Covid Vaccine Updates and General Discussion About Vaccines

Will you take a Covid vaccine once one is approved and deemed safe and effective by the FDA?

  • Yes, stick me please

  • No, I will wait

  • No, I will never take one


Results are only viewable after voting.

Heppenheimer

Well-Known Member
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?
That study asked a very specific question, and that was if you provided masks to 50% of a given cohort, would this result in a 50% reduction in COVID-19 cases among that cohort? This was also carried out in the spring, when mask-wearing was not yet widespread in Denmark. It also relied on quite a bit of self-reporting. So, within the specific question asked, no, providing masks to 50% of a given cohort would not result in 50% reduction in COVID cases.

It did not attempt to address if mask-wearing can prevent other's from catching COVID-19.
 

Disney Experience

Well-Known Member
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.
I had to reread your original post, to see why. The reason I quoted your post is that you brought up the point that how long the immunity lasts has impact on the probability of people getting vaccinated (Hopefully my paraphrase is not to far off). The blood taken in Phase 3, as well as the statistics on covid cases in those subjects, is one way the length of immunity will be determined. The increased number of people outside the study who take the vaccine will also help, but their time since vaccination is less, but their numbers will be much, much more. I probably should have referenced the specific point in your message I was responding to.

I was not criticizing, rather was trying to provide increase clarity concerning longevity that you rightly brought up.
 

Disney Experience

Well-Known Member
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.
The researchers definitely would like the study to stay blind as best as possible. But even without seeing antibodies post experimental shot from blood work, one can have a very very strong assurance if you get side effects from the injections.

I was told by the doctor at the research site on my 30 days past second shot visit that it is fine to donate blood. I was surprised when he said that since the testing for antibodies that blood banks do for free may reveal vaccination.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
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?

Actually it only looked at how effective masks were in preventing the wearer from being infected, it did not look at the overall benefits of wearing a mask.
 

MickeyLuv'r

Well-Known Member
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?
I can't quite answer your question. Earlier I mostly pointing out that the mask messaging has changed dramatically over time. I tend to think a multi-layer, proper fitting mask offers some protection, but the messaging has been all over the place.


Consistent messaging, backed up with solid data would give us all a much better understanding of how to be proactive, and better understand the risks we face.

For a moment, I just imagine, what if we'd had a public education program in place that taught people how to behave during a pandemic, before al of this started? We have enough knowledge to know pandemics happen, yet the public was pretty clueless as to how to behave. What a massive failing.
 

Animal_Kingdom_09

Active Member
I absolutely think WDW should implement a no covid vaccine record, no entry policy (once the vaccine is widely available). Why should the rest of us have to cater to the self entitled anti vaxxers like the 4 people in the survey above who will never take the vaccine... well then you should not get to enjoy WDW either. You make your bed of misinformation, you lie in it.
Perhaps they should implement a policy right now of no entry except for those who have already had Covid with symptoms - not just a positive PCR test but no actual symptoms. Then everyone allowed into the parks could skip the mask. After all, it is all of you who have not had the disease that are the problem. </sarcasm>

I am one of those people who currently has no plans to get a vaccine. It is simple, really - there is absolutely no benefit for me if I take a vaccine. I am already as immune as I am going to get and no vaccine is going to improve that. It is the same reason that I never got a chickenpox vaccine since I had the disease as a child. However, I would be subject to any potential side effects. The benefit to risk ratio does not work.

I am hardly a "self entitled anti-vaxxer". I have had every vaccine recommended for a person my age, including smallpox (which ages me a little bit). My most recent vaccine was Shingrix, which seems to have similar side effects to the trial vaccine that @helenabear had. But in the case of Shingrix, the benefit - reduced risk of shingles - far outweighs the risk of adverse reactions to the vaccine.

I even wear a mask everywhere it is asked of me, even though I am not a risk to transmit or catch COVID-19 unless it mutates. Fortunately, I cater to those who have not had the disease even though there is nothing in it for me, other than I do not want anyone to suffer if they can avoid it. COVID-19 is its own particular kind of nasty. I personally thought that the flu I had years ago was more severe (it put me in the hospital where Covid did not) but the coronavirus lasted much longer. I was sick for 2 1/2 weeks, but had chest tightness that lasted for almost 5 months afterward. During that 2 week period, I went through two rounds of steroids, two bottles of cough syrup to be able to sleep at night, and spent a week using a nebulizer to fight off breathing difficulties.

Based on prior pandemics, I doubt that proof of vaccination will be required except for schools. Even that won't occur until the vaccines are past the emergency use authorization stage, which won't happen until full trials are competed, which will take years.
 

Shouldigo12

Well-Known Member
Perhaps they should implement a policy right now of no entry except for those who have already had Covid with symptoms - not just a positive PCR test but no actual symptoms. Then everyone allowed into the parks could skip the mask. After all, it is all of you who have not had the disease that are the problem. </sarcasm>

I am one of those people who currently has no plans to get a vaccine. It is simple, really - there is absolutely no benefit for me if I take a vaccine. I am already as immune as I am going to get and no vaccine is going to improve that. It is the same reason that I never got a chickenpox vaccine since I had the disease as a child. However, I would be subject to any potential side effects. The benefit to risk ratio does not work.

I am hardly a "self entitled anti-vaxxer". I have had every vaccine recommended for a person my age, including smallpox (which ages me a little bit). My most recent vaccine was Shingrix, which seems to have similar side effects to the trial vaccine that @helenabear had. But in the case of Shingrix, the benefit - reduced risk of shingles - far outweighs the risk of adverse reactions to the vaccine.

I even wear a mask everywhere it is asked of me, even though I am not a risk to transmit or catch COVID-19 unless it mutates. Fortunately, I cater to those who have not had the disease even though there is nothing in it for me, other than I do not want anyone to suffer if they can avoid it. COVID-19 is its own particular kind of nasty. I personally thought that the flu I had years ago was more severe (it put me in the hospital where Covid did not) but the coronavirus lasted much longer. I was sick for 2 1/2 weeks, but had chest tightness that lasted for almost 5 months afterward. During that 2 week period, I went through two rounds of steroids, two bottles of cough syrup to be able to sleep at night, and spent a week using a nebulizer to fight off breathing difficulties.

Based on prior pandemics, I doubt that proof of vaccination will be required except for schools. Even that won't occur until the vaccines are past the emergency use authorization stage, which won't happen until full trials are competed, which will take years.
? Immunity to covid doesn't last forever. Just because I had the flu two years doesn't make the vaccine worthless this year.
 

Disney Experience

Well-Known Member
Perhaps they should implement a policy right now of no entry except for those who have already had Covid with symptoms - not just a positive PCR test but no actual symptoms. Then everyone allowed into the parks could skip the mask. After all, it is all of you who have not had the disease that are the problem. </sarcasm>

I am one of those people who currently has no plans to get a vaccine. It is simple, really - there is absolutely no benefit for me if I take a vaccine. I am already as immune as I am going to get and no vaccine is going to improve that. It is the same reason that I never got a chickenpox vaccine since I had the disease as a child. However, I would be subject to any potential side effects. The benefit to risk ratio does not work.

I am hardly a "self entitled anti-vaxxer". I have had every vaccine recommended for a person my age, including smallpox (which ages me a little bit). My most recent vaccine was Shingrix, which seems to have similar side effects to the trial vaccine that @helenabear had. But in the case of Shingrix, the benefit - reduced risk of shingles - far outweighs the risk of adverse reactions to the vaccine.

I even wear a mask everywhere it is asked of me, even though I am not a risk to transmit or catch COVID-19 unless it mutates. Fortunately, I cater to those who have not had the disease even though there is nothing in it for me, other than I do not want anyone to suffer if they can avoid it. COVID-19 is its own particular kind of nasty. I personally thought that the flu I had years ago was more severe (it put me in the hospital where Covid did not) but the coronavirus lasted much longer. I was sick for 2 1/2 weeks, but had chest tightness that lasted for almost 5 months afterward. During that 2 week period, I went through two rounds of steroids, two bottles of cough syrup to be able to sleep at night, and spent a week using a nebulizer to fight off breathing difficulties.

Based on prior pandemics, I doubt that proof of vaccination will be required except for schools. Even that won't occur until the vaccines are past the emergency use authorization stage, which won't happen until full trials are competed, which will take years.
Each person has to decide the risk/benefit of a decision to vaccinate or not. Having immunity through past infection I think would decrease the benefit of getting vaccinated, because of probable immunity.

Having covid gives a level of immunity, but the level of T cell response in Pfizer vaccinated subjects of the earlier phase studies was many times higher than someone who had covid and recovered.[At least from the reports and papers I have read]. So there may be value to even those who had covid. We do not know how long immunity lasts whether one has been vaccinated or had covid. The number of people who have had covid more than once is very small, that bodes well for them, and likely for those vaccinated. But our experience with covid is relatively short.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Original Poster
Perhaps they should implement a policy right now of no entry except for those who have already had Covid with symptoms - not just a positive PCR test but no actual symptoms. Then everyone allowed into the parks could skip the mask. After all, it is all of you who have not had the disease that are the problem. </sarcasm>

I am one of those people who currently has no plans to get a vaccine. It is simple, really - there is absolutely no benefit for me if I take a vaccine. I am already as immune as I am going to get and no vaccine is going to improve that. It is the same reason that I never got a chickenpox vaccine since I had the disease as a child. However, I would be subject to any potential side effects. The benefit to risk ratio does not work.

I am hardly a "self entitled anti-vaxxer". I have had every vaccine recommended for a person my age, including smallpox (which ages me a little bit). My most recent vaccine was Shingrix, which seems to have similar side effects to the trial vaccine that @helenabear had. But in the case of Shingrix, the benefit - reduced risk of shingles - far outweighs the risk of adverse reactions to the vaccine.

I even wear a mask everywhere it is asked of me, even though I am not a risk to transmit or catch COVID-19 unless it mutates. Fortunately, I cater to those who have not had the disease even though there is nothing in it for me, other than I do not want anyone to suffer if they can avoid it. COVID-19 is its own particular kind of nasty. I personally thought that the flu I had years ago was more severe (it put me in the hospital where Covid did not) but the coronavirus lasted much longer. I was sick for 2 1/2 weeks, but had chest tightness that lasted for almost 5 months afterward. During that 2 week period, I went through two rounds of steroids, two bottles of cough syrup to be able to sleep at night, and spent a week using a nebulizer to fight off breathing difficulties.

Based on prior pandemics, I doubt that proof of vaccination will be required except for schools. Even that won't occur until the vaccines are past the emergency use authorization stage, which won't happen until full trials are competed, which will take years.
I think this is a valid point. They may need to add to the list people who can prove they either tested positive or have antibodies. I know my wife had to get vaccine titers to work in day care centers that prove her MMR shot is still active and working.

I don’t think we can look at past pandemics as evidence of what will happen this time. We have never had WDW shut down and then re-opened with many restrictions due to a pandemic. I don’t think it’s likely they will require proof of a vaccine if they can help it, but if the vaccine doesn’t lead to herd immunity or if it takes a long time (6+ months) they may consider it if enough people are vaccinated that they will have enough customers. I know your comment was just sarcasm, but they couldn’t open today to only people who were infected because there aren’t enough people to make that worth doing. If we get to over half the population vaccinated but case numbers still aren’t low enough to remove Covid restrictions (masks, distancing and capacity limits) it may be worth it to implement a plan to require vaccinations to get rid of that stuff and bring back larger crowds.
 
Last edited:

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Original Poster
Here’s an interesting idea on getting people on board with the vaccine. If we tied the recipe of a stimulus check (in this article $1,000) to getting vaccinated would that be an effective way to get to 70%+ vaccinated and also stimulate the economy at the same time. Seems like a win on both sides and if we planned to give people a stimulus check anyway just for existing, why not add something else positive for society. It would come at a cost of $225-$275 billion but again, we are almost certainly going to need a stimulus plan once the vaccine comes out and the economy attempts to finally put itself back together. I still like the idea of industry specific stimulus as well, stuff like tax credits for travel and dining out to help the most impacted industries immediately.

 

seascape

Well-Known Member
Here’s an interesting idea on getting people on board with the vaccine. If we tied the recipe of a stimulus check (in this article $1,000) to getting vaccinated would that be an effective way to get to 70%+ vaccinated and also stimulate the economy at the same time. Seems like a win on both sides and if we planned to give people a stimulus check anyway just for existing, why not add something else positive for society. It would come at a cost of $225-$275 billion but again, we are almost certainly going to need a stimulus plan once the vaccine comes out and the economy attempts to finally put itself back together. I still like the idea of industry specific stimulus as well, stuff like tax credits for travel and dining out to help the most impacted industries immediately.

I partially agree with you that if you get and cash a stimulus check you should be required to take the vaccine. In fact, I have no choice but to take the vaccine if I want to keep my retiree health care insurance. The wellness program requires all vaccinations, flue, shingles, phenomena, etc. So of course if I want to keep my coverage I will have to take the Covid19 vaccine.

As for everyone else, the vaccine should be required to everyone and if you refuse, you should lose all health coverage and access to the medical system. Covid19 has cost the taxpayers at least 7 trillion dollars and no one should be able to refuse the vaccine. It is obscene to think there are those who have no problem demanding the Federal Taxpayers bailout everyone for Covid19 and then complain they have to take a vaccine. Selfish, stupid, ignorant, and uncaring is all I can call anyone who refuses and so I say let them take the risk of refusing, and that is getting sick with anything.
 

Smooth

Well-Known Member

Immunity to the Coronavirus May Last Years, New Data Hint​

Blood samples from recovered patients suggest a powerful, long-lasting immune response, researchers reported.


17VIRUS-IMMUNE1-articleLarge-v2.jpg


Blood was drawn for a Covid-19 antibody test at the University of Arizona in Tucson earlier this year.Credit...Cheney Orr/Reuters



How long might immunity to the coronavirus last? Years, maybe even decades, according to a new study — the most hopeful answer yet to a question that has shadowed plans for widespread vaccination.
Eight months after infection, most people who have recovered still have enough immune cells to fend off the virus and prevent illness, the new data show. A slow rate of decline in the short term suggests, happily, that these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time to come.
The research, published online, has not been peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific journal. But it is the most comprehensive and long-ranging study of immune memory to the coronavirus to date.
“That amount of memory would likely prevent the vast majority of people from getting hospitalized disease, severe disease, for many years,” said Shane Crotty, a virologist at the La Jolla Institute of Immunology who co-led the new study.




The findings are likely to come as a relief to experts worried that immunity to the virus might be short-lived, and that vaccines might have to be administered repeatedly to keep the pandemic under control.
And the research squares with another recent finding: that survivors of SARS, caused by another coronavirus, still carry certain important immune cells 17 years after recovering.

The findings are consistent with encouraging evidence emerging from other labs. Researchers at the University of Washington, led by the immunologist Marion Pepper, had earlier shown that certain “memory” cells that were produced following infection with the coronavirus persist for at least three months in the body.
A study published last week also found that people who have recovered from Covid-19 have powerful and protective killer immune cells even when antibodies are not detectable.
These studies “are all by and large painting the same picture, which is that once you get past those first few critical weeks, the rest of the response looks pretty conventional,” said Deepta Bhattacharya, an immunologist at the University of Arizona.
Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale University, said she was not surprised that the body mounts a long-lasting response because “that’s what is supposed to happen.” Still, she was heartened by the research: “This is exciting
A small number of infected people in the new study did not have long-lasting immunity after recovery, perhaps because of differences in the amounts of coronavirus they were exposed to. But vaccines can overcome that individual variability, said Jennifer Gommerman, an immunologist at the University of Toronto.
“That will help in focusing the response, so you don’t get the same kind of heterogeneity that you would see in an infected population,” she said.

A patient recovering from SARS in China in 2003. Survivors of that infection, also caused by a coronavirus, still carried immune cells 17 years later.Credit...Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
In recent months, reports of waning antibody levels have created worry that immunity to the coronavirus may disappear in a few months, leaving people vulnerable to the virus again.
But many immunologists have noted that it is natural for antibody levels to drop. Besides, antibodies are just one arm of the immune system.
Although antibodies in the blood are needed to block the virus and forestall a second infection — a condition known as sterilizing immunity — immune cells that “remember” the virus more often are responsible for preventing serious illness.

“Sterilizing immunity doesn’t happen very often — that is not the norm,” said Alessandro Sette, an immunologist at the La Jolla Institute of Immunology and co-leader of the study.
More often, people become infected a second time with a particular pathogen, and the immune system recognizes the invader and quickly extinguishes the infection. The coronavirus in particular is slow to do harm, giving the immune system plenty of time to kick into gear.
“It may be terminated fast enough that not only are you not experiencing any symptoms but you are not infectious,” Dr. Sette said.
Dr. Sette and his colleagues recruited 185 men and women, aged 19 to 81, who had recovered from Covid-19. The majority had mild symptoms not requiring hospitalization; most provided just one blood sample, but 38 provided multiple samples over many months.
The team tracked four components of the immune system: antibodies, B cells that make more antibodies as needed; and two types of T cells that kill other infected cells. The idea was to build a picture of the immune response over time by looking at its constituents.
“If you just look at only one, you can really be missing the full picture,” Dr. Crotty said.
He and his colleagues found that antibodies were durable, with modest declines at six to eight months after infection, although there was a 200-fold difference in the levels among the participants. T cells showed only a slight, slow decay in the body, while B cells grew in number — an unexpected finding the researchers can’t quite explain.
The study is the first to chart the immune response to a virus in such granular detail, experts said. “For sure, we have no priors here,” Dr. Gommerman said. “We’re learning, I think for the first time, about some of the dynamics of these populations through time.”

Worries over how long immunity to the coronavirus persists were sparked mainly by research into those viruses causing common colds. One frequently cited study, led by Jeffrey Shaman of Columbia University, suggested that immunity might fade quickly and that reinfections could occur within a year.
“What we need to be very mindful of is whether or not reinfection is going to be a concern,” Dr. Shaman said. “And so seeing evidence that we have this kind of persistent, robust response, at least to these time scales, is very encouraging.” So far, at least, he noted, reinfections with the coronavirus seem to be rare.
Exactly how long immunity lasts is hard to predict, because scientists don’t yet know what levels of various immune cells are needed to protect from the virus. But studies so far have suggested that even small numbers of antibodies or T and B cells may be enough to shield those who have recovered.
The participants in the study have been making those cells in robust amounts — so far. “There’s no sign that memory cells are suddenly going to plummet, which would be kind of unusual,” Dr. Iwasaki said. “Usually, there’s a slow decay over years.”
There is some emerging evidence that reinfections with common cold coronaviruses are a result of viral genetic variations, Dr. Bhattacharya noted, and so those concerns may not be relevant to the new coronavirus.
“I don’t think it’s an unreasonable prediction to think that these immune memory components would last for years,” he
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Original Poster
I partially agree with you that if you get and cash a stimulus check you should be required to take the vaccine. In fact, I have no choice but to take the vaccine if I want to keep my retiree health care insurance. The wellness program requires all vaccinations, flue, shingles, phenomena, etc. So of course if I want to keep my coverage I will have to take the Covid19 vaccine.

As for everyone else, the vaccine should be required to everyone and if you refuse, you should lose all health coverage and access to the medical system. Covid19 has cost the taxpayers at least 7 trillion dollars and no one should be able to refuse the vaccine. It is obscene to think there are those who have no problem demanding the Federal Taxpayers bailout everyone for Covid19 and then complain they have to take a vaccine. Selfish, stupid, ignorant, and uncaring is all I can call anyone who refuses and so I say let them take the risk of refusing, and that is getting sick with anything.
That works for me, but the stimulus plan is more of a carrot vs a stick approach. Instead of punishing people who want to resist you reward the people who don’t. I think there is a large number of people who will get the vaccine without having to be rewarded or punished and there is a percent of the population who won’t get the vaccine no matter what. It’s the group in the middle that a plan like this would be designed to push over the edge. People who maybe aren’t opposed to the vaccine but don’t want to wait in a line to get it or don’t really “fear” the virus so not in a rush to get vaccinated. In a simple numbers example if 50% of the population is in no matter what and 20% is out no matter what if you offer incentive to get all or most of that 30% that’s in the middle it’s possible to get closer to 80% vaccinated vs between 50 and 65% if that group split mostly down the middle. It could be the difference between reaching herd immunity and not.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Original Poster
Pfizer formally applying for Emergency Use Authorization today:
 

Heppenheimer

Well-Known Member
Pfizer formally applying for Emergency Use Authorization today:
From what I determined, the FDA advisory committee will meet sometime in early December to announce their decision. If they recommend for emergency authorization, the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meets to decide exactly who should be included and excluded under the emergency authorization. Once they make this determination (and some minor recommendations for physically administering the vaccine), the first people can receive the vaccination. The ACIP has stated that if the FDA grants the authorization, they will release their guidelines within 24-48 hours. Pfizer has indicated that once they receive the final go-ahead, they will immediately start shipping the vaccine.

Moderna expects to have their data finalized by early December, so it is possible that because the two vaccines use a very similar mechanism, the FDA could evaluate them at the same time. But all this depends on timing.

My hospital is not requiring the vaccination (yet), but I will take it as soon as they offer it. We really need robust stage IV data to convince the world to get on board with what is probably the most important public health initiative of our time.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Original Poster
It looks like we may have a 3rd potential vaccine in the mix by Christmas (at least internationally). The Oxford group whose vaccine is being developed with AstraZeneca says they expect to have stage 3 trial results before Christmas from their trial in the UK, Brazil and South Africa. I’m not sure how far behind the US trial is due to the pause that lasted longer here than abroad.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Original Poster
From what I determined, the FDA advisory committee will meet sometime in early December to announce their decision. If they recommend for emergency authorization, the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meets to decide exactly who should be included and excluded under the emergency authorization. Once they make this determination (and some minor recommendations for physically administering the vaccine), the first people can receive the vaccination. The ACIP has stated that if the FDA grants the authorization, they will release their guidelines within 24-48 hours. Pfizer has indicated that once they receive the final go-ahead, they will immediately start shipping the vaccine.

Moderna expects to have their data finalized by early December, so it is possible that because the two vaccines use a very similar mechanism, the FDA could evaluate them at the same time. But all this depends on timing.

My hospital is not requiring the vaccination (yet), but I will take it as soon as they offer it. We really need robust stage IV data to convince the world to get on board with what is probably the most important public health initiative of our time.
I think they said the FDA committee meeting is set for 12/8 through 12/10 and will be broadcast publicly. The CDC committee is meeting Monday to start establishing guidelines on who gets the vaccine first and when they get it but they won’t vote on anything until they get the recommendations from the independent FDA committee. It’s possible all of that happens as early as mid-December and Pfizer is saying they will have the first vaccinations done 24-48 hours from the final approvals. It could be that the first people get stuck before Christmas. It’s a limited group that gets the first round, but with cases exploding everywhere we need to get medical workers vaccinated as soon as possible because unfortunately it looks like they are going to be quite busy for a while :(
 

MickeyLuv'r

Well-Known Member
As for everyone else, the vaccine should be required to everyone and if you refuse, you should lose all health coverage and access to the medical system.
Medical exemptions? Pregnant women? Allergic reactions?

Per the CDC, most vaccines come with the following exemption warning:
People with minor illnesses, such as a cold, may be vaccinated. People who are moderately or severely ill should usually wait until they recover before getting ____________ vaccine.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom