Covid Vaccine Updates and General Discussion About Vaccines

[Shouldigo12]

You just don’t inject it into your veins like I do?

I hear if you do it between the toes it gives a better high.

 

[Disney Experience]

Out of curiosity where does it state that? I cannot donate for other reasons (I'm O- as well), but most of ours do red cross. I don't see it limited there at least.

I asked at the blood mobile two days ago. They had a previous person ask the same question so she knew the one blood official response: "You must wait one year before donating blood after receiving an experimental vaccine."

I went with my wife yesterday to the research site for her 30 day post second shot of Moderna and asked the doctor (Same I have for Pfizer) and he said he had talked to a fellow doctor who then asked one blood and got that response too because of longstanding One Blood policy.

Glad red cross in your area is okay with donations. I do understand the general One-Blood policy though... as long as it does not apply once the vaccine is approved. It is experimental, so long term safety of the blood product is where they(One Blood) side upon. But I have had conflicting information on whether they will allow those who took the vaccine when it was experimental to donate blood when they allow those who take it when approved are allowed to. (That seems a flaw in their policy if they refuse the ones who got vaccinated before approval)

 

[lazyboy97o]

Out of curiosity where does it state that? I cannot donate for other reasons (I'm O- as well), but most of ours do red cross. I don't see it limited there at least.

It is in the educational materials donors are required to read, specifically the Medication Deferral List. The policy applies to all experimental medications and vaccines.

"Experimental Medication or Unlicensed (Experimental) Vaccine is usually associated with a research study, and the effect on the safety of transfused blood is unknown." (Page 3)

https://www.oneblood.org/core/fileparse.php/4617/urlt/Pre-donation-Information-as-of-04-20-20.pdf

The Red Cross has the same requirement.

Medication Deferral List

www.redcrossblood.org

 

[correcaminos]

It is in the educational materials donors are required to read, specifically the Medication Deferral List. The policy applies to all experimental medications and vaccines.

"Experimental Medication or Unlicensed (Experimental) Vaccine is usually associated with a research study, and the effect on the safety of transfused blood is unknown." (Page 3)

https://www.oneblood.org/core/fileparse.php/4617/urlt/Pre-donation-Information-as-of-04-20-20.pdf

The Red Cross has the same requirement.

Medication Deferral List

www.redcrossblood.org

Thank you for that! I did not see it on the normal lists for vaccines, but I have been (and still am) on a nearly 5 hour school board meeting and couldn't look in depth. As one who is unable to donate this wasn't a consideration of mine anyway. I find some restrictions with blood donation sometimes questionable. I've been unable my entire life though.

I asked at the blood mobile two days ago. They had a previous person ask the same question so she knew the one blood official response: "You must wait one year before donating blood after receiving an experimental vaccine."

I went with my wife yesterday to the research site for her 30 day post second shot of Moderna and asked the doctor (Same I have for Pfizer) and he said he had talked to a fellow doctor who then asked one blood and got that response too because of longstanding One Blood policy.

Glad red cross in your area is okay with donations. I do understand the general One-Blood policy though... as long as it does not apply once the vaccine is approved. It is experimental, so long term safety of the blood product is where they(One Blood) side upon. But I have had conflicting information on whether they will allow those who took the vaccine when it was experimental to donate blood when they allow those who take it when approved are allowed to. (That seems a flaw in their policy if they refuse the ones who got vaccinated before approval)

See above. I just didn't find if on red cross myself. As I said I cannot donate so I didn't even really care for me. It will be intersting to see if they rescind. But since vegetarians who lived in the UK during mad cow still cannot donate I doubt they will. As the only O- in my family thanks for donating when you can. I cannot and I did need 2 units after delivering a child. It's never lost on me that I rely on strangers to help in the time of need.

 

[GoofGoof]

Fauci‘s update on timing of vaccine. He says average healthy Americans should start receiving their first dose in April and be done by July. He expects a return to normalcy by the fall.

Fauci says the average American could get vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as April: 'I would take the vaccine'

After at-risk Americans go first, a healthy person can expect to get a first vaccine dose as soon as April, Fauci tells the USA TODAY Editorial Board.

www.yahoo.com

 

[GoofGoof]

Timeline for Pfizer vaccine:

• 11/20/20 Pfizer expected to file for Emergency Use Authorization with the FDA
• After receiving the application an independent board (scientists and doctors outside of the FDA) called the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, or VRBAC will review the document and ask questions to the makers. They have a meeting scheduled for 12/8-12/10. If they vote to approve emergency use than it goes to the FDA for approval which will likely happen. The VRBAC meeting will be publicly held and either broadcast on TV or streamed online or most likely both.
• Once the FDA approves the vaccine for emergency use the next step is an advisory committee to the CDC must make recommendations on which groups should be first in line to receive the vaccine. That group, called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, has scheduled a preliminary meeting on potential Covid-19 vaccines this Monday, Nov. 23, though it does not plan on holding any votes then. Once they vote to approve the EUA then the first patients can receive the vaccine.
• It‘s expected to go from the FDA to the CDC committee in less than 24 hours so if all goes well the EUA should be complete and approved by mid-December

here’s a good summary of the timing:

A Covid-19 vaccine is on track to roll out in December. Here's how that will work.

"We are covering new territory. This has never been done before," one expert said of the speed of vaccine development.

news.yahoo.com

Official word from Pfizer on next steps:

What to Know About Coronavirus—COVID-19 Explained | Pfizer

It has been three years since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. While it is now a familiar term, there are still questions that people may have about this virus and how it works.

www.pfizer.com

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

The studies take blood from subjects a number of times. More during and right after vaccination. Afterwards they take it at 6 months or so intervals for two years. That is the granularity of their lab data on how long and how strong the immunity. Of course the empirical cases of covid in vaccinated individuals will provide objective data too.

Right now the higher number of covid cases in many countries has ironically helped the companies get results sooner. Phase 3 results of effectiveness are based on number of cases of covid in the study group.

I'm not sure why you quoted my post. My post wasn't about any of the things in your post. The information in your post is fine, just not sure why you quoted me.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

The part of the virus that most makers are targeting is the spike protein. This protein is critical in order for the virus to enter into human host cells. If the virus mutates elsewhere it likely will not effect the vaccine effectiveness. If the virus mutates in the spike, then it may impact the effectiveness.

The Pfizer vaccine produces a spike that I believe is modified slightly in order to be more stable.
Just checked Wikipedia: "The mutated version of the spike protein contains two proline substitutions (designated "2P") that cause it to adopt a shape that stimulates neutralizing antibodies".

These modification of the spike did not prevent those vaccinated with it from having 95% effective resistance to covid-19, i.e. the body recognized the real covid-19 from what it knew from the modified spike protein. So a covid-19 virus mutation would have to both avoid changing the functionality of the spike, and be enough to avoid the immune system from still recognizing it. This bodes well for a vaccine that will not have to change composition often.

How long immunity last is still not known, but the vaccine produces a much stronger immune response than those who actually had covid, while having acceptable short term side effects (Of the immune system responding to the vaccine as is needed)

Simply, I was only relaying what experts have reported. Early results look promising, but it is still early.

 

[danlb_2000]

So called virus? So it's actually a bacteria? Maybe a fungus? Miasma?

Evil Spirits?

 

[danlb_2000]

I agree. Though a study where you actually try to infect people that are vaccinated and see how long they emit viable virus would work much more quickly. The risk vs benefit of a study like that may not be there. Most likely they will just use real world empirical evidence. As more people are vaccinated can you tell if rate of transmission goes down beyond what could be accounted for by the number of those vaccinated.

This is called a Human Challenge Trial and the UK is moving ahead with one...

UK plan to be first to run human challenge Covid trials

Volunteers will be deliberately exposed to the virus in trials due to start in January.

www.bbc.com

 

[GoofGoof]

Evil Spirits?

I did way too many tequila shots one night and paid the price...those were some evil spirits for sure despite the fact that I bought the bottle from the fine wine and good spirits shop

 

[danlb_2000]

I can‘t imagine why any politician or political party would oppose the vaccine. Everyone knows that its easier to get re-elected when the economy is good and a vaccine is the absolute best thing for the economy.

As far as current presidential politics. I can’t see the incoming administration doing anything other than pushing hard for vaccinations. The outgoing administration wants to take credit for a successful vaccine based on their warp speed program so I can’t see why they would want to impede the vaccine’s success. In theory both sides can and probably will take credit for the vaccine so both sides should be in favor of it and happy it succeeds. I personally could care less who gets credit for the vaccine as long as I can have my dole whip this summer without a mask

I can‘t imagine why any politician or political party would oppose mask wearing. Everyone knows that its easier to get re-elected when the economy is good and mask wearing is a good thing for the economy.

 

[danlb_2000]

That is Draconian measures that will not be needed. Please read about Mask's and the Corona Virus. Not saying any way or shape we should not be wearing them right now. But there will be a time to go back to normalcy and be ourselves again. When this virus is checked like a flu then go about your daily lives. If you are sick stay home. Pretty much common sense. Mask's are more harm going forward once we have the virus under control.

I have read about masks and they have shown to be effective in reducing the spread of the virus. Mask wearing by people who are sick is quite common in other countries. It would definitely help reduce the spread of other respiratory illnesses if it became more common.

What harm are you speaking of? For the vast majority of the population there is no risk to wearing a mask.

 

[GoofGoof]

I can‘t imagine why any politician or political party would oppose mask wearing. Everyone knows that its easier to get re-elected when the economy is good and mask wearing is a good thing for the economy.

Fair point. I just pray the vaccine never gets to that level. It needs wholesale support across all levels.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I have read about masks and they have shown to be effective in reducing the spread of the virus. Mask wearing by people who are sick is quite common in other countries. It would definitely help reduce the spread of other respiratory illnesses if it became more common.

What harm are you speaking of? For the vast majority of the population there is no risk to wearing a mask.

It covers our beautiful God hole.

 

[correcaminos]

I did not specify exactly when or the frequency of the draws during the first, second or 30 day follow on. Just that the rate of draws is more frequent than for the remainder of the study time. But your data is more exact on timing than what I said.

The full protocol for both Pfizer and Moderna are online and free.

The 12-17 that were just added is a new group(My reference to that was "The new study for children"), I do not think they are part of the 45K of the original30k+12kaddon study. The original 30K which I am part of was 18-85+. Then Pfizer expanded it by another 12K or so and reduced the minimum age to 16, and added HIV and other conditions to the inclusion.

I've just been unlucky to have to read every single update for adding each group when I've gone in (starting August, last day was a month ago for a draw). I wasn't sure if your timing was as bad as mine. Adds 30 mins each time and so far I've had to read and sign new info every single time I've gone. Since I do have a child in the age group, I was contacted to see if we would qualify. Then when I went in for the last blood draw I got the joy of rereading all 30 some pages again lol

I was trying to quantify for people wondering was all. So while you didn't specify I'm huge into transparency. Even the amount of blood that was drawn changed. Frequency did not. Payments did.

So no, the adolescents are not part of the 44k per the paperwork. Pfizer minimum age was lowered to 16 when they expanded past the original 30k or so, but was originally 18. They did have wording specifically asking for 12-17 with the last add on.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

I absolutely think WDW should implement a no covid vaccine record, no entry policy (once the vaccine is widely available).

I'm quoting you here because you mention a WDW requirement, because several folks asked about this topic, and the related topic of employers requiring a vaccine, and I found your post first.

Just read some follow up on this today.

The FDA has emergency authority to issue temporary approval of the two vaccines (primarily) being discussed in this thread. While it has done so for a number of drugs, it has only done so for a vaccine once before. (anthrax in 2005)

Vaccines authorized under FDA's emergency authority cannot be required.

Eventually, the vaccines (if all goes well) should be approved under FDA's regular licensure. From there, it would likely take some time to work out the legal guidance.

It appears few employers require vaccines. Schools and healthcare settings are the small exception, but even in those settings states allow for medical, religious, and sometimes personal belief exemptions.

In the case of COVID-19, the place to look for information and guidance is EEOC. There are a number of unknowns, but if employers decide to make vaccination mandated in some way, most likely employers will have to provide it to their employees for free. (no financial barriers), would likely need to provide a reasonable effort to accommodate employees with medical/religious exemptions, ADA mandates that medical records must be kept separate from general personnel files.

I'm not providing this information as my personal opinion on the matter. I have no idea what WDW, or any other entity will require regarding this vaccine.

 

[rangerbob]

One negative for helping others by being in the Phase 3 trials is that even though the doctors on the research say it is ok to donate blood (30 days past second shot), the protocol of One Blood (The local blood donation organization in central Florida) is that you have to wait one year. So it will be a while before I can donate my O Neg blood.

I would hope they change that policy once it has been approved, but I have had some in the field say that would not happen quickly. Seems weird to say the experimental vaccination people cannot donate blood for a year, but people getting it a few months later when emergency use is granted can. Organization's policy do not change quickly.

Actually in my paperwork that I had to sign for the site it says that I can't donate blood for 2 years. I think they don't want us donating blood so we would know if we received the true vaccine of the placebo.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

I have read about masks and they have shown to be effective in reducing the spread of the virus. Mask wearing by people who are sick is quite common in other countries. It would definitely help reduce the spread of other respiratory illnesses if it became more common.

What harm are you speaking of? For the vast majority of the population there is no risk to wearing a mask.

I'm looking at EEOC right now. I can't answer your question directly, but generally, employers can require PPE, though their is a clause for people with medical disabilities to be offered reasonable accommodation. The examples in the EEOC are allergies to latex, and gowns designed for people who use wheelchairs. I don't know specific examples of medical conditions that would make mask wearing difficult, but I imagine some could exist.

 

[thomas998]

This is a sensitive and complicated topic. Yet, it is the kind of topic that unfortunately gets overly simplified in the public discussion.

It is a little like the public messaging advice on masks. Public messaging on mask wearing has been thoroughly inconsistent. I don't mean politicians, I mean medical advice coming from doctors/reputable experts.

When this pandemic started, the idea of wearing masks to contain a pandemic was treated not only as not necessary, it was treated with near contempt. Watch minute 52 from this lecture recorded in 2019 by Dr. Jeremy Brown (Director of Emergency Care Research at NIH as of 2019 + wrote a book on the 1918 flu pandemic):

The Flu Pandemic of 1918 | National Archives

www.archives.gov

Some of what he says is consistent with 2020 messaging (masks are less useful when wet), but the person asking about masks specifically asks if wearing a mask (in 2019) offers any protection from flu/viruses, and the answer is a resounding. NO. The doctor lets out a little laugh when the question is initially asked. He then says masks "Do something," but later goes on to say, "Paper masks do very, very little." (and this was asked in the context of 2019/SARS/flu. )

Yet here in 2020...the CDC tends to recommend cloth masks, but also provides us with this graphic: View attachment 513670

I post this not to debate the wearing of masks, but rather to say messaging has not been consistent on this topic at all, and I find that frustrating. Inconsistent, and over simplified, medical messaging contributes to distrust. I think, part of the inconsistency stems, in part, from a desire to make public advice very simple.

Of course now the Danish study that actually tested mask in a random study on the virus found no benefit. So now who will governments believe this time?