T O P
adotmatrix

If you are looking to continue the conversation or have further questions please check out this posts comment section as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/k96ng0/how_is_it_possible_to_create_a_safe_and_effective/


itsme00400

Saving this post for later so I can argue with all the anti-covid vaccination people I come across in the next 6 months... already gearing up for it ;) Edit: on a serious note… I really appreciate this post. Thank you for explaining that so thoroughly!


random989898

There are a lot of people who are not anti-vax who are very anxious and worried about this vaccine because of the tight timeline. One of the things that the government needs to do is lay out why it isn't an issue in laymen's terms. So far, the only message has been that it is rushed through but safe. Public health really needs to do a campaign on why this vaccine is safe.


hajiman2020

Actually, the real thing public health needs to do is justify why they are so routinely slow. In normal times, one reason vaccine development is slow is that there is no commercial or overwhelming health reason to motivate the development. But this demonstrates that public health can and should move faster in normal times. We have set a new standard for what we expect. So I don't think we were safe and slow before and rushed now. I think the performance now is what we should expect from now on (with an acceptable lag for vacations, etc.).


random989898

If you want to be pedantic then fine. Public health needs to explain why the timeline for this vaccine is different from the timeline for other vaccines. The point is that people are anxious and may refuse it because this isn't the typical process.


hajiman2020

some people are. im not sure how many beyond the usual anti-vaccine crowd. definitely some. but how many? probably a small number. meanwhile, I'm excited for a new normal of, um, activist government.


random989898

In an Ipsos poll last week, 63% said yes, they would get vaccinated, 21% said they weren't sure yet and were waiting for more information, and 16% said no. That is far higher than actually antivaxxers. Only about 3% of 2 year olds are unvaccinated in Canada.


hajiman2020

Yeah, maybe you are right.


adotmatrix

It’s courtesy of the team at r/coronavirus . There is a need for information like this being shared. The more people understand the vaccine creation process the better.


eleventwentyone

I think the people who need to read this type of post will be lost in the number of paragraphs and words. Perhaps the content could be condensed into a picture with a snappy one liner?


delocx

The results sort of speak for themselves. These vaccines are between 70 and 95% effective at preventing serious injury or death from SARS-CoV-19. You are in much, much, much more danger from the virus than the vaccine. There are definitely unknowns, but all evidence points to those being manageable and acceptable considering the seriousness of the disease these vaccines are for.


eleventwentyone

Haven't you heard the vaccine makes women infertile? It makes antibodies that attack the uterus, or something. I saw a meme over on /r/conspiracy so it has to be real.


delocx

I'll defer to the scientists over some insane MAGA cultist, thank you very much! =)


MK0135

Up to 4.6% of young participants in the trial (or nearly 1 in 20) had severe adverse reactions. From the FDA's Dec. 10 briefing document: >Severe adverse reactions occurred in 0.0-4.6% of participants, were more frequent after Dose 2 than after Dose 1 and were generally less frequent in older adults (>55 years of age) (<2.8%) as compared to younger participants (≤4.6%). Among reported unsolicited adverse events, lymphadenopathy occurred much more frequently in the vaccine group than the placebo group and is plausibly related to vaccination. [https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download](https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download) Everybody should decide on their own whether they want to take the vaccine but this certainly isn't risk-free.


websterella

Thanks for this! I was starting to worry about the speed of all this and the lack of any longitudinal research.


waste_yoot

radiolab just did a great podcast about this [https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/dispatch-13-challenge-trials](https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/dispatch-13-challenge-trials) basically, two things 1.) when you are making a vaccine for something, you need people to test on. Usually those people aren't as readily available, but since there's no shortage of people with covid thats one way to make it quicker. 2.) The other... people are literally volunteering to get covid all over the world, to help develop the cure...


UglyBisexualMonster

But how is Bill Gates going to put a microchip into each vaccine that will turn us all gay?


agent_sphalerite

If you're asking this question, I'm sorry it's too late there's nothing that can be done you're already super gay. You've carried the bill gates chip long enough you're super gay now


the_misc_dude

As someone who’s young, healthy, and works from home, I’m going to wait for my turn to get it. By then lots of people will have got it and, if there are any adverse side effects, we’d know. My concerns are: we’ve only followed participants for a couple of months. I know they’re still being monitored but it also means that we’ll, at best, be able to see a couple of months into the future. You touched on mRNA vaccines but, at the end of the day, it’s still a new vaccine tech. Again, more people will have had it by the time it’s my turn. Not to mention all the other people taking it just increases the sample size. TL;DR: I’ll wait for my turn.


FBAinsight

exact same boat, I will be much more inclined after 12 months and a few million people have gone first.


the_misc_dude

I dunno about 12 months. I’ll go get it as soon as I’m allowed to because I’m probably in the last category to be allowed to get it and there will definitely be millions before me.


delocx

The odds any serious side effects come up going forward are vanishingly small. In the vast majority of medical trials for drugs and vaccines alike, serious side effects usually show up very early in trials. This is in part why those adverse events during these trials made so many headlines, they were potentially very serious problems if they showed up that early in trials - fortunately they were in placebo and not related to the vaccines. There is little reason to expect serious side effects for these vaccines. That doesn't rule out the possibility there could be issues later, but the odds are very small, and so far there is no evidence at all to indicate that will happen. What the data definitively shows is that you are at significantly higher risk of serious injury or death from SARS-CoV-19 without the vaccine. The only really good, science-backed reason to delay getting the vaccine is if you aren't considered part of a vulnerable group (elderly, healthcare worker, etc.) - the limited supply of vaccine early in this immunization campaign should be directed to those most likely to suffer severe outcomes. By restricting access to the vaccine to those groups until they have been adequately vaccinated, you reduce the overall burden on healthcare systems from severe cases, and save lives overall much sooner, and much more effectively.


wifigunslinger

Physically impossible to measure long term side effects within a short period of time.


thedoodely

It's pretty much impossible to determine long term side-effects of the virus as well. I can't think of a vaccine that has or has had side-effects that show up months after receiving it though.


PlankLengthIsNull

Speaking as a man with asthma and who recently moved back in with elderly parents, I'm wiling to take a shot with the side-effects this vaccine might have versus what the virus is going to do to me and my family if any of us catch it. It's not great, but it's better odds than what I've got now.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

theres no way that's gonna backfire.. in say 20 years. that would be suitably human though, try and create a vaccine and end up sterilizing half ur women. lul


wifigunslinger

Yeah, like the eugenics hasn’t been after that goal for centuries.


[deleted]

well here's there chance.


TorontoIndieFan

If that were the case then we would also see actual covid affecting fertility rates (ie getting covid and having an immune response also makes your immune system attack that protein going forwards). We haven't seen that happen at all, and the proteins are actually very different, only a small % of the protein is the same.


wifigunslinger

The vaccine is designed to trigger an autoimmune response to the spike proteins that bond the virus to human cells. The same type of spike proteins are responsible for forming human placentas. The same type does not mean the same protein but the same family of proteins... a slight difference in terms of genetic function but a steak is still a steak. So there is a slight chance women who become pregnant may be trigger an autoimmune response to the forming placenta. The makers of the vaccine are warning of this danger off the record. This would not be seen in pregnant women with covid 19. This could also be proven wrong if enough time was given to test this vaccine. Time, like 5-10 years.


TorontoIndieFan

> The same type does not mean the same protein but the same family of proteins... a slight difference in terms of genetic function but a steak is still a steak. The function doesn't matter to the immune system though, the immune system cares about the protein specifically, that's what it learns to attack. The two proteins could have the exact same function, but that literally does not matter at all. > So there is a slight chance women who become pregnant may be trigger an autoimmune response to the forming placenta. A negligible, practically 0% chance based on all of the reputable scientists who talk about vaccines. Again, the only reason is because their is a small section of the protein that is the same as the one used by humans, it has nothing to do with the function of the protein. That small section is incredibly unlikely to be enough for the immune system to mix up the two proteins, scientists just can't say with 100% certainty whether that is true or not. Based on previous vaccines however, sections of proteins that small have literally never caused an issue. > This would not be seen in pregnant women with covid 19. You really quickly gloss over this, and I'd like to hear your reasoning why? Your immune system attacks the virus in the same way it attacks a vaccine. The vaccine contains the spike protein from the virus, so your immune system is attacking the spike protein no matter what. Based on your logic, that would mean that women could become infertile from covid in the same way as from the vaccine. We aren't seeing that happen? > This could also be proven wrong if enough time was given to test this vaccine. The vaccine was given enough time to test, it literally has passed all of the safety tests that any other vaccine passes. People get a flu shot every year and that vaccine is less than a year old as well.


wifigunslinger

The vaccine targets the specific proteins is hypothetical and has not been subjected to long term testing. There is no way to really know if there isn’t a cross over pathway for a gene to effect several different proteins under these uncertain conditions. I didn’t gloss over anything regarding pregnant woman. It’s obvious that a pregnant woman already has a developed placenta. Your knowledge of this appears insufficient to argue this point? Are you 12? People do not receive mRNA vaccines for the flu. This is an untested technology and you can’t prove it’s ready no matter how much Facebook you read.


TorontoIndieFan

> There is no way to really know if there isn’t a cross over pathway for a gene to effect several different proteins under these uncertain conditions. Are you certain our testing doesn't cover this? Because I have limited knowledge regarding all of the testing a vaccine undergoes but this seems like a pretty dubious claim. https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9856420671 What I can say, is that much smarter people than you or I are confident it is safe. Would you trust a bridge using new technology if an engineer told you it was safe? > I didn’t gloss over anything regarding pregnant woman. Your knowledge of this appears insufficient to argue this point? Are you 12? Then can you explain why a pregnant women's immune response to covid would be significantly different than the vaccine? I'm legitimately curious as apparently I have the knowledge of a 12 year old. > People do not receive mRNA vaccines for the flu. This is an untested technology and you can’t prove it’s ready no matter how much Facebook you read. This seems like a goal post move. Originally you were worried about the protein, and now you are worried about the delivery method. The point I was making is that people receive flu vaccines that are under a year old, so the type of long-term testing you are describing does not happen in that scenario. I also don't even have a facebook account lol, and the claim your making is literally misinformation from facebook so I feel like you're projecting a bit.


jake-papa-astill

Wut


[deleted]

[удалено]


thedoodely

Is that what you think the vaccine are?


DettetheAssette

There has been limited testing on children, no testing on pregnant women, and no information on testing of women who may get pregnant soon. I'm not hinting at anything.


adotmatrix

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/kids-vaccine-covid-19-1.5826606 Are vaccine makers testing candidates in children and teens? Yes. The pharmaceutical company Pfizer, which is developing a coronavirus vaccine with German partner BioNTech, announced in October they were expanding testing of their vaccine trials to those 12 and older. Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel told CNBC on Monday that the company expects to test the vaccine on children between the ages of 12 and 17 later this year and on younger children in 2021. Pham-Huy, a pediatric infectious disease specialist in Ottawa, said companies in China have opened their coronavirus vaccine studies to children as young as three years old. Second Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/02/health/Covid-Moderna-vaccine-children.html “Everyone anticipates that when we test this first in adolescents, then older children, then the real small kids, that the Covid vaccine will work,” said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University and an adviser on vaccines to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Paul A. Offit, a vaccine expert at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said that vaccines “for the most part” work equally well in children and adults. Occasionally, as with the hepatitis B vaccine, different doses are required, he said. Moderna will study the same dose in children that it has tested in adults.


[deleted]

[удалено]


adotmatrix

This talks about why pregnant women are not included in trials: "... They're not included in initial trials of brand-new investigational interventions, especially for brand new pathogens. So they're actually good reasons why pregnant women were not the very first included in even the Phase 3 trials for the Moderna and the Pfizer vaccines. But it is - has been long time the case that there has been an evidence gap for pregnant women relative to other adults in terms of what we know when new medicines and new vaccines become available. Now is the time that pregnant women should be involved in the evaluation of these vaccines. ... there are two different pieces to the risk that all of us face, pregnant women included. The first kind of risk is the risk of becoming infected in the first place. And pregnant people vary on that score. Separately, there's the risk of becoming seriously ill from the virus if you're infected. So disproportionate amount of burden of disease in pregnancy seems to be hitting women who are low-income, women who are from communities of color, women who are otherwise disadvantaged. There's nothing about pregnancy that is protective. The FDA could make the determination that the pregnant woman should not take this vaccine. I don't think that's going to happen, but it could. Assuming the FDA doesn't say no and the CDC doesn't say no, then for women who are pregnant and who are working in health roles, they will face a decision, right? And there, pregnant women are going to need to think about their individual circumstances because not all pregnant women are equally at risk." \^ Dr. Ruth Faden, a bioethicist at the Johns Hopkins University [https://www.npr.org/2020/12/05/943454034/initial-distribution-of-covid-19-vaccine-wont-include-pregnant-people](https://www.npr.org/2020/12/05/943454034/initial-distribution-of-covid-19-vaccine-wont-include-pregnant-people)


naps-R-life

Pregnant women make terrible trial candidates. There is absolutely no way to tell why they are vomiting, have no appetite, are losing weight, or gaining weight, or breaking out in rashes, or have developed anemia or restless legs. Pregnancy is fun 🙃


PlankLengthIsNull

And there will still be anti-vax moms who'll be dead convinced that this thing will give her kid herpes or something.


eleventwentyone

Speaking of which, why isn't there a vaccine for herpes?


PlankLengthIsNull

Because it's not fun when there isn't any risk.


darknite14

Thank you very much for this. This was my exact question when listening to the Dalhousie vaccine expert on CBC w/Matt Galloway this morning. Really helpful information.


FiniteElemente

Thanks for the post. Do we have any data to back up the claim that we have done enough trials to prove this COVID vaccine is safe compare to an existing vaccine for another virus? I would be looking for the number of people did the trials, effectiveness and side effects, duration of the trial, etc. The post also says we reduced number of months/years because we have existing data, easier to share gene data etc. What are the numbers we are looking at? 1 year if we do it traditionally vs 1 month for COVID? Not trying to be negative here. But if we are trying to justify a vaccine under a year using numbers, we need to see those numbers. Normally a vaccine will take a few years if not over a decade.


phoenix25

This information is all readily available on the websites for each vaccine. You can find complete results and breakdowns of each trial, numbers of participants, side effects noted, etc.


1st_aider

I feel like OP talked about most of the things you have questioned, but I'm happy to break it down further. Yes, we have done enough trials to prove it's safe - there isn't another vaccine to compare it to that has been around for a while. Moderna had a Phase III trial of over 30,000 people which was 94.5% effective. The Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine had a phase III trial of 43,538 which was 90% effective. The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine had a trial of 20,000 participants which was 70-90% effective (but easier to store and distribute). There is no logical reason to compare these to each other as they all came out around the same time. This [article](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/30/opinion/coronavirus-covid-vaccine.html) was written in April, but outlines the expected vaccine timeline compared to usual. This timeframe was obviously moved up even faster than expected, but distribution is still going to take time. This timeline improvement occurred for many reasons, but due to the amazing results (>90%), low incidence of adverse events and streamlined bureaucratic red-tape to get approval. Hope that helps!


AutoModerator

Thank you for posting to r/CanadaCoronavirus. Please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/canadacoronavirus/about/rules). Please remember that all posts and comments should reflect factual, truth-based discussion. The purpose of this subreddit is to share trustworthy resources and ensure Canadians are as informed and educated as possible. We will not tolerate racism, sexism, or harassment of any kind. Any comments or posts made contrary to these values will be subject to review by the Mod team *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaCoronavirus) if you have any questions or concerns.*


ottawahitech

It is nice to see this type of post at reddit.However... I suspect most readers cannot absorb this long text, and I am not even thinking of those trying to read this on their smartphone. There will always be those who follow lowtech: no vaccine, just observing safe behavior. Some countries have successfully beaten the spread without resorting to expensive vaccine solutions.


quarrystone

Yes, and those people shut themselves down to a degree that most significantly larger countries either can't or are unwilling to do. Canada is not one of those countries for several reasons-- we've proven we can't and won't from the top down.