I suspect part of the reason they want to push on a strict dosing regimen is to make it easier to manage the logistics. It’s a lot easier for a system to know to prepare 1000 doses that are only stable for 5 days if you know your staff has a 4 day window to get it.
COVID VACCINE - The Megathread
- Thread starter Itomaschik
- Start date
Summit
Critical Crazy
- 2,702
- 1,323
- 113
While you are correct, the guidance for 21-4 is already a problem when we have people trying to schedule +17 but we aren't expecting it to be available until +21. Nobody has scheduled second dose delivery. The state just told us again that CDC is holding back 50% of the doses for the follow up logistics, we don't have delivery timeframes.
akflightmedic
Forum Deputy Chief
- 3,903
- 2,592
- 113
I am becoming well versed in Moderno as that is what the program I am running is utilizing. Two doses, second one is 28 days later.
It does NOT have to be kept at sub zero temps, a regular fridge will do. It is also good for 30 days once unpacked from the shipping container. Makes logistics WAY easier! So Moderno has a 6 month freezer life at normal freezer temps and a 30 day fridge life once thawed.
The only real molecular difference in very basic layman's terms is Pfizer chose a different fat cell to utilize for carrying the mRNA. If I am incorrect, feel free to educate me.
It does NOT have to be kept at sub zero temps, a regular fridge will do. It is also good for 30 days once unpacked from the shipping container. Makes logistics WAY easier! So Moderno has a 6 month freezer life at normal freezer temps and a 30 day fridge life once thawed.
The only real molecular difference in very basic layman's terms is Pfizer chose a different fat cell to utilize for carrying the mRNA. If I am incorrect, feel free to educate me.
We are scheduled for our 2nd dose deliveries of the pfizer vaccines.
akflightmedic
Forum Deputy Chief
- 3,903
- 2,592
- 113
Some places have. Several hospitals in my area have both on site. It is just a logistical issue more than anything, they take what they can get when they can.
Also I forgot to mention earlier, the dosing is different on the two which added another layer of complexity. Apparently the Pfzier is a .3ml dose or something (I have not seen it in person yet) and requires a special needle or syringe. The Moderno is the standard vaccine dose of .5ml and no special equipment required.
Also I forgot to mention earlier, the dosing is different on the two which added another layer of complexity. Apparently the Pfzier is a .3ml dose or something (I have not seen it in person yet) and requires a special needle or syringe. The Moderno is the standard vaccine dose of .5ml and no special equipment required.
Summit
Critical Crazy
- 2,702
- 1,323
- 113
We have our second delivery of first doses for Pfizer scheduled but not our first delivery of second doses
Alan L Serve
Forum Captain
- 258
- 51
- 28
My dear friend
Many thousands have been vaccinated
Without a single death,
yet COVID continues to kill
- 11,086
- 1,547
- 113
There haven't been any vaccine related deaths ... Yet. And hopefully there never will be.
But there may be other side effects and consequences of this vaccine that we don't know about yet simply because it hasn't been around long enough and given to enough people to adequately determine if there are issues.
Summit
Critical Crazy
- 2,702
- 1,323
- 113
Vaccines, Worry, and Risk
I wrote the second half of this post first. Then I reflected on the fact that those with higher levels of professional education relating to vaccines, epidemiology, public health, immunology, genetic engineering, and/or risk management with an understanding of biostatistics tend to be those who have the least vaccine hesitancy. I thought I was in a good position to write the first part.
PART 1 The Problem With Risk
Physicians, Epidemiologists, Infection Preventionists, and Public Health pros exemplify support for vaccination. Why are the SMEs far more comfortable?
The answer is NOT that everyone with concerns is a fool.
While I still practice ICU and EMS, my primary professional expertise for the past several years is epidemiology, infection prevention, and risk management across multiple fields from healthcare to rescue to objective hazards to small/large group human factors. People naturally think they are really good at judging risk as it is almost an automatic action we do every day, even subconsciously. There is an inescapable reality at play: people, including smart people, tend to be terrible at judging risk, worse at comparing (qualifying) risk, and beyond abysmal at quantifying risk. Unfortunately, cognitive biases dominate human risk assessment at a far greater level of influence than our standard logical analysis which are subject to all kind of biases and fallacies.
While I could go on for hours about the details, there are some major factors that drive the disparity between people's perceived and real risk assessment ability.
- Low frequency or unknown risks are particularly hard to integrate into risk analysis.
- Knowlede gaps: A cursory knowledge of a concept instills overconfidence, often towards components where there is understanding while discounting areas that are not. Expert level understanding and experience greatly improves ability, but is not proof against error.
- Attention bias to risk factors independent of quantifiable data - we see this from media and social media.
- Probability neglect bias driving excessive adherence / misapplication of the precautionary principle: this is often seen as overweighting constrainable uncertainty to discount risk mitigation strategies for known risks.
Those who have expertise in the field with a deeper understanding of the science, math and risk are the ones who are most likely to say this is a good idea. But ultimately it is the individual who must decide whether to listen to the din of authoritative non-experts preaching caution on risk mitigation vs experts saying the benefit outweighs the risk.
Vaccine Risk
- All available data on 70 years of vaccines shows that any non-rare long term effects were related to immediate short term effects well observed in the first 60 days post vaccination. We have this data.
- These mRNA vaccines are simpler in process with the fewest additives and no preservatives, and have the least amount of extraneous immunogenic material. They are objectively lower risk by their very nature vs other vaccines.
- Vaccine AE are short term and limited to mild/moderate effects for the vast majority of cases, and are actually manifestations of reactogenicity (the vaccine getting the immune system to train itself).
- We know that COVID can cause severe illness including hospitalization, even in low risk groups, and at rates much higher than a severe vaccine complications in those low risk groups.
- We DO know that viral illnesses can cause long term effects in survivors.
- COVID appears to be causing some long term effects even those who are low mortality risk
- COVID is pandemic, so your chance of being infected along with the morbidity risk, including long term effects, and mortality risk consistent with your individual risk factors is very high.
No action is risk free! To the experts, the concern about unrecognized 1 in 100K to 1 in 1MM effects of a vaccine, while sensible to attend in a vacuum, is a relatively misvalued concern in a pandemic even for those who are in low risk groups. The benefit of preventing risk of COVID vastly outweighs the risk of vaccine INCLUDING the constrained unknowns.
Last edited:
Alan L Serve
Forum Captain
- 258
- 51
- 28
- 11,086
- 1,547
- 113
I never said it didn't work or that it doesn't stop COVID. I took issue with this comment
Being cautious or skeptical is NOT a vote for death as you put it.
Alan L Serve
Forum Captain
- 258
- 51
- 28
E tank
Caution: Paralyzing Agent
- 1,627
- 1,479
- 113
There is major moral concern that a lot of people may have to violate their consciences to receive the vaccine because of the ethically problematic use of aborted fetal cell lines used in production of the AstraZeneca vaccine and in testing of the other 2. That you may not share that concern doesn't make it invalid or illegitimate.
Jim37F
Forum Deputy Chief
- 4,347
- 2,944
- 113
Well its official, I am not getting the Pfizer shot.
I did however, just get a dose of the Moderna shot this morning
I did however, just get a dose of the Moderna shot this morning
- 4,521
- 3,244
- 113
First, skepticism does not equal denial. Reflexive denialism is just as bad as (but probably no worse than) reflexively accepting what you are instructed by authority. But those are both different than skepticism.
Second, skepticism is really just demanding that objectively and sufficiently convincing information and justification be provided before an individual grants support or consent. I struggle to see how that is ever a bad thing.
Third, there are many more historical examples of times that lack of skepticism was regretted than there are examples of times that skepticism itself was regretted.
Lastly, do individuals own their own bodies or not? Does self-determination actually exist? Are people free to make choices that may not - in the opinion of others - be in their own self interests? Think about the potential ramifications of answering “no” to any of those questions.
Last edited:
- 11,086
- 1,547
- 113
Wow...just wow. Do you seriously believe that your viewpoint is the only one people are allowed to have? Up to now, the only backing you've given your points boils down to "I'm right, everyone who disagrees with me is wrong because I say so". That may work with your kids, but it doesn't and shouldn't work with adults. Think long and hard about @Carlos Danger 's last paragraph above.
No "legitimacy in vaccine-skepticism at all", huh? Then why does the CDC maintain this webpage?
Historical Safety Concerns | Vaccine Safety | CDC
Read more about past vaccine safety concerns, how they have been resolved, and what we have learned.
www.cdc.gov
Blind acceptance of something is just as bad as blind rejection of it. There's been more than enough rhetoric about this pandemic and vaccine to prove some healthy skepticism along the way would have been beneficial to us all.
Last edited:
Summit
Critical Crazy
- 2,702
- 1,323
- 113
Healthy skepticism is a good thing. However, one can be overly demanding in that you need all uncertainties constrained to near nothingness in timeframes that abrogates responsibility and benefits. This is hazardous thinking. As there is risk in every action, there is also risk in every inaction. This heuristic trap in decision-making is very easy to fall into, and very difficult to escape, but it must be negotiated.
People owning their own bodies? I will harp on you now for repeatedly trotting out this strawman of self-determination. Nobody is forcing people to vaccinate for COVID! If it were so, we could have that debate, which has strong arguments for and against. But since that isn't so, that point of discussion is just silly to lean on.
People are being asked to make a risk vs benefit decision (self-determination) with surprisingly good amounts of information available such that the decision should ideally be fairly straight forward for most people if they would listen to the risk analysis in unemotional terms from reliable source. I argue that it is straightforward for most even if you only look at risk-benefit selfishly and not from a greater good viewpoint. Sadly, it is external influences distorting the discussion that have made this a hard decision when piled upon natural cognitive biases.
Last edited: