That was always a possibility. Not much cause for concern unless large groups of people start getting seriously ill or dying from the virus after getting vaccinated
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
COVID concerns in the Northeast
- Thread starter uphillklimber
- Start date
Smellytele
Well-known member
Get my 2nd shot of Pfizer’s in a few weeks. No side effects nor any injection site pain from the first.
abc
Well-known member
Source please?
Friend my mine was foolish enough to attend a wedding the same day as he received his vaccine, indoor & maskless. He was then informed by the groom’s father he’s been in contact with a person tested positive, and was awaiting his own test result. 2 days later, result came back, positive.
So now my friend is in self isolation and plan to get tested Monday. Will his vaccination invalid his covid test?
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
As these are mRNA vaccines (at the moment until others come out) that seems unlikely.
abc
Well-known member
Vaccine aren't proven to prevent infection.
It only prevents getting the vaccinated from getting seriously sick.
In fact, that's the reason why people who're vaccinated still have to wear mask and social distance, until all others are vaccinated.
Smellytele
Well-known member
No they were proven to be less than 100% effective in preventing infection. 90-95%. So 5-10 people out of 100 can still get it after they are vaccinated. Also it takes time after your 2nd shot for it to take full effect.
Believe that's correct. Asked all my contacts in the medical field about the probability of being a carrier even after 2 nd shot- no definitive answer.
Merck has decide to drop the R&D on a vaccine stating that they believe its much ore effective to contract it and make your own antibodies. . . . . using the virus as oppose to the mRNA method.
Merck Shuts Down Covid Vaccine Program After Lackluster Data
Merck & Co. is discontinuing development of its two experimental Covid-19 vaccines after early trial data showed they failed to generate immune responses comparable to a natural infection or existing vaccines.
www.bloomberg.com
With 26 million vaccines given, you would think the critically at-risk people were all taken care of -not so.
One dreams to believe all will be vaccinated. It will end up being 50% of there population- maybe 60%.
machski
Well-known member
Be careful not knowing the full details and basing a personal decision on that. Even after the second dose, maximum protection is not afforded until 14 days after receiving it. For both Pfizer and Moderna I believe. Not knowing how far this congressman was from his second dose doesn't prove a thing. It is possible he got infected prior to receiving the second dose and didn't test positive until just after receiving that second dose.
Ha...I'm in no position to make any personal decisions regarding vaccination. I'm not over 65 nor am I an "essential" worker. I don't work in healthcare. I have no preexisting conditions that would move me up in line. Nope, I'm just sitting here watching rich and entitled people plot to get it out of turn, or flat earthers destroying vaccine. The whole thing is so disorganized and chaotic I have no reason to feel anything other than zero confidence.
Which is fine by me. I'm not sick nor do I fear getting sick. As I've said before, I'll let the rich, famous, politically connected, and the hystericals get it first. I figure that covers at least 50% of the population. By then the negative aspects will all shake out. I figure by the end of spring I'll feel comfortable enough to allow someone to jab me. Just about the same time my place in line comes up.
abc
Well-known member
"the negatives" had already been shaken out since the phase III trial from last fall. We're talking about roughly 50,000 brave "volunteers"! Any thing that's less than 0.002% (1/50,000) isn't worth counting.
Fear of loooong term issues, we won't find out till the time passes. Time we don't have the luxury of. So it's take our chance in getting it (vaccine), or take our chance in getting "it" (virus).
Personally, I'm inclined to follow the herd, which is getting the vaccine jab.
The immediate negatives maybe, but the long term not until time passes. 1 per 50,000? Great unless you are the 1!
I'll wait for now since big brother says I can't get it yet. So I'll let you lemmings go first.
I did the same with my shingles vaccine. The first vaccine called Zostervaxx came with a roughly 25% chance of getting shingles anyway. What's the point of that? So they developed Shingrix which I got immediately after it became available. Guessing the same will happen with COVID...I'll wait for the good stuff.
Last edited:
abc
Well-known member
Except the Covid vaccine is 95%!
Your waiting till spring only buys you 2 extra months. But that 2 months is already covered by the phase III trial. Any truly long term effect, like a couple years down the road, you aren't going to see it by spring of 2021!
Even if you wait till spring, you may THINK you improve your odd to 1 in 5 million. Great unless you're the 1.
dblskifanatic
Active member
- Joined
- May 24, 2019
- Messages
- 767
- Points
- 43
The J & J vaccine is only 66% effective. Sad part about the vaccination process, you do not have the option. My sister was told which vaccine she got after she had already received it. Where our step daughter works they had Moderna and lots of people were getting rashes and some also got hospitalized so they ceased distribution - same in San Diego. They believe it was a specific batch. Pfizer seems to be the apparent best,
Smellytele
Well-known member
J&J is 65% but 85% effective in people not getting symptoms or at least symptoms needing hospitalization. J&J has not been approved yet and from what I am hearing may go to poorer countries to at least get them something.
I got the Pfizer one and no side effects after the first but haven't gotten the 2nd one yet.
abc
Well-known member
The "traditional" vaccine (non-mRNA) vaccines got a poor rep because they somehow measures infection in addition to measure severe cases. When you look at preventing severe cases, they seem to do just as well (or "almost as well" anyway) as the other two. Both of the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer/Mordena) only look at severe cases, didn't report asymptomatic infection rate.
The irony is, mRNA are the "unknown" in long term. Whilst the J&J (& and Oxford vaccine) have a long track record in understanding how the whole "package" behaves inside the human body.
The irony is, mRNA are the "unknown" in long term. Whilst the J&J (& and Oxford vaccine) have a long track record in understanding how the whole "package" behaves inside the human body.
SenorQuesadilla
Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2020
- Messages
- 70
- Points
- 18
Believe that's correct. Asked all my contacts in the medical field about the probability of being a carrier even after 2 nd shot- no definitive answer.
Merck has decide to drop the R&D on a vaccine stating that they believe its much ore effective to contract it and make your own antibodies. . . . . using the virus as oppose to the mRNA method.
Merck Shuts Down Covid Vaccine Program After Lackluster Data
Merck & Co. is discontinuing development of its two experimental Covid-19 vaccines after early trial data showed they failed to generate immune responses comparable to a natural infection or existing vaccines.
With 26 million vaccines given, you would think the critically at-risk people were all taken care of -not so.
One dreams to believe all will be vaccinated. It will end up being 50% of there population- maybe 60%.
Fact check: Vaccine company did not say it is better to fight COVID-19 than get the vaccine
Facebook users have claimed that pharmaceutical company Merck has said it is better to catch COVID-19 and recover naturally than it is to get vaccinated. This is false. It is a misrepresentation of a statement from Merck.Multiple posts on Facebook have shared this claim in different ways, whether in written posts, memes or screenshots. One such post reads: “Vaccine manufacturer Merck scraps COVID vaccine, saying studies show it’s more effective to get the virus and recover than get the vaccine” (here). Another says: “According to Merck, they have determined it's better to just get the virus and develop antibodies than taking a vaccine. They have abandoned vaccine development in favour of alternative therapies” (here).
These posts appear to have misinterpreted a recent statement from Merck, which announced on Jan. 25 that it was dropping research on V590 and V591, its two candidate vaccines for COVID-19, to focus on therapeutics instead (here).
Citing its reasons for discontinuing development, the American pharmaceutical giant said: “This decision follows Merck’s review of findings from Phase 1 clinical studies for the vaccines. In these studies, both V590 and V591 were generally well tolerated, but the immune responses were inferior to those seen following natural infection and those reported for other SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccines.” (here)
Therefore, Merck was referring to trial data showing its own vaccine candidates having an inferior result compared to a natural immune response to COVID-19. It was not advising against delivery of other COVID-19 vaccines. As it noted in its statement, other candidate vaccines have led to recipients showing a stronger immune response.
I got Pfizer Vacc. No side effects for either dose except for a lil next day tenderness at the injection site
abc
Well-known member
For once, this particular vaccine, the uptake percentage are just adults making decisions for themselves, as kids are not included anyway.
So, any adult choose not to get vaccinated, they're not putting anyone else but themselves at risk. In this free society, I fully support their rights not to get vaccinated. That would speed up the vaccination of those in the lower priority group who wish to be vaccinated.
Agree.
The issue I am curious about - those not choosing to get vaccinated - will they be more likely to be carriers? Or, as I suggested in previous post, does it even matter? If those who get vaccinated, can still be carriers to others, then its less likely those who choose not to get it will be vilified.
abc
Well-known member
I don't think we have the data to know for sure either way. There're suggestions that vaccinated people are less infectious. But I'm not sure there's sufficient data to support that hypothesis just yet. So for the time being, we have no choice but to assume it doesn't matter.
In any case, as long as those who want to get vaccinated got vaccinated, they won't get sick whether the unvaccinated spread it or not. The hospitalization and death rate will eventually drop. And the unvaccinated will get a free ride.
Everyone gets what they want.
(this is assuming there will be enough number of people taking the vaccine. But it's a self-correcting problem. If there's still a lot of disease, more "on the fence" people will take the vaccine!
)
