Covid-19 Politics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

Because of my job, I was able to get my first dose of the Pfizer vaccine today. If everything goes according to plan, I should be getting my second dose on February 22nd.

---

Good news, pleased to hear it - I haven't been given a date for my second vaccination yet.

The news I am frustrated with has been on tv broadcasts and in the online press, and concerns those people who think the vaccination will make them infertile, or insert a micro-chip into their brain, or 'God knows what'! The NHS is recruiting prominent people from the Black and Asian community on the grounds that vaccination sceptics are more commonly found in these social groups, usng what data I do not know. It seems to me that there are plenty of 'Whte British' people who are just as sceptical as others, for whatever reason, and none of it based on science.

Either the number of people across the world who reject science is growing, or they are not as great as we think but have captured the media's attention, a few seats in Congress (we have the dapper dimwittery of Sir Desmond Swayne in the House of Commons), and are thus attempting to shift extreme views from the fringe into the centre ground. With the Taliban resurgent in Afghanistan, and some indivduals appearing to share their outlook on life even if they live in the UK or the US, I feel we are not just involved in a campaign against Covid-19 but a strugge for the preservation of the Truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

Because of my job, I was able to get my first dose of the Pfizer vaccine today. If everything goes according to plan, I should be getting my second dose on February 22nd.

---

Really good news. How's the shoulder? Almost everyone I've talked to has a sore shoulder first evening from Pfizer and Moderna. Not a good or bad sign either way I don't think but it lasts three to four days for some.

This just came up on my twitter feed. I will look into it later and post an article or two but former fda head says that Johnson and Johnson data just came in and is very good. This would change supply very quickly if it gets approved. It's a one shot vaccine also which makes the doses go twice as far.

https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/1355139722646081537

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/johnson...se-researcher/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ainst-covid-19

The Johnson and Johnson vaccine uses the same technology as the Oxford/Astrazeneca vaccine but it delivered in one shot with no booster. It is probably effective enough to get an emergency use authorization from the fda.

If I recall correctly, both Moderna and Pfizer were over 90% effective in preventing symptomatic disease. That includes mild, moderate, and severe. Johnson and Johnson is 66% effective in preventing moderate to severe disease, prevented 85% of severe cases, and 100% of hospitalizations and deaths.

If given the choice I think most people would much rather have the two shot vaccines from Pfizer or Moderna. Those shots also show pretty good efficacy 14 days after the first shot (though with limited data). It's unclear how long any of the vaccines will provide immunity for but the benefit of the second shot is to prime the immune system and raise antibody response far higher than in those who have recovered from covid. So as a layperson I would have some concern about how long immunity lasts after the J&J shot but perhaps I will read something positive about antibody responses etc. Edit: in the Scott Gottlieb tweet I posted above he says "people showed sustained and increasing immune protection over time". So I'm sure we'll hear more about what data shows that.

Johnson and Johnson says it can produce ten million doses in February and that's ten million more people vaccinated. I imagine they can ramp up much further after that. Since the government is paying for vaccines, I'm not sure who would choose a vaccine that is 66% effective rather than 95% effective at preventing covid cases but maybe it has a better side effect profile or maybe some people in a lower priority group would prefer to get some protection earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Johnson and Johnson says it can produce ten million doses in February and that's ten million more people vaccinated. I imagine they can ramp up much further after that. Since the government is paying for vaccines, I'm not sure who would choose a vaccine that is 66% effective rather than 95% effective at preventing covid cases but maybe it has a better side effect profile or maybe some people in a lower priority group would prefer to get some protection earlier.

---

If the Government is paying, we won't get a choice. When called for an appointment, turn up and take whichever is on offer, or not at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laphroaig

If the Government is paying, we won't get a choice. When called for an appointment, turn up and take whichever is on offer, or not at all.

---

If vaccination is not compulsory I assume you could choose to pass and then opt in later. The government wants to get as many people vaccinated as possible, so it would not make sense to not let people change their minds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Johnson and Johnson says it can produce ten million doses in February and that's ten million more people vaccinated. I imagine they can ramp up much further after that. Since the government is paying for vaccines, I'm not sure who would choose a vaccine that is 66% effective rather than 95% effective at preventing covid cases but maybe it has a better side effect profile or maybe some people in a lower priority group would prefer to get some protection earlier.

---

I guess it's a trade-off. When the virus is spreading rapidly now, is it better to wait for more supplies of the more effective vaccine or to vaccinate as many as you can with what you have now? Does getting the less effective vaccine now preclude getting the other one later?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I guess it's a trade-off. When the virus is spreading rapidly now, is it better to wait for more supplies of the more effective vaccine or to vaccinate as many as you can with what you have now? Does getting the less effective vaccine now preclude getting the other one later?

---

Good point. We have enough pfizer and moderna ordered for nearly the entire population but it probably would save a lot of lives to vaccinate people with J&J while production of the other two are ramping up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Really good news. How's the shoulder? Almost everyone I've talked to has a sore shoulder first evening from Pfizer and Moderna. Not a good or bad sign either way I don't think but it lasts three to four days for some.

---

Not bad. In fact, it feels very similar to when I got a tetanus shot on January 4th.

For the last several months we knew that Johnson & Johnson's one shot vaccine was in the pipeline and a promising candidate. They received 1 billion dollars for research from Operation Warp Speed. It's kind of tough for me to believe that they shouldn't have been given a lot of money to produce their vaccine at risk. That's the entire post. It was fairly obvious that it would be a worthwhile risk/gamble. Their supply is starting at 2 million doses. I haven't read any critiques yet but was that the smartest approach when they could have been given money to produce tens of millions of doses at risk?