Pfizer/Moderna Vaccine

nolaegghead

Do you plan on getting vaccinated or not?  Explain.

This is a public health issue, not a political issue.  There are covid19 policy issues that are political, leave them at the door.

If you choose not to get it, do you plan on having (more) kids?

Botch

Getting it.  

billt01

no, until they (doctors) have a better understanding why it kills some people and others have a short hangover..

nope..

not really big in having my DNA scrambled a bit.

Although @JIC may thing it'd be best...

nolaegghead

Since I already have autism and I'm averse to pain, permanent disability and death, I'm definitely getting it.

nolaegghead

You're more likely to "scramble DNA" flying in a plane than with a messenger RNA vaccine.  More on that here:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/hcp/mrna-vaccine-basics.html

fishlessman

im thinking by the time i CAN get the vaccine there will be alot of track record to how safe it is. right now my decision is yes. have a covid icu air filter in the shop now, dumped a can of lysol on it friday. building a stainless housing for it to replace a hard to clean housing. this ones the proto

billt01

What is mRNA?

Messenger RNA, or mRNA, plays a fundamental role in human biology, transferring the instructions stored in DNA to make the proteins required in every living cell. Our approach is to use mRNA medicines to instruct a patient’s own cells to produce proteins that could prevent, treat, or cure disease.

nolaegghead

Right.  mRNA takes messages *FROM* DNA, not *INTO* DNA. 

Langner91

I will be eligible in wave 5 or 6, months from now.  I will come after the health care workers, nursing home residents, elderly, and several other higher-risk groups.

I figure by then I should be able to tell if there are any weird issues with the vaccine and will likely be able to make an informed decision based upon a few months of data.

If you held a gun to my head today, or if I were in one of the categories that could get it earlier, I would take it. 

billt01

nolaegghead said:

Right.  mRNA takes messages *FROM* DNA, not *INTO* DNA. 

 "to produce proteins"

nolaegghead

billt01 said:

nolaegghead said:

Right.  mRNA takes messages *FROM* DNA, not *INTO* DNA. 

 "to produce proteins"

Exactly. That's the point.  The proteins are not DNA.  The proteins are the same as what's on the little spiky things and your immune system, or, rather someone who takes the vaccine, will make antigens to react with that protein and train the immune system to fight the virus without being infected with the virus.  Next question.

JohnInCarolina

It seems that some men... you just can't reach.

billt01

nolaegghead said:

billt01 said:

nolaegghead said:

Right.  mRNA takes messages *FROM* DNA, not *INTO* DNA. 

 "to produce proteins"

Exactly. That's the point.  The proteins are not DNA.  The proteins are the same as what's on the little spiky things and your immune system, or, rather someone who takes the vaccine, will make antigens to react with that protein and train the immune system to fight the virus without being infected with the virus.  Next question.

ok..

Battleborn

Like I said yesterday in another thread, I will be in the back half of the first tier in Nevada. I’m a little skeptical due to the short study time. I will probably take it, I’m sure I’ve had much worse pumped into me and exposed to worse in the military. 

JohnInCarolina

I have coworkers in the Duke hospital getting the first dose of the vaccine tomorrow.  I suspect I won't be able to get it until sometime in April, but I'll be one of the first in line.

billt01

JohnInCarolina said:

It seems that some men... you just can't reach.

  

caliking

I was thinking about this the other day.

 There is (anecdotally) skepticism among some physicians too, re: getting vaccinated now vs. later. Just as with any new therapy/medication/etc. that is developed. And the accelerated development of these vaccines does raise some concern. But, oversight of the development of these vaccines has also been hyper-scrutinized, so there's that.

So, I initially thought that risk stratification should determine who should be vaccinated. Pops (84yo) should get it first, then either myself or caliqueen, but maybe not both. For the same reason that Coke executives don't travel together, or the Prez and Veep don't either.

Not sure about caliprince yet. Data (not FB memes or OAN) have shown that COVID infection/transmission has affected his age group far far less, so the risk/benefit analysis is different. 

By the time we're eligible to get vaccinated, there will have been a considerable number of folks vaccinated, so whoever is waiting to see what side effects/etc. look like, should have their questions answered soon enough. 

I guess I'd say Yes x2, and Maybe x2.

nolaegghead

At least we're not getting Sputnik or whatever the Russian vaccine is....they say no drinking for a month or two after vaccination or it's not as effective.  I'm sure that's just another way of getting their people to not take an ineffective vaccine.

JohnInCarolina

By the way, if you tag me with "@JIC" - I don't actually receive any notification.  I do appreciate the effort, however.  

nolaegghead

...and saving face. Or not.  Who knows. 

Russians.

billt01

JohnInCarolina said:

By the way, if you tag me with "@JIC" - I don't actually receive any notification.  I do appreciate the effort, however.  

there's really no need to notify you of anything..you're on here every effing minute of every effing day..

nolaegghead

caliking said:

I was thinking about this the other day.

 There is (anecdotally) skepticism among some physicians too, re: getting vaccinated now vs. later. Just as with any new therapy/medication/etc. that is developed. And the accelerated development of these vaccines does raise some concern. But, oversight of the development of these vaccines has also been hyper-scrutinized, so there's that.

So, I initially thought that risk stratification should determine who should be vaccinated. Pops (84yo) should get it first, then either myself or caliqueen, but maybe not both. For the same reason that Coke executives don't travel together, or the Prez and Veep don't either.

Not sure about caliprince yet. Data (not FB memes or OAN) have shown that COVID infection/transmission has affected his age group far far less, so the risk/benefit analysis is different. 

By the time we're eligible to get vaccinated, there will have been a considerable number of folks vaccinated, so whoever is waiting to see what side effects/etc. look like, should have their questions answered soon enough. 

I guess I'd say Yes x2, and Maybe x2.

The rapid scaling that started yesterday/today will suss out rare immediate reactions.  The mid term side effects will be rare...long term is unknown.  But the mRNA delivery is brilliant and the biochemistry is straight up.  If you are at risk, chances the vaccine will kill you before the virus is minuscule.

Battleborn

caliking said:

I was thinking about this the other day.

 There is (anecdotally) skepticism among some physicians too, re: getting vaccinated now vs. later. Just as with any new therapy/medication/etc. that is developed. And the accelerated development of these vaccines does raise some concern. But, oversight of the development of these vaccines has also been hyper-scrutinized, so there's that.

So, I initially thought that risk stratification should determine who should be vaccinated. Pops (84yo) should get it first, then either myself or caliqueen, but maybe not both. For the same reason that Coke executives don't travel together, or the Prez and Veep don't either.

Not sure about caliprince yet. Data (not FB memes or OAN) have shown that COVID infection/transmission has affected his age group far far less, so the risk/benefit analysis is different. 

By the time we're eligible to get vaccinated, there will have been a considerable number of folks vaccinated, so whoever is waiting to see what side effects/etc. look like, should have their questions answered soon enough. 

I guess I'd say Yes x2, and Maybe x2.

I think my main skepticism isn’t necessarily with the side effects. For me it’s more about the length of efficacy. Is it good for three months? A year? Somewhere in between? 

Our household contains three “high-risk” people. I am the only one with a real risk of catching it, due to the others staying pretty well quarantined. I will probably take for that reason alone. 

nolaegghead

The length of efficacy will probably be better with this vaccine than it will be recovering from covid 19.  But we don't really have any way of knowing.  I would think it will be somewhere between 3-12 months.  Not getting immunized has zero protection, obviously.  Healthy people in low-risk groups infect people in high risk groups including that odd, completely healthy young person that gets very very sick and can even die.

PigBeanUs

I am on the fence. 

The greatest medical minds around the world are working on it, the efficacy of vaccines is demonstrated, and we know the dangers of the alternative. 

But I also heard that a friend of a guy who knows a doctor who said his postman related an anecdote about a nurse who said she would NOT get the vaccine because her cousin’s ex-husband knows a guy he went hunting with once who said it might not be safe. 

Plus a guy on a BBQ forum seems to have discovered a problem with messenger rna that no one else has, including those who are experts in it. 

Legume

I’ll take it, no hesitation.

johnmitchell

Definitely will 

Foghorn

billt01 said:

no, until they (doctors) have a better understanding why it kills some people and others have a short hangover..

nope..

not really big in having my DNA scrambled a bit.

Although @JIC may thing it'd be best...

@billt01, we probably won't know that in your lifetime.  We've spent the last 20 years trying to figure out why some patient with femur fractures (or any other trauma) just need the broken thing fixed and then go home... while others get hyperinflammatory conditions and go into respiratory failure and renal failure and other stuff - and all we know so far is "it's really complicated and hard to predict".

In the case of COVID it probably relates to the extent of initial exposure (how many virus particles did you inhale) combined with your individual immune receptor status and ability to produce inflammatory molecules.  And every time we think we may be onto a firm answer we find a new receptor or molecule or both.

With that said, I'm getting my first dose of vaccine on December 23.

500

If I was concerned about the the things I put in my body, I wouldn't drink alcohol or eat fatty meats.  I do both; and with drinking, to great excess, at times.  I'll take it.  

JohnInCarolina

billt01 said:

JohnInCarolina said:

By the way, if you tag me with "@JIC" - I don't actually receive any notification.  I do appreciate the effort, however.  

there's really no need to notify you of anything..you're on here every effing minute of every effing day..

You're confused.  I wasn't asking for you to tag me properly, I really couldn't care less.  I was just mocking your attempt.  

JohnInCarolina

nolaegghead said:

At least we're not getting Sputnik or whatever the Russian vaccine is....they say no drinking for a month or two after vaccination or it's not as effective.  I'm sure that's just another way of getting their people to not take an ineffective vaccine.

I saw that and just assumed Vlad had some ulterior motive, like trying to hide a pending vodka shortage from the population or something.