Guy on Reddit posted his experience with the Pfizer vaccine. Obviously he could have received the placebo but it’s doubtful from his reaction. I figured I would share. Spoiler: Not my story So I got Pfizer's Covid vaccine. Got the trial vaccine after volunteering for it: got two shots separated by three weeks period and it was ... interesting. Went to Baylor and nasal swab was done, they drew two vials of blood and shot me up with the vaccine. The first day after the first shot was not comfortable, shoulder was hurting, I had a fuzzy head, a mild headache and general fatigue. Headache went away the next day as did the fatigue but my shoulder still hurt the next day. Third day after the shot I was back to 100%. Second shot hit me harder, shoulder was hurting even more, I had chills but no fever and general fatigue lasted for a day. Then, I went to get a serological antibody test on my own, three weeks after the first shot and voila - they found a "ton" of Covid antibodies in my blood so I am pretty much close to being immune. I will keep masking up as I do not want to test the fate, lol. Also they mentioned the study will continue through 2022 to determine the length of immunity.
Seriously. It's a double blind study and the fucker goes and gets an antibody test? That's so shitty. Fuck him.
and then blasts his shitty idea all over reddit. If there's any justice in this world, someone will dox his ass.
So got a follow up that I have to submit a video talking about why I wanted to get into the trial to get into the system.
They mentioned it to me, but the informed consent packet definitely asks you to not get such a test. Regardless if both the Pfizer and Moderna second shots are eliciting such a strong reaction it's probably obvious to most that you actually got the vaccine.
Well, that's not how it works anyway, but ok. Fuck every last person who gets a trial vaccination with this mindset. They're hurting everybody and delaying our ability to get this under control. Selfish twats.
Plus we don’t yet have a determination as to whether you can still infect others once innoculated, right?
Not sure why you assume everyone does it with selfish and antagonistic intent. What percentage of study enrollees know the first thing about study integrity, statistics, etc. not everyone thinks like a scientist. which is why the initial education is important.
That's not at all what I said. Agreed 100% with the importance of informing and properly educating participants. It should be perfectly clear that you DO NOT do what was done to start this sidebar discussion.
I may have combined you and pnk$krtcrÿnästÿ 's comments, but the question was why would someone do that. To me, it's a very clear and logical desire for someone until they know better.
The question becomes is it ignorance or willful ignorance. If the latter, fuck those people. That's what I was getting at with the mindset. Apologies if I was unclear.
Guy is involved in “blind study” and goes to unblind himself. I know we are setting a pretty low bar for Americans right now because of reasons, but fuck the ignorance too. It’s Reddit so internet is going to internet and mr cool had to show how cool he is going going around the rules and being Superman of immunity, but like was already said by you and others fuck him. Ignorant or not IMO. Even if it wasn’t crystal clear. Thanks for listening.
We are being told to expect a “small number” of vaccines by Nov 1. Probably in the 100s maybe 1000s. Pfizer and Moderna likely. our ID guys think it will be more likely Jan 1.
So here's what we get to deal with in Minnesota Just fuck off and die, republicans. https://m.startribune.com/covid-19-surveys-halted-in-minnesota-amid-racism-intimidation/572535141/
It’s bullshit of course. Just before the election the White House will announce that a vaccine is being distributed. The Secretary of HHS will “approve” a small number of doses for distribution. Publicly he and the WH will greatly embellish the number being distributed. The distributed doses will somehow be encumbered with red tape so they are not actually administered. After the election they will be quietly recalled.
These aren’t rapid or home, just to be clear. The only benefit is they use saliva as the sample. Still require sensitive lab based PCR.
My taste and smell come and go. Now like 6 weeks post exposure. Still have lingering nasal congestion.
This might be a dumb question, but during my appointment for my second shot, I asked the doctor if the vaccine being widely available by mid 2021 was a reasonable goal. She acted like there was no way because the trial takes 2 years to fully complete to collect full double blinded efficacy data. There is no way that it takes 2 years for something like the Pfizer vaccine to become available to the public, correct? (Assuming there are no setbacks safety-wise). I figured if antibodies are present in our bloodwork, and there are no serious side-effects, the vaccine would start to be rolled out sometime in Spring of 2021. I figured safety would be the first priority, then efficacy, The downside of waiting 2 years for full results, even if we determine the vaccine is safe, seems incredibly high.
Production of antibodies is not the same thing as demonstrating efficacy. The downside of giving a bunch of people a vaccine that doesn’t actually provide protection is pretty great. It means lots of people out and about acting as if they are immune and can’t transmit the disease to others when they aren’t and they can. Also, it would pour gas on the anti-vaxx fire.
I think they’re going to be push to show some efficacy prior to that. I don’t think it will be that long. Unless the data doesn’t support its efficacy.
Most doctors wouldn’t know the first thing of vaccine development (or clinical trial design generally). I wouldn’t expect this one to be any different but I could be wrong. While I haven’t done the math myself, no way any of these companies are using a small enough sample size to require 2 years to get the requisite number of events to readout efficacy. That said, lots of things we won’t know for a while like whether the vaccine halts transmission or just reduces morbidity. Also, thank you for participating!
Just to clarify - efficacy at say 6 months and 2-5 years could be different for a vaccine. If a given sars-cov-2 vaccine shows significant efficacy at 6 months, I think you can make a valid public health argument in favor of widespread distribution of that vaccine even if you suspected efficacy would plummet at the 2 year mark. We’ve shown that we aren’t willing to test, contact trace, and isolate to control the virus so a short term patch vaccine could basically do the same thing those measures would have.
NEJM article arguing for rapid tests to receive much more emphasis. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2025631?query=featured_home Spoiler High-Frequency Testing with Low Analytic Sensitivity versus Low-Frequency Testing with High Analytic Sensitivity. A person’s infection trajectory (blue line) is shown in the context of two surveillance regimens (circles) with different analytic sensitivity. The low-analytic-sensitivity assay is administered frequently and the high-analytic-sensitivity assay infrequently. Both testing regimens detect the infection (orange circles), but only the high-frequency test detects it during the transmission window (shading), in spite of its lower analytic sensitivity, which makes it a more effective filter. The window during which polymerase chain reaction (PCR) detects infections before infectivity (green) is short, whereas the corresponding postinfectious but PCR-detectable window (purple) is long.