|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 2, 2020 23:57:21 GMT -5
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,413
|
Post by thyme4change on Sept 9, 2020 9:00:52 GMT -5
Yes, and no. I like the math and the macro look at the situation in the article, but to be honest, I don't get the flu vaccine every year to protect the general population, and i didnt vaccinate my children against the chicken pox to save other kids. Once we get a Covid vaccine, I will vaccinate my family to protect my family. If other people benefit from that, great.
I think we have proven a critical mass of Americans won't do the right thing for society. So, i am really sorry to at risk people who can't get vaccinated, but welcome to America, you are on your own.
|
|
Artemis Windsong
Senior Associate
The love in me salutes the love in you. M. Williamson
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:32:12 GMT -5
Posts: 12,318
Today's Mood: Twinkling
Location: Wishing Star
Favorite Drink: Fresh, clean cold bottled water.
|
Post by Artemis Windsong on Sept 9, 2020 16:31:53 GMT -5
I'll probably be a late adopter of the vaccine.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2020 19:25:56 GMT -5
i'll be one of the first. I am pretty trusting in the science, tho.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,413
|
Post by thyme4change on Sept 9, 2020 20:58:47 GMT -5
I suspect there will be a tiered roll out and my household won't qualify. I am cool if a bunch of people go before me: medical personnel, first responders, essential workers and others that have to be up close and personal with vast amounts of people to make a living, along with elderly and immuno-crompromised. It isnt that I don't trust the vaccine, but I will make sure I am not taking a dose that someone really needs. I will get mine in turn.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,053
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Sept 10, 2020 10:01:01 GMT -5
i'll be one of the first. I am pretty trusting in the science, tho. I'll go last. Lots of mistakes are made, and when things are rushed, more mistakes happen. I'm not particularly into vaccines and don't ever get any 'extras' such as the flu vaccines. MMR, polio, tetanus, sure. Benefits far outweigh risks. And 50% effective - that is not a real draw for me. Seems it would lead to decreases in safeguards without offering a good chance of protection. and I'm not sure where I fall on the me/we spectrum. I'm pretty socially responsible, but given how much of an asshole almost everybody is anymore, the motivation for altruism in me has never been lower.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2020 14:15:28 GMT -5
there is no data on the vaccine yet, because there is no vaccine, yet.
but I will admit that I was not thinking of the efficacy of the vaccine when I made that comment in such an unqualified way.
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,805
|
Post by kadee79 on Sept 10, 2020 14:30:07 GMT -5
I'm old, I have under-lying conditions...I will wait awhile. I'm not going to rush into any new stuff until we see if there are more reactions. I get reactions to several drugs, don't need one to a shot too.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,388
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Sept 10, 2020 14:31:45 GMT -5
The problem with thinking about efficacy is that it misses the point. Efficacy looks at prevention. That is the major endpoint, but not the only one. Even though the influenza vaccine is only 49-70%(depending on year) effective, people who are vaccinated who then are infected, have a lower risk of hospitalization and death. The shingles vaccine is about 60% effective. Having seen shingles, I would not want it. So having a 60% less chance of getting it seems to be a good thing. If the first coronavirus vaccine only decreases the risk of severe disease, that would be a good start
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Sept 11, 2020 13:02:37 GMT -5
The problem with thinking about efficacy is that it misses the point. Efficacy looks at prevention. That is the major endpoint, but not the only one. Even though the influenza vaccine is only 49-70%(depending on year) effective, people who are vaccinated who then are infected, have a lower risk of hospitalization and death. The shingles vaccine is about 60% effective. Having seen shingles, I would not want it. So having a 60% less chance of getting it seems to be a good thing. If the first coronavirus vaccine only decreases the risk of severe disease, that would be a good start About 5 years ago my brother came extremely close to dying from the flu. The doctor at the hospital stated that if he had gotten the flu shot he probably would have developed a "watered down" version as opposed to the terrible one he ended up with. My dad had the shingles a couple of years ago on his face. Luckily, it did not go into his eye. Both his GP and his Ophthamologist said that the singles vaccine had helped it not spread the way it normally would have. He really ended up with a very mild case of the virus. I truly believe getting the vaccine helped. Vaccines are more about keeping people out of the hospital and getting deaths down. Like I said on another thread, covid isn't going to disappear. It will become just another virus. We need to get the deaths down to flu like levels and move on with our lives.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Sept 11, 2020 13:18:55 GMT -5
I suspect there will be a tiered roll out and my household won't qualify. I am cool if a bunch of people go before me: medical personnel, first responders, essential workers and others that have to be up close and personal with vast amounts of people to make a living, along with elderly and immuno-crompromised. It isnt that I don't trust the vaccine, but I will make sure I am not taking a dose that someone really needs. I will get mine in turn. This is exactly how I feel. I work with pharma companies and I trust in their abilities to develop a safe vaccine, but (to my knowledge) I have no underlying conditions, in my mid-40's, etc. There are lots of other people that need it before myself.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,270
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 11, 2020 13:33:38 GMT -5
The problem with thinking about efficacy is that it misses the point. Efficacy looks at prevention. That is the major endpoint, but not the only one. Even though the influenza vaccine is only 49-70%(depending on year) effective, people who are vaccinated who then are infected, have a lower risk of hospitalization and death. The shingles vaccine is about 60% effective. Having seen shingles, I would not want it. So having a 60% less chance of getting it seems to be a good thing. If the first coronavirus vaccine only decreases the risk of severe disease, that would be a good start I read a book on the 1918 flu and some of the ways people died. That book was freaking graphic. I know it's not how it works but after reading that book I ran not walked to get my flu shot and almost insisted on a second dose just to be safe. I'm pretty low risk for both COVID and the flu but the thing is I don't know which number I'm going to hit. The odds may not be in my favor. I got small children I don't want to leave motherless. I also like the idea of not dying period. So a 60% efficacy rate is good for me. I'd rather be sicker than a dog and quarantine for a couple weeks than six feet under.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,382
|
Post by NastyWoman on Sept 11, 2020 14:00:16 GMT -5
The problem with thinking about efficacy is that it misses the point. Efficacy looks at prevention. That is the major endpoint, but not the only one. Even though the influenza vaccine is only 49-70%(depending on year) effective, people who are vaccinated who then are infected, have a lower risk of hospitalization and death. The shingles vaccine is about 60% effective. Having seen shingles, I would not want it. So having a 60% less chance of getting it seems to be a good thing. If the first coronavirus vaccine only decreases the risk of severe disease, that would be a good start I agree with all of this but I will admit that I would not be willing to get the vaccine in one specific time in my life: if I were still in my childbearing stage (fat chance with the 30th anniversay of my 39th birthday coming up in a few weeks) I eould probably not get the vaccine. It would all be too new for any potential effects on an unborn child to be known, so I would pass for now. As a chemist in one of my former professional lives, I was involved in measuring industrial pollution in the work place and in the years I did that the limits of what was considered safe was for different pollutants was more than once lowered, so that has made me more cautious regarding side effects, but that is about it.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,388
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Sept 11, 2020 14:28:10 GMT -5
The problem with thinking about efficacy is that it misses the point. Efficacy looks at prevention. That is the major endpoint, but not the only one. Even though the influenza vaccine is only 49-70%(depending on year) effective, people who are vaccinated who then are infected, have a lower risk of hospitalization and death. The shingles vaccine is about 60% effective. Having seen shingles, I would not want it. So having a 60% less chance of getting it seems to be a good thing. If the first coronavirus vaccine only decreases the risk of severe disease, that would be a good start I agree with all of this but I will admit that I would not be willing to get the vaccine in one specific time in my life: if I were still in my childbearing stage (fat chance with the 30th anniversay of my 39th birthday coming up in a few weeks) I eould probably not get the vaccine. It would all be too new for any potential effects on an unborn child to be known, so I would pass for now. As a chemist in one of my former professional lives, I was involved in measuring industrial pollution in the work place and in the years I did that the limits of what was considered safe was for different pollutants was more than once lowered, so that has made me more cautious regarding side effects, but that is about it. I can respect this, but it interesting how vaccines are held to an unreasonable standard. Right now, if you are hospitalized with covid, the only treatment that has been shown to be effective is steroids. They decrease mortality by about 20%. Yet, everyone would willingly take this treatment. A treatment with an efficacy of 60% is amazing. Very few treatments are this effective. I think being cautious if you are in a low risk group when a new treatment becomes available is prudent. But it is also going th prolong our current crisis. Not an easy trade off
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,382
|
Post by NastyWoman on Sept 11, 2020 14:35:04 GMT -5
I agree with all of this but I will admit that I would not be willing to get the vaccine in one specific time in my life: if I were still in my childbearing stage (fat chance with the 30th anniversay of my 39th birthday coming up in a few weeks) I eould probably not get the vaccine. It would all be too new for any potential effects on an unborn child to be known, so I would pass for now. As a chemist in one of my former professional lives, I was involved in measuring industrial pollution in the work place and in the years I did that the limits of what was considered safe was for different pollutants was more than once lowered, so that has made me more cautious regarding side effects, but that is about it. I can respect this, but it interesting how vaccines are held to an unreasonable standard. Right now, if you are hospitalized with covid, the only treatment that has been shown to be effective is steroids. They decrease mortality by about 20%. Yet, everyone would willingly take this treatment. A treatment with an efficacy of 60% is amazing. Very few treatments are this effective. I think being cautious if you are in a low risk group when a new treatment becomes available is prudent. But it is also going th prolong our current crisis. Not an easy trade off It is true that we hold vaccines to a high standard (and I am a pro-vaxxer) but I do believe the analogy you use here is faulty. If I (general I) am in the hospital with a disease and I am being told that the only treatment will reduce my chances of dying by only 20%, of course I will go for that. I am already sick. But a vaccine is a preventative measure in my mind so I am taking the risks while healthy. Different starting points for making a decision.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Sept 11, 2020 14:43:32 GMT -5
The problem with thinking about efficacy is that it misses the point. Efficacy looks at prevention. That is the major endpoint, but not the only one. Even though the influenza vaccine is only 49-70%(depending on year) effective, people who are vaccinated who then are infected, have a lower risk of hospitalization and death. The shingles vaccine is about 60% effective. Having seen shingles, I would not want it. So having a 60% less chance of getting it seems to be a good thing. If the first coronavirus vaccine only decreases the risk of severe disease, that would be a good start I read a book on the 1918 flu and some of the ways people died. That book was freaking graphic. I know it's not how it works but after reading that book I ran not walked to get my flu shot and almost insisted on a second dose just to be safe. I'm pretty low risk for both COVID and the flu but the thing is I don't know which number I'm going to hit. The odds may not be in my favor. I got small children I don't want to leave motherless. I also like the idea of not dying period. So a 60% efficacy rate is good for me. I'd rather be sicker than a dog and quarantine for a couple weeks than six feet under.
Exactly! And I don't plan to spend the rest of my life hiding under the bed waiting for something to be 100% (because that isn't a life!) So a vaccine of 60% efficacy will work just fine for me.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,388
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Sept 11, 2020 14:46:21 GMT -5
I can respect this, but it interesting how vaccines are held to an unreasonable standard. Right now, if you are hospitalized with covid, the only treatment that has been shown to be effective is steroids. They decrease mortality by about 20%. Yet, everyone would willingly take this treatment. A treatment with an efficacy of 60% is amazing. Very few treatments are this effective. I think being cautious if you are in a low risk group when a new treatment becomes available is prudent. But it is also going th prolong our current crisis. Not an easy trade off It is true that we hold vaccines to a high standard (and I am a pro-vaxxer) but I do believe the analogy you use here is faulty. If I (general I) am in the hospital with a disease and I am being told that the only treatment will reduce my chances of dying by only 20%, of course I will go for that. I am already sick. But a vaccine is a preventative measure in my mind so I am taking the risks while healthy. Different starting points for making a decision. I get that. But that is the relative improvement. When you look at it from number needed to treat or absolute reduction, it looks less impressive. You will see reports of advances in treatment reported in the news as impressive breakthroughs all the time. When you actually look at what they do, the reality is much less impressive than reported. Vaccines and public sanitation are the 2 greatest advances in the history of medicine. More lives have been saved due to these treatments than any other treatments we have. But given the public’s beliefs, you wouldn’t know it. Finally, we can never know have many lives are saved by preventing an illness. Far less sexy, but far more effective
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 11, 2020 14:55:40 GMT -5
It is true that we hold vaccines to a high standard (and I am a pro-vaxxer) but I do believe the analogy you use here is faulty. If I (general I) am in the hospital with a disease and I am being told that the only treatment will reduce my chances of dying by only 20%, of course I will go for that. I am already sick. But a vaccine is a preventative measure in my mind so I am taking the risks while healthy. Different starting points for making a decision. I get that. But that is the relative improvement. When you look at it from number needed to treat or absolute reduction, it looks less impressive. You will see reports of advances in treatment reported in the news as impressive breakthroughs all the time. When you actually look at what they do, the reality is much less impressive than reported. Vaccines and public sanitation are the 2 greatest advances in the history of medicine. More lives have been saved due to these treatments than any other treatments we have. But given the public’s beliefs, you wouldn’t know it. Finally, we can never know have many lives are saved by preventing an illness. Far less sexy, but far more effective However, effectiveness of a vaccine is not the only criteria. You also need to look at possible side effects of it too and balance them off. Astra Zenica's already paused their clinical trial to tease out if the side effect was one that was caused by the vaccine. www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-09/astrazeneca-study-halted-after-spinal-cord-issue-nih-chief-saysI was reading one article that suggested that this was a possible concern for this vaccine, this and it possibly increasing the risk of MS. I am somewhat heartened in that they didn't try to sweep this under the carpet.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,388
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Sept 11, 2020 15:19:08 GMT -5
I get that. But that is the relative improvement. When you look at it from number needed to treat or absolute reduction, it looks less impressive. You will see reports of advances in treatment reported in the news as impressive breakthroughs all the time. When you actually look at what they do, the reality is much less impressive than reported. Vaccines and public sanitation are the 2 greatest advances in the history of medicine. More lives have been saved due to these treatments than any other treatments we have. But given the public’s beliefs, you wouldn’t know it. Finally, we can never know have many lives are saved by preventing an illness. Far less sexy, but far more effective However, effectiveness of a vaccine is not the only criteria. You also need to look at possible side effects of it too and balance them off. Astra Zenica's already paused their clinical trial to tease out if the side effect was one that was caused by the vaccine. www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-09/astrazeneca-study-halted-after-spinal-cord-issue-nih-chief-saysI was reading one article that suggested that this was a possible concern for this vaccine, this and it possibly increasing the risk of MS. I am somewhat heartened in that they didn't try to sweep this under the carpet. Transverse myelitis, guillen barre syndrome, other neurological conditions, anaphylaxis, serum sickness, and a whole host of other possible complications. Reason why this needs to be done in a careful, but expedited fashion. All treatments require risk/benefit calculations. Reason why a certain minimal effectiveness is re we hired for approval. If we actually were willing to sacrifice to control the pandemic, the issue would be less pressing, as fewer lives would be lost
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 11, 2020 16:38:20 GMT -5
I can respect this, but it interesting how vaccines are held to an unreasonable standard. Right now, if you are hospitalized with covid, the only treatment that has been shown to be effective is steroids. They decrease mortality by about 20%. Yet, everyone would willingly take this treatment. A treatment with an efficacy of 60% is amazing. Very few treatments are this effective. I think being cautious if you are in a low risk group when a new treatment becomes available is prudent. But it is also going th prolong our current crisis. Not an easy trade off It is true that we hold vaccines to a high standard (and I am a pro-vaxxer) but I do believe the analogy you use here is faulty. If I (general I) am in the hospital with a disease and I am being told that the only treatment will reduce my chances of dying by only 20%, of course I will go for that. I am already sick. But a vaccine is a preventative measure in my mind so I am taking the risks while healthy. Different starting points for making a decision. in a way......
but if you are in a 15% risk group, and the vaccine is 60% effective, you just reduced your risk to 6%. I would rather than 16:1 odds than 7:1 odds in favor of LIVING. am I missing something?
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 11, 2020 16:47:06 GMT -5
It is true that we hold vaccines to a high standard (and I am a pro-vaxxer) but I do believe the analogy you use here is faulty. If I (general I) am in the hospital with a disease and I am being told that the only treatment will reduce my chances of dying by only 20%, of course I will go for that. I am already sick. But a vaccine is a preventative measure in my mind so I am taking the risks while healthy. Different starting points for making a decision. in a way......
but if you are in a 15% risk group, and the vaccine is 60% effective, you just reduced your risk to 6%. I would rather than 16:1 odds than 7:1 odds in favor of LIVING. am I missing something?
If you are in the 15% risk of dying group, it means that you are likely in that age group of being over 70. The problem with that age group is that they are incapable of mounting an effective immune response, even to a vaccine. So the vaccine that is 60% effective in the general population might only be 15% in your age group.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,388
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Sept 11, 2020 17:06:20 GMT -5
in a way......
but if you are in a 15% risk group, and the vaccine is 60% effective, you just reduced your risk to 6%. I would rather than 16:1 odds than 7:1 odds in favor of LIVING. am I missing something?
If you are in the 15% risk of dying group, it means that you are likely in that age group of being over 70. The problem with that age group is that they are incapable of mounting an effective immune response, even to a vaccine. So the vaccine that is 60% effective in the general population might only be 15% in your age group. Ok, but let’s compare that to some other treatments. Thrombolitic therapy for heart attacks was incredibly effective. For the most serious heart attack, mortality decreased from 20% to 6% at one year. But if you treated every type, it was much less impressive. Ventilating critically ill people in the optimal way decreases mortality from 40 to 30%. In each of these instances, you still have the significant chance of chronic long term conditions or death. Again, decreasing your chance of dying by doing a minor, Sade intervention is a no brained in any rational society. There are very few other preventative medicine interventions that compare in effectiveness
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 11, 2020 17:07:18 GMT -5
in a way......
but if you are in a 15% risk group, and the vaccine is 60% effective, you just reduced your risk to 6%. I would rather than 16:1 odds than 7:1 odds in favor of LIVING. am I missing something?
If you are in the 15% risk of dying group, it means that you are likely in that age group of being over 70. The problem with that age group is that they are incapable of mounting an effective immune response, even to a vaccine. So the vaccine that is 60% effective in the general population might only be 15% in your age group. OH!
I had assumed that the efficacy was the same across all groups.
wrong?
where is pmd when we need him?
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,388
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Sept 11, 2020 17:22:13 GMT -5
If you are in the 15% risk of dying group, it means that you are likely in that age group of being over 70. The problem with that age group is that they are incapable of mounting an effective immune response, even to a vaccine. So the vaccine that is 60% effective in the general population might only be 15% in your age group. OH!
I had assumed that the efficacy was the same across all groups.
wrong?
where is pmd when we need him?
Effectiveness varies based on individual factors. Reason why herd immunity is also important and enhances effectiveness of vaccines. Just to show how effective public health measures are, the flu essentially disappeared in April in the US due to social distancing. Southern Hemisphere had one of its mildest flu seasons on record. Haven’t disappeared, just recovering from a prostatectomy 3 days ago.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,382
|
Post by NastyWoman on Sept 11, 2020 17:58:27 GMT -5
It is true that we hold vaccines to a high standard (and I am a pro-vaxxer) but I do believe the analogy you use here is faulty. If I (general I) am in the hospital with a disease and I am being told that the only treatment will reduce my chances of dying by only 20%, of course I will go for that. I am already sick. But a vaccine is a preventative measure in my mind so I am taking the risks while healthy. Different starting points for making a decision. in a way......
but if you are in a 15% risk group, and the vaccine is 60% effective, you just reduced your risk to 6%. I would rather than 16:1 odds than 7:1 odds in favor of LIVING. am I missing something?
I would go for the vaccine. As I said the only thing that might hold me back would be if I were planning to have a child (again fat chance) but it would be my fear of harm to that theoretical child, nothing else. The vast majority of women in their child bearing age are, unlike me (those pesky anniversaries), not in a high risk group. For them it would be a different equation and decision to make.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 11, 2020 18:03:16 GMT -5
If you are in the 15% risk of dying group, it means that you are likely in that age group of being over 70. The problem with that age group is that they are incapable of mounting an effective immune response, even to a vaccine. So the vaccine that is 60% effective in the general population might only be 15% in your age group. OH!
I had assumed that the efficacy was the same across all groups.
wrong?
where is pmd when we need him?
I don’t know what the efficacy of the vaccine currently is. Right now, the goal is to get 50-60% efficacy in the population. Since old people do not respond as well,you can’t assume that they’d be protected equally well. The current high dose flu vaccine for older people has 4x as much active ingredient, another flu vaccine has a different adjuvant to compensate for this. I guesstimated that if it takes 4x as much antigen to elicit an immune response, that’s where I pulled around 15% from. However, the best way of improving the effectiveness of the vaccine for the elderly would come from others surrounding that person not carrying the disease. If the likelihood of coming in contact with a carrier decreases, the herd immunity helps a lot for this group.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,388
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Sept 11, 2020 18:09:24 GMT -5
Vaccine efficacy is very hard to estimate. So any number is pulling it out of your ass at this point. Even with influenza, estimates are guesstimates at best
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,118
|
Post by alabamagal on Sept 11, 2020 18:46:39 GMT -5
in a way......
but if you are in a 15% risk group, and the vaccine is 60% effective, you just reduced your risk to 6%. I would rather than 16:1 odds than 7:1 odds in favor of LIVING. am I missing something?
I would go for the vaccine. As I said the only thing that might hold me back would be if I were planning to have a child (again fat chance) but it would be my fear of harm to that theoretical child, nothing else. The vast majority of women in their child bearing age are, unlike me (those pesky anniversaries), not in a high risk group. For them it would be a different equation and decision to make. But there is now a bigger emphasis for pregnant women to get vaccines. For whooping cough it is no recommended to get vaccinated during every pregnancy, that was never a consideration when I was having kids 30 years ago. Maybe it is because there are more anti-vaxxers now. And as a future grandparent I got my shot last week, along with flu shot, so I can visit my granddaughter in Nov. when I was having kids, the big concern was rubella, they would check for immunity. The concern during pregnancy is that you stay healthy and also convey some of the immunity to the baby, at least until they are ready for vaccination.
|
|
dippyegg
Initiate Member
Joined: Jul 2, 2020 10:36:54 GMT -5
Posts: 73
|
Post by dippyegg on Sept 13, 2020 16:21:53 GMT -5
I don't know a lot about the vaccine or reinfection. I was wondering, if someone has HAD covid, will they also get the vaccine or do they have some presumptive immunity?
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,388
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Sept 13, 2020 16:25:58 GMT -5
Given our present knowledge, everyone gets vaccinated, regardless of prior infection
|
|