Just a few things on CV19 and the vaccine and I apologize if some of this has already been covered.
In my opinion, the media and politics [hard to tell them apart sometimes] really have no place in science and do more to cause mistrust in factual information than support it, as they will use whatever is in front of them to further their agenda even if it means being hypocritical. Biden has in fact taken the vaccine despite the article above. Also, Trump has nothing to do with making the vaccine. The president does not approve drug products for EUA or issue broader marketing authorization. That comes from FDA, and where FDA is under the executive branch of government, FDA makes decisions independent of the POTUS.
Secondly, there are a few places where you can obtain fairly reliable information to help you make informed decisions regarding your healthcare. I can post or point in that direction for those interested in hopes that the information would be helpful. Yes, I am in the Biotech industry, and yes, I do work at Pfizer, but I did not join this forum to promote vaccines... I joined to learn as much as I can from all of you about backcountry hunting. Likewise, just because I work in the Biotech industry does not mean I think every vaccine or drug is right for everyone and as such, I would not push drugs or vaccines on anyone. Furthermore, I would not shame anyone for taking the vaccine or for passing on it, but rather I feel people should be armed with factual information to enable them to make well-informed decisions regarding their own healthcare.
Just a few random things that I hope are helpful [and if not, I apologize]:
As far as long-term negative effects from a vaccine... in general, most negative effects emerge within 2 months of dosing, which is one of the reasons why FDA required 2 months of safety data.
Over 70,000 people were in the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials, which is a ton of safety data. Yes, certain people were excluded from the clinical trials, such as people that are immunocompromised for whatever reason, e.g. chemotherapy. Likewise, there have not been further sub-setting of groups to look at things like how and underlying immunological condition, such as Lupus, might interact with the vaccine. These studies are planned and will be conducted in the future. People with underlying immunological conditions outside of being immunocompromised, were included in the clinical trials, but the numbers are too small to generate meaningful statistics. That being said, there were no hot spots in the observed in adverse reactions above baseline that would indicate people with underlying immunological conditions are more prove to adverse events.
Things that have been reported as adverse events, like Bells Palsy, did not occur at a level that exceeded the prevalence in the normal population indicating that the vaccine in and of itself is not "causing" BP.
There is an emerging loose correlation between blood type and being symptomatic versus asymptomatic. This one is interesting and we will need to see if this holds true long-term or if it is just an artifact. Note that it does not mean your blood type will prevent you from getting infected or sick, but rather it may influence the type and severity of symptoms displayed. This could be part of why we all know people that had a household member get sick, but they did not.
There are incidents of people getting infected and sick more than once. This is another thing that needs more data, as it is not fully understood why this occurs. It could be a function of the individual's immune system in conjunction with the virus. You immune system is a gatekeeper for your body. It is exposed to millions of things every single day and just like passenger screening at an airport, your immune system has to decide what is a threat and what is not a threat. Consequently, some things can get past the initial screening and you may not develop a robust immune response that confers protective immunity against subsequent exposures. In fact, if you look at the clinical data, you will see that both vaccines require a second does at least 14 days following the first dose, and that there is only around 50% efficacy after just the first dose, but ~95% efficacy after the second dose. This is actually in alignment with some cases of people that have had covid becoming infected again. Clearly more data is needed here.
The mask debate is based on misunderstanding of what masks truly accomplish. The only way to not transmit a virus through aerosols is to wear a fully enclosed hood [like a haz-mat suit] that filters all air in and out with an appropriate filter. What this means is that conventional masks have limitations in effectiveness of preventing transmission. These limitations are a function of the material, the fit, how a mask is worn, when is it taken off, etc, etc. The variables go on and on. So, just because someone wears a mask, does not mean they won't get sick. Rather, wearing a mask is simply a layer of protection with a huge range of effectiveness from "not very" to "fairly reasonable" depending on all the variables. Personally, I wear a mask at work. It is part of my job. I do not wear one at home, in my car, or when hiking.
Transmission is a function of exposure to a viral load and that overall viral load is determined by the duration and proximity of that exposure [think of it as dose]. A brief exposure to someone that is positive likely will not result in transmission, however sustained exposure at close distance likely will. Whether that transmission results in symptomatic condition is a different story.
Saving this one for last and it is something I feel is quite important to understand. The vaccine is not an end all be all savior of the universe! That is completely untrue. It is simply one weapon in our arsenal that will help us get a little better control of CV19, but it will not eradicate it. Furthermore, as beneficial as the vaccine has been shown to be per the demonstrated efficacy in the clinical trials, there is no data suggesting that it prevents asymptomatic transmission of the virus. Meaning, I could be vaccinated and be exposed, but not get sick. However, I could transmit that to my wife at home who has not been vaccinated. One of the things I have seen written in declination statements at hospitals where they are forcing people to get vaccinated is that by not getting vaccinated you are "causing direct harm to your patients, colleagues, community and self." This is rather alarming and should not be tolerated as it implies that the vaccines are providing something that has not been demonstrated and that is prevention of any form of transmission... which is simply not the case. The vaccines have been shown to protect the recipient from infection, but has not been shown to prevent transmission by those recipients.
Overall, I feel both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are beneficial and worthy of consideration for those who want to take them. I don't feel that any vaccine should be shoved down people's throats and I certainly would not think poorly of those who choose not to receive it. It is critical to ensure people have factual information to help enable them in the decision making process.
Personally, I will get vaccinated if I qualify for it, but my preference would be to forfeit my dose to someone who needs it more than me. I would much rather enable people in a high-risk group to receive it before me, however, I have no concerns receiving either vaccine. Please don't misinterpret my confidence in the vaccine as pushing it, as I feel that people should take a drug product if they actually need it.
I know that was a lot and I hope at least something in there was helpful. I apologize for being so long-winded and promise I was not chewing on an Ex-lax tablet.
