife was denied because she had a (false rapid) positive test but she should he eligible next week, 30 days wait being up.

Here (NC) we have no appointments, they publish when and where and you drive up. A few at the end of the line are getting turned away, some with long waits and no future preferential treatment. We did not experience that, I waited less than a half hour.

It seems every state is handling it differently. I am sensing better results with less formal protocols. But just a guess.

Your situation must be very frustrating.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Idlegreg

Barnakiel I am not defending all government rules or saying that they will always be logically consitant. The cartoon was not about Lockdown rules it was, what I believe is a deliberate attempt, to discourage Vaccine acceptance. Vaccines save lives and if there is enough take up in a population they can dramatically reduce the negative impacts of a disease. The cartoon suggests that a Vaccine is pointless unless it can give 100% protection to an individual with no other measures required and with no associated risks. My point is that we regularly accept as worthwhile many protective measures in life that don't come with those guarantees so why should it be different for Vaccines ? Greg (Sorry but the forum software seems to have decided that I cannot have any seperate paragraphs in this post - not sure what I did wrong)

I always thought to object of a vaccine was to prevent infection and also transmission.
This vaccine however seems not to prevent infection, merely limit its effects and little to contain transmission.
There are no guarantees in life..
Well.. maybe the Smallpox vaccine.. 😉

[GordMay]

The BBC’s coverage < https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55900622 > of the Russian Sputnik V vaccine is excellent secondary reporting, but for those who prefer primary sources: As published in The Lancet, February 2, 2021 “Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine candidate appears safe and effective” ~ by Ian Jones & Polly Roy

”Denis Logunov and colleagues1 report their interim results from a phase 3 trial of the Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine in The Lancet. The trial results show a consistent strong protective effect across all participant age groups. Also known as Gam-COVID-Vac, the vaccine uses a heterologous recombinant adenovirus approach using adenovirus 26 (Ad26) and adenovirus 5 (Ad5) as vectors for the expression of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein ...”

➥ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...191-4/fulltext “Safety and efficacy of an rAd26 and rAd5 vector-based heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine: an interim analysis of a randomised controlled phase 3 trial in Russia” ~ by Denis Y Logunov et al

”A heterologous recombinant adenovirus (rAd)-based vaccine, Gam-COVID-Vac (Sputnik V), showed a good safety profile and induced strong humoral and cellular immune responses in participants in phase 1/2 clinical trials. Here, we report preliminary results on the efficacy and safety of Gam-COVID-Vac from the interim analysis of this phase 3 trial ...”

➥ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...234-8/fulltext

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Be careful with that. Not too long ago I said something about Russians having a vaccine before any Western state (and one that works) I got nearly lynched here. You can still dig up that thread read those posts.

You do realize that all the currently approved vaccines were already developed well before mid-December?

The difference with the Russian one was they started shooting it into people before the safety tests were all done.

Given the collateral damage of the world being shut down...I'm not going to say short circuiting the review process was right or wrong but it wasn't because they had a vaccine any sooner.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by sail sfbay

Made an estimate last week in the county I live in and found only 43% vacinnation-elgible people (front line health care, first responders, funeral workers, essental workers, 75+) got a vaccine. Lets say that trend continues..................any chance that vacinnation rate will slow the death rate?

Current estimates are around 1/3 of the population has immunity thru infection...so 33% plus 43% = 76%. Call it 70% because there will be some overlap between groups.

Herd immunity is expected to be somewhere around 60-80%, so it should significantly slow the spread. Herd immunity isn't a fixed percentage. Every individual who has immunity is someone who can break the chain of spread.

More importantly, if you follow the polls, the percentage willing to get the vaccine, it is steadily going up as people see it isn't causing mass deaths like facebook suggests.

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Current estimates are around 1/3 of the population has immunity thru infection...so 33% plus 43% = 76%. Call it 70% because there will be some overlap between groups.

Herd immunity is expected to be somewhere around 60-80%, so it should significantly slow the spread. Herd immunity isn't a fixed percentage. Every individual who has immunity is someone who can break the chain of spread.

More importantly, if you follow the polls, the percentage willing to get the vaccine, it is steadily going up as people see it isn't causing mass deaths like facebook suggests.

You never know what the long term implications may be...

I personally would stand at the back of the line and give the more eager persons in need a chance to get it first.

A light or symptom free infection would probably strengthen my immune system better than a vaccination and make it obsolete.

But I also never got the yearly offered shots for the flu either.

I am vaccinated for several diseases, so not an opponent of any type of vaccination, but corona viruses are quickly mutating like flu viruses, and there is no one-fits-all vaccine. It means getting shots every year or even every several months (they are talking about 6 months protection only) with something you may not need, can cause side effects and you get sick anyway...

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

You never know what the long term implications may be...

I personally would stand at the back of the line and give the more eager persons in need a chance to get it first.

A light or symptom free infection would probably strengthen my immune system better than a vaccination and make it obsolete.

We don't know if it will turn into the black death or dissipate to something harmless tomorrow...but all the evidence we have so far strongly points to either infection or vaccination providing substantial immunity for many months at a minimum.

If you are worried about new strains developing, they can now modify the vaccines in 2-3 months as the base vaccine has been developed and tested already. They do this already with the flu vaccines, so it's nothing new. In fact they are already starting the work on the major new strains, even though the current vaccines appear to protect against them.

The biggest issue we have now is it's a new virus. Pretty much everyone is susceptible and your immune system is starting from ground zero. When we start talking about future years, it will be much more like the flu where most of the population has at least some immunity based on exposure to prior strains. The infection percentages and severity will likely be much lower.

If you don't want to be first in line, that's your choice. And in moderation, I respect that. My point was that as more people get the vaccine and don't show any significant issues, the percentage willing to take the vaccine has been growing based on the polls. The speed that these vaccines have been rolled out does call for a healthy bit of skepticism but not paranoia and once we are 4-5 months in with hundreds of millions vaccinated...if no major issues arise, most reasonable people will get over the skepticism.

At this point, it really doesn't matter if you hold off...there aren't enough doses for the population that currently wants it currently, so you aren't slowing anything down.

[Idlegreg]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I always thought to object of a vaccine was to prevent infection and also transmission.
This vaccine however seems not to prevent infection, merely limit its effects and little to contain transmission.
There are no guarantees in life..
Well.. maybe the Smallpox vaccine.. 😉

Again my point was that there are lots of protective measures we take in life that are not 100% effective and carry some risk but are still thought worthwhile. The evidence on the vaccines for COVID is developing all the time but even if it is a case of merely lessening the severity of diesease it can still be really worthwhile. I am currently waiting for cancer treatment. If widespread Vaccination means far fewer people infected with COVID end up in hospital it will help me, along with many others around the World. As some like to point out COVID only kills a small percentage of those it infects. A big part of the harm it does is in making people sick enough that they need to be admitted to hospital - the vaccines CAN help reduce COVID hospital addmissions and therefore save lives, even lives of those who are not infected by COVID.

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by Westcliffe01

Until the government stops banning drugs that have been around for decades, stops interfering with peoples GP's exercising their own discretion / judgement regarding how to treat their patients, big tech stops censoring doctors posting to Youtube, twitter or where-ever and so long as India enjoys better patient outcomes than 88 much wealthier countries - there is no way I will be taking any vaccine.

Half of India is on HQ because of Malaria anyway.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I always thought to object of a vaccine was to prevent infection and also transmission.
This vaccine however seems not to prevent infection, merely limit its effects and little to contain transmission.
There are no guarantees in life..
Well.. maybe the Smallpox vaccine.. 😉

Vaccines don't prevent infection or transmission.

They teach your body how to fight off infection...hopefully quickly and effectively.

Now the side effects are:
- For a great many, the response is so quick and through that they have no idea they were infected and falsely presume they were not infected.
- If your body fights it off quickly, you are likely to be infectious for a shorter period of time. Also, if the virus never proliferates, even during the time you are infectious, the amount of virus you are shedding may be much lower...the net effect is you transmit it less.

To put it in medieval terms: Your village is attacked by a band of outlaws.
- If you are unlucky, they wipe out the village and take everything (ie: you are dead)
- If it's a sizable village and a small band of outlaws, your village may eventually rally and drive them off but depending on how fast and effective you are they will do damage, steal things and there may be casualties (ie: you feel lousy for a while before eventually recovering. There may be lingering effects.)
- After the attack, you may put together a watch system and drill your citizens to fight off outlaw bands (ie: you develop natural immunity)
- Once your local Barron learns of the outlaw band, he may send out knights to each village to organize a watch and train the locals to fend off the outlaws. (ie: he develops a vaccination program.)
- The outlaws at least for a while will still attack villages (ie: infections) but being better prepared most but not all the time, they will repulse the outlaws with little or no damage (ie: most vaccinated will be infected but with little or no serious impacts). Sometimes a weak village even with training will be taken by the outlaws (ie: vaccines aren't 100% effective)
- Eventually, as most of the villages develop effective countermeasures, the outlaws wind up gaining little or no loot before being repulsed. It's hard to recruit replacement outlaws when your band is starving in the forest and eventually, the band breaks up or becomes relatively harmless. (ie: transmission slows down because people quickly respond and eliminate the virus from their bodies...when enough do, we hit herd immunity)

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

First Example: So compiling the POSSIBLE reinfections...they don't even have 1,000 out of 100,000,000 confirmed cases (ie: not even 1 ten thousand of a percent reinfection rate)

The example in the first paragraph is a good example. Mostly likely, she never got fully over it, just had a false negative test. That just means she wasn't shedding virus at the time of the negative test. While it can't be discounted entirely, it's a very suspect case. This is common of most of the reported POSSIBLE reinfections, they typically have a negative test followed very quickly by a positive test.

Your second example was about studies with other viruses...but even there when they were able to get reinfections to happen the study individuals experienced far less sever symptoms, which for most practical purposes is just as good as being immune.

Your third example...again, reinfection is possible (not common) at some point but mild to no symptoms is the typical result.

Your next link is about attempting to hit herd immunity purely by allowing infection to run wild. No one is suggesting we stop the vaccination process, nor that we don't extend vaccination to previously infected once supply catches up with demand. This is about prioritizing during the period of limited supply.

My understanding of viral infections is your body builds antibodies that (remember) the virus.

That doesn't mean you can't "catch" the virus, just that the second exposure will result in milder symptoms, and a shorter recovery, and a smaller chance of dying from it.

Then you have Covid-19 that is closely related to over 100 different "cold" viruses.

AND don't forget the flu with almost identical symptoms.

And add to that most Covid tests have a fairly high incidence of both false positives, and false negatives.

SO right now, I would suggest anecdotal evidence of both Covid re-infections, and "people getting Covid after vaccination" be taken with a very large grain of salt.

[Montanan]

Meanwhile in Europe [and the USA] skepticism derived from lack of data regarding older age groups and of the effectiveness of the AstraZenca vaccine continues. On going trials may yet provide the data requisite to granting emergency use.

Yesterday Switzerland joined a growing list of European countries expressing skepticism over the amount of available trial data and the vaccine efficacy among older age groups. On Tuesday, health officials in both Belgium and France announced that, pending additional data, their countries won't recommend the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine to anyone over the age of 55. Last week, Germany's vaccine commission said the shot should not be administered to people older than 65, citing "insufficient data."

Meanwhile, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said it wants to see the results from a large, ongoing trial in the United States before authorizing the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine.

[Woodland Hills]

Note that those testing positive after the second vaccine or after recovering from a case of Covid are either asymptomatic or had extremely mild cases. The probably went through a period where they were infectious, but they themselves were protected.
This is why a good citizen will continue wearing their mask and social distancing even after a vaccine: to protect your neighbors and fellow citizens!