superunknown said:

---

For what it's worth, a Trump supporter and conservative who works for me scheduled his 1st Pfizer shot today now that it's been FDA approved. So there's some anecdotal for you.

---

That's awesome!

Ryota Hayami said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

t - cam said:

---

The goalpost was already moved when people started claiming the FDA was a joke or somehow untrustworthy.

---

The FDA is untrustworthy. See their lack of action on viable therapeutics that are known to be safe.

Their push for vaccines over all else is 100% political.

---

Moving the goalposts but please at least read what actual scientists and epidemiologists are saying about the vaccine. Get your news from real sources that are cited with scientific research.

---

I own an mRNA company. We are small right now but the virus has considerably changed our trajectory. my sources are 99.99% better than everyone here, including all the articles that are linked here. I believe that mRNA vaccines are great, but I cannot stand people who get on here and scold people for not getting the shot. If your company requires it, then you have to make a choice on whats more important, your job or your principles.

Harry Stone said:

---

Ryota Hayami said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

t - cam said:

---

The goalpost was already moved when people started claiming the FDA was a joke or somehow untrustworthy.

---

The FDA is untrustworthy. See their lack of action on viable therapeutics that are known to be safe.

Their push for vaccines over all else is 100% political.

---

Moving the goalposts but please at least read what actual scientists and epidemiologists are saying about the vaccine. Get your news from real sources that are cited with scientific research.

---

I own an mRNA company. We are small right now but the virus has considerably changed our trajectory. my sources are 99.99% better than everyone here, including all the articles that are linked here. I believe that mRNA vaccines are great, but I cannot stand people who get on here and scold people for not getting the shot. If your company requires it, then you have to make a choice on whats more important, your job or your principles.

---

Thanks for chiming in. I would love to hear more about your opinions and data about the covid mRNA shots.

That specific comment about the shots was aimed at people who said they wouldn't get it because it wasn't fully approved but are still making different excuses now that it is approved.

Quote:

---

but I cannot stand people who get on here and scold people for not getting the shot.

---

I don't have any problem with people who simply choose not to take the shot because they have done their own cost/benefit analysis and chose to forgo the jab.
I do, however, have a problem with those who use terms like "garbage" or "poison" when describing the vaccine. Or they spread unfounded lies about it in an attempt to undermine it's safety or efficacy.

superunknown said:

---

For what it's worth, a Trump supporter and conservative who works for me scheduled his 1st Pfizer shot today now that it's been FDA approved. So there's some anecdotal for you.

---

Glad to hear this. The more vaccinated, the better.

But the whole conservative, anti-vaxxer thing is just odd to me. Whether you like it or not, I think Trump deserves at least some credit for helping to speed along the vaccines and ushering them through. You'd think conservatives would be taking the opportunity to tout the vaccine as a triumph of his, but instead, for whatever reason, many are doubling down on an anti-vax stance.

Ryota Hayami said:

---

You do you! I'm not throwing out "fear porn" just using data.

I'm not looking it up but getting struck by lightning twice is probably so unlikely it's statistically insignificant. The data on reinfections and breakthrough cases including those who get seriously ill are not statistically insignificant by any measure.

---

Why can't you just leave it at "you do you?"

That's what many of us want. Get your vaccine. Wear your masks, and leave other people alone.

It's amazing that some of you guys are vaccinated, boast about the protection you have acquired, and live on this board to point their fingers at others who've chosen a different route.

My brother is a chemical engineer. Worked for ConocoPhillips or whatever it is now for 30 years. He told me today he will likely retire if they force a vaccine on him. I can't imagine a smarter guy or better employee for a company to have. And they likely will get rid of him/ force him out for making what should be a personal choice.
Do y'all who think it's cool to take away someone's livelihood to protect him from a virus with very little lethality for him? And in the future when some idiot bureaucrat wants to force you to give up your f250 to save you from dying a death induced by "climate change", are you ok with that?
Apparently in these crazy times, personal liberty is frowned upon. Precedents made today can likely be used to gore your ox in the future. But keep heart, as somebody will cheer the killing of your ox by telling you it's for your own good and to protect others. Your personal liberty be damned.

double aught said:

---

superunknown said:

---

For what it's worth, a Trump supporter and conservative who works for me scheduled his 1st Pfizer shot today now that it's been FDA approved. So there's some anecdotal for you.

---

Glad to hear this. The more vaccinated, the better.

But the whole conservative, anti-vaxxer thing is just odd to me. Whether you like it or not, I think Trump deserves at least some credit for helping to speed along the vaccines and ushering them through. You'd think conservatives would be taking the opportunity to tout the vaccine as a triumph of his, but instead, for whatever reason, many are doubling down on an anti-vax stance.

---

I always figured anti-vaxxers were granola-deodorant wearing hippie types and then the Jenny McCarty anti-vax stuff happened and there seems to be a louder (if at least not stronger) portion now coming from that intersection of Alex Jones and evangelical home schooling types. I don't quite understand it. I would have thought Trumps initiative towards cutting down red tape and giving the companies financial incentives would have been a great selling point and an example of cutting gov regulation that worked. Obviously I whiffed on that.

I don't think it's a good bet for companies to require vaccinations. I advocated strongly in my company for us to not do it, and we're not. People need to be responsible for their own health.

That being said, covid represents a significant business interruption risk.

It is also a morale issue regardless of which way you go. We have people on both sides of masks, social distancing, work from home, and vaccine issues at my company.

Private companies have to do what makes sense for them, what's best for them and their shareholders. They don't owe their employees jobs, especially not at the expense of profitability. Framing this as a personal liberty infringement is not correct. You aren't entitled to work there, and if you don't like their conditions you can seek gainful employment elsewhere. That's not just true for vaccines.

Sorry your brother has to deal with it. I do too - my customers in O&G space are starting to require people on their sites to be vaccinated, which puts us in a bind because we don't care to ask our employees. But that's also a business decision for us, ultimately.

The company isn't taking away his livelihood or depriving him of liberty. They are (potentially) changing the conditions of employment. You may disagree with it or debate whether it's right or not, but there's a big difference.

I recommend not weighting too highly medical info you get from a former local traffic and weather personality.

As for the claim.

The link to the trial is here.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728

If you read the end points for pre registry, some go on for 2 years. The primary outcomes that go on through 2 years are:
Confirmed COVID-19 in Phase 2/3 participants without evidence of infection before vaccination
Confirmed COVID-19 in Phase 2/3 participants with and without evidence of infection before vaccination

All of the safety / adverse event outcomes are completed after six months. This is why they were able to finish that portion of the study, report results, and submit for full FDA approval six months after the phase 3 trials.

The remaining questions in the study are - how long does the protection last. Not safety.

Ryota Hayami said:

---

Harry Stone said:

---

Ryota Hayami said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

t - cam said:

---

The goalpost was already moved when people started claiming the FDA was a joke or somehow untrustworthy.

---

The FDA is untrustworthy. See their lack of action on viable therapeutics that are known to be safe.

Their push for vaccines over all else is 100% political.

---

Moving the goalposts but please at least read what actual scientists and epidemiologists are saying about the vaccine. Get your news from real sources that are cited with scientific research.

---

I own an mRNA company. We are small right now but the virus has considerably changed our trajectory. my sources are 99.99% better than everyone here, including all the articles that are linked here. I believe that mRNA vaccines are great, but I cannot stand people who get on here and scold people for not getting the shot. If your company requires it, then you have to make a choice on whats more important, your job or your principles.

---

Thanks for chiming in. I would love to hear more about your opinions and data about the covid mRNA shots.

That specific comment about the shots was aimed at people who said they wouldn't get it because it wasn't fully approved but are still making different excuses now that it is approved.

---

theres so much that goes into this. both mRNA vaxxes use T7 polymerase systems, which reduces the error rate of transcription. some info is proprietary. but the data from israel might actually not be false if pfizer vaccine changed capping enzymes. if for instance they went from post transcriptional to co transcriptional capping, they could have a problem with translational efficiency if they are not getting a high yield. in order to produce a high volume of vaccines, switching to co trancriptional capping reduces one step of modifications, which saves on time and cost.

one important study we should be doing on the new surge isnt asking IF they took pfizer, it's asking WHEN they took pfizer. we have tested co vs post transcriptional capping using a registered capping enzyme and have seen a much lower translation of mRNA with this capping enzyme. i'm betting the people contracting delta who took pfizer actually got their vaccine sometime in mid february and beyond.

OP will be glad to know that my opinion hasn't changed since Trump was president, FDA approved or not.

Not politically motivated
Not anti vax

Hope that doesn't ruin anyone's preconceived notions about those who haven't gotten the jab.

J_Daddy05 said:

---

OP will be glad to know that my opinion hasn't changed since Trump was president, FDA approved or not.

Not politically motivated
Not anti vax

Hope that doesn't ruin anyone's preconceived notions about those who haven't gotten the jab.

---

You are one subset of those refusing the vax. There were many people waiting for the approval. Hope this makes them feel safe.

Every time someone brings an FDA approved product that is later withdrawn up I have the same question. What should our pre-test probability be to assign a risk to the chance of some major problem?

So I did some looking and found this study from 2017.

There are three types of safety events. Withdrawals (pulled altogether), addition of a warning, and safety communication.

For the 222 new therapeutics approved by the FDA from 200 to 2010, there were 123 safety events on 71 of the drugs.

Of these there were 3 withdrawals (valdecoxib, tegaserod for heart events, and efalizumab for risk of progressive leukoencephalopathy whatever that is but it sounds real bad). Average time to withdrawal was 4.2 years.

There were 61 boxed warnings on 43 of the drugs. Time to warning was 4 years.

There were 59 safety communications on 44 of the drugs. Average time to safety communication was 4.9 years. By ten years, 30% of the therapeutics had 1 or more safety event.

Ok, so we might say that the pre-test probability of any of the vaccines being withdrawn is roughly 1.3% (3/222). You might also say that we should expect something like a 19% chance there's a box warning added to any of them (43 / 222) and about the same chance that a safety communication goes out.

I'm not sure the time to problem is relevant in this case, because I bet dollars to donuts these vaccines have more uses than any of those drugs. And in this case, the ~20% chance of a warning label has happened (myocarditis within 7 days of the second dose).

I also think that this is a kind of test of the ability of the FDA to evaluate the safety of drugs during the approval process, and isn't particular to any kind of drug. So all of those risks apply just as much to Novavax or anything else approved by the FDA.