Pfizer Covid Vaccine

[SB Shock]

Scheduled to get my first dose tomorrow.

But what are the expectations of it preventing the new ultra contagious mutation? Is it even worth it now?

Contrary to COLD, the science says that the vaccinations will still be worth it.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Scheduled to get my first dose tomorrow.

But what are the expectations of it preventing the new ultra contagious mutation? Is it even worth it now?

I knew you were a first responder...

My prediction months ago must have scared the **** out of you lol. What did I say? Law enforcement, Fire, or EMS I think?

You don't know the power of a dark side...

[wufan]

I knew you were a first responder...

My prediction months ago must have scared the **** out of you lol. What did I say? Law enforcement, Fire, or EMS I think?

You don't know the power of a dark side...

Minority.

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

Contrary to COLD, the science says that the vaccinations will still be worth it.

Yes, it has been widely reported that the current vaccines will cover the new "killer strain". Many medical professionals, ACTUAL medical professionals, have declared it not as big of a panic as the MSM is making it out to be.

[SB Shock]

Yes, it has been widely reported that the current vaccines will cover the new "killer strain".

killer strain? There is no evidence this strain is more deadly.

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

killer strain? There is no evidence this strain is more deadly.

True. My bad. I was channeling my inner MSM honk. It was meant to be facetious.

[ShockerFever]

I knew you were a first responder...

My prediction months ago must have scared the **** out of you lol. What did I say? Law enforcement, Fire, or EMS I think?

You don't know the power of a dark side...

Nope.

[SB Shock]

True. My bad. I was channeling my inner MSM honk. It was meant to be facetious.

I thought COLD had hacked your account.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Yes, it has been widely reported that the current vaccines will cover the new "killer strain". Many medical professionals, ACTUAL medical professionals, have declared it not as big of a panic as the MSM is making it out to be.

It doesn't change the ultimate calculus thankfully. Perhaps the efficacy of the vaccines are slightly diminished. Social distancing, masks, and the like are still the best lines of defense. An increase in infectiousness will increase the final death toll. Ironically, it is the infectious and asymptomatic nature of this disease that is causing such a global problem, not the lethality. If it mutated to be even more deadly (w/ less asymptomatic cases), there would be less community spread resulting in a lower overall death total most likely. This wouldn't be the case in 1918, but in 2020, infectiousness trumps lethality all things being equal. SARS1 was nasty AF; made SARS2 look like hay fever; 8k infected, 800 died. It was too deadly and snuffed itself out.

SARS v. 2.0 truly is a work of deadly art. I don't want to see SARS 3.0.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Scheduled to get my first dose tomorrow.

But what are the expectations of it preventing the new ultra contagious mutation? Is it even worth it now?

It would be nice to know if you already have antibodies prior to your immunization. I'm interested if those receiving the vaccine after already being exposed to the virus will experience symptoms. That might indicate the vaccine is giving the community "better" protection over your run-of-the-mill community exposure immune response. Maybe stop by Dillon's before your shot if you are also curious and take the antibody test. $25

[ShockerFever]

It would be nice to know if you already have antibodies prior to your immunization. I'm interested if those receiving the vaccine after already being exposed to the virus will experience symptoms. That might indicate the vaccine is giving the community "better" protection over your run-of-the-mill community exposure immune response. Maybe stop by Dillon's before your shot if you are also curious and take the antibody test. $25

I was actually thinking about this recently. Not sure I can pull it off tomorrow though unfortunately.

[wufan]

It doesn't change the ultimate calculus thankfully. Perhaps the efficacy of the vaccines are slightly diminished. Social distancing, masks, and the like are still the best lines of defense. An increase in infectiousness will increase the final death toll. Ironically, it is the infectious and asymptomatic nature of this disease that is causing such a global problem, not the lethality. If it mutated to be even more deadly (w/ less asymptomatic cases), there would be less community spread resulting in a lower overall death total most likely. This wouldn't be the case in 1918, but in 2020, infectiousness trumps lethality all things being equal. SARS1 was nasty AF; made SARS2 look like hay fever; 8k infected, 800 died. It was too deadly and snuffed itself out.

SARS v. 2.0 truly is a work of deadly art. I don't want to see SARS 3.0.

Masks and social distancing are a better line of defense that a vaccine? In the last 100 years vaccinations have been the gateway to stop quarantine, but not this time?

[wufan]

It would be nice to know if you already have antibodies prior to your immunization. I'm interested if those receiving the vaccine after already being exposed to the virus will experience symptoms. That might indicate the vaccine is giving the community "better" protection over your run-of-the-mill community exposure immune response. Maybe stop by Dillon's before your shot if you are also curious and take the antibody test. $25

You won’t experience symptoms from the vaccine, and aren’t more likely to if you have been previously exposed. Now you might have a hyper immune response and that could be worsened theoretically if you were previously exposed if that’s what you meant.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Masks and social distancing are a better line of defense that a vaccine? In the last 100 years vaccinations have been the gateway to stop quarantine, but not this time?

These aren't my opinions, but the supposition is logical. Perhaps I could have said FIRST line of defense. Of course a vaccine should be the final answer, but that depends on the efficacy and how many people get vaccinated. Masks offer a poor man's temporary vaccination the moment they're put on - the better the mask, the better the protection. And with what we know about "viral dosing" they may allow some people to get just enough of the virus to be asymptomatic or only very slightly ill while still training the immune system for further exposure.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-face-mask-protection-vaccine-cdc-director/

Dr. Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during his testimony before a Senate subcommittee on Wednesday that wearing face masks may be more effective at protecting against COVID-19 than a vaccine.

"I'm not going to comment directly about the president, but I am going to comment as the CDC director that face masks, these face masks, are the most important powerful public health tool we have," Redfield said. "And I will continue to appeal for all Americans, all individuals in our country, to embrace these face coverings."

Redfield said if Americans wore face masks for several weeks, "we would bring this pandemic under control," because there is scientific evidence they work and they are our "best defense."

"I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine, because it may be 70%. And if I don't get an immune response, the vaccine is not going to protect me," Redfield said. "This face mask will."

George Rutherford, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics and director of the Prevention and Public Health Group at UC San Francisco, said the CDC director is "completely right."

"The good thing about a vaccine is you don't need to remember to put it on every day," Dr. Rutherford told CBS News on Friday. "The bad thing is, it's probably not going to work nearly as well as masks."

"Let's say masks are 95% effective — and who knows what the vaccine is going to be, but say it's 80% effective — in that sense, masks could be better than vaccines," he continued. "I don't think we know yet, but for right now, it's the total name of the game. It's the most effective thing we have."

Rutherford said a large proportion of the population — about 60 or 70% — would need to get vaccinated in order to achieve something close to herd immunity. "Once you're vaccinated... you're probably pretty safe. Now, if we're still walking around with lots of transmission going on, among people who didn't get vaccinated, you may want to wear a mask as well."

He said that without knowing what the vaccine efficacy will be, it's impossible to answer how protected we will be from the virus. "If it's more like 50% [effective], like the flu vaccine, then we're going to have to get a lot of people vaccinated in order to get to herd immunity," he said.

The efficacy of the vaccine will help determine how long it will take to reach herd immunity — and how long we will need to wear masks for protection, Rutherford said.

Now these statements were made before the vaccines came out as "95% effective". But we can't be totally certain of that number until long after millions have gotten vaccinated; and we don't know how many people will get vaccinated; and we don't know how long the protection will last. When I don my N95 properly, I'm very confident I will be protected... just like a temporary vaccine.

[C0|dB|00ded]

You won’t experience symptoms from the vaccine, and aren’t more likely to if you have been previously exposed. Now you might have a hyper immune response and that could be worsened theoretically if you were previously exposed if that’s what you meant.

Why would you say this? And no, a hyper-immune response was not what I meant.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/19/a-side-by-side-comparison-of-the-pfizer-biontech-and-moderna-vaccines/

In the vernacular of vaccinology, vaccines that trigger a range of transient side effects in a lot of recipients are known as reactogenic.

Both these vaccines — in fact, most if not all the Covid-19 vaccines that have reported data so far — fall into the reactogenic category. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, an expert panel that helps the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention set vaccination policies, has advised hospitals they may want to stagger vaccinations among staff — for instance, don’t vaccinate all the emergency room staff at the same time — in case some feel too unwell to work the day after being vaccinated.

The most common side effects are injection site pain, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, and joint pain. Some people in the clinical trials have reported fever. Side effects are more common after the second dose; younger adults, who have more robust immune systems, reported more side effects than older adults.

To be clear: These side effects are a sign of an immune system kicking into gear. They do not signal that the vaccine is unsafe. To date there are no serious, long-term side effects associated with receipt of these vaccines, which will be closely monitored as their use expands.

https://abc7.com/side-effects-of-covid-19-vaccine-coronavirus-moderna-pfizer/8253422/

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "side effects may affect your ability to do daily activities, but they should go away in a few days."

Common side effects on the arm where you got the shot include pain and swelling.

You could also experience fever, chills, tiredness and headache.

In their clinical trials, Moderna points to a graph for side effects, which includes:

• Fatigue
• Chills
• Headache
• Myalgia
• Pain at the injection site

UCSF's infectious disease specialist Dr. Peter Chin Hong says these are normal vaccine symptoms.

"25% - 50% of people might feel some mild side effects after their first dose. But, after the second one there may be more people who might feel some of these side effects and they might go away within a day or so," said Dr. Chin-Hong.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/12/what-expect-when-you-get-covid-19-vaccine/617428/

Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are quite “reactogenic”—meaning they stimulate a strong immune response that can cause temporary but uncomfortable sore arms, fevers, chills, and headaches. In other words, getting them might suck a little, but it’s nowhere near as bad as COVID-19 itself.

Reactogenicity happens to some degree with all vaccines and is not in itself a safety concern. Vaccines, after all, work by tricking the body into thinking it has been infected, and these “symptoms” are an indication it has successfully done so. The fever, fatigue, and other signs we associate with colds or flu or even COVID-19 are typically caused by our immune responses, not the virus itself. “A reactogenic vaccine is not the same thing as an unsafe vaccine,” says Saad Omer, a vaccinologist and the director of the Yale Institute for Global Health.

Compared with existing vaccines, the two COVID-19 ones from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna are a little more reactogenic than flu vaccines but are roughly on par with the shingles vaccine, which can interfere with daily life for a couple of days in some people. (Moderna’s also seems to be a little more reactogenic than Pfizer’s, possibly because it’s a larger dose.) These vaccines have enough of a kick that the CDC suggested hospitals stagger vaccinations among staff, so an entire unit isn’t out on a given day. Nursing homes as well are concerned about vaccinating all staff and residents at once, which could reduce staff availability at the same time residents need more care.

So yeah... the Covid vaccine has a higher incidence of reaction, but that has nothing to do with safety. You might feel a little ill for a while, but that is no cause for alarm.