Probably not since January, but maybe after the phase 1 trials and the dosing schedule was figured out. To be honest, if it doesn't come out that they were using it off the books, either they're suckers or we are.
Would it even be a problem if they did? Like presumably people are generally free to do things to themselves. If they self-administered and they were allowed to consume the resource (e.g., it wasn't theft) who was harmed?
It could be a good thing to leak it to the press. The press would feign a scandal but it would actually have the effect of showing people that they believe in their product and only a slap on the wrist would actually happen (if anything).
> To be honest, if it doesn't come out that they were using it off the books, either they're suckers or we are.
Considering high-level officials in the government apparently never received the vaccine, I would be surprised if the people involved in the research took the vaccine.
Then again, maybe secret was kept extremely well. My intuition is, if POTUS knew about it, he would have been telegraphing such on twitter back in the summer months.
A corporate gifting of one to every rank and file employee like some sort of morally questionable bonus is a bit different from, what I assume GP meant, folks in the lab actually working on it pricking themselves to test, or because they believe in it, can't resist, etc.
> If you've got elderly loved ones you want to keep safe, you'd need to vaccinate them, not yourself.
If the vaccine substantially reduces viral load, and degree and period of contagiousness for those who receive it, as well as reducing the risk of illness (which AFAIK it does, while falling short of sterilizing immunity), and you are the elderly loved ones main interface to the outside world, getting vaccinated on top of other precautions provides a real benefit.
OTOH, if you have to choose one to be vaccinated, it's them, not you. If you do this for lots of elderly family members, getting yourself vaccinated may be better than getting any one of them vaccinated, though. And, of course, of you are doing an off the books pre-approval use of the vaccine, accepting the risk of unexpected side effects for yourself may be more reasonable than imposing them on, or even suggesting them to, someone else who may be in a more fragile state.
There's a strong social benefit too. Being able to more comfortably spend time with friends and family you care about, even if they can't be vaccinated yet, seems worthwhile in itself. There's also the related consideration for dating, etc.
Unfortunately not. Being vaccinated doesn't stop you from having and transmitting the virus, only from getting sick. It won't be safe for you to see your friends until they have it too.
> He said the findings reflect an impact on blocking transmission and are very encouraging, hinting at mucosal immunity. "The data aren't conclusive but support this key benefit," he said.
Of course, if in the end vaccines don't prevent transmission, then they don't prevent transmission. But we don't know that they don't do that.
It's not irrelevant though. I know someone who is 39, perfectly healthy and nearly died. He now has long covid. I'm sure all of the people under fifty who died would have loved to have had the vaccine.
What's the downside though (if you figure it's safe and effective)? Even though you still can't go anywhere and have to wear a mask, why not reduce your risk to 0? Even if you only have a mild case and there's no long term damage, being not sick is still a lot more fun than being sick.
They probably could have finagled themselves into a trial.
I know a friend that got the Moderna vaccine that way. Technically, it was double blind, but it is fairly obvious whether you got the real vaccine or not.
What this class of vaccine does is make a bunch of foreign proteins for your immune system to attack in your arm without actually infecting you with the disease. So you get inflammation and soreness at the injection site, and this is not from the physics of having an injection. The placebo arm injects with a saline solution, so there's no immune response, and you miss those symptoms.
Do you think people could perceive having "false" inflammation? I'm thinking that if during the double blind trial they told those not getting the real dose that they should expect inflammation that many of them would believe they're having some form of inflammation.
It might have been the trial for a different vaccine; I think it was the one someone on this site was participating in? But in that trial, the control was another proven vaccine for something most people don't commonly get vaccinated for.
That's what I thought, but my effects were mild compared to what I've heard other people reporting. Either I got milder side-effects because I'm young, or I'm fooling myself.
2) My reading of the 2018 (best I found sorry) mortality table for 35-44 age group would put death by covid as the 5th leading cause of death. Just between suicide (7521) and homicide (3304).
For every person who dies of COVID, nineteen people are hospitalized. Eighteen of those will have permanent heart damage. Ten will have permanent lung damage. Three will have strokes. Two will have neurological damage leading to permanent muscular disability. Two will have neurological damage leading to cognitive impairment.
Don't be afraid of covid killing you. Be afraid of it turning you into a mentally disabled cripple who can't catch his breath until you die of heart failure twenty years before your time.
Edit: Oh and just for kicks, there's recent evidence it causes erectile dysfunction too.
I often wonder how many people actually believe things like this, versus are willing to say them loudly in the hopes that they'll make others take the virus more seriously. Because none of this is remotely evidence-based.
It's well known that respiratory diseases cause permanent damage. We see it with flu and we see it with covid-19. "Damage" covers a huge range though.
In June estimates were that 1 in 5 people who needed intensive care for covid were left with permanent damage.
> People infected with the coronavirus may be left with permanent lung damage. Doctors are reporting growing numbers of people who still have breathlessness and coughing months after falling ill with covid-19, and whose chest scans show evidence of irreversible lung scarring.
> The numbers of people affected aren’t yet known, but estimates are as high as one in five of those who needed intensive care treatment for covid-19. Permanent damage is sometimes seen after other kinds of chest infections that can cause similar lung inflammation to the coronavirus, such as flu and pneumonia.
> In a study in Italy, which was one of the first European countries to be hit by the coronavirus, doctors are scanning the lungs of people three months after they fell ill. Although the full results aren’t yet in, Paolo Spagnolo at the University Hospital of Padua estimates that 15 to 20 per cent of those treated in intensive care at his hospital for covid-19 have scarring. “We have to be prepared in the future to manage these patients.”
You seem so confident, but cite nothing (just like the comment you are referring to). However, I do note that all the symptoms noted in the comment above are actual symptoms found in survivors of severe COVID. I'm not sure about the proportions though, but is it a stretch to believe that patients who are hospitalized (by definition, severely impacted by COVID) very often have long-term damage?
Yes. The question is not whether bad health outcomes exist, only the truly ignorant believe COVID is a total hoax. The question is whether COVID is significantly worse than the influenza, rhino, and corona viruses we generally get year-round. The answer, is resoundingly yes. COVID is much worse in terms of the short-term and long-term sequelae both in terms of the range of "bad health outcome[s]" and in terms of the likelihood that an infected person will have one of these "bad health outcome[s]".
I won't be surprised if Covid ends up being slightly more or slightly less correlated with post-infection issues, but we have seen no credible evidence of this at all, much less evidence that we should worry Covid turns you into a "mentally-challenged cripple."
Also the death rate as a catchall metric completely ignores people who here in absolutely critical, life-or-death condition but were only saved from death by incredible medical intervention and/or just pure luck.
Another terrible metric comes in here, money.
What does the annual flu season cost versus the covid cost?
Money is a bad metric but it does boil things down to one measure. I’m sure these aren’t measured the same way but the effects haven’t been similar. Flu $90b per year versus the covid cost of $16t.
> Flu $90b per year versus the covid cost of $16t.
I mean that miiiight have something to do with the fact that we basically ignore the flu despite tens of thousands of deaths every year. Whereas with Covid we collectively decided to shut down the entire world.
Yes, and why were the shutdowns done? If you compare what happens with uncontrolled covid spread to a those of a flu season, they aren’t really all that similar. Even with the lockdowns, the deaths have been considerably more than tens of thousands.
Wrong. First, you have no uncontrolled covid spread to compare to. You are actually comparing tightly locked down COVID spread to a normal flu season. And COVID is still killing a lot more people. The closest example for an "uncontrolled covid spread" would be Bergamo in Jan-Mar 2020. Is that what you want repeated world-wide? The death rate there was astronomical.
So remember that’s tens of thousands of annual deaths with a vaccine. And what good have lockdowns really done? The virus seems to spread regardless. Look at all those European countries the US was compared to during the summer as an example of how to “do it right.” Not sitting so pretty right now...
The lockdowns in Europe worked. Full stop. Case rates dropped dramatically.
Some of those countries are "not sitting pretty right now" because they ended their lockdowns.
The answer is not "lockdowns don't really do any good." The answer is "don't prematurely end your lockdowns." Now that can be burdensome. You can do a middle ground (limited re-opening). That works too, but you have to be very careful and keep a close eye on case numbers and shut down totally as soon as cases ramp up. California tried to do that in the latest surge, but was a little late in implementing the newly stringent measures and even further So. Cal. "resisted" the newly stringent measures and are now suffering mightily.
I don’t think any European country has completely lifted their lockdown restrictions. All of it is a “limited re-opening.” Perhaps respiratory viruses spread much more effectively in the winter versus the summer? Maybe that’s it? Nah, it must be that everyone in Europe has perfect hygiene and practiced social distancing perfectly in the summer and they’ve all forgotten how to do those things now.
> I don’t think any European country has completely lifted their lockdown restrictions.
True
>All of it is a “limited re-opening.”
Yes, but the issue is how limited was the limited re-opening. I live in the U.S., but ALL of my colleagues are in Europe. It's anecdotal, but my understanding is that the re-openings throughout EU were quite closer to the "unlimited" side than the "total lockdown" side of the spectrum.
>Perhaps respiratory viruses spread much more effectively in the winter versus the summer
The presence of an additional explanatory factor does not prove the absence of an alternative explanatory factor. They could both be true, and almost certainly are true. That is: lockdowns work; without lockdowns, you have Bergamo in Jan-Mar 2020 (mass death); COVID spreads better in winter.
Well, (a) obviously working age extends well past 40s, generally to mid-late 60s (and higher in some countries). (b) people in their 30s and 40s often have older friends and relatives, who they are disinclined to kill.
I'm 35, and am not super-worried about dying of covid; it's certainly possible, but not hugely likely. However, I'm extremely worried about being a vector.
