"Remember that the people that hid Anne Frank were breaking the law and the people that took her to the camps were enforcing it."
It is encouraging.
A 90% effective vaccine would be beyond anyone's expectations.
Just because I am increasingly cynical, I wonder why this information came out this week instead of last week.
Having only last week admitted a patient with two widely separated and well-documented cases of COVID infection this year, with interim negative tests, you can imagine my skepticism about a vaccine to a disease that evidently confers no immunity to re-infection, no matter how much I might hope for something effective.I'll believe this when I see a year's worth of results, and no (or very few,) re-infections.Until then, this is vaporware.The military had an experimental anthrax vaccine just before GW I.Google up how that went...
If the phenomenon that people retained no immunity to Covid as Aesop talks about was widespread, it wouldn't be one guy in his ER with "two widely separated and well-documented cases of COVID infection this year, with interim negative tests" it would be thousands to hundreds of thousands spread across the country. That probably means this person has an immunodeficiency disease. I notice that the linked article says the vaccine has to be maintained at -94F until just before it's administered. I'm going to assume it can be a little colder than that and withstand dry ice at -110, but it's not going to be packed on water ice for shipment. The distribution chain will be a little tricky.
I'm certainly no expert on much of anything, but I know a little bit about a lot of things.If Pfizer has a potential vaccine, somebody better ask if it's a dead virus, like the current flu shots, or a live virus, which would explain the need to maintain it at sob-zero temperatures. If it is a live virus, wouldn't it increase the possibility that the patient receiving it might, just MIGHT, become infectious for a short period of time or potency? Being in the 70 year old group, with medical problems of my own, I don't believe I'll be taking part in any live virus experiments.My mama didn't raise no lab rat.
My patient was not immuno-compromised in any way. I saw the blood work results.And it's not "one guy" SiG, it's happened anecdotally multiple times.I've yet to hear of any serious research on the phenomenon, let alone any accurate reports of frequency, which is just Item #378 on Things We Don't Know About This Virus. But if I've seen it firsthand in my briar patch, it isn't likely a one-off.But it would make a yuuuuuge difference if it turned out to be 1 case per 100,000, 1 case per 1,000, or 1 case per 10.And nobody knows that answer.That's my concern.If that alleged 90% effectiveness becomes 75%, or 60%, or worse, is the lemon still worth the squeeze?(And that's before we get into whether it's a live virus vaccine or a killed virus, as noted above. cf. Salk vs. Sabin with polio.)If planes flew to the specs on companies' PR press releases, we would have landed on the moon 8 years earlier, and broken the sound barrier in the 1930s. So like I said, let's get a year of real-world performance on this thing (or any other such), and then we'll talk.Anybody wants to be a beta-tester for Pfizer, go on ahead.
My view? When EVERY politician and so-called 'scientific advisor' had had the shot, I just, and only just, consider taking it.
Has anyone seen more information recently on how many strains of COVID there are? A couple months ago there was discussion of anywhere from 2 to 12 variants or strains - could these apparent reinfections be a variant just enough different to not be covered by the immunity of the first infection?If that is the case, how many strains does this vaccine cover? Along with that, where were the test subjects? If they were not geographically spread out, the vaccine could be only effective against the major strain in that area...
Post a Comment