OtherGround Forums OG doc. AMA on COVID-19

12/4/20 10:31 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 28181
hi mataleo1, do most ICU mds in montreal and nyc agree with your viewpoint on lockdowns?
12/4/20 11:06 AM
10/23/05
Posts: 4776
yusul - hi mataleo1, do most ICU mds in montreal and nyc agree with your viewpoint on lockdowns?

It depends on the specialty. I do both ICU and nephrology. If you allow me to generalize a little, docs have different views here.

ICU / Surgeons / cardiologists tend to have a better understanding of costs and benefits. With more practical real-life decisions. And they tend to view lockdowns are hurtful.

Whereas neurologists / nephrologists / internists / oncologists tend to have a more restrained approach and err on the side of caution, up playing risks of COVID and down playing risks of lockdowns.

In essence, no, most docs I've talked to support lockdowns.

I have no clue if my stance is correct or not. I have advocated for distancing, masks and contact tracing, if only to keep things open. It would have then cost us a fraction of what it did to protect the vulnerable (with financial incentives / tax breaks / medical support for them to stay at home).

12/4/20 11:56 AM
7/22/15
Posts: 6668

They just shut down one of the construction projects in California, I sold my company a few years ago, but I stayed on as estimator and consulting. This job had my guys a bit nervous because they were doing zero social distancing. Our guy's told us that a few of the painters were coughing.  I told them to pull off the job, and I would let them know when they could go back. 

The owner's son, who is running the job, called me up and started berating me for pulling my guy off the job. He said that I could expect to be back charged for each day I go without having my guy's on the job.  So he is off the job, and it was confirmed he has Covid-19 along with multiple other people that were on the job.

Yesterday I received an email that the project is being shut down until further notice. 

Pretty crazy.

 

12/4/20 12:19 PM
10/23/05
Posts: 4778
Unkind Zuffa - 

They just shut down one of the construction projects in California, I sold my company a few years ago, but I stayed on as estimator and consulting. This job had my guys a bit nervous because they were doing zero social distancing. Our guy's told us that a few of the painters were coughing.  I told them to pull off the job, and I would let them know when they could go back. 

The owner's son, who is running the job, called me up and started berating me for pulling my guy off the job. He said that I could expect to be back charged for each day I go without having my guy's on the job.  So he is off the job, and it was confirmed he has Covid-19 along with multiple other people that were on the job.

Yesterday I received an email that the project is being shut down until further notice. 

Pretty crazy.

 


On another thread someone was bragging that he went to do his groceries while being symptomatic from COVID.

Crazy indeed.

12/4/20 1:26 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 12774
mataleo1 - 
prof - 

mataleo1 -

(or anyone else who can answer)

Was this discussed anywhere on the thread?

MMR Vaccine could protect against COVID:

https://asm.org/Press-Releases/2020/November/MMR-Vaccine-Could-Protect-Against-COVID-19

"Based upon our study, it would be prudent to vaccinate those over 40 regardless of whether or not they already have high serum MMR titers."



What do you think?


Agreed with Job Security.

I saw that published. Likely a confounder. Would be worth more study if a vaccine wasn't already close to our doorsteps.



Thanks. (And Job Security).

Maybe I'll cancel that Doc appointment for the MMR Vaccine, then. :-)


Pretty aggravating, to say the least, at the vaccine situation in Canada. Behind the 8-ball it seems.
12/6/20 2:10 PM
10/30/10
Posts: 9016

Doc(s),

 

Is this real? Supposedly it’s the release info for the vaccine for UK. Are the “undesirable effects” normal for a vaccine? I know there are side effects from the flu vaccine and others so I’m more asking if these numbers are in range of most vaccines. 
 

The demographics don’t add up either. The race of participant adds up to almost 130%. Is that number usually that far off on clinical studies?

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/941452/Information_for_healthcare_professionals.pdf

12/6/20 2:35 PM
10/23/05
Posts: 4802
OutTapped - 

Doc(s),

 

Is this real? Supposedly it’s the release info for the vaccine for UK. Are the “undesirable effects” normal for a vaccine? I know there are side effects from the flu vaccine and others so I’m more asking if these numbers are in range of most vaccines. 
 

The demographics don’t add up either. The race of participant adds up to almost 130%. Is that number usually that far off on clinical studies?

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/941452/Information_for_healthcare_professionals.pdf


I'll give you a short answer: Benefit vs risk.

1) How important is it for you to be vaccinated. Age? Weight? Comorbidity?

2) Any medication insert is full of side-effects and adverse events. Even something like tylenol: you're going to see literally dozens of concerning effects. So yes, it's not abnormal to see so many.

3) It's not like we're going at this blindly. We've tested these vaccines on thousands of people and the overall risk profile is minimal. Yes, there are no long-term data, but you can say that for literally any medication coming out. For example, we rarely have reliable "fertility" data on drugs like monoclonal antibodies, as these often require years / decades of follow-up.

In short, if you're at risk, I would definitely opt to take it now. If you're not, you could wait 6-12 months as more data will be coming out, and you'll be able to make a more informed decision. I have to take it because I work with vulnerable patients and I want to be near my parents again. I'm not particularly concerned, but it makes sense to wait it out if you're young, healthy, and thin.

12/6/20 2:41 PM
6/22/03
Posts: 8227
mataleo1 - 
OutTapped - 

Doc(s),

 

Is this real? Supposedly it’s the release info for the vaccine for UK. Are the “undesirable effects” normal for a vaccine? I know there are side effects from the flu vaccine and others so I’m more asking if these numbers are in range of most vaccines. 
 

The demographics don’t add up either. The race of participant adds up to almost 130%. Is that number usually that far off on clinical studies?

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/941452/Information_for_healthcare_professionals.pdf


I'll give you a short answer: Benefit vs risk.

1) How important is it for you to be vaccinated. Age? Weight? Comorbidity?

2) Any medication insert is full of side-effects and adverse events. Even something like tylenol: you're going to see literally dozens of concerning effects. So yes, it's not abnormal to see so many.

3) It's not like we're going at this blindly. We've tested these vaccines on thousands of people and the overall risk profile is minimal. Yes, there are no long-term data, but you can say that for literally any medication coming out. For example, we rarely have reliable "fertility" data on drugs like monoclonal antibodies, as these often require years / decades of follow-up.

In short, if you're at risk, I would definitely opt to take it now. If you're not, you could wait 6-12 months as more data will be coming out, and you'll be able to make a more informed decision. I have to take it because I work with vulnerable patients and I want to be near my parents again. I'm not particularly concerned, but it makes sense to wait it out if you're young, healthy, and thin.


What if you're 50, healthy and thin?

Edited: 12/6/20 3:52 PM
10/23/05
Posts: 4803
Lazarus - 
mataleo1 - 
OutTapped - 

Doc(s),

 

Is this real? Supposedly it's the release info for the vaccine for UK. Are the "undesirable effects" normal for a vaccine? I know there are side effects from the flu vaccine and others so I'm more asking if these numbers are in range of most vaccines. 
 

The demographics don't add up either. The race of participant adds up to almost 130%. Is that number usually that far off on clinical studies?

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/941452/Information_for_healthcare_professionals.pdf


I'll give you a short answer: Benefit vs risk.

1) How important is it for you to be vaccinated. Age? Weight? Comorbidity?

2) Any medication insert is full of side-effects and adverse events. Even something like tylenol: you're going to see literally dozens of concerning effects. So yes, it's not abnormal to see so many.

3) It's not like we're going at this blindly. We've tested these vaccines on thousands of people and the overall risk profile is minimal. Yes, there are no long-term data, but you can say that for literally any medication coming out. For example, we rarely have reliable "fertility" data on drugs like monoclonal antibodies, as these often require years / decades of follow-up.

In short, if you're at risk, I would definitely opt to take it now. If you're not, you could wait 6-12 months as more data will be coming out, and you'll be able to make a more informed decision. I have to take it because I work with vulnerable patients and I want to be near my parents again. I'm not particularly concerned, but it makes sense to wait it out if you're young, healthy, and thin.

What if you're 50, healthy and thin?

Risk of death from COVID, as you know, is very small. But keep in mind there are side-effects of COVID like O2 dependence, chronic shortness of breath, loss of smell/taste, and others. Rare but not fun either way.

You might not get access to the vaccine for 3 months anyway.

By then hundreds of thousands will be vaccinated. And more data for an informed decision.

No long term data, but again, no different from many medications coming out.

It would make sense to wait a little if you're concerned.

Personally, I'd be MUCH more scared of taking something like a monoclonal antibody or a new c-l-a-s-s of drugs (like SGLT-2 inhibitors) than the vaccine.
12/6/20 3:26 PM
10/30/10
Posts: 9017
mataleo1 -
OutTapped - 

Doc(s),

 

Is this real? Supposedly it’s the release info for the vaccine for UK. Are the “undesirable effects” normal for a vaccine? I know there are side effects from the flu vaccine and others so I’m more asking if these numbers are in range of most vaccines. 
 

The demographics don’t add up either. The race of participant adds up to almost 130%. Is that number usually that far off on clinical studies?

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/941452/Information_for_healthcare_professionals.pdf


I'll give you a short answer: Benefit vs risk.

1) How important is it for you to be vaccinated. Age? Weight? Comorbidity?

2) Any medication insert is full of side-effects and adverse events. Even something like tylenol: you're going to see literally dozens of concerning effects. So yes, it's not abnormal to see so many.

3) It's not like we're going at this blindly. We've tested these vaccines on thousands of people and the overall risk profile is minimal. Yes, there are no long-term data, but you can say that for literally any medication coming out. For example, we rarely have reliable "fertility" data on drugs like monoclonal antibodies, as these often require years / decades of follow-up.

In short, if you're at risk, I would definitely opt to take it now. If you're not, you could wait 6-12 months as more data will be coming out, and you'll be able to make a more informed decision. I have to take it because I work with vulnerable patients and I want to be near my parents again. I'm not particularly concerned, but it makes sense to wait it out if you're young, healthy, and thin.

Are the undesirable effects more because of drug interactions, underlying conditions, and age versus the actual vaccine?

 

Why do the races add up to 122.8%? 
 

Personally I’m not concerned about the vaccine. I won’t be racing to get it but I’m not against it either. I was told by a test that I had the rona at one time and have the antibodies. I’m 44, excercie daily, don’t eat like shit often, take 0 medications except multi vitamins, vitamin d, and Zyrtec. 
 

Thanks for all the help in this thread and the others. 

12/6/20 3:40 PM
10/23/05
Posts: 4804
OutTapped - 
mataleo1 -
OutTapped - 

Doc(s),

 

Is this real? Supposedly it’s the release info for the vaccine for UK. Are the “undesirable effects” normal for a vaccine? I know there are side effects from the flu vaccine and others so I’m more asking if these numbers are in range of most vaccines. 
 

The demographics don’t add up either. The race of participant adds up to almost 130%. Is that number usually that far off on clinical studies?

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/941452/Information_for_healthcare_professionals.pdf


I'll give you a short answer: Benefit vs risk.

1) How important is it for you to be vaccinated. Age? Weight? Comorbidity?

2) Any medication insert is full of side-effects and adverse events. Even something like tylenol: you're going to see literally dozens of concerning effects. So yes, it's not abnormal to see so many.

3) It's not like we're going at this blindly. We've tested these vaccines on thousands of people and the overall risk profile is minimal. Yes, there are no long-term data, but you can say that for literally any medication coming out. For example, we rarely have reliable "fertility" data on drugs like monoclonal antibodies, as these often require years / decades of follow-up.

In short, if you're at risk, I would definitely opt to take it now. If you're not, you could wait 6-12 months as more data will be coming out, and you'll be able to make a more informed decision. I have to take it because I work with vulnerable patients and I want to be near my parents again. I'm not particularly concerned, but it makes sense to wait it out if you're young, healthy, and thin.

Are the undesirable effects more because of drug interactions, underlying conditions, and age versus the actual vaccine?

 

Why do the races add up to 122.8%? 
 

Personally I’m not concerned about the vaccine. I won’t be racing to get it but I’m not against it either. I was told by a test that I had the rona at one time and have the antibodies. I’m 44, excercie daily, don’t eat like shit often, take 0 medications except multi vitamins, vitamin d, and Zyrtec. 
 

Thanks for all the help in this thread and the others. 


Well if you got antibodies, there is NO hurry for you to get it at all. You're likely protected for months and probably years.

Races: probably a typo or they accepted that some put 2 races? No clue honestly.

They tend to report ALL events, serious and non-serious. For liability, but also because it's their duty to do so. Check the side-effects for tylenol:

https://www.drugs.com/sfx/acetaminophen-side-effects.html

It says that 1-10% of people get rashes and anemia which is completely exaggerated.

12/6/20 3:47 PM
12/2/02
Posts: 35238
mataleo1 -
Lazarus - 
mataleo1 - 
OutTapped - 

Doc(s),

 

Is this real? Supposedly it's the release info for the vaccine for UK. Are the "undesirable effects" normal for a vaccine? I know there are side effects from the flu vaccine and others so I'm more asking if these numbers are in range of most vaccines. 
 

The demographics don't add up either. The race of participant adds up to almost 130%. Is that number usually that far off on clinical studies?

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/941452/Information_for_healthcare_professionals.pdf


I'll give you a short answer: Benefit vs risk.

1) How important is it for you to be vaccinated. Age? Weight? Comorbidity?

2) Any medication insert is full of side-effects and adverse events. Even something like tylenol: you're going to see literally dozens of concerning effects. So yes, it's not abnormal to see so many.

3) It's not like we're going at this blindly. We've tested these vaccines on thousands of people and the overall risk profile is minimal. Yes, there are no long-term data, but you can say that for literally any medication coming out. For example, we rarely have reliable "fertility" data on drugs like monoclonal antibodies, as these often require years / decades of follow-up.

In short, if you're at risk, I would definitely opt to take it now. If you're not, you could wait 6-12 months as more data will be coming out, and you'll be able to make a more informed decision. I have to take it because I work with vulnerable patients and I want to be near my parents again. I'm not particularly concerned, but it makes sense to wait it out if you're young, healthy, and thin.

What if you're 50, healthy and thin?

Risk of death from COVID, as you know, is very small. But keep in mind there are side-effects of COVID like O2 dependence, chronic shortness of death, loss of smell/taste, and others. Rare but not fun either way.

You might not get access to the vaccine for 3 months anyway.

By then hundreds of thousands will be vaccinated. And more data for an informed decision.

No long term data, but again, no different from many medications coming out.

It would make sense to wait a little if you're concerned.

Personally, I'd be MUCH more scared of taking something like a monoclonal antibody or a new c-l-a-s-s of drugs (like SGLT-2 inhibitors) than the vaccine.

You have summed up my thoughts on the vaccine perfectly. It won’t be available to me for many months and I’ll know better then.

12/6/20 4:28 PM
10/30/10
Posts: 9018
mataleo1 -
OutTapped - 
mataleo1 -
OutTapped - 

Doc(s),

 

Is this real? Supposedly it’s the release info for the vaccine for UK. Are the “undesirable effects” normal for a vaccine? I know there are side effects from the flu vaccine and others so I’m more asking if these numbers are in range of most vaccines. 
 

The demographics don’t add up either. The race of participant adds up to almost 130%. Is that number usually that far off on clinical studies?

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/941452/Information_for_healthcare_professionals.pdf


I'll give you a short answer: Benefit vs risk.

1) How important is it for you to be vaccinated. Age? Weight? Comorbidity?

2) Any medication insert is full of side-effects and adverse events. Even something like tylenol: you're going to see literally dozens of concerning effects. So yes, it's not abnormal to see so many.

3) It's not like we're going at this blindly. We've tested these vaccines on thousands of people and the overall risk profile is minimal. Yes, there are no long-term data, but you can say that for literally any medication coming out. For example, we rarely have reliable "fertility" data on drugs like monoclonal antibodies, as these often require years / decades of follow-up.

In short, if you're at risk, I would definitely opt to take it now. If you're not, you could wait 6-12 months as more data will be coming out, and you'll be able to make a more informed decision. I have to take it because I work with vulnerable patients and I want to be near my parents again. I'm not particularly concerned, but it makes sense to wait it out if you're young, healthy, and thin.

Are the undesirable effects more because of drug interactions, underlying conditions, and age versus the actual vaccine?

 

Why do the races add up to 122.8%? 
 

Personally I’m not concerned about the vaccine. I won’t be racing to get it but I’m not against it either. I was told by a test that I had the rona at one time and have the antibodies. I’m 44, excercie daily, don’t eat like shit often, take 0 medications except multi vitamins, vitamin d, and Zyrtec. 
 

Thanks for all the help in this thread and the others. 


Well if you got antibodies, there is NO hurry for you to get it at all. You're likely protected for months and probably years.

Races: probably a typo or they accepted that some put 2 races? No clue honestly.

They tend to report ALL events, serious and non-serious. For liability, but also because it's their duty to do so. Check the side-effects for tylenol:

https://www.drugs.com/sfx/acetaminophen-side-effects.html

It says that 1-10% of people get rashes and anemia which is completely exaggerated.

I figured I’m better protected then I could be for the vaccine for a while. 
 

My parents are in the 65-75 age range. They’re in better health then most in their age group but are on heart medicine and cholesterol meds. They’re both active though. Are they more likely to be affected by reactions to the vaccine?

 

What do you say to them if they’re concerned about the vaccine? 

12/6/20 4:41 PM
10/23/05
Posts: 4805
OutTapped - 
mataleo1 -
OutTapped - 
mataleo1 -
OutTapped - 

Doc(s),

 

Is this real? Supposedly it’s the release info for the vaccine for UK. Are the “undesirable effects” normal for a vaccine? I know there are side effects from the flu vaccine and others so I’m more asking if these numbers are in range of most vaccines. 
 

The demographics don’t add up either. The race of participant adds up to almost 130%. Is that number usually that far off on clinical studies?

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/941452/Information_for_healthcare_professionals.pdf


I'll give you a short answer: Benefit vs risk.

1) How important is it for you to be vaccinated. Age? Weight? Comorbidity?

2) Any medication insert is full of side-effects and adverse events. Even something like tylenol: you're going to see literally dozens of concerning effects. So yes, it's not abnormal to see so many.

3) It's not like we're going at this blindly. We've tested these vaccines on thousands of people and the overall risk profile is minimal. Yes, there are no long-term data, but you can say that for literally any medication coming out. For example, we rarely have reliable "fertility" data on drugs like monoclonal antibodies, as these often require years / decades of follow-up.

In short, if you're at risk, I would definitely opt to take it now. If you're not, you could wait 6-12 months as more data will be coming out, and you'll be able to make a more informed decision. I have to take it because I work with vulnerable patients and I want to be near my parents again. I'm not particularly concerned, but it makes sense to wait it out if you're young, healthy, and thin.

Are the undesirable effects more because of drug interactions, underlying conditions, and age versus the actual vaccine?

 

Why do the races add up to 122.8%? 
 

Personally I’m not concerned about the vaccine. I won’t be racing to get it but I’m not against it either. I was told by a test that I had the rona at one time and have the antibodies. I’m 44, excercie daily, don’t eat like shit often, take 0 medications except multi vitamins, vitamin d, and Zyrtec. 
 

Thanks for all the help in this thread and the others. 


Well if you got antibodies, there is NO hurry for you to get it at all. You're likely protected for months and probably years.

Races: probably a typo or they accepted that some put 2 races? No clue honestly.

They tend to report ALL events, serious and non-serious. For liability, but also because it's their duty to do so. Check the side-effects for tylenol:

https://www.drugs.com/sfx/acetaminophen-side-effects.html

It says that 1-10% of people get rashes and anemia which is completely exaggerated.

I figured I’m better protected then I could be for the vaccine for a while. 
 

My parents are in the 65-75 age range. They’re in better health then most in their age group but are on heart medicine and cholesterol meds. They’re both active though. Are they more likely to be affected by reactions to the vaccine?

 

What do you say to them if they’re concerned about the vaccine? 


I say what I said to my parents.

At their age, they don't have to worry AT ALL about improbable side-effects like fertility effects, increase risk of cancer, and other stuff (which are not likely).

There is a below 10% chance of relatively minor effects from the vaccine (like headaches or fatigue).

Weigh this against a significant risk of hospitalization, permanent injury or death from COVID, because of their age and comorbidities.

Remember, the #1 risk factor for COVID death is age. Not underlying health issues, not obesity.

I wouldn't hesitate to vaccinate your parents. That's a no-brainer in the balance of pros and cons.

12/6/20 5:12 PM
10/30/10
Posts: 9019
mataleo1 -
OutTapped - 
mataleo1 -
OutTapped - 
mataleo1 -
OutTapped - 

Doc(s),

 

Is this real? Supposedly it’s the release info for the vaccine for UK. Are the “undesirable effects” normal for a vaccine? I know there are side effects from the flu vaccine and others so I’m more asking if these numbers are in range of most vaccines. 
 

The demographics don’t add up either. The race of participant adds up to almost 130%. Is that number usually that far off on clinical studies?

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/941452/Information_for_healthcare_professionals.pdf


I'll give you a short answer: Benefit vs risk.

1) How important is it for you to be vaccinated. Age? Weight? Comorbidity?

2) Any medication insert is full of side-effects and adverse events. Even something like tylenol: you're going to see literally dozens of concerning effects. So yes, it's not abnormal to see so many.

3) It's not like we're going at this blindly. We've tested these vaccines on thousands of people and the overall risk profile is minimal. Yes, there are no long-term data, but you can say that for literally any medication coming out. For example, we rarely have reliable "fertility" data on drugs like monoclonal antibodies, as these often require years / decades of follow-up.

In short, if you're at risk, I would definitely opt to take it now. If you're not, you could wait 6-12 months as more data will be coming out, and you'll be able to make a more informed decision. I have to take it because I work with vulnerable patients and I want to be near my parents again. I'm not particularly concerned, but it makes sense to wait it out if you're young, healthy, and thin.

Are the undesirable effects more because of drug interactions, underlying conditions, and age versus the actual vaccine?

 

Why do the races add up to 122.8%? 
 

Personally I’m not concerned about the vaccine. I won’t be racing to get it but I’m not against it either. I was told by a test that I had the rona at one time and have the antibodies. I’m 44, excercie daily, don’t eat like shit often, take 0 medications except multi vitamins, vitamin d, and Zyrtec. 
 

Thanks for all the help in this thread and the others. 


Well if you got antibodies, there is NO hurry for you to get it at all. You're likely protected for months and probably years.

Races: probably a typo or they accepted that some put 2 races? No clue honestly.

They tend to report ALL events, serious and non-serious. For liability, but also because it's their duty to do so. Check the side-effects for tylenol:

https://www.drugs.com/sfx/acetaminophen-side-effects.html

It says that 1-10% of people get rashes and anemia which is completely exaggerated.

I figured I’m better protected then I could be for the vaccine for a while. 
 

My parents are in the 65-75 age range. They’re in better health then most in their age group but are on heart medicine and cholesterol meds. They’re both active though. Are they more likely to be affected by reactions to the vaccine?

 

What do you say to them if they’re concerned about the vaccine? 


I say what I said to my parents.

At their age, they don't have to worry AT ALL about improbable side-effects like fertility effects, increase risk of cancer, and other stuff (which are not likely).

There is a below 10% chance of relatively minor effects from the vaccine (like headaches or fatigue).

Weigh this against a significant risk of hospitalization, permanent injury or death from COVID, because of their age and comorbidities.

Remember, the #1 risk factor for COVID death is age. Not underlying health issues, not obesity.

I wouldn't hesitate to vaccinate your parents. That's a no-brainer in the balance of pros and cons.

Much appreciated doc. 
 

Do you think I am am to transit covid since I have the antibodies?

With the vaccine around are they still looking for blood donors with the antibodies?

Are reinfections a concern or is it more likely a testing error?

Edited: 12/6/20 5:25 PM
10/23/05
Posts: 4806
OutTapped - 
mataleo1 -
OutTapped - 
mataleo1 -
OutTapped - 
mataleo1 -
OutTapped - 

Doc(s),

 

Is this real? Supposedly it's the release info for the vaccine for UK. Are the "undesirable effects" normal for a vaccine? I know there are side effects from the flu vaccine and others so I'm more asking if these numbers are in range of most vaccines. 
 

The demographics don't add up either. The race of participant adds up to almost 130%. Is that number usually that far off on clinical studies?

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/941452/Information_for_healthcare_professionals.pdf


I'll give you a short answer: Benefit vs risk.

1) How important is it for you to be vaccinated. Age? Weight? Comorbidity?

2) Any medication insert is full of side-effects and adverse events. Even something like tylenol: you're going to see literally dozens of concerning effects. So yes, it's not abnormal to see so many.

3) It's not like we're going at this blindly. We've tested these vaccines on thousands of people and the overall risk profile is minimal. Yes, there are no long-term data, but you can say that for literally any medication coming out. For example, we rarely have reliable "fertility" data on drugs like monoclonal antibodies, as these often require years / decades of follow-up.

In short, if you're at risk, I would definitely opt to take it now. If you're not, you could wait 6-12 months as more data will be coming out, and you'll be able to make a more informed decision. I have to take it because I work with vulnerable patients and I want to be near my parents again. I'm not particularly concerned, but it makes sense to wait it out if you're young, healthy, and thin.

Are the undesirable effects more because of drug interactions, underlying conditions, and age versus the actual vaccine?

 

Why do the races add up to 122.8%? 
 

Personally I'm not concerned about the vaccine. I won't be racing to get it but I'm not against it either. I was told by a test that I had the rona at one time and have the antibodies. I'm 44, excercie daily, don't eat like shit often, take 0 medications except multi vitamins, vitamin d, and Zyrtec. 
 

Thanks for all the help in this thread and the others. 


Well if you got antibodies, there is NO hurry for you to get it at all. You're likely protected for months and probably years.

Races: probably a typo or they accepted that some put 2 races? No clue honestly.

They tend to report ALL events, serious and non-serious. For liability, but also because it's their duty to do so. Check the side-effects for tylenol:

https://www.drugs.com/sfx/acetaminophen-side-effects.html

It says that 1-10% of people get rashes and anemia which is completely exaggerated.

I figured I'm better protected then I could be for the vaccine for a while. 
 

My parents are in the 65-75 age range. They're in better health then most in their age group but are on heart medicine and cholesterol meds. They're both active though. Are they more likely to be affected by reactions to the vaccine?

 

What do you say to them if they're concerned about the vaccine? 


I say what I said to my parents.

At their age, they don't have to worry AT ALL about improbable side-effects like fertility effects, increase risk of cancer, and other stuff (which are not likely).

There is a below 10% chance of relatively minor effects from the vaccine (like headaches or fatigue).

Weigh this against a significant risk of hospitalization, permanent injury or death from COVID, because of their age and comorbidities.

Remember, the #1 risk factor for COVID death is age. Not underlying health issues, not obesity.

I wouldn't hesitate to vaccinate your parents. That's a no-brainer in the balance of pros and cons.

Much appreciated doc. 
 

Do you think I am am to transit covid since I have the antibodies?

With the vaccine around are they still looking for blood donors with the antibodies?

Are reinfections a concern or is it more likely a testing error?


1) If you have antibodies, I wouldn't worry about transmitting it to your parents.

2) Yes. Depending where you are located (plasma is not used in certain hospitals). Consider that: not everyone will develop immunity from a vaccine, not everyone will take the vaccine, and re-infections will occur (there are over 200 in Sweden).

3) Re-infections do occur but are RARE. They are NOT predicated solely by the presence or absence of antibodies i.e. you could be immune even if you no longer have detectable antibodies (by other mechanisms). Some have postulated that you can be protected up to 15 years after infection, but we don't really know. Considering that COVID has been rampant since February (and perhaps before), and that we only have seen very few re-infections that's a good sign of long-term immunity.
12/6/20 5:44 PM
10/30/10
Posts: 9020
mataleo1 -
OutTapped - 
mataleo1 -
OutTapped - 
mataleo1 -
OutTapped - 
mataleo1 -
OutTapped - 

Doc(s),

 

Is this real? Supposedly it's the release info for the vaccine for UK. Are the "undesirable effects" normal for a vaccine? I know there are side effects from the flu vaccine and others so I'm more asking if these numbers are in range of most vaccines. 
 

The demographics don't add up either. The race of participant adds up to almost 130%. Is that number usually that far off on clinical studies?

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/941452/Information_for_healthcare_professionals.pdf


I'll give you a short answer: Benefit vs risk.

1) How important is it for you to be vaccinated. Age? Weight? Comorbidity?

2) Any medication insert is full of side-effects and adverse events. Even something like tylenol: you're going to see literally dozens of concerning effects. So yes, it's not abnormal to see so many.

3) It's not like we're going at this blindly. We've tested these vaccines on thousands of people and the overall risk profile is minimal. Yes, there are no long-term data, but you can say that for literally any medication coming out. For example, we rarely have reliable "fertility" data on drugs like monoclonal antibodies, as these often require years / decades of follow-up.

In short, if you're at risk, I would definitely opt to take it now. If you're not, you could wait 6-12 months as more data will be coming out, and you'll be able to make a more informed decision. I have to take it because I work with vulnerable patients and I want to be near my parents again. I'm not particularly concerned, but it makes sense to wait it out if you're young, healthy, and thin.

Are the undesirable effects more because of drug interactions, underlying conditions, and age versus the actual vaccine?

 

Why do the races add up to 122.8%? 
 

Personally I'm not concerned about the vaccine. I won't be racing to get it but I'm not against it either. I was told by a test that I had the rona at one time and have the antibodies. I'm 44, excercie daily, don't eat like shit often, take 0 medications except multi vitamins, vitamin d, and Zyrtec. 
 

Thanks for all the help in this thread and the others. 


Well if you got antibodies, there is NO hurry for you to get it at all. You're likely protected for months and probably years.

Races: probably a typo or they accepted that some put 2 races? No clue honestly.

They tend to report ALL events, serious and non-serious. For liability, but also because it's their duty to do so. Check the side-effects for tylenol:

https://www.drugs.com/sfx/acetaminophen-side-effects.html

It says that 1-10% of people get rashes and anemia which is completely exaggerated.

I figured I'm better protected then I could be for the vaccine for a while. 
 

My parents are in the 65-75 age range. They're in better health then most in their age group but are on heart medicine and cholesterol meds. They're both active though. Are they more likely to be affected by reactions to the vaccine?

 

What do you say to them if they're concerned about the vaccine? 


I say what I said to my parents.

At their age, they don't have to worry AT ALL about improbable side-effects like fertility effects, increase risk of cancer, and other stuff (which are not likely).

There is a below 10% chance of relatively minor effects from the vaccine (like headaches or fatigue).

Weigh this against a significant risk of hospitalization, permanent injury or death from COVID, because of their age and comorbidities.

Remember, the #1 risk factor for COVID death is age. Not underlying health issues, not obesity.

I wouldn't hesitate to vaccinate your parents. That's a no-brainer in the balance of pros and cons.

Much appreciated doc. 
 

Do you think I am am to transit covid since I have the antibodies?

With the vaccine around are they still looking for blood donors with the antibodies?

Are reinfections a concern or is it more likely a testing error?


1) If you have antibodies, I wouldn't worry about transmitting it to your parents.

2) Yes. Depending where you are located (plasma is not used in certain hospitals). Consider that: not everyone will develop immunity from a vaccine, not everyone will take the vaccine, and re-infections will occur (there are over 200 in Sweden).

3) Re-infections do occur but are RARE. They are NOT predicated solely by the presence or absence of antibodies i.e. you could be immune even if you no longer have detectable antibodies (by other mechanisms). Some have postulated that you can be protected up to 15 years after infection, but we don't really know. Considering that COVID has been rampant since February (and perhaps before), and that we only have seen very few re-infections that's a good sign of long-term immunity.

Last ones for the day and again thank for your time and knowledge. 
 

What are your thoughts on if vaccinated people being able to transmit and infect others? Are other viruses able to transmitted if vaccinated?

12/7/20 7:43 AM
10/23/05
Posts: 4807
OutTapped - 
mataleo1 -
OutTapped - 
mataleo1 -
OutTapped - 
mataleo1 -
OutTapped - 
mataleo1 -
OutTapped - 

Doc(s),

 

Is this real? Supposedly it's the release info for the vaccine for UK. Are the "undesirable effects" normal for a vaccine? I know there are side effects from the flu vaccine and others so I'm more asking if these numbers are in range of most vaccines. 
 

The demographics don't add up either. The race of participant adds up to almost 130%. Is that number usually that far off on clinical studies?

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/941452/Information_for_healthcare_professionals.pdf


I'll give you a short answer: Benefit vs risk.

1) How important is it for you to be vaccinated. Age? Weight? Comorbidity?

2) Any medication insert is full of side-effects and adverse events. Even something like tylenol: you're going to see literally dozens of concerning effects. So yes, it's not abnormal to see so many.

3) It's not like we're going at this blindly. We've tested these vaccines on thousands of people and the overall risk profile is minimal. Yes, there are no long-term data, but you can say that for literally any medication coming out. For example, we rarely have reliable "fertility" data on drugs like monoclonal antibodies, as these often require years / decades of follow-up.

In short, if you're at risk, I would definitely opt to take it now. If you're not, you could wait 6-12 months as more data will be coming out, and you'll be able to make a more informed decision. I have to take it because I work with vulnerable patients and I want to be near my parents again. I'm not particularly concerned, but it makes sense to wait it out if you're young, healthy, and thin.

Are the undesirable effects more because of drug interactions, underlying conditions, and age versus the actual vaccine?

 

Why do the races add up to 122.8%? 
 

Personally I'm not concerned about the vaccine. I won't be racing to get it but I'm not against it either. I was told by a test that I had the rona at one time and have the antibodies. I'm 44, excercie daily, don't eat like shit often, take 0 medications except multi vitamins, vitamin d, and Zyrtec. 
 

Thanks for all the help in this thread and the others. 


Well if you got antibodies, there is NO hurry for you to get it at all. You're likely protected for months and probably years.

Races: probably a typo or they accepted that some put 2 races? No clue honestly.

They tend to report ALL events, serious and non-serious. For liability, but also because it's their duty to do so. Check the side-effects for tylenol:

https://www.drugs.com/sfx/acetaminophen-side-effects.html

It says that 1-10% of people get rashes and anemia which is completely exaggerated.

I figured I'm better protected then I could be for the vaccine for a while. 
 

My parents are in the 65-75 age range. They're in better health then most in their age group but are on heart medicine and cholesterol meds. They're both active though. Are they more likely to be affected by reactions to the vaccine?

 

What do you say to them if they're concerned about the vaccine? 


I say what I said to my parents.

At their age, they don't have to worry AT ALL about improbable side-effects like fertility effects, increase risk of cancer, and other stuff (which are not likely).

There is a below 10% chance of relatively minor effects from the vaccine (like headaches or fatigue).

Weigh this against a significant risk of hospitalization, permanent injury or death from COVID, because of their age and comorbidities.

Remember, the #1 risk factor for COVID death is age. Not underlying health issues, not obesity.

I wouldn't hesitate to vaccinate your parents. That's a no-brainer in the balance of pros and cons.

Much appreciated doc. 
 

Do you think I am am to transit covid since I have the antibodies?

With the vaccine around are they still looking for blood donors with the antibodies?

Are reinfections a concern or is it more likely a testing error?


1) If you have antibodies, I wouldn't worry about transmitting it to your parents.

2) Yes. Depending where you are located (plasma is not used in certain hospitals). Consider that: not everyone will develop immunity from a vaccine, not everyone will take the vaccine, and re-infections will occur (there are over 200 in Sweden).

3) Re-infections do occur but are RARE. They are NOT predicated solely by the presence or absence of antibodies i.e. you could be immune even if you no longer have detectable antibodies (by other mechanisms). Some have postulated that you can be protected up to 15 years after infection, but we don't really know. Considering that COVID has been rampant since February (and perhaps before), and that we only have seen very few re-infections that's a good sign of long-term immunity.

Last ones for the day and again thank for your time and knowledge. 
 

What are your thoughts on if vaccinated people being able to transmit and infect others? Are other viruses able to transmitted if vaccinated?


Quick answer is that we don't know. We will have data soon enough.

Edited: 12/7/20 5:25 PM
10/23/05
Posts: 4815

Stupidity from my provincial (Quebec) government.

The have targeted the patients in long-term care to vaccinate first.

Wrong.

That's what they're thinking: "Who is most at risk of dying?"
They should be thinking: "How can we maximize years of life saved by vaccinating first?"

That would be the 60-70 years old and health care workers.

Further, every time a nurse, doctor, or care giver gets sick, that's 2 weeks of missing staff.

12/7/20 5:39 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 12825
mataleo1 - 

Stupidity from my provincial (Quebec) government.

The have targeted the patients in long-term care to vaccinate first.

Wrong.

That's what they're thinking: "Who is most at risk of dying?"
They should be thinking: "How can we maximize years of life saved by vaccinating first?"

That would be the 60-70 years old and health care workers.

Further, every time a nurse, doctor, or care giver gets sick, that's 2 weeks of missing staff.



Interesting take.

As someone approaching 60 myself (57..my god!) I can empathize with your view :-)

I'd feel much better if my wife (GP/obstetrics mentioned before) could get vaccinated. She's certainly the main vector worry in our family, and is older than I am.


12/7/20 5:44 PM
10/23/05
Posts: 4817
prof - 
mataleo1 - 

Stupidity from my provincial (Quebec) government.

The have targeted the patients in long-term care to vaccinate first.

Wrong.

That's what they're thinking: "Who is most at risk of dying?"
They should be thinking: "How can we maximize years of life saved by vaccinating first?"

That would be the 60-70 years old and health care workers.

Further, every time a nurse, doctor, or care giver gets sick, that's 2 weeks of missing staff.



Interesting take.

As someone approaching 60 myself (57..my god!) I can empathize with your view :-)

I'd feel much better if my wife (GP/obstetrics mentioned before) could get vaccinated. She's certainly the main vector worry in our family, and is older than I am.



I'm really angry right now.

To illustrate the absurdity, according to their strategy, they'd first vaccinate the oldest person in the province.

Also, it's not the over 80 yo that flood the ICUs, because we usually don't admit them (very bad prognosis). It's the 50-75 strata.

I'm curious if your wife shares some of the opinions that were mentioned on the AMA and elsewhere.

12/7/20 5:59 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 12826
mataleo1 - 
prof - 
mataleo1 - 

Stupidity from my provincial (Quebec) government.

The have targeted the patients in long-term care to vaccinate first.

Wrong.

That's what they're thinking: "Who is most at risk of dying?"
They should be thinking: "How can we maximize years of life saved by vaccinating first?"

That would be the 60-70 years old and health care workers.

Further, every time a nurse, doctor, or care giver gets sick, that's 2 weeks of missing staff.



Interesting take.

As someone approaching 60 myself (57..my god!) I can empathize with your view :-)

I'd feel much better if my wife (GP/obstetrics mentioned before) could get vaccinated. She's certainly the main vector worry in our family, and is older than I am.



I'm really angry right now.

To illustrate the absurdity, according to their strategy, they'd first vaccinate the oldest person in the province.

Also, it's not the over 80 yo that flood the ICUs, because we usually don't admit them (very bad prognosis). It's the 50-75 strata.

I'm curious if your wife shares some of the opinions that were mentioned on the AMA and elsewhere.



I can see your point of view.

I'll ask my wife what she thinks. But while she's keeping up on the virus stuff, she mostly sees patients (in office and over the phone) and goes in to the hospital to deliver babies once a week. Patients with possible covid symptoms are funneled away to the specialist sites for testing etc. So I don't think she's afforded quite the same perspective you've had.



12/7/20 7:50 PM
8/23/11
Posts: 11639
mataleo1 - 
prof - 
mataleo1 - 

Stupidity from my provincial (Quebec) government.

The have targeted the patients in long-term care to vaccinate first.

Wrong.

That's what they're thinking: "Who is most at risk of dying?"
They should be thinking: "How can we maximize years of life saved by vaccinating first?"

That would be the 60-70 years old and health care workers.

Further, every time a nurse, doctor, or care giver gets sick, that's 2 weeks of missing staff.



Interesting take.

As someone approaching 60 myself (57..my god!) I can empathize with your view :-)

I'd feel much better if my wife (GP/obstetrics mentioned before) could get vaccinated. She's certainly the main vector worry in our family, and is older than I am.



I'm really angry right now.

To illustrate the absurdity, according to their strategy, they'd first vaccinate the oldest person in the province.

Also, it's not the over 80 yo that flood the ICUs, because we usually don't admit them (very bad prognosis). It's the 50-75 strata.

I'm curious if your wife shares some of the opinions that were mentioned on the AMA and elsewhere.


now maybe you can see how angry we all have been for 10 + months

we have shut down commerce in Canada to protect the elderliest of the elders already.. why stop now?

it's the over 80 that are dying... the death numbers you see on TV every day that have forced 10's 000's of businesses to close.

33% of the deaths are over 80
50+ are over 70

If we didnt vaccinate them 1st then I would question ( and I do anyway ) WTF did we shutter everything to "save them in the 1st place"



Edited: 12/7/20 8:04 PM
10/23/05
Posts: 4820
androb - 
mataleo1 - 
prof - 
mataleo1 - Stupidity from my provincial (Quebec) government.

The have targeted the patients in long-term care to vaccinate first.

Wrong.

That's what they're thinking: "Who is most at risk of dying?"
They should be thinking: "How can we maximize years of life saved by vaccinating first?"

That would be the 60-70 years old and health care workers.

Further, every time a nurse, doctor, or care giver gets sick, that's 2 weeks of missing staff.


Interesting take.

As someone approaching 60 myself (57..my god!) I can empathize with your view :-)

I'd feel much better if my wife (GP/obstetrics mentioned before) could get vaccinated. She's certainly the main vector worry in our family, and is older than I am.



I'm really angry right now.

To illustrate the absurdity, according to their strategy, they'd first vaccinate the oldest person in the province.

Also, it's not the over 80 yo that flood the ICUs, because we usually don't admit them (very bad prognosis). It's the 50-75 strata.

I'm curious if your wife shares some of the opinions that were mentioned on the AMA and elsewhere.

now maybe you can see how angry we all have been for 10 + months

we have shut down commerce in Canada to protect the elderliest of the elders already.. why stop now?

it's the over 80 that are dying... the death numbers you see on TV every day that have forced 10's 000's of businesses to close.

33% of the deaths are over 80
50+ are over 70

If we didnt vaccinate them 1st then I would question ( and I do anyway ) WTF did we shutter everything to "save them in the 1st place"




After the initial surge in April, I never supported shutting down businesses. I fully understand the cost of lockdowns, from a social, psychological, and economic perspective. I still oppose any lockdown. And I've been quite vocal that the top dogs making the decisions lack coherence, consistency, and a proper assessment of risk-benefit balance

Now, regarding the vaccine, it is fully indicated in the elderly (over 80), but that's not our priority. We need to protect those that are both vulnerable and who serve those who get sick. And who may lose 10, 20, 30 years of life or long-term effects.

To add some nuance to your point, we are seeing younger patients (50-75) needing intubation, hospital beds, chronic oxygen. It's not just a death thing. Patients are filling up where I work (not the over 80, we rarely admit them to the ICU). We're not at the point of last April, but these patients are taking precious ICU beds that would be reserved for patients requiring invasive surgery.
12/8/20 12:48 PM
4/11/14
Posts: 10673

Great interview with Stanford epidemiologist: