• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

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.

GenerationX

Well-Known Member
Pfizer’s Phase 2/3 study for ages 5-11.9 is fully-enrolled. Dosage has been determined by the completed Phase 1 in this age group.

Pfizer’s Phase 1 study for children 6 months to 4.9 years of age is also fully enrolled and has begun to determine dosage.

When the age 12-15 study was fully enrolled, it took a further 4 months to get the EUA. So we are likely looking at interim data for 5-11 in late July, full data August with EUA application by Labor Day. It seems to take a further month for approval. Shots in arms by October.

0.5-4.9 is probably going into arms toward Christmas. 6 months to 1.9 will be the last.
According to the CDC, kids 0-17 have a 99.998% chance of surviving it, if they get it. What would be their motivation for getting the vaccine? Also, do they know the NIH stated that "COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated"? Seems like we're asking a lot for a low risk group to do with an experimental vaccine.
 

MansionButler84

Well-Known Member
According to the CDC, kids 0-17 have a 99.998% chance of surviving it, if they get it. What would be their motivation for getting the vaccine? Also, do they know the NIH stated that "COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated"? Seems like we're asking a lot for a low risk group to do with an experimental vaccine.
Ugh.

I want my kids to become X Men. This is the way.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
According to the CDC, kids 0-17 have a 99.998% chance of surviving it, if they get it. What would be their motivation for getting the vaccine? Also, do they know the NIH stated that "COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated"? Seems like we're asking a lot for a low risk group to do with an experimental vaccine.
It looks like you’re spreading lies.
 

GenerationX

Well-Known Member
A random study done to see how well trial subjects understood the potential risks aka "informed consent" should not equate to what we know about the vaccine's efficacy and safety now.
Sure. The study doesn't say you will be more prone to other diseases, just that you might.

As for the safety, you can take the number of people in the U.S. with at least one dose on May 7th (150,000,000) and the number of reports to VAERS on fatalities where a Covid vaccine was listed (4000). You immediately drop the number from VAERS to account for other conditions or fraudulent entries, let's says by half. You now have 2000 deaths potentially attributed to vaccines from 150,000,000 people.

Doing the math, you have approximately a 99.99986% chance of surviving the vaccine.

According to the CDC, the survival rates of Covid itself are:
  • Ages 0-17 99.998%
  • Ages 18-49 99.95%
  • Ages 50-64 99.4%
  • Ages 65+ 91%
Also according to the CDC, comorbidities were present in 94% of the fatalities. So, if you don't have diabetes, a heart condition, etc., your odds of surviving Covid are better than the averages above.

Just for comparison purposes, I looked up Chicken Pox on the CDC site. Ages 0-14 have a 99.999% chance of surviving it (Adults only 99.979%).
 

Heppenheimer

Well-Known Member
According to the CDC, kids 0-17 have a 99.998% chance of surviving it, if they get it. What would be their motivation for getting the vaccine? Also, do they know the NIH stated that "COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated"? Seems like we're asking a lot for a low risk group to do with an experimental vaccine.
As has been pointed out countless times in the other COVID-19 thread, death is not the only bad outcome measure we track with this disease. It also has a tremendous morbidity associated with it. For example, the rate of MIS-C so far appears to be higher in kids for COVID-19 than the severe complications of measles by about a factor of 10, and by about a factor of 100 compared to influenza. And others have pointed out, the benefit of widespread vaccination is not just to protect the vaccinated individual but those who can't be vaccinated, or those that still have a higher risk even after vaccination, You're about 12 months too late with trying to downplay the severity of COVID-19.

Second, the NIH did not say what you quoted. You linked a fringe article from Pubmed, which is a repository of all available medical research articles, regardless of quality, that is maintained and run by the NIH. And this article was about consent in vaccine trials regarding a, to put it mildly, not exactly mainstream opinion on vaccination. The article was also published before the manufacturers presented their trial data to the FDA. Months later with ample trial data and 6 months of real world experience, we know conclusively that these vaccines do not "sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease", as if that was ever really a concern from any serious researcher anyway.

Finally, the only trial aspect of the currently released COVID-19 vaccines not yet finalized is the duration of efficacy. The safety and at least short-term efficacy are well established, and it would be a major surprise if the duration ended up not being long-enduring by this point in time as we gather more and more real-world evidence. They stopped being "experimental" as soon as the EUA was issued.
 

helenabear

Well-Known Member
According to the CDC, kids 0-17 have a 99.998% chance of surviving it, if they get it. What would be their motivation for getting the vaccine? Also, do they know the NIH stated that "COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated"? Seems like we're asking a lot for a low risk group to do with an experimental vaccine.
To protect others. Same with all vaccines. This is constantly the issues with vaccines and how some view. You are protecting others just as much as yourself. Not all can get vaccinated or produce antibodies. The vaccine is going for full approval and likely will this summer. We need to stop feeding this anti-vax rhetoric. It does nothing to help!

As a total joke, you sure you're GenX? We usually don't care and just follow rules cuz that's how we were raised 😆

I forgot to post here that we found a clinic who started vaccination upon FDA approval and not CDC recommendation. Glad to have the first shot in his arm! Him hurting his toe yesterday dduring n outdoor dance party hurt far more than his shot did.
 

GenerationX

Well-Known Member
As has been pointed out countless times in the other COVID-19 thread, death is not the only bad outcome measure we track with this disease. It also has a tremendous morbidity associated with it. For example, the rate of MIS-C so far appears to be higher in kids for COVID-19 than the severe complications of measles by about a factor of 10, and by about a factor of 100 compared to influenza. And others have pointed out, the benefit of widespread vaccination is not just to protect the vaccinated individual but those who can't be vaccinated, or those that still have a higher risk even after vaccination, You're about 12 months too late with trying to downplay the severity of COVID-19.

Second, the NIH did not say what you quoted. You linked a fringe article from Pubmed, which is a repository of all available medical research articles, regardless of quality, that is maintained and run by the NIH. And this article was about consent in vaccine trials regarding a, to put it mildly, not exactly mainstream opinion on vaccination. The article was also published before the manufacturers presented their trial data to the FDA. Months later with ample trial data and 6 months of real world experience, we know conclusively that these vaccines do not "sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease", as if that was ever really a concern from any serious researcher anyway.

Finally, the only trial aspect of the currently released COVID-19 vaccines not yet finalized is the duration of efficacy. The safety and at least short-term efficacy are well established, and it would be a major surprise if the duration ended up not being long-enduring by this point in time as we gather more and more real-world evidence. They stopped being "experimental" as soon as the EUA was issued.
You make good points. It would help your case more if you acknowledged the death rate and bad outcomes from the vaccine itself and that the long-term effects of it are completely unknown. I know there are bad outcomes from Covid, but they are 1) not by any stretch the likelihood that the media portrays them to be and 2) materially influenced by a person's underlying conditions.
 

Heppenheimer

Well-Known Member
You make good points. It would help your case more if you acknowledged the death rate and bad outcomes from the vaccine itself and that the long-term effects of it are completely unknown. I know there are bad outcomes from Covid, but they are 1) not by any stretch the likelihood that the media portrays them to be and 2) materially influenced by a person's underlying conditions.
I won't comment on vaccines not approved in the US, because I have not followed them closely, but because you bring it up...

There have been zero deaths associated directly with the mRNA vaccines, both in the clinical trials, and after several hundred million doses administered across the world. The expected minor and brief illness symptoms after the second dose are so widely known and documented on this website that I wouldn't even have thought it was worth mentioning. The most serious side effects associated with these vaccines has been anaphylaxis, at a frequency of between 2 to 5 per million doses. Most were able to be treated on the spot with an epinepherine injection, and a small minority required overnight observation in a hospital. There were no deaths associated with anaphylaxis. There have been no reported associations with some of the more serious reactions seen with pre-existing vaccines, such as Bell's palsy, transverse myelitis, thrombosis or Guillan-Barre syndrome.

For the Johnson & Johnson vaccines, besides the usual injection site reactions, there is a very small, but real risk of thrombosis, about 3 per million in the general population, but as high as 12 per million in women of reproductive age. I don't have the exact numbers, but I think there were at least two deaths associated with cerebral venous thrombosis, and although the condition was likely triggered by the vaccine, the deaths themselves were caused by using the wrong treatment (heparin).

So, nobody ever claimed these vaccines were completely without side effects (few vaccines are), but other than some very rare adverse reactions, the vaccines are extremely safe, particularly the mRNA vaccines. And the numbers affected are several orders of magnitude less than what we have seen from COVID, both in deaths and in long-term morbidity, the latter of which does not closely correlate to underlying health conditions.

Finally, and this has been stated again and again on this website, but because you brought it up, I'll state it again. The "we don't know the long-term side effects of the vaccines" is a canard. Out of every vaccine previously developed, the longest latency we've seen for the appearance of a side effect that can be reasonably tied to a vaccine is about 6 weeks. This represents the outer limit to how long Guillan-Barre syndrome might appear following influenza or meningococcus vaccination, and the risk of this reaction is about 1 per million or less. There really isn't a feasible biochemical mechanism for a vaccine to suddenly trigger a reaction months or years later. If a vaccine does trigger an auto-immune reaction, this occurs within days to weeks, not months to years. We now have over a year of trial data on the COVID vaccines, and 6 months of real-world experience, plus over a century of vaccine research in general "Long-term side effects", unless they're part of the sequelae of an acute reaction, really aren't something that exists with vaccines.
 
Last edited:

GaBoy

Well-Known Member
Even though I'm now fully vaccinated, I still wear a mask, socially distance and wash my hands often. I work at a local library. Starting next week, we'll no longer have to quarantine items that are coming back. Even though there's evidence that COVID doesn't come from surfaces, I'm still diligent about cleaning my station, the self check outs and computers between uses.
Probably never a bad idea. If you've ever had a roto virus it scars (as in lasting memory)you that way.
 
Last edited:

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

Top Bottom