Canadian Money Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

so vaccines....?

265K views 6K replies 63 participants last post by  moderator2 
#1 ·
it's shaping up that there appears to be a number of DIFFERENT vaccines that are effective against the covid...This is a little confusing to me.
Can some or you epidemiological experts explain this , to a dum-dum like me?
 
#2 ·
I’m I expert, but is it similar to tylenol, Advil, aspirin.....three different drugs that treat similar symptoms?

I did hear that one of the four promising vaccines is a different type? Three of them are RNA? And the fourth isn’t?

i suppose the next question is......will you accept it once it’s available?
 
#6 ·
.....i suppose the next question is......will you accept it once it’s available?
The same scenario occurred when the H1N1 vaccine came out 10 years ago. All the conspiracy theorists were against it. It was soon forgotten. Little that they know, H1N1 has been a standard strain in the yearly flu vaccine ever since. My guess is COVID19 will also be added and it too will be soon be forgotten.
 
#3 ·
There are a number of different vaccine technologies, the basic idea is that they trick your body into developing antibodies that are effective against COVID19. Lots of different ways to do this.

There are dozens of vaccines at various stages, but there are only a handful of frontrunners today. They are apparently reasonably effective.
 
#4 ·
Many of the vaccines that were created in the last few months appear to be highly effective. This is a hugely good news .... the vaccines were created in record fast time, and appear to be more effective than most people expected.

Basically it's something like 20 different companies creating 20 different vaccines. Each is a different formula and manufacturing technique. It's looking like several of these, from multiple companies, are effective against COVID.

Clinical trials are ongoing. In these trials, the vaccines are used on real people and the results are tracked. This will give us more data about how effective they are (on different kinds of people such as different age groups) and also tell us if there are any significant side effects.

As more trials happen, we'll know more clearly. But early results look like MANY of these vaccines are working.
 
#10 ·
While it's true that we don't know any long-term effects; it should be fundamentally safe unlike the traditional vaccines which use either weakened live virus, or inactive virus.

The mRNA vaccines only provide the portion that encodes the protein antigens of the virus envelope. Short explanation is that the mRNA gets read by the body's cellular machinery and produces the protein of interest. The body will view it as a foreign body and attack it, with the memory kept in the T-cell. So the next time the antigen enters the body, it'll be attacked by the immune system. Obviously if the virus mutates enough that the antigen is no longer recognizable, the immune response will be lessened.

Here's an older paper about the technology: mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology

But since no active/inactive virus is actually injected, I'd think that it is safer and more effective than the traditional vaccines. However, as mRNA is pretty fragile, storage and delivery considerations are the issue.
 
#15 ·
So, I'll use an analogy, think of the virus as a bomb inside a lockbox that can only be opened by a specific key. If you can open the lockbox, you can disable the bomb and all is good, but as time goes on, the bombs duplicate so the longer it goes, the more bombs you need to disable. The immune system can be seen as the bomb squad who is responsible for defeating the bomb. The bomb squad has a collection of keys for different bombs and will try them, but if they don't work, they have to work on developing a specific key.

This is where vaccines come into play:

Traditional: You give the bomb squad a disabled bomb, or weakened one (so instead of an explosion, it just gives a puff of smoke), and they work on producing the key. Obvious side-effect if they don't do it in time, the bomb could reproduce and explode, but the damage is significantly reduced.

Virus analog: You give the bomb squad something that looks like the bomb, and has a similar lock. You won't get an explosion if things go wrong. The drawback is that the key developed by the bomb squad may not fit the real thing; however, it will speed up the process of making the key, so bombs may go off, but not as many as if they didn't have the analog.

mRNA: You give the bomb squad the specifications of the lock, and they build it. They then develop the key to open the lock. So, no chance of explosion, and the key will definitely fit the lock of the real thing. The problem is that the specifications are printed on tissue paper and if not handled correctly, they may not see the plans to build the lock, so they never develop the key.

Of course, variations and mutations can occur which may modify the lock so that the key doesn't fit 100% securely; however, maybe enough to open a few locks, or the keys need slight modification. It may mean a few explosions, but you wouldn't suffer the full effect.

Those are generally the different types of vaccines. There are nuances, but as an overview, I think that would be understandable.
 
#16 ·
mRNA: You give the bomb squad the specifications of the lock, and they build it. They then develop the key to open the lock. So, no chance of explosion, and the key will definitely fit the lock of the real thing. The problem is that the specifications are printed on tissue paper and if not handled correctly, they may not see the plans to build the lock, so they never develop the key.
No
mRNA is more like.

You tell the bomb squad "this is what a suicide bomber looks like, go kill them" then hope for the best.

Do we have any idea how "accurate" the specification is?
The idea of mRNA is that the specification is broad enough to catch not just the target viral strain, but also similar ones. Which is why it is promising for HIV. It's also why the possibility of dangerous side effects is there.
 
#21 ·
Not sure why the mention of SARS when the existing methods had the SAR vaccine candidate looking for funding for Phase Three human trials about twelve years after the last case was reported (about thirteen years after it was started).

IAC ... what I am interest in is the question of whether you see more risk or similar risks in a new technology that has a basis for the faster speed or a more traditional method that somehow is competitive with the newer one?


Cheers
 
#36 ·
Quite frankly, there's a lot of nuance missing here.
The issue about the travel restrictions were simple: if you weren't going to completely stop all incoming traffic, they are useless, and probably what the resistance against closing the borders. The problem is that people were just pushing for travel restrictions from only from China, which can be easily worked around by connecting through other countries. It wouldn't do anything when you consider that a lot of the foreign infections were people coming back home from the US.
 
#37 ·
I remember getting the H1N1 vaccine with my 4 or 5 years old son....waiting outside in the cold for a couple of hours, then led into a large gymnasium. Nobody wearing masks, social distancing didn’t exist. Felt like I was in a Hollywood movie.

i cant wait to see this rollout. How do you vaccinate millions “quickly” when you can’t gather in large groups? How will people Prove they are high risk (cancer patients) or front-line workers? Pre-registration/screening?

My last two flu shots were less than perfect. 5,10,15 minute delays for each shot to confirm, verify, correct errors etc etc....will lead to a very slow process.
 
#38 ·
Just getting the vaccines and transporting them safely is going to be a logistical nightmare.

The military is starting from scratch. Everything is "imaginary" at this point. They have to create real life from the imaginary.

From properly equiipped transportation to warehouse storage and end point distribution.........it is going to be a huge enterprise.

I am confident the military can do it, but it is going to take a lot more time than I think people are hoping.

On Friday, Chrystia Freeland gave indications the government is committed to future financial supports if necessary.

Hope for the best but prepare for the worst.
 
#51 ·
#42 ·
Amazing. Thousands of doses will be arriving in some provinces next week ... incredible speed. All of this is unfolding much faster than all experts predicted and I don't think a vaccine for a new disease has ever been rolled out this fast before.

I listened to Bonnie Henry's update on the radio today and she sounded like she was in a great mood.
 
#45 ·
The vaccines have not been fully tested. They are being issued under an Emergency Use designation.

The good news is the side effects and dangers appear to be very limited so far, but only time will tell.

One doctor did say that the Pfizer study had patients "included" and some "excluded" from the study, so we don't really know what happens when the "excluded" group gets the vaccine. People with bad allergies were in the "excluded" group and are having negative symptoms. I believe pregnant women and women lactating were also in the "excluded" group. I don't know who else was part of that group.
 
#53 ·
Dr. Sanjay Gupta said the vaccine causes the immune system to get ready to fight the virus and reduces the severity of the infection, but doesn't kill the virus.

So people who have been vaccinated will still get the infection and transmit the virus to others. The wearing of masks will have to continue for some time.
 
#55 ·
In Canada Covid deaths amount to 2.9% of total cases or .35% of population. Wonder how this compares to those vaccinate? I understand it does not prevent getting infected and that some have gotten sick and even died after being vaccinated so how much good does it do vs possible side effects?
 
#56 ·
I was looking at this web site about the corona virus, specifically concerning Canada. Canada Coronavirus: 448,841 Cases and 13,251 Deaths - Worldometer

When I compare the 2 graphs of cases vs deaths 2 things jump out. One is, that there were 2 waves of illness one peaked in May, the other is at its height now and may not yet have peaked.

The other is, the number of cases is much higher in the second wave while deaths are lower.
This suggests 2 possibilities. One is that the corona virus is weakening, the other is that today's tests are more sensitive than the ones in use last spring and are turning up more false positives or more mild cases. Or maybe treatment has improved. In any case it appears the danger of dying is much less than would be suggested by the number of cases.
 
#58 ·
The other is, the number of cases is much higher in the second wave while deaths are lower.
This suggests 2 possibilities. One is that the corona virus is weakening, the other is that today's tests are more sensitive than the ones in use last spring and are turning up more false positives or more mild cases. Or maybe treatment has improved. In any case it appears the danger of dying is much less than would be suggested by the number of cases.
One other senario, the age groups being infected are different. In MB our death rate is higher this wave as it's hit many LTC homes. IIRC this is reverse of some other provinces that had many LTC homes hit in the first wave and are better protected now.
 
#57 · (Edited)
In BC we recently set a record for daily deaths. Didn't the US also set a record recently? It is true, however, that certain areas were harder hit during the first wave, such as Quebec and NYC.

Testing was very limited during the first wave. As I recall, only high risk groups were being tested at first. If a random person wanted to be tested they needed a referral from a doctor. Many of the people getting tested back then were already greviously ill by the time they got tested. Testing has increased exponentially since then, and it's much easier to get tested now. Even people with minor symptoms are able to get tested. This would lead to a lot more positives (also more negatives, as I would assume most of those poeple just have colds, flu, or some other bug -- not COVID).
 
#61 ·
The point is, the death rate is lower even though number of positives is higher.
If the number of infected in growing the most in the 10-49 age group this will lower the death rate right?

This suggests the pandemic is not as bad as we are led to believe by the corporate media. And that the virus may be wearing out the way they usually do.
How do you define not as bad ... what was bad then compared to now? And what exactly causes a virus to wear out in your opinion?
 
#62 ·
I mean not bad compared to the doomsday scenarios painted last March. The lockdowns and other precautions were justified in the face of millions of possible deaths. As it turned out, total deaths are 1/10 or less of what was predicted.
We have been through similar epidemics before, of swine flu, Legionaires disease, Hong Kong flu and I don't know what all. They all seem to wear themselves out and blow over eventually. I'm no expert but I think the viruses mutate so fast that they mutate into a harmless version of themselves and disappear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top