In order to test the long term effects on people from a vaccine.

[shockey80]

You have to test it on people long term. There are no short cuts. If they come out with a vaccine in record time, I will not take it. I sure as hell won't trust no vaccine while Trump is president.

[soothsayer]

1. Long term is where I'm at too

[uponit7771]

2. K&R, Rational/smart/informed people are turning "long term" into 3 months now. NO!! Its 6 months to

... 1 yr.

9 women can't make a baby in one month

[Turbineguy]

3. I'm kinda feeling the same way.

Maybe if a few other, credible countries approve it. Trump has his political hacks all over.

[ananda]

15. The Oxford vaccine sounds good because..

.. it's prototype has already been tried and tested.

[uponit7771]

4. FDA.gov: "Every licensed and recommended vaccine goes through years of safety testing ..."

https://www.vaccines.gov/basics/safety#:~:text=Every%20licensed%20and%20recommended%20vaccine,Disease%20Control%20and%20Prevention%20(CDC)

Vaccines are tested before they’re recommended for use

Before a vaccine is ever recommended for use, it’s tested in labs. This process can take several years. FDA uses the information from these tests to decide whether to test the vaccine with people.

During a clinical trial, a vaccine is tested on people who volunteer to get vaccinated. Clinical trials start with 20 to 100 volunteers, but eventually include thousands of volunteers. These tests take several years and answer important questions like:

[Igel]

7. Then there's the usual trade off in all medical trials.

You're testing something. Let's say you want the long-term test for the vaccine to run for 2 years.

It's passed the 6-month test window, but you want those additional 18 months. You refuse to let it be licensed.

You're saying that you suspect there's a good chance the vaccine will kill or maim more during those 18 months than the virus would. That's the metric--which does more harm.

Most drugs also have long-term testing. But when the AIDS epidemic was going full-tilt back in the late '80s and early '90s, Act-Up pushed for and got expedited approval of HIV drugs from the FDA. Because the side effects of the drugs caused less harm than the virus. (At least some of those drugs were later found to have nasty side effects and they were withdrawn. Making that possible were new drugs to take the place, so the choice wasn't "harm from AIDS drugs" versus "harm from HIV virus.&quot


Much of the time spent in testing vaccines can be truncated. So the "several years" process in the first paragraph is already done. They've moved to clinical trials. They may start with "20 to 100 volunteers", but some are ramping up to "include thousands of volunteers". They're already part-way through the "several years" for that paragraph.

Some of this is because of new tech. Some of it is because of old methods. Some of it is because there's enough money to allow several steps to overlap, so that they're ramping up as they finish crunching the numbers on the previous step.

[uponit7771]

9. Understood but I don't see that in this context. America could simply just do what every other ...

... country that doesn't have a leader bragging about passing a dementia test has done to beat CV19; test/trace/isolate/over watch.

With those steps we can afford to wait some years on a vaccine

[shockey80]

12. I believe the Aids drugs that were expedited were for people who were dying.

We are talking about giving a vaccine to the entire population. It would be extremely foolish to rush it through.

[MineralMan]

5. You do you. I'll do me.

Most side effects from vaccines occur shortly after receiving the vaccine. That's what the stage 3 trials are designed to discover. Efficacy, on the other hand, takes longer to determine.

We won't know the efficacy results for many months after a vaccine is in wide use. For example, we don't get real efficacy numbers for the flu vaccines until after the flu season is over. But, we get the vaccination anyhow, if we're smart.

By the time COVID-19 vaccines are available to the general public, we'll have a good handle on side effects. We won't know how effective a vaccine is, though, for quite some time. I'll be in line for whatever vaccine is approved as soon as I can.

[shockey80]

10. Good luck.

[Disaffected]

13. Stage 3 is also

designed to determine efficacy. It is the final stage of clinical trial approval and would not be considered successful if efficacy is not demonstrated. In the case of Covid, they are looking for full or at least significant partial immunization in at least 50% of the subjects.

I too will be in line if/when it is approved in Canada...

[MineralMan]

18. If the vaccine is 50% effective, I will certainly take it.

I prefer a 50% chance of protection over a 100% chance I'm not protected.

Frankly, If I were offered a chance to be part of the Stage 3 trial, I'd get in line today.

However, I hope they're doing that trial on people in the health care industry, who are more likely to be exposed than I am. We'd learn more..

[Disaffected]

19. I'd take it too

for same reasons I get a flu vax every year even though there are no guarantees it will work.

I also would strongly consider taking part in stage 3 given my age and heart condition (even though there is a 50% chance of getting the placebo).

I understand they are including a lot of folks in "hot spots" at several locations around the world and yeah, certainly include those on the front lines.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

6. I took part in a research study.....

Back in 1984 at the NIH through the National Eye Institute using experimental Drugs to treat my Eye Disease. It was a 5 year study using Prednisone or Cyclosporine to treat Macular Degeneration, Uveitis/Pars Splynitis. I knew what I was on at first due to the side affects I was experiencing.

When shifted to Cyclosporine, I was experiencing side affects of a different kind. High Bilirubin levels(wastes in the Blood), enlarged Liver,, Jaundice, excessive hair growth, weight gain. Cyclosporine is an anti-rejection drug used for transplants. I was on a dose in liquid form of 80mg a day. After 7 months in this study, I had to leave it. While it was helping my vision overall, the physical toll was too much. I was not myself.

Any vaccine that comes to combat COVID-19 will take years. Trump is grabbing at straws if he thinks a vaccine will be ready by the Election. Human case studies takes years and continued research. Any Scientist knows that.

[matt819]

8. I'll add to that list

No vaccine from an American company that received funding from the USG. Yes, yes, I know. It's all global. And Big Pharma is Big Pharma, wherever based. But it will take a lot of convincing for me to take a vaccine from an American company funded by the US Government.

[Aristus]

11. It would be helpful to take Trump out of the equation.

I hate him, too.

But let's place our trust in the people developing the vaccine. The vast majority of scientists, whatever their personal political beliefs, care more about good empiric science than about headlines and honors, and who's right and who's wrong. Their motive is: "Is the science right?"

More scientists are like Dr. Fauci than like whatever spineless goon is toeing the line for Trump.

If FOX News' in-house doctor goes into raptures about some snake oil cure, be very skeptical.

But if the CDC, or the Mayo Clinic, or the AMA, or the British Medical Association, etc, report the development of a safe and effective vaccine, it would be helpful to accept that they know what they're talking about.

I really dislike the fact that Ronald Reagan's 'distrust everything about government' approach has infected even those of us on the left.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. +1

I don't believe all those professionals would stay silent if a vaccine not thought safe or efficacious was released.
My trust is in those people.

[uponit7771]

17. +1

[demmiblue]

20. +1

[Ms. Toad]

16. While that is true if the vaccine uses entirely new methodology

(And at least some of the leading contenders do), that safety will not be known for years. But it is less true for vaccines built on the framework of existing vaccines.

I'm not ruling out the possibility of taking an early version of a vaccine -but my willingness depends whether this is a minor extension of what we already know -versus something brand new. And, I'm more willing to take risks with this vaccine because of how serious and contagious COVID 19 is. (This is coming from someone who does not take a vaccine just because it is available. Every vaccination decision is made after considering the pros and cons of the question.)