MRNA is new, Pfizer and J&J are not, even when a med is based on another they still have to study it.
As for MRNA, it's mostly the delivery method (RNA) that's really new, the rest is not.
If you're worried about it, don't get MRNA.
Only mRNA (Pfizer and Moderna) is currently available in Canada since they halted AstraZ, and only Pfizer for younger people due to increased effects from Moderna. Seems to be taking Novavax forever to get approval, though their preliminary studies have been as promising as any.
It isn't the delivery method that's new, it's what's being delivered -- an RNA instruction set instead of the protein spectrum of a virus. There's almost no relation, which is why the definition of a "vaccine" had to be updated to even include this entirely new type.
So yes, it's entirely new and never been used outside of testing and experimental one-off cancer treatments.
It's also not exactly comforting that Pfizer and J&J are involved here considering their track record of violations, with many payouts, some of them colossal in size (ie.
$2.3B for Pfizer in 2009, largest healthcare fraud settlement at the time,
$2.2B for J&J in 2013). I suppose at least Moderna doesn't have such a track record, but then this is their first product to market entirely. The sad reality is that violations and fines are just a business expense to these companies. What's a $2B fine when you're bringing in
upwards of $30B in revenue?
Fortunately, they are studying it, and it's all on-going. That's why everything about these new vaccines is evolving, from the efficacy, ideal interval, how many, what the side effects are, what the risk rates are, etc...
Just last Friday,
Dr. Fauci spoke of how he believes three shots will be the standard rather than two. From the article:
"They are seeing a waning of immunity not only against infection but against hospitalization and to some extent death, which is starting to now involve all age groups. It isn't just the elderly," Fauci said. "It's waning to the point that you're seeing more and more people getting breakthrough infections, and more and more of those people who are getting breakthrough infections are winding up in the hospital."
As a result of these findings, Fauci warned that vaccinated people should get their booster shot, as it might actually be more important than health officials first realized. "If one looks back at this, one can say, do you know, it isn't as if a booster is a bonus, but a booster might actually be an essential part of the primary regimen that people should have," he said on The Daily.
Fauci went on to say, "I think … that the boosting is gonna be an absolutely essential component of our response, not a bonus, not a luxury, but an absolute essential part of the program."
You're going to get a few dissenters just to be contrarians on anything and yet pretty much all actual virologists (not facebook experts) agree on this.
I can't recall anyone saying the vaccine was an outright miracle, much less one without issue, sure, someone probably said it and I'm sure someone has a clip of it, but it has always been that the vaxx was less dangerous than the virus, which is how all medicine is evaluated.
I mean,
when the president of the U.S. asserts that "You're OK. You're not going to – you're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations," and "'If you're vaccinated, you're not going to be hospitalized, you're not going to be in the IC unit, and you're not going to die,", I would argue that many people have over-estimated the effective use of the vaccine throughout the past year.
As to the question of whether or not the "vaxx is less dangerous than the virus" -- the data is abundantly clear that it depends on for whom. 60+? Absolutely, no question, clear as day. 0-9 years? Not so clear, and the evidence largely suggests no, mostly owing to the lack of quality data on the vaccine risk to kids and any kind of long-term data. I would like to expand on this in another post to keep this one more concise as it's the main topic of concern, in my opinion.
And how did we get rid of it? Vaccines.
Was it more dangerous or is Covid less dangerous because of modern science, health/cleanliness and medicine? Don't forget Covid isn't over, it could still mutate and become far worse.
You're counting your chickens a little too soon.
Correct, we used highly effective, sterilizing (non-leaky) vaccines that took some time to develop and dial-in. Same with smallpox. Wonderful technology those DNA-based vaccines have been!
However, what we currently have is nowhere near as effective as would be required to squash out COVID-19 entirely as we did with other diseases. In fact, it seems like it's best use is to prevent serious illness -- great in itself, but it does not sufficiently prevent the spread.
I'm also a bit concerned which direction the mutations might go with such a leaky vaccine. Typically, coronaviruses mutate to become as transmissible as possible, but less dangerous (doesn't transmit as well if the host dies!). This is absolutely the case with the Delta variant, which is many times more contagious, but also has fewer severe outcomes, fortunately. A leaky vaccine, such as the ones we have, could apply upwards pressure on it in the way that the misuse of antibiotics can result in drug-resistant bacteria strains.
You are absolutely correct on not counting our chickens considering the number of breakthrough cases are rising in many places with very high vaccination rates:
-
40% of Ottawa Senators (go sens) test positive despite 100% fully vax'd-
Most vaccinated place on Earth (Gibraltrar) told to cancel holiday plans amid ‘exponential’ rise in Covid casesIt does not appear that vaccination (with the current treatments) alone will make COVID-19 go away. However, reducing its severity to an acceptable level seems like a major win.
This has nothing really to do with the conversation and only threatens to derail it by flooding it with noise.
Don't be that guy on the internet.
No reason to muddy the waters with this. You are free to not respond to my thoughts on issues -- they're not necessarily directed at you. I absolutely see those points as relevant to a discussion on whether the appeal to authority often applied has as much merit as it ought to.
Twisting the conversation, not sure if on accident or on purpose.
The false equivalent is saying fat people, smokers, alcoholics etc should also get less treatment. It is not the same as refusing a vaccination and telling people they have to live with the consequences if they get it. My comments were directed at people refusing to get vaxxed, catching covid and then running to the same hospitals/people they claim are trying to kill them with vaccines and over burdening the system clearly not built for that sort of sudden influx.
I'm not arguing people's choice, never have, but if anti-vaxxers want to throw out the "You have to live with the consequences of your decision" in regards to getting vaxx'd, which was told to me by my own brother, we should be able to throw that back at them when they flood our medical system and push out people who got there through no fault of their own (car accident, etc.) which has been a problem here.
I have yet to see anyone say that those injured by vaccines should not receive medical care. Are you sure they are not stating the obvious truth that there is no way to undo a vaccine? (ie. "you have to live with it because there's no way to reverse it")
Everyone deserves and is entitled to medical care as they need it.However, I do very frequently see people (such as yourself) assert that those who do not get this entirely new treatment become ineligible for medical care due to COVID illness. You don't have a leg to stand on with this argument other than spite, as you describe using it as a rebuttal to people you feel wish you ill.
What's the argument, anyways? That people didn't take a new medication that may or may not have helped? We don't deny healthcare to people who actively harm their bodies (smokers, alcoholics, substance abusers, risk takers, the obese, suntanners, etc...), so we're not about to deny it to people who simply didn't take a preventative medication. And as long as healthcare is for all,
it's for all (and paid for by all at great personal expense to everyone).
edit: fixed the links
