> According to the epidemiologist, the Moderna vaccine has for the past two months been used almost exclusively here for stimulation vaccinations after the Janssen vaccine and after two-dose vaccinations for the elderly and immunocompromised. Very few individuals are said to have received the second dose of the basic vaccine that started with Moderna.
Assuming the translation is correct, this could be a problem in itself. I'm unaware of a single study on the safety or efficacy of mixing vaccine types like this.
I'm reading between the lines here, but I'm speculating this is the situation:
-Iceland has high vaccination rates, including many people who already got both doses of Moderna vaccines several months ago
-It is too early for standard booster shots with Moderna based on medical guidelines
-Many people were originally vaccinated with other brands (J&J/Jannsen, Pfizer) which have been shown to be less effective than Moderna long-term
-Therefore, many people are "cross-vaccinating" by trying to supplement their existing vaccination with Moderna, which they view as superior
-Because of this, most/all Moderna vaccination shots performed in the last 2 months are from people with other vaccines originally -- in other words, they are only being given in ways that are not within current medical guidelines, and in a manner that has not been sufficiently studied for safety and efficacy.
If this is close enough to represent the situation, then I can see why they might decide the best move overall for public health is to halt use of Moderna, at least for now. Maybe with tighter controls, or over the coming months when there will be higher demand for prescribed Moderna boosters, then it will make sense to bring it back.
There is a definite connection between pericarditis & myocarditis with the 2 shot vaccines. It is most pronounced with 2nd shots, with the ages of 13-23, particularly for young me, according to VAERS data [1]. Now, I don't know that they know why yet though.
This is similar to the AZN/J&J thrombotic thrombocytopenia syndrome seen in a fairly small group of young women in Europe. While the data on that did indicate it is sometimes not related to a known issue, it is also worsens pre-existing platelet issues, meaning it should likely be contraindicated for a select group of PTs already on thinners or coagulants.
The part that confuses me the most is that the two 'vaccine side effects' in question are the swelling of muscles in or around the heart... But side effects of (even mild[1]) COVID infections include _damage_ to muscles in or around the heart.
It seems like halting the use of a flu vaccine because of the flu vaccine causing flu-like symptoms.
In Iceland 95% of the most at-risk over 60 year olds are fully vaccinated and over 90% of everyone over 16 is fully or partially vaccinated. Four people total have died of COVID-19 in Iceland since the beginning of the 2021, around 1/100,000.
The evidence for negative vaccine side effects also suggests they're most prevalent in the younger, healthier population least at risk from COVID, who are also the vast majority of the few remaining Icelanders not fully vaccinated.
Given all that, when considering the potential risk/benefit of offering Pfizer and Moderna or just Pfizer, the expected upside of continuing to offer Moderna if they have any reason for concern is very small indeed.
An important note about those deaths is that at least two of them were tourists. With Iceland's small population (370K) and high number of tourist (though just 340K Jan-Aug 2021, far from the 2 million annually in recent years) many of the metrics for Covid-19 have been skewed (tourists are at least 10% of hospitalizations etc.)
The mixing makes it harder to get good data, but given the mechanism of action of the vaccine, it seems unlikely that something like myocarditis is purely a result of mixed vaccines. Unlikely enough that it's probably worth pausing the offending vaccine if the risk is higher than the COVID risk.
Autotranslated article, and really thin on details.
A confusing passage:
> According to the [Chief Epidemiologist], the Moderna vaccine has for the past two months been used almost exclusively here for stimulation vaccinations after the Janssen vaccine and after two-dose vaccinations for the elderly and immunocompromised. Very few individuals are said to have received the second dose of the basic vaccine that started with Moderna.
Any Icelandic readers here? Is my reading correct that they were using Moderna as a booster after a vaccination with either Janssen or a two shot series of Phizer?
I read that a few times and yes, came to the same conclusion as you. Moderna as a booster after either J and J or two dose series (which were both moderna and pfizer or az)
It always made more sense to me to vaccinate the highest risk group, and let the general population acquire natural immunity.
In this way should a break out occur in the vaccinated, those with natural immunity would buffer it from spreading quickly. Natural immunity is longer lasting and more robust at offering protection from the infection.
I worry right now with a scenario where all the vaccinated start getting a breakthrough variant that targets the vaccinated and all get sick at the same time. Really overwhelming the hospitals, in countries with high vaccination rates and no sub population with natural immunity to buffer the spread.
Imagine two forests.
1) a forest where all of the trees were sprayed with water.
2) a forest where the most at risk trees were sprayed with water. And a control burn allowed in the rest.
The first forest will appear safer at first, but short term while the trees are still wet.
But the second forest will be much more protected from future fires, since there will be large patches of burnt forest that will not readily catch fire for a long time.
Buffering spread.
I don't think we understand the true legal ramifications yet, of forcing an experimental vaccine on so many. We knew about the pericarditis, the myocarditis, the blood clots, and the autoimmune disorders, the deaths, they are well documented in VAERS, even if massively undercounted.
And yet, our political class did not stop
Then Delta emerged, and vaccine efficacy dropped wholesale. Work was made conditional based on jabs. Science became a mantra, but in actuality it was ignored as the strong evidence for natural immunity was silenced. Bigtech previcated, and floundered, attaching notes to obituaries and criticism. Disinformation replaced information, as vaxxes were pushed on those with de minimis risk of covid, the 18 year olds without co-morbidities with 1 in 5 million chances of dying.
And yet, our political class did not stop.
Now, other democracies with medical systems in many cases matching our own are halting some of the vaccine distribution. It looks like the Chinese with their attenuated vaccines definitely had a better approach. But there is still an active mandate in several sectors of the economy, and an unconstituional campaign to deny religious exemptions that will likely eviscerate employment. Nurses are leaving in droves rather than vaccinate, having seen the side effects up close and personal.
When will our political class stop?
I sincerely believe we are ahead of the curve on a wave of class action lawsuits the likes of which this country has never seen. Tobacco, Asbestos, and every other toxic substances could pale in comparison to the potential payouts from the deaths, injuries, and reduced longevity coming from these leaky, toxic vaccines.
If you didn't read this: You should still be vaccinated. If you're under Pfizer wear KN95s, KF94s, and N95s. This not an arguement against vaccination.
Further, even in cases of "breakthrough" infection, mortality rate is significantly reduced with the vaccine vs unvaccinated. I think people just assume that a "breakthrough" means "didn't work", but that isn't necessarily the case!
Breakthrough infection and breakthrough disease are entirely different things.
Ask any ICU nurse what percentage of their COVID patients are unvaccinated. Every article I've seen reports at least 90% are unvaccinated, and of the remaining 10% that were, they were either very old or had a severe immune deficiency.
This is not at all true in Iceland. It was more of a 50% reduction in hospitalizations and our emergency ICU filled up with plenty of fully vaccinated persons. They are relatively fewer that unvaccinated, but no fucking way near the 90% constantly touted in these forums.
Mostly frail and obese ofcourse but that is pretty much the same as the unvaccinated account. We had to go back to our modest restrictions even with a very high vaccination rate because of this.
On a side note,
I am on of the 20000 Icelanders that got full double moderna inocculation and I suffered through the absolute worst nights of my life after the second dose.
Took about one month to recover.
But I digress.
I have to admit that I am nervous about the winter surge. Our hospital system is full to the brink with non covid patients. Its now in a much worse state than it was during the entire past 18 panic months of lockdown and masks.
Mostly frail elderly that we do not have any other beds in nursing homes for. Not a single fucking mention og hospital collapse though. We have patiens in staff breakrooms becuse the hospital is so full.
The fancy reporting of the fantastic vaccine efficacy actually translated to about half of what the medical companies promised. We are potentially looking at yet another lockdown winter because we have almost no natural immunity ( which is recognized in Iceland as far superiour to vaccine immunity) and our shit healthcare system is already in deep trouble.
The mainstream medias, blatant lies, are easy to verify in Iceland because we are such a tiny homogenous population with very good concise records.
> On a side note, I am on of the 20000 Icelanders that got full double moderna inocculation and I suffered through the absolute worst nights of my life after the second dose.
I'm sorry you had that experience. I have a friend who had a similar experience (4 agonizing days) after his second Moderna dose and swore the he will not get a third one. Based on that I have to believe it was truly awful.
One the other hand I have several other friends who were quite fine afer Moderna. I wish we had the means to distinguish between the two groups, so nobody else has to endure what you did.
>They are relatively fewer that unvaccinated, but no fucking way near the 90% constantly touted in these forums.
Imagine there are 100 vaccinated and 5 unvaccinated vulnerable people, and all of them are exposed to covid. At 95% effectiveness against hospitalization, you'd have 5 vaccinated and 5 unvaccinated, i.e 50-50. The OP is referring to places with lower percentages of vaccinated than Iceland.
That is a good illustration of the concept of vaccine effectiveness, but assumes infection translates into hospitalization 100% of the times. The real hospitalization rate is 1-5%, though half the country believes it is >50%...
The reduction in transmission rates is smaller than you'd think. At 3 months the reduction has diminished substantially, 58% transmission risk, marginally better than 67% for unvaccinated people. There is no data yet for 6 months, 1 year, 5 years.
Erm, I was explicitly talking about reduction in hospitalisation and death, not of transmission (from infected people). Those are separate aspects of vaccine peotection.
> Ask any ICU nurse what percentage of their COVID patients are unvaccinated. Every article I've seen reports at least 90% are unvaccinated, and of the remaining 10% that were, they were either very old or had a severe immune deficiency.
My grandfather was vaccinated, but is immuno-deficient, and just caught it from a visit to the hospital. Between his age, and the state of his immune system, he was at death's door for two weeks.
If the hospital weren't full of unvaccinated COVID patients to begin with, it's far less likely he would have picked it up there (He doesn't exactly leave the house, except to go the doctor.)
As it turns out, the prevalence of the former leads to the latter.
A leaky vaccine means that many vaccinated are spreading it.
Evidence:
"New data was released by the CDC showing that vaccinated people infected with the delta variant can carry detectable viral loads similar to those of people who are unvaccinated, though in the vaccinated, these levels rapidly diminish. There is also some question about how cultivatable—or viable—this virus retrieved from vaccinated people actually is. " [1]
"Breakthrough Delta variant infections are associated with high viral loads, prolonged PCR positivity, and low levels of vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies, explaining the transmission between the vaccinated people. Physical distancing measures remain critical to reduce SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant transmission." [2]
Many vaccinated may be spreading it, but when the only place you have visited before you got sick is full of unvaccinated people who are dying of COVID, you probably should be taking a close look at the latter group.
> Every article I've seen reports at least 90% are unvaccinated, and of the remaining 10% that were, they were either very old or had a severe immune deficiency.
Maybe you should reconsider the biases of your sources, and ask if they are conflating correlation with causation: Israel[1], Ireland [2], The UK [3]
I recognize that it is most probable that the most vulnerable are likely getting vaxxed, and likely to get a breakthrough also.
Vaccine is the only thing that can (and does) make this pandemic manageable. I write this comment from Bucharest, where vaccine hesitancy (among other factors) have made it so that only about 30% of the adult population is vaccinated. We have ambulance queues in front of most of the Covid hospitals, patients are "deposited" (for lack of a better word) on hospital hallways, the luckier ones on make-shift beds, the more recent ones on chairs, hanging on to an oxygen tube between their legs. Almost all the other European countries have higher vaccination rates than us, they do not have our current problems.
> Vaccine is the only thing that can (and does) make this pandemic manageable.
This is false. There are treatments available, like monoclonal antibodies, they just have not been publicized as much.
Somebody, somewhere made a choice to push the vaccines and not the monoclonal antibodies. As an interesting fact, before the pandemic the knowledge to produce the nanolipid capsule existed in only 2 small companies worldwide. Big scale facilities for producing the nanolipid particles necessary for the mRNA vaccines were non-existent, they had to be built. Just as well, facilities for producing monoclonal antibodies en-masse could have been built, but were not.
Monoclonal antibodies cost thousands of dollars per transfusion. A vaccine costs a couple bucks.
We are not going to make the pandemic manageable with monoclonal antibodies. The reason governments made the choice to push vaccines over them is because vaccines are actually in the range of economic possibility.
AFAIK, monoclonal antibodies are a valid and approved treatment, but a vaccine is much more of a prophylactic measure. Part of managing a pandemic is avoiding a huge crunch on the medical system (like we're currently living). Vaccines help keep people out of the hospital to begin with.
Even if we were interested in using monoclonal antibodies as a prophylactic, the current monoclonal antibody treatments that we have available are delivered via IV infusion. That's much more time-consuming and resource intensive than two vaccine shots imo.
That’s because prevention is better than treatment. Prevention means less spread and can be administered at any time. Monoclonal antibody treatment is only usable within a specific window when a person is already ill. That means the person has had the opportunity to spread the infection, further increasing demand for treatment, and there’s no guarantee the monoclonal antibodies will save them (no treatments are perfect).
Prevention always makes more sense than trying to patch a problem later on.
> Somebody, somewhere made a choice to push the vaccines and not the monoclonal antibodies.
Monoclonal antibodies have been investigated at the same time as vaccines. Companies could have offered low cost production at large scale, but they didn't. What makes you think monoclonal antibodies can be produced and sold for $5-20 per dose like the vaccine?
There is probably less of a profit motive for monoclonal antibodies, since it is just a few doses.
Vaccines with continual boosters mandated by law and required for travel or normal business entrance are a perpetual goldmine. Basically the exact opposite of what Gilead did with the Hepatitis C cure.
The giant bigpharma companies have the lobbyists to influence legislators & government executives, as well as controlling the social media "fact checkers" [1]
Monoclonal antibodies are, as you say, a treatment. They are not used to prevent infection in the first place. They lessen the severity of the disease but do essentially nothing to avoid its transmission.
You cannot end a pandemic without stopping the disease from spreading. For one, monoclonal antibodies do nothing to stop transmission. Second, their supply is constrained and availability is limited. Third, it cannot be used in all cases, most notably for folks whose symptoms have already become severe.
> Monoclonal antibodies are, as you say, a treatment. They are not used to prevent infection in the first place. They lessen the severity of the disease but do essentially nothing to avoid its transmission.
You, fundamentally, do not understand how antibodies work.
Just as with the antibodies from a vaccine, if the monoclonal antibodies are in your blood before contact with an infected person you will not get sick. So, monoclonal antibodies can be used profilactically, if so desired.
First, that's not how monoclonal antibodies are designed to be administered. Second, that's not how they are administered (anywhere). Third, even if they were, we would call it a vaccine.
Why don't we? Because they're many orders of magnitude more expensive than the actual vaccines which are designed to be used prophylactically and do not provide the immunity.
I'm not aware of an experimental vaccine being forced on anyone, can you provide an example?
Back when all vaccines were operating under an EUA and were experimental, there were zero vaccine mandates.
After a vaccine was fully approved and shown to be unequivocally safe and effective, it was then no longer experimental. Mandating vaccines that are shown to be effective and safe is as old as the USA is as a country, and this is no outlier.
Unequivocal? There is literally no doubt as to the “safety”? That is demonstratively not true. On several occasions, several of the vaccines have been halted by several separate health authorities over safety concerns. That is not zero doubt. This story is about exactly that.
You have to come up with a definition of “experimental” that suits you, and “emergency authorization” doesn’t sound like very well tested and understood.
People don’t understand risks very well nor can they compare risks very well and that has been demonstrated over and over again.
Covid vs vaccine risks vary quite a lot depending on what kind of person you are.
If you are quite old or have significant health problems, it is pretty easy to demonstrate with high confidence that the vaccine risk is way smaller than the Covid risk (many orders of magnitude).
If you are very young (say a healthy teenager) the Covid risk is very low and the uncertainties of the vaccine risks start to compete where it is much harder to have confidence that for a population vaccinating is a better idea. People also can have different appetites for risk and different appetites for the good of the individual vs the good of the many.
The problems with vaccination are many people pretend they are perfect or evil who are either knowingly distorting the truth or repeating lies or dogma. Also many people desire authoritarian solutions for everyone to agree with them.
What is actually needed are attempts to accurately represent risks and unknowns, and comparisons of those risks and unknowns which update over time as the unknowns get smaller. There also needs to be the ability to acknowledge that a crossover point may exist where on one side one decision may be better than on the other.
People though are being used to turn any contentious issue into political dogma and opportunities to signal morality.
The situation is not as simple as you and many people make it.
> You have to come up with a definition of “experimental” that suits you, and “emergency authorization” doesn’t sound like very well tested and understood.
I think you may have misread my comment. I agree that "emergency authorization" constitutes "experimental". My point is that there is now a vaccine that is no longer experimental, i.e. is as fully FDA approved as any other, and the mandates in place were put there after that approval.
To the rest of your comment, when dealing with a contagious disease which spreads throughout society, I think that the people participating in a society should be able to set prerequisites for participating in that society. One person's rights end where another's begin, and with contagious diseases, a given person's low risk of death does not prevent them from spreading it to someone with much higher risk.
> the people participating in a society should be able to set prerequisites for participating in that society
This is exactly what I’m saying with a different emphasis.
Some societies will want to lean more towards conformity and collective good, other societies will want to lean more on individual choice and individual good. In America there’s a tendency to split into 50:50 camps between each (and each camp seems to alternate between individual freedom and conformity depending on the topic)
Why is it that the way one camp thinks needs to dominate the other? How do you decide between individual choice and authoritarianism?
I.e. Abortions? Individual choice. Vaccines? Authoritarianism. (Reverse for opposite political allegiance)
There isn’t just one political philosophy for all societies and there seems to be pretty big disagreements (and self contradictions) all around. Most people though act like their opinions are the only possible opinions, and have no respect for different ideas and little concept of the actual issues at hand.
> I.e. Abortions? Individual choice. Vaccines? Authoritarianism. (Reverse for opposite political allegiance)
I think these examples are really interesting, because on both political sides, the exact same values are being applied, to a different set of definitions.
In both cases, the "authoritarian" option is supported by for the topic that a group believes impacts more than one person, and the "individual choice" option supported by the group that believes that topic affects only one person.
A person who believes that a society should protect its vulnerable from contagious disease, while also believing that lie begins at conception, is likely to support the "authoritarian" option for both topics.
People seem to not very commonly have consistent value for individual freedoms. There is a lot of desiring freedom to do things they support and authoritarianism to make others do things they want. All the while protesting and defending falsely their values on either individualism or the public good.
There is not a lot of “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” or in general supporting freedom to do things one doesn’t like.
the "full approval" happened much faster than any other vaccine or medication in recent memory. also the approval was based on the exact same dataset that was used for the EUA, to me that does not inspire confidence
It’s not about inspiring confidence, it’s about measuring uncertainty.
Presently the uncertainty margins are higher for this than other things in the past and other things available. Different standards of uncertainty seem to be used for this, and that’s not necessarily bad considering the scale of the problem being addressed. BUT the uncertainty is not being appropriately represented by the people acting as information authorities.
I’m not sure I could come up with a definition of the word “dangerous” which I could defend which wouldn’t label almost everything else I do in a day as dangerous as well. The risk as demonstrated so far and the unknown risks which can be imagined at this point are still very small for any population. One could hunt for an equivalent activity and try to defend whether or not you would call that dangerous.
For example, I have a drivers license and own a car, and plan to drive regularly for most of my life. I think it is quite reasonable to think the Covid vaccine is far less risky than an average amount of driving for a reasonable time period, and I wouldn’t describe driving as dangerous nor are people up in arms about this very common and demonstrably much more risky behavior.
Most of the rest of what you say seems reasonable though.
> I’m not sure I could come up with a definition of the word “dangerous” which I could defend which wouldn’t label almost everything else I do in a day as dangerous as well. The risk as demonstrated so far and the unknown risks which can be imagined at this point are still very small for any population. One could hunt for an equivalent activity and try to defend whether or not you would call that dangerous.
Any medical intervention brings with it some potential downsides.
That is why we have Informed Consent [1] in the West.
However, normally informed consent works like this:
You meet with the doctor, you get the pros and cons of the treatment, and then, you make an informed decision knowing both the good and bad about whether or not you want it.
With Covid, that has been thrown out the window, as medical ethics has been thrown out the window with the bathwater. Our media has turned into total cheerleaders, and, in some cases, professional liars.
Our government seems to have rushed, and politically influenced the approvals.
There is a large amount of risk with these vaccines for some specific contra-indications that are not being mentioned widely, such as vaccine allergies, clotting disorders, auto-immune disorders, just to name a few. This is not including the known clotting problems w. JnJ/AZN, and the general heart issues with young PTs. Many workplaces are not accepting of these valid medical reasons as a cause for exemption, which then leads to severe side effects. Even worse, this can lead to pressure to get a 2nd shot, even after horrible side effects from the first.
Our vaccine variety could easily have included many more types in order to reduce the potential for side effects, and to avoid mandates by giving choices e.g. attenuated vaccines
Informed consent should be coming from a discussion between you and your doctor if you have concerns, not the news or press releases (do you complain that magazine ads for drugs don’t give you proper information?)
You are leaning very heavily on extremely rare reactions and making generalizations about exemptions which aren’t nearly true. Of course there exists unreasonable responses on every level, but existence doesn’t equal a fair review of the situation.
>Informed consent should be coming from a discussion between you and your doctor if you have concerns, not the news or press releases (do you complain that magazine ads for drugs don’t give you proper information?)
The Pro-Vaccine doctor, Dr. Francis Christian in Canada that was suspended, then fired [1] merely for advocating informed consent would argue otherwise. Mind you, he was not saying halt the vaccine, but merely to inform patients of all the pros and cons before the intervention, but continue the campaign.
Basically, they are skipping the informed consent part.
> You are leaning very heavily on extremely rare reactions and making generalizations about exemptions which aren’t nearly true. Of course there exists unreasonable responses on every level, but existence doesn’t equal a fair review of the situation.
Actually, that is incorrect. I was intrigued from a medical perspective when the first person I know to get vaccinated then proceeded to have severe side effects. Highly anecdotal I know, but I thought - where there is smoke, there is fire. Once I started to look into VAERS, and read lots of the statistics about COVID, then I could see the misapplication of mandates by applying them to extremely low risk populations. Such that the cure became worse than the cancer for application of a vaccine like this to extreme low risk populations, particularly where the risk of dangerous side effects rise.
While we know VAERS undercounts adverse reactions ~ numbers range from 3x to 10x to 50x
The VAERS data [2] currently has:
16,310 DEATHS
75,605 HOSPITALIZATIONS
87,814 URGENT CARE
121,305 DOCTOR OFFICE VISITS
7,141 ANAPHYLAXIS
9,446 BELL'S PALSY
2,415 Miscarriages
7,868 Heart Attacks
6,812 Myocarditis/Pericarditis
20,789 Permanently Disabled
3,620 Thrombocytopenia/ Low Platelet
17,619 Life Threatening
28,168 Severe Allergic Reaction
8,153 Shingles
I've had a large number of vaccines in my life due to the countries in which I deployed. But, nothing like this in terms of side effects. VAERS data on all previous vaccine side effects makes a clear case for these vaccines as being much more dangerous in comparison.
None of these argue against my point. The first supports my point, the second I already agreed with, and the other two are unrelated.
I have this disconcerting feeling that you're arguing against what you wish I were saying, rather than what I actually said. This website thrives on good faith arguments.
Your first citation is presumably what the previous comment was making reference to. The described procedure resulted in a "dose" ~100 000x greater than what circulates after vaccination. i.e. dose makes the poison.
In light of that, the following citations don't convey the message you want them to.
>After a vaccine was fully approved and shown to be unequivocally safe and effective
Nothing developed 15 months ago can be shown to be "unequivocally safe". No matter what your position on COVID vaccines, its simply a matter of fact that there's no way to know the long term effects of something that hasn't been around for long.
There's not really a mechanism of action for an mRNA vaccine to have side effects that manifest after 15 months with nothing in between; any side effects would manifest themselves quite quickly.
But that's a fair point, "unequivocally" is a strong word. Would you be okay with "safe and unequivocally effective"?
> There's not really a mechanism of action for an mRNA vaccine to have side effects that manifest after 15 months with nothing in between; any side effects would manifest themselves quite quickly.
Unless, the vaccine causes a "reprogramming" of the immune system, like some viruses do.
In Europe all the vaccines that are authorized have a "conditional marketing authorization" with a 1 year time limit, and many countries have vaccine mandates. Under EMA, for a vaccine to be "fully approved" it needs to have a standard marketing authorization; none of the COVID vaccines do.
> A Conditional Marketing Authorization is not an Emergency Use Authorization. The European Medicines Agency even explain this.
Please provide a citation for this claim. My reading of the EMA page for Conditional Marketing Authorization states: "Its use is also intended for a public health emergency (e.g. a pandemic). _For these medicines, less comprehensive pharmaceutical and non-clinical data may also be accepted_".
The fact that less comprehensive farmaceutical data is accepted for CMA leads me to believe they are experimental.
See the section "What are the main differences between the EU's Conditional Marketing Authorisation and the Emergency Use Authorisation issued by some other countries?", onwards.
It explains amongst other things that a Conditional Marketing Authorisation (CMA) is a real, controlled and robust, authorisation of the vaccine; this is unlike the Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA), which is really an authorisation of the use of an unauthorised vaccine.
A CMA requires data on safety and efficacy, showing the benefits outweigh the risks. An EUA has no such requirement.
What country are you in that disallowed being in public without a vaccine? That didn't happen anywhere in the US that I'm aware of.
As for the rest, again, mandating vaccination is something the US has been doing over and over since the year 1777. This is nothing new.
The parent claimed that this vaccine mandate was specifically paired with the vaccine still being in an experimental state, which to my knowledge is not the case.
North America. We are not yet at federally mandated vaccine or else, but there is a visible trend to require vaccine mandates in more and more settings: work, travel, shopping. So far it is localized in a handful of spots. Absent strong pushback it is possible the trend will spread like fire.
Los Angeles: L.A. to require COVID vaccine proof for indoor restaurants, gyms, malls
Canada: Traveling in Canada by plane or train? You'll need to show proof of vaccination
IBM/RedHat: Big Blue will require employees in the U.S. to get fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by Dec. 8 while Red Hat requires proof of full vaccination by Nov. 29.
Sorry for the double reply, it just came to my attention a story from Lithuania. First EU country with a strict implementation of the CovidPass. Extreme ostracization of a population segment is rather new, if we are not to count some notorious pre WW2 instances.
Smallpox had a mortality varying from 33% to 17% according to what I read last [1]
Covid has a mortality rate of < 2% in the US mainly driven by the very old, and severe co-mordibities (diabetic+obese, immunocompromised, etc) that are in many cases annually killed off by influenza & pneumonia. That is why all-cause mortality hasn't shifted that much at the overall population level in the US.
I don't think "we've always mandated vaccines" is a good argument. Applying the label of "vaccine" to something does not guarantee anything. Especially when the definition was changed in the past year.
> I don't think "we've always mandated vaccines" is a good argument. Applying the label of "vaccine" to something does not guarantee anything.
That's a fair point, I agree.
> Especially when the definition was changed in the past year.
Could you elaborate on this part? I went ahead and checked the dictionary definition:
> A substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.
Which tracks with what I remember from my molecular bio degree ten years ago.
It wasn’t just here - the CDC and potentially others (I haven’t looked that hard) changed their definitions as well.
I’ve got no issue with making terms more correct, but I think one could make the argument that the covid vaccine is more similar to a flu shot than the polio vaccine w.r.t public perception.
I don't object to the new definition- the old one explicitly calling out cowpox feels outdated as our medical technology has marched on.
You make a very good point though, depending on what definition of "vaccine" one used prior to 2020 the mRNA vaccines might not fall under it. And changing the meaning of the word doesn't magically change the properties of the things it refers to.
the CDC recently changed their definition of vaccine from (paraphrasing) "something that provides immunity to disease" to "something that provides protection from a disease"
Has anything else been ”Approved” by the FDA before completion of the respective phase 3 trails?
Independently of that, I think there is good reason to doubt the quality of data gathered during this “open beta” of a phase 3 trial. Two people I know are suffering long lasting adverse reactions after being vaccinated. In both cases the doctors do not want to explore the possibility that the effects were caused by the vaccine.
It’s not hard to imagine that this is a pretty common situation. Doctors have had their licenses revoked for questioning the safety of the vaccines.
Isn’t it obvious this taints the data? If doctors feel the need to stop-crime when they see adverse reactions in order to be able to continue in their profession?
My Dad who's been to the same cardiologist for years, in my smallish town, can't get a timely appointment now. Was told the doctor is swamped with 50+ new patients.
My aunt can't get the vax because the first dose sent her to the hospital. Now she can't work because of the vax mandates require her to be fully vaxxed
From my understanding you can’t get the actual distinct Comirnaty version when you go in and get the shot. They only have EUA Pfizer supplies. Technically the same thing but legally different and therefore has a different liability profile.
> Technically the same thing but legally different and therefore has a different liability profile.
AFAIK, any different liability profile between an EUA and approved product is moot in the case of COVID vaccines, because they are out of both normal liability regimes and standard vaccine liability regimes and covered by the PREP Act pandemic countermeasures regime which does not make a distinction.
Assuming the translation is correct, this could be a problem in itself. I'm unaware of a single study on the safety or efficacy of mixing vaccine types like this.