azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These drugs were all released as an emergency
> measure, bypassing the five-year trials that are
> required in most cases. I am going to wait five
> years and see how it goes for everyone else.
Re emergency measure: My understanding is that once the 'emergency' state of COVID has passed the pharmaceutical companies will have to obtain permission from governments again to continue using their vaccines.
In the meanwhile, I understand that the speed of vaccine development caused many people to distrust the process and the final product.
I understand the desire to be cautious about one's health and especially when a product is brand new.
I did a lot of reading and listening myself before choosing to get the vaccine (I've had the first dose only to date - Phizer). I do not blame people for being leery. I do hope that most continue to pay attention to the ongoing information updates and to trustworthy medical advice.
My conclusion is that the speed of vaccine development that unnerved many people was the result of worldwide cooperation, amongst usually competing interests, to develop a vaccine in the shortest possible time, to save the greatest number of lives possible. No phases of trials were skipped but rather they were speeded up by being conducted simultaneously rather than one after another as was the previous practice. This was possible due to vastly increased funding support by interested parties intent on developing vaccines as quickly as humanly, and safely, possible.
The following excerpts from the article linked below confirm the general idea of what I heard and read about vaccine development as it was being carried out.
Global News article (December 10, 2020)
https://globalnews.ca/news/7511664/fact-or-fiction-covid-19-vaccine/Excerpts:
“Normally, it can take two, three, four, five years to have a vaccine developed and approved for wide use,” said Jim Tiessen, director of the Master of Health Administration in Community Care program at Ryerson University. “So to have (the COVID-19 vaccine) developed, tested, being produced, and ready for rollout in some countries now is remarkable.”
"But Tiessen, Chagla, and Caulfield all emphasize that ‘speed’ does not equal ‘sloppiness’.
“(The developers) are following all the normal processes. They’re building the sample sizes. They’re testing on large populations, and the many-makers are testing in several countries,” said Tiessen. “I don’t believe they’re skipping steps.”
‘Speed’ certainly does not mean doctored results either. In fact, Chagla says faking trial results is an impossible feat.
“It’s not simply that a company can make up their own information,” said Chagla. “They hold a trial. There’s a placebo group. There’s independent bodies that monitor the data. There’s independent bodies that monitor the safety. There’s independent bodies that monitor the ethics of these clinical trials.”
“There’s often this perception that you see in the anti-vax community that there’s somehow a collaboration, or a conspiracy, with the pharmaceutical industry, with government, and with regulatory bodies, in order to fast-track a vaccine without good evidence,” said Caulfield. “That’s not the way it works…these developers are building on decades of research.”
There are countless similar articles from many different sources that explain the science and the rationale is familiar to me from my education as an RN and from my interest in associated subjects.
azsteve:
> As a matter of personal practice, something just
> doesn't seem to add-up about this pandemic. I
> don't want to go along with something that doesn't
> make sense to me.
Perhaps you've explained this before but could you give a brief outline of what isn't making sense to you about the pandemic in general?
> I just don't see the
> same level of risk that a lot of people are
> believing in, about this pandemic now.
I have concluded that the level of risk is still very high, especially in areas of low vaccination, high population density, low adherence to recommended safety measures, etc.
>The level
> of fear doesn't seem to correlate with the known
> facts, regardless of what we do know about this
> virus.
I disagree, from the scenes I've seen released by ICUs, ERs and makeshift morgues in North America and Europe, where there are generally good standards of care and access to medical care and medications. At the present time we can look to India for an example of extreme risk and very limited ability to respond and ameliorate the drastic situation. This is one illustration of the destructive forces of COVID-19 if not contained.
>Last year I announced at work that a
> critical business function would be taking place
> as scheduled, regardless of the pandemic, and that
> the work procedures would be changed to help
> protect those involved in the work against the
> virus. People said that I would be responsible for
> killing people as a result. But no one died. No
> one got sick as a result.
That's great news. It has been replicated many places, many times around the globe when preventive measures are undertaken. The world has kept turning, despite the pandemic, just as you describe at your workplace. The key is in your own words: "the work procedures would be changed to help protect ... against the virus".
That doesn't prove the pandemic is overblown but rather that common sense precautions and measures to prevent spread of disease are major components to the protection we can implement against the virus.
> If someone asks you
> about your personal medical information, you have
> a right to tell them that your medical information
> is none of their business. And that should include
> your vaccination history.
On this different note, I agree that medical information can be highly personal and we would wish to safeguard our own and that of others. I personally don't find disclosing my vaccination status all that personal or invasive. But if I choose not to, others can choose to consider me a grave risk to their safety and act accordingly. One obvious example would be businesses that would not allow me to enter their premises. So it's my choice whether to reassure them that I'm as safe as it's possible to be or whether to seek to do my business elsewhere. But I'd be extra cautious of those places that didn't question vaccine status of its patrons, considering such venues to be higher risk to me than otherwise.
I don't see that businesses and other public places trying to protect their workers and patrons are any different than what you did, azsteve, in changing polices and procedures at your workplace to accommodate the recommended risk amelioration strategies that we've all come to know about and experience.