Covid Vaccine Updates and General Discussion About Vaccines

[thomas998]

I agree. I’m currently in that position at my job. I have blackout windows between the end of a quarter and quarterly earnings call and filing of the 10-K or 10-Q. I couldn’t sell shares if I wanted to as the stock plan administer locks me out. Once the Q/K is filed I’m free to sell again. They will also periodically lock down sales if work is underway on a major acquisition or asset sale. That’s usually specific to whoever is working on the due diligence for that M&A activity. If you get unlucky and the process takes 6 months or longer there could be large windows blacked out.

In this case I think the date was specifically set for that reason. November 9 was the filing deadline for 9/30/20 10Qs set by the SEC. Pfizer almost always files earlier than that but since the sale plan was filed back in August they likely set the date to ensure the 10Q would be out before the sale.

There has been a push to prohibit officers in a company from selling shares of the company stock while they still work there. They would have to wait until they were no longer employed but the company to sell. The thought being that you avoid any perception of inappropriate sales and also invent the execs to continue to want to see the stock price rise. There’s also some thought that this would push them to think more long term as opposed to making decisions that impact short term stock prices. It’s an idea out there but it has no traction right now.

Yep, I experienced the pain of being locked out for 6 months once... the annoying thing for a lot of people in the group is that it was all because a part of the group was working on a merger but the majority of us weren't involved and didn't even know it was going on.. we just got caught in the mess to insure there was no perception of insider trading.

As for his trades being date specific, I have a real problem with that being kosher. If the CEO knows he has already set a trade to happen on a particular date but has the ability to decide when an announcement on a vaccine is made then he isn't really being kept honest by the pre-planned traded. And now that another vaccine that doesn't require extremely cold storage has popped up that has shown better protection the CEO will look like he made an even better trade as Pfizer is probably going to continue to slide downwards.

 

[GoofGoof]

Yep, I experienced the pain of being locked out for 6 months once... the annoying thing for a lot of people in the group is that it was all because a part of the group was working on a merger but the majority of us weren't involved and didn't even know it was going on.. we just got caught in the mess to insure there was no perception of insider trading.

As for his trades being date specific, I have a real problem with that being kosher. If the CEO knows he has already set a trade to happen on a particular date but has the ability to decide when an announcement on a vaccine is made then he isn't really being kept honest by the pre-planned traded. And now that another vaccine that doesn't require extremely cold storage has popped up that has shown better protection the CEO will look like he made an even better trade as Pfizer is probably going to continue to slide downwards.

The stock sale plan was filed in August with a November 9 date due to the 10-Q filing deadline. Pfizer had no control over the date of the announcement of the trial results. The independent board unblinded the results on a Sunday afternoon and Pfizer released the results Monday morning. If they didn’t release the results on Monday then they would have been withholding the information from the public intentionally. It’s the same thing that happened with Moderna today. Their study results were unblinded yesterday by the independent board and they found out the results in the afternoon and released it to the public before market open today. Now if the trial results were very negative and the CEO intentionally withheld that from the public until he sold his shares that would have been a much bigger story. I just don’t see a big problem other than the optics of selling the same day as the announcement, but once you have all the facts it seems pretty unlikely to be some form of insider trading or market manipulation.

I don’t see Moderna’s news moving the needle on Pfizer’s stock price. Pfizer isn’t making a boat load of money on this vaccine and it has around $50 billion in other sales to fall back on anyway. For Moderna this is much more of a game changer.

 

[correcaminos]

Thanks for that. Did they tell you what the plan is if you received the placebo? Once they get approval for emergency use do you get to be first in line to get the actual vaccine if you got the placebo? It would seem only fair to me to do that for any volunteers.

I'm in the BioNTech Pfizer one. They have stated they feel it is their moral obligation to vaccinate placebo patients. They are just trying to decide when. To be real here, while it is double blind, the ones who had real side effects guessed already that they got it. Some I have read have done antibody tests. Making it blind to participants was only so that people did not go hiding away once vaccinated with a placebo. They unfortunately need us to be normal in lives to test efficacy. We also are free to to drop out of the trial at anytime. I do have more faith in BioNTech to do the right thing at the right time. Depending on findings I may or may not need a booster this summer anyway.

Now I will say it has been reported that older people has less side effects. So those with none (outside maybe a pinch and a tiny sore to touch) or ones that could be considered psychosomatic are not as sure. Those with longer fevers, or much more than average sore arms have a real clue what they got.

I am 43, pushing 44, and the first shot didn't hurt much going in. Keep in mind those giving us the shots, know what we got, but those reading data do not. Those giving the shot have to know we are getting what we are assigned. They cover the syringe so we cannot see if it is clear saline or tinted. However within about 45 minutes my arm started feeling funky driving home (we are required to stay 30 mins after jab). Within two hours mine hurt badly to the point it was hard to lift up my arm at all. 48 hours later it had faded to pretty much nothing. But had 2 nights of bad sleep. Ran a mild fever (for me 97.1 is norm and I was running 98.3) for a few hours. Second shot I was warned side effects can be worse so do not put in side effects into the separate covid symptoms if I had nausea or massive headaches (they did not have us do the covid symptoms for a week after the first one), but to call if they lingered past 48 hours from jab. So second shot is known for worse than first. Shot this time stung way more going in and had the same reaction as the first though this time I had a headache too. Tossing out as my doc who I talked to about it after is pretty sure I got the real deal. I even got a flu shot 2 weeks later as I was allowed and it was way less soreness in my arm (pretty much my standard reaction to shots).

So it's not bad and outside of the sore arm, it was very livable. Being short, not lifting an arm is a big deal lol

Yes, I still wear a mask and I expect them indoors for a while, but outdoors may curb late spring. It does only take a week for full efficacy after 2nd shot so it should be quick to lose them after we get enough through a second dose.

I'm now 2 months past 2nd shot and nearly 3 past first (given 3 weeks apart). So happy to answer anyone's questions truly.

 

[GoofGoof]

I'm in the BioNTech Pfizer one. They have stated they feel it is their moral obligation to vaccinate placebo patients. They are just trying to decide when. To be real here, while it is double blind, the ones who had real side effects guessed already that they got it. Some I have read have done antibody tests. Making it blind to participants was only so that people did not go hiding away once vaccinated with a placebo. They unfortunately need us to be normal in lives to test efficacy. We also are free to to drop out of the trial at anytime. I do have more faith in BioNTech to do the right thing at the right time. Depending on findings I may or may not need a booster this summer anyway.

Now I will say it has been reported that older people has less side effects. So those with none (outside maybe a pinch and a tiny sore to touch) or ones that could be considered psychosomatic are not as sure. Those with longer fevers, or much more than average sore arms have a real clue what they got.

I am 43, pushing 44, and the first shot didn't hurt much going in. Keep in mind those giving us the shots, know what we got, but those reading data do not. Those giving the shot have to know we are getting what we are assigned. They cover the syringe so we cannot see if it is clear saline or tinted. However within about 45 minutes my arm started feeling funky driving home (we are required to stay 30 mins after jab). Within two hours mine hurt badly to the point it was hard to lift up my arm at all. 48 hours later it had faded to pretty much nothing. But had 2 nights of bad sleep. Ran a mild fever (for me 97.1 is norm and I was running 98.3) for a few hours. Second shot I was warned side effects can be worse so do not put in side effects into the separate covid symptoms if I had nausea or massive headaches (they did not have us do the covid symptoms for a week after the first one), but to call if they lingered past 48 hours from jab. So second shot is known for worse than first. Shot this time stung way more going in and had the same reaction as the first though this time I had a headache too. Tossing out as my doc who I talked to about it after is pretty sure I got the real deal. I even got a flu shot 2 weeks later as I was allowed and it was way less soreness in my arm (pretty much my standard reaction to shots).

So it's not bad and outside of the sore arm, it was very livable. Being short, not lifting an arm is a big deal lol

Yes, I still wear a mask and I expect them indoors for a while, but outdoors may curb late spring. It does only take a week for full efficacy after 2nd shot so it should be quick to lose them after we get enough through a second dose.

I'm now 2 months past 2nd shot and nearly 3 past first (given 3 weeks apart). So happy to answer anyone's questions truly.

Great information.

I agree on the mask timing. I think it will be a dial down vs a light switch where restrictions start being removed but if there happens to be an outbreak in some areas maybe dialed back up temporarily until enough people are vaccinated that cases flat line.

 

[Heppenheimer]

I'm in the BioNTech Pfizer one. They have stated they feel it is their moral obligation to vaccinate placebo patients. They are just trying to decide when. To be real here, while it is double blind, the ones who had real side effects guessed already that they got it. Some I have read have done antibody tests. Making it blind to participants was only so that people did not go hiding away once vaccinated with a placebo. They unfortunately need us to be normal in lives to test efficacy. We also are free to to drop out of the trial at anytime. I do have more faith in BioNTech to do the right thing at the right time. Depending on findings I may or may not need a booster this summer anyway.

Now I will say it has been reported that older people has less side effects. So those with none (outside maybe a pinch and a tiny sore to touch) or ones that could be considered psychosomatic are not as sure. Those with longer fevers, or much more than average sore arms have a real clue what they got.

I am 43, pushing 44, and the first shot didn't hurt much going in. Keep in mind those giving us the shots, know what we got, but those reading data do not. Those giving the shot have to know we are getting what we are assigned. They cover the syringe so we cannot see if it is clear saline or tinted. However within about 45 minutes my arm started feeling funky driving home (we are required to stay 30 mins after jab). Within two hours mine hurt badly to the point it was hard to lift up my arm at all. 48 hours later it had faded to pretty much nothing. But had 2 nights of bad sleep. Ran a mild fever (for me 97.1 is norm and I was running 98.3) for a few hours. Second shot I was warned side effects can be worse so do not put in side effects into the separate covid symptoms if I had nausea or massive headaches (they did not have us do the covid symptoms for a week after the first one), but to call if they lingered past 48 hours from jab. So second shot is known for worse than first. Shot this time stung way more going in and had the same reaction as the first though this time I had a headache too. Tossing out as my doc who I talked to about it after is pretty sure I got the real deal. I even got a flu shot 2 weeks later as I was allowed and it was way less soreness in my arm (pretty much my standard reaction to shots).

So it's not bad and outside of the sore arm, it was very livable. Being short, not lifting an arm is a big deal lol

Yes, I still wear a mask and I expect them indoors for a while, but outdoors may curb late spring. It does only take a week for full efficacy after 2nd shot so it should be quick to lose them after we get enough through a second dose.

I'm now 2 months past 2nd shot and nearly 3 past first (given 3 weeks apart). So happy to answer anyone's questions truly.

I seem to recall that my first tetanus booster as a kid was particularly painful in this way. I don't know if they changed the formulation, but I've never felt the same way with subsequent boosters.

 

[GoofGoof]

Pfizer testing a pilot program for delivering its vaccine:

Pfizer to start pilot delivery program for its COVID-19 vaccine in four U.S. states

Pfizer's vaccine, which was shown to be more than 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 based on initial data, must be shipped and stored at -70 degrees Celsius (minus 94°F), significantly below the standard for vaccines of 2-8 degrees Celsius (36-46°F). "We are hopeful that results from this...

www.yahoo.com

 

[GoofGoof]

Somewhere in my crayon box is color called "Skeptical" and you can use that crayon to color me that.
Pfizer's vaccine creation (not paid by the government) 90% efficacy is impressive, if not unheard of. Then, with some people having the belief that "size always matters" and the incessant need to outdo "the other guys", Moderna (paid by the government as in socialist medicine) comes out with a vaccine that is 94.3% effective.
While a working vaccine is certainly important, all the governors and all the state health officials want to "read the transcripts" that show all the potential study data and facts surrounding these studies. Follow the science, facts and the data.
If you want to take a vaccine that is not completely tested or proven, like Hydroxy Chloroquine, please let me know how it works.
Does the "Skeptical" colored shirt clash with my red state?

Both trials were double blinded. Neither company has access to which patient got the placebo vs the actual vaccine until an independent board reviews results and unblinds them. The 90% and 95% are simple math based on the number of people infected from the placebo group vs the vaccine group. That is following the science. Politics really has nothing to do with it.

 

[Heppenheimer]

If you want to take a vaccine that is not completely tested or proven, like Hydroxy Chloroquine, please let me know how it works.
Does the "Skeptical" colored shirt clash with my red state?

As I wrote on the other thread, hence the reason FDA approval is so important. Although we are heartened by the news, very few are lining up for their vaccine until if and when it passes through the proper regulatory review.

And unless you work in health care or another first-responder profession, you won't even have the option to get the vaccine until hundreds of thousands (millions, even?) of essential workers receive their series first. Post-marketing safety and efficacy surveillance will continue and accumulate huge piles of data before most Americans have the chance at vaccination.

 

[correcaminos]

Great information.

I agree on the mask timing. I think it will be a dial down vs a light switch where restrictions start being removed but if there happens to be an outbreak in some areas maybe dialed back up temporarily until enough people are vaccinated that cases flat line.

I agree. Any outbreak will ramp usage back up. I liken it to our zoo. Not so many cases asked to wear a mask. Then state mandate indoors. That stayed but then since we hit another surge they say all the time no matter what. I see the opposite as it gets better. Snowed some here, so masks are not bad to wear at all now. In fact I want a heated one lol

I seem to recall that my first tetanus booster as a kid was particularly painful in this way. I don't know if they changed the formulation, but I've never felt the same way with subsequent boosters.

I'll disagree. I just had one at the end of last year due to an injury. I was going to get one anyway as pertussis hit the school and it had been 10 years for me. I wanted to keep kids safe. Still hurt like crazy for 2 days for me. Same as when my kid was little and when I was 16 and had to get it (was a conductor for our HS marching band and had practice about 4 hours later - boy do I remember that... had MMR in the other arm... due to a missing record I had to get a booster to go to a college program)

 

[thomas998]

The stock sale plan was filed in August with a November 9 date due to the 10-Q filing deadline. Pfizer had no control over the date of the announcement of the trial results. The independent board unblinded the results on a Sunday afternoon and Pfizer released the results Monday morning. If they didn’t release the results on Monday then they would have been withholding the information from the public intentionally. It’s the same thing that happened with Moderna today. Their study results were unblinded yesterday by the independent board and they found out the results in the afternoon and released it to the public before market open today. Now if the trial results were very negative and the CEO intentionally withheld that from the public until he sold his shares that would have been a much bigger story. I just don’t see a big problem other than the optics of selling the same day as the announcement, but once you have all the facts it seems pretty unlikely to be some form of insider trading or market manipulation.

I don’t see Moderna’s news moving the needle on Pfizer’s stock price. Pfizer isn’t making a boat load of money on this vaccine and it has around $50 billion in other sales to fall back on anyway. For Moderna this is much more of a game changer.

Pfizer had all the control in the world on when those announcements were made. The CEO can control when any announcements are made by Pfizer and certainly has complete control over the employees at Pfizer that were trumpeting the vaccine like carnival barkers in early November. There was no requirement to release the results to the public when they were known to the people at Pfizer, you can bet that any drug manufacturer has test results coming in all the time on drugs that work or don't work, but they have no obligation to disclose those result the moment they receive them. The release was done because someone at Pfizer wanted it done, and the circumstantial evidence points to the CEO trying to pump the price before his shares were sold. I simply hope the SEC opens and investigation which will result in emails from everyone associated with the news release and the CEO being reviewed. At least that was what they did in a company where one of our executive was investigated, everyone that had anything to do with the merger had to submit every email they had made or received to be investigated.

In the end we'll see what happens, I would not be surprised if he ended up in trouble for this it all seems way to suspicious.

 

[GoofGoof]

Pfizer had all the control in the world on when those announcements were made. The CEO can control when any announcements are made by Pfizer and certainly has complete control over the employees at Pfizer that were trumpeting the vaccine like carnival barkers in early November. There was no requirement to release the results to the public when they were known to the people at Pfizer, you can bet that any drug manufacturer has test results coming in all the time on drugs that work or don't work, but they have no obligation to disclose those result the moment they receive them. The release was done because someone at Pfizer wanted it done, and the circumstantial evidence points to the CEO trying to pump the price before his shares were sold. I simply hope the SEC opens and investigation which will result in emails from everyone associated with the news release and the CEO being reviewed. At least that was what they did in a company where one of our executive was investigated, everyone that had anything to do with the merger had to submit every email they had made or received to be investigated.

In the end we'll see what happens, I would not be surprised if he ended up in trouble for this it all seems way to suspicious.

Pfizer had no control over when the results would be revealed to them and they committed on the earnings call in October to release the interim efficacy data immediately when available if it was negative (worse than 11.8%) or positive (better than 76.9%). If the data was somewhere in between they said they would wait to release it until they could do further analysis.

The SEC will probably investigate, but I’m not sure what smoking gun you are expecting them to find. The plan was setup back in August, that’s very easy to prove. The announcement was made as soon as the results were known. If they held back bad results until after the sales cleared (despite making a public commitment to do so) then maybe there could be more of an argument made of manipulation.

 

[arich35]

Great information.

I agree on the mask timing. I think it will be a dial down vs a light switch where restrictions start being removed but if there happens to be an outbreak in some areas maybe dialed back up temporarily until enough people are vaccinated that cases flat line.

I am hoping by May the mask mandates especially at Disney will be lightened to only indoors or when standing in line for a ride and you close to people.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

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

Red Cross workers make anti-influenza masks for soldiers, Boston, Massachusetts. (National Archives Identifier 45499341) Before COVID-19, the most severe pandemic in recent history was the 1918 influenza virus, often called “the Spanish Flu.” The virus infected roughly 500 million...

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:

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.

 

[GoofGoof]

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

Red Cross workers make anti-influenza masks for soldiers, Boston, Massachusetts. (National Archives Identifier 45499341) Before COVID-19, the most severe pandemic in recent history was the 1918 influenza virus, often called “the Spanish Flu.” The virus infected roughly 500 million...

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 medical messaging contributes to distrust.

I think if you look at the context that back in 2019 when talking about the flu the question was most likely will a mask keep me safe from being infected and the answer was probably no, not really. With the flu having a much shorter incubation period and less asymptomatic spread it was easier to say if you are sick stay home and you won’t infect others. You would also still face the same risks of surface spread (touch a dirty door handle and then touch your face). With Covid we are primarily being asked to wear a mask to protect others from us. The CDC is saying there is some benefit to the wearer for a face covering as well, but it’s primarily to block your spit from spraying into the air.

To bring it back to the vaccines, if a vaccine is widely available could WDW implement a plan where you show proof of vaccination and that gets you out of wearing a mask? Maybe issue you a sticker or a wrist band as a visible marker and anyone without that marker would be asked to keep a mask on? I think that’s a little difficult to monitor and enforce and you also have the issue with failed vaccines. Even at 90% effective 10% of people who were vaccinated would still be potential carriers. I think distancing may actually be the bigger problem for the parks and that’s impossible to regulate on a per person basis, it’s either all or nothing.

 

[correcaminos]

I am hoping by May the mask mandates especially at Disney will be lightened to only indoors or when standing in line for a ride and you close to people.

I do too

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

Red Cross workers make anti-influenza masks for soldiers, Boston, Massachusetts. (National Archives Identifier 45499341) Before COVID-19, the most severe pandemic in recent history was the 1918 influenza virus, often called “the Spanish Flu.” The virus infected roughly 500 million...

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.

And studies since have proved this wrong for covid. Anecdotal evidence confirms.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

 

[correcaminos]

I think if you look at the context that back in 2019 when talking about the flu the question was most likely will a mask keep me safe from being infected and the answer was probably no, not really. With the flu having a much shorter incubation period and less asymptomatic spread it was easier to say if you are sick stay home and you won’t infect others. You would also still face the same risks of surface spread (touch a dirty door handle and then touch your face). With Covid we are primarily being asked to wear a mask to protect others from us. The CDC is saying there is some benefit to the wearer for a face covering as well, but it’s primarily to block your spit from spraying into the air.

To bring it back to the vaccines, if a vaccine is widely available could WDW implement a plan where you show proof of vaccination and that gets you out of wearing a mask? Maybe issue you a sticker or a wrist band as a visible marker and anyone without that marker would be asked to keep a mask on? I think that’s a little difficult to monitor and enforce and you also have the issue with failed vaccines. Even at 90% effective 10% of people who were vaccinated would still be potential carriers. I think distancing may actually be the bigger problem for the parks and that’s impossible to regulate on a per person basis, it’s either all or nothing.

They could have the right to deny entrance all together much like the scanning done in Asia with risk level. But people might hate that. Discussed elsewhere what ticket master suggested. I don't think it will be masks only for not vaccinated as you suggest. It's an all or nothing really.

Keep in mind that BioNTech did not say just 90% too but at least 90%. Moderna is looking at nearly 95% with reduced symptoms for those who do get it. So the vaccine may bring it down to common cold for most.

 

[Heppenheimer]

I don't see the mask rule going away at Disney World until either of the following scenarios happen:

1) Vaccination is widespread enough that cases drop to a very low level, maybe along the lines of our yearly measles burden.

2) Vaccination is widespread enough that it reduces the severity of the illness from asymptomatic to a minor cold, with hospitalization numbers being comparable to seasonal influenza or lower.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

I do too

And studies since have proved this wrong for covid. Anecdotal evidence confirms. Cherry picking sources is not wise and at this point you are damaging trying to pass off this drivel. Seriously dangerous to pass this off as fact because it aligns with what you want.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

Stated as a mask hater due to anxiety issues. That aside what does this have to do with the vaccine?

Creating a vaccine isn't the same as achieving mass vaccination. That's the connection. People have to take the vaccine, and public messaging is very important. It has to be consistent to be most effective.

I didn't quote some random quack. I quoted one of the leading experts, plus the SAME webpage you quoted. There's no way I could quote his entire hour long lecture in the forum post. Since your post came only 17minutes after mine, it isn't possible that you watched his entire lecture.

The masking advice that was given at the start of this pandemic is not the same as what we're being told today. It has shifted.

 

[GoofGoof]

The question was asked in the context of 2019, so the person was asking about a combination of flu, SARS and other viruses known at the time.

I quoted one reputable source, but what Dr. Brown says is consistent with everything I read/heard on the media in the early days of the pandemic. All along I have done my best to stay informed, and listen to the experts.

If you go back through the main COVID-19 thread, people in this forum were sharing the same public messaging in that thread.

Right, the messaging in 2019 relating to flu and in March relating to Covid was face coverings (outside of hospital grade PPE) are not an effective way to keep you from being infected. That actually hasn’t changed. What did change is our understanding of the incubation period (longer than most similar viruses) and prevalence of asymptomatic spread. The wear a mask requirement is to keep you from infecting other people. I’m not sure it’s inconsistent messaging. The whole mask thing got politicized and people with a political agenda started jumping up and down with their fingers in their ears screaming Dr Fauci told us not to wear masks in March so now we aren’t going to listen to him.

On the vaccine front I agree that there needs to be a consistent message from everyone. I see no political or personal benefit for resisting a vaccine.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

Nobody should be taking medical advice from strangers on the internet.

Here in 2020, the CDC says to wear masks to protect against COVID-19. I actually bought some masks back in January, back when we were told they weren't needed. I started wearing them in March, ahead of when we were told to wear them. People in my community were already wearing them, so I did as they did.

Did you think I was anti-mask?