re: I just turned down "the vaccine". Update pg 13.

quote:

---

This logic would only work if you were the only one that applied this logic.

---

It's the same logic anti-vaxxers use that generally these same people rail against.

quote:

---

But the problem is that millions upon millions of other people will also apply this logic. Its why we still have measles outbreaks at schools.

---

Yep. Not just that, it'll be those millions of people not getting the vaccine that'll be the reason opening everything back up will be delayed, and the same people that are causing the delay will be the loudest ones yelling about being delayed.

quote:

---

It's the same logic anti-vaxxers use that generally these same people rail against.

---

Yeah.

I've read a lot of "I'm not an anti-vaxxer idiot, but (insert anti-vaxxer logic)" posts

There's such a gap between RNs and MD/DOs in getting the vaccine. Every RN friend of mine who refused, none can answer why or just a generic response like "I don't want it yet" or "I'm not in the age group"

Whereas nearly every MD/DO I know who received it got it because they've done their reading to understand the vaccination, side effects, potential problems from said studies, etc.

Apply that to the real world and general population, now you can see why this ain't going away anytime soon.

First, I appreciate the response.

For clarity, I understand the disparity in initial education. As I stated (or tried to clarify) I am not talking about a nurse with 2 years experience but rather a career RN.

Their education does not stop. In fact, they continue their education from Docs throughout their entire career as they work with them.

So it is my opinion, whether right or wrong, that I would, in many cases, prefer the care of an experienced nurse over that of a lot of Docs.

The differentiators for me being that I perceive nurses to "typically" be more compassionate than Docs, nearly as competent (with experience and excluding specialist), and I have the bias of having been raised by one.

It is just my opinion. As you mentioned about nurses I am not trying to minimize the utility of Docs. I am simply saying that there are a great number of things that law requires a Doc for that could be performed by an experienced nurse.

I work with an infectious disease physician on a daily basis (she is my boss). She has shared with me a lot of the research and studies about the vaccines. She has been saying to get this vaccine before the 95% thing was made public . She is volunteering her free time next week to assist in giving vaccines to the first phase of healthcare workers. Because she too believes that much in this vaccine.


I trust her professional knowledge base much more than some tin foil hat wearing folks crying on Facebook about microchips and shite

quote:

---

The reason is normally takes longer has more to do with government bloat/inefficiency and funding.

---

Not just government inefficiency, but inefficiency in the whole clinical research machine. I've been in the business for 20 years and I am DAMN PROUD of what we have accomplished this year.

Collaboration between government, industry, and healthcare, along with open check books, is what has gotten us treatment and vaccine options that are proven safe and effective in record time.

- Prior to initiation of clinical trials, the sponsor must submit a complete packet of information to FDA for review. The FDA then has 30 days to review an IND. For COVID studies, sponsors submitted information and FDA reviewed on a rolling basis, with dialogue and questions throughout. This resulted in an IND approval in as little as hours after the final piece of info. Time saved: at least 1 month

- site selection and contracting typically takes 6 months minimum. Lawyers argue over every clause in a contract, business managers negotiate how much the hospital will be paid to conduct the study. And none of this usually starts until the IND is approved by the FDA ... We had sites ready to go the day the IND was approved. Time saved: 6 months

- IRBs are a committee, local to a hospital and/or central commercial group, charged with oversight of patient safety and rights. They have their own policies and meeting calendars, submit documents a month in advance, mtgs twice a month, if we have questions we'll re-review at the next meeting, blah blah. For the early COVID trials, IRBs threw all that out the window, reviewed the submission as a matter of priority, open dialogue with sponsor to answer questions, update ICFs, etc. We were able to open sites to recruitment days after IRB submission, not months.

- recruitment went amazingly fast because the disease is so prevalent. For a treatment study you need sick patients, and for a vaccine study you not only need enough volunteers, but then you need enough of those volunteers to actually come down with the disease being treated. With COVID cases still sky high, the events needed to reach statistical significance occurred in record time.

The only thing done differently is EUA based on a mean follow-up period of 2 months vs the 6 months that would be required for full approval. That's it.
Note that there IS 6 month data on some subjects (the Phase 1 participants) and that the phase 3 trials are going to continue in to collect safety and efficacy data for 2 years.

I work for a company conducting a LOT of COVID trials. It's been absolutely amazing to see what we can accomplish when we work together with a common goal and prioritizations.

thank you for the legit info

Yeah this is amazing news for the entire world. It should be celebrated instead of being politicized.

Especially since many were just hoping for a vaccine with maybe 60% effectiveness.

To get one with 95%.....that’s again....a medical breakthrough that can help so many.

quote:

---

What is unnatural about the vaccine?

---

Seriously, Its made in a lab.
Mixing genetic molecules with fats and salts into a cocktail to inject into your body is not natural regardless if the ingredients are found in nature or already exist in the body.