HawkShack.com

Let's start our a COVID19 vaccine information thread, so we can be well-prepared to make our decisions when it releases.

Medcram Videos: Comparing vaccines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZvsqBCvB00 I lie Medcram because he is apolitical and explains complex information well.

Medcram: Pfizer Vaccine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jwBxZMWrng

mRNA Vaccine Animation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMXGGmBfkf8

Vaccines are a way to activate or increase the immune response making it so your immune system is ready to resist or kill a virus.

Herd immunity is usually reached when a combination of natural and vaccine boosted immunity is reached in a population at a 70% plus percentage.

We don't quite have a full release of information on each vaccine including side effects. Initial information is that it is over 90% effective. That is an excellent rate which if it holds when released to the population should lead to a huge reduction in cases and a high degree of immunity. Flu vaccines effectiveness usually varies by year: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/effectiveness-studies.htm

Flu Vaccine vs. COVID vaccine: https://hartfordhealthcare.org/about-us/news-press/news-detail?articleid=29570&publicId=395 If this holds true when the vaccine goes live, then we will have a very effective vaccine that may be able to eradicate COVID19.

Comparing COVID19 vaccine effectiveness rates to other vaccines: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine-compares-other-vaccines-2020-11

This looks like a highly effective vaccine that will hopefully all but eliminate the virus. Make sure to educate yourself and check the data as much as possible. Let the most vulnerable get the vaccine first as they are the most at risk if they catch the virus. Hopefully this will get life back to normal in 2021 and we can stop going stir crazy with lockdowns.

Per a separate conversation in another thread, my view as to whether the COVID19 vaccine will be mandatory and how it will roll out.

I do not believe the COVID19 vaccine will be mandatory or required by employers. This would be an unenforceable policy for a variety of reasons I will list:

A. Even if authorized for emergency use, this is a vaccine developed in less than a year with unknown long-term effects on the body. The level of liability absorbed by the government and corporations attempting to mandate taking a vaccine would be extreme. If anything went wrong, it would cause untold millions of dollars if not billions in damages if anything went wrong. It is almost 100% chance that there will be people who will have a negative effect from this vaccine for unforeseen reasons once it is released to the public. It would be untenable to create a very bad legal situation with a mandate.

B. A lot of people will not allow their children to take this vaccine until they see clear proof that it is safe. Trying to force people to give this to their children upon release would be met with an incredible amount of resistance that would be unenforceable and lead to legal issues as well.

C. The vast majority of initially produced vaccine will be given to health care workers and high risk individuals like the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions likely worldwide. Under Biden he will not keep this vaccine for America, but will share it with allies like Canada allowing them to vaccinate their health care workers and high risk individuals as well. Pfizer is an international company with obligations worldwide, not just America. Moderna is a young biotech who will be releasing this vaccine as their first big drug release.

D. We just came off a highly contentious election with a highly divided America. Mask mandates and lockdowns already divide people. If the government or corporations attempted to mandate an experimental vaccine approved for emergency use that has unknown long-term side effects, you are likely to throw a match that will ignite division that will launch massive legal battles and perhaps a violent uprising. If corporations started firing people for not taking a vaccine or the government tried to fine or jail people for not taking an experimental vaccine, I can pretty much see America rising up like it hasn't since perhaps the 60s. I could even see left wing organizations like the ACLU and BLM uniting with right wing groups to protest this attempt at forcing people to inject something produced by a corporation into their body. One thing Americans are often united on is having something forced on them by the government. This would be a level of government invasion that would reach well beyond any we've seen in decades.

E. There are other means to get people to take the vaccine including marketing campaigns and free vaccinations all around the nation. Positive data, anecdotal evidence, and reduced case counts will work far better to get people to take the vaccine than a mandate.

F. Vaccines are individual immunity. It is highly advantageous for an individual to take the vaccine if they are able to get it as it will provide them with individual immunity which means they will be safe even around unvaccinated individuals.

G. The biggest reason not to mandate the vaccine is it will sell itself if it is effective. If everything goes smoothly, case counts drop, evidence mounts that it is safe as it is released to the general population, people will start to seek the vaccine out without being prodded. Their fears will lessen and they will see it as a beneficial medicine they will seek out to protect them and their loved ones whereas a government or employer mandate would make people scared to take it and resist taking it as an attack on their liberty. It would immediately politicize the virus.

H. Joe Biden is president now. Him and his cabinet will take the vaccine. With the president taking the vaccine and most of his cabinet, it will instill confidence in Americans that they can take the vaccine and be safe. Now if Crazy Narcissist were still president, then we would have to worry.

I hope people stop with the strong arm talk on the vaccine. It won't be helpful in getting people to take the vaccine and will cause more problems than it will help. The vaccine will be adopted if it works by a sufficient level of Americans that herd immunity will be reached through a combination of vaccination and natural immunity as herd immunity is supposed to work. Same as it does with the flu every year with an even a lower level of effectiveness with the flu shot.

Ideally COVID19 will be eradicated. If not, then this will be something that has to be taken more often. Please don't politicize this vaccine. Trump is gone soon. There is no point politicizing a vaccine and a government mandate will immediately politicize this vaccine creating major issues we don't need now that The Narcissistic Loon is no longer president.

There's other vaccine candidates out there. One of the more promising is Johnson and Johnson's as it is faster acting, does not require sub zero storage, has a longer shelf life, and can be effective with just one shot. This would make it a much better choice for developing countries like Africa and South America where many areas don't even have electrical power let alone medical grade freezers:

“A single dose could be a very efficient tool to combat the pandemic as it is faster acting,” he said Wednesday in an interview. Animal models and early human studies showed that one shot of its vaccine generated a strong immune response in just 15 days, he said.

“It is likely that multiple Covid-19 vaccine regimens will be required to meet the global need,” said Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in a statement. J&J’s vaccine “may be especially useful in controlling the pandemic if shown to be protective after a single dose.”

The company also said its vaccine can be stored at refrigerator temperatures for three months, far longer than the Pfizer vaccine that requires deep freezing for long-term storage.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compani ... r-BB19lbgQ

Although there are going to be production and distribution challenges, the major problem is going to be convincing enough people to take the vaccine so that it will allow us to achieve herd immunity, estimated to be around 75% of the population.

There are still a lot of loose ends on these vaccines, such as the length of their effectiveness and their effectiveness over different demographical groups. My wife, for example, has a very unique situation where she has two auto immune diseases, MS and rheumatoid arthritis. Is the vaccine going to coax her immune system to make antibodies to fight the COVID virus? Will the vaccine have to be tweaked as the virus mutates?

But the biggest challenge, proving that the vaccines are safe, appears to have been met. The results still have to be peer reviewed and the FDA will subject it to a rigorous review process, but these companies are very reputable and have been through this process before, so it's unlikely that they will apply for FDA approval unless they're damn sure that all the 't's' are crossed and the 'i's' dotted.

I heard yesterday that Pfizer will be applying for FDA approval for their vaccine "by the end of the week", meaning today, tomorrow, or Saturday.

RiverDog wrote:There's other vaccine candidates out there. One of the more promising is Johnson and Johnson's as it is faster acting, does not require sub zero storage, has a longer shelf life, and can be effective with just one shot. This would make it a much better choice for developing countries like Africa and South America where many areas don't even have electrical power let alone medical grade freezers:

“A single dose could be a very efficient tool to combat the pandemic as it is faster acting,” he said Wednesday in an interview. Animal models and early human studies showed that one shot of its vaccine generated a strong immune response in just 15 days, he said.

“It is likely that multiple Covid-19 vaccine regimens will be required to meet the global need,” said Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in a statement. J&J’s vaccine “may be especially useful in controlling the pandemic if shown to be protective after a single dose.”

The company also said its vaccine can be stored at refrigerator temperatures for three months, far longer than the Pfizer vaccine that requires deep freezing for long-term storage.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compani ... r-BB19lbgQ

Although there are going to be production and distribution challenges, the major problem is going to be convincing enough people to take the vaccine so that it will allow us to achieve herd immunity, estimated to be around 75% of the population.

There are still a lot of loose ends on these vaccines, such as the length of their effectiveness and their effectiveness over different demographical groups. My wife, for example, has a very unique situation where she has two auto immune diseases, MS and rheumatoid arthritis. Is the vaccine going to coax her immune system to make antibodies to fight the COVID virus? Will the vaccine have to be tweaked as the virus mutates?

But the biggest challenge, proving that the vaccines are safe, appears to have been met. The results still have to be peer reviewed and the FDA will subject it to a rigorous review process, but these companies are very reputable and have been through this process before, so it's unlikely that they will apply for FDA approval unless they're damn sure that all the 't's' are crossed and the 'i's' dotted.

I heard yesterday that Pfizer will be applying for FDA approval for their vaccine "by the end of the week", meaning today, tomorrow, or Saturday.

Pfizer is very reputable. They have been around a long time. Moderna is new and this will be their first released drug. They are at the forefront of mRNA technology, but they haven't yet released anything else.

Normal drug development takes 10 to 20 years or more. A vaccine in less than a year is an amazing accomplishment, especially if it works as well as reported. It is hard to believe really, but let us hope it does as I think we're all tired of fearing a virus and having the world locked down with only the digital economy and delivery making money.

It is in the best interest of the media, corporations, and government to support a strong and powerful media campaign to push the vaccine. If the evidence is positive and immunity across the world is being reached, people will rush to get the vaccine. The only disaster would be if a sudden unforeseen side effect popped up that was harming people on a mass scale. That would derail everything. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

From what I heard Canada ordered 10 doses for every Canadian citizen. That is 300 million doses plus last time I checked on the population. We are going to need immense amounts of this vaccine to vaccinate most of the world. We're going to have to start with the vulnerable (elderly and sick) and the health care workers, then let it trickle down preferably to people with children first with last on the list single males with no health issues.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Pfizer is very reputable. They have been around a long time. Moderna is new and this will be their first released drug. They are at the forefront of mRNA technology, but they haven't yet released anything else.

Normal drug development takes 10 to 20 years or more. A vaccine in less than a year is an amazing accomplishment, especially if it works as well as reported. It is hard to believe really, but let us hope it does as I think we're all tired of fearing a virus and having the world locked down with only the digital economy and delivery making money.

The fact that both Pfizer and Moderna are using the same rRNA platform for their vaccines likely means their safety data can be used to support each of the vaccines.

Aseahawkfan wrote:It is in the best interest of the media, corporations, and government to support a strong and powerful media campaign to push the vaccine. If the evidence is positive and immunity across the world is being reached, people will rush to get the vaccine. The only disaster would be if a sudden unforeseen side effect popped up that was harming people on a mass scale. That would derail everything. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

Getting Trump out of the way will help with the promotion of the vaccine. His interference unquestionably has raised doubts amongst a lot of people that some safety aspects might have been side stepped for political reasons. That's one of the tangible results of his perpetual lying and reshaping information: A lot of people don't trust him. All of the CEO's of the American pharmaceutical companies developing COVID vaccines came out and said that they wouldn't even ask for FDA approval unless and until they were confident that it was safe. An A-hole like Donald Trump is a good argument against the government assuming control of the pharmaceutical industry.

Aseahawkfan wrote:From what I heard Canada ordered 10 doses for every Canadian citizen. That is 300 million doses plus last time I checked on the population. We are going to need immense amounts of this vaccine to vaccinate most of the world. We're going to have to start with the vulnerable (elderly and sick) and the health care workers, then let it trickle down preferably to people with children first with last on the list single males with no health issues.

That's one of the world wide concerns, that the rich countries will hog the vaccine for their citizens, leaving those in the developing countries at the bottom of the totem pole. I'm not sure how you would prevent that from happening.

The priorities seem to be first responders followed by national security, people in nursing homes, prisons, then by age/health condition.

males are far more susceptible to this than females, much higher mortality rate.

Hawktawk wrote:males are far more susceptible to this than females, much higher mortality rate.

We're males. Women and children first. That's how we do it. And old men and family men first so they can take care of their families. Single males last.

Sort of kidding though. This will likely roll out smoothly. People will seek it out. It will become available as fast as they can produce it. It's going to take a huge level of production and be a slow roll out. I think it will take months, if not a year to produce sufficient vaccine for all of America.

Anthrax vaccine information which was required by a large group pf soldiers during the first Gulf War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax_vaccine_adsorbed

Even then lawyers mounted a lawsuit to prevent vaccination for military personnel. There was a big battle due to the mandatory nature of this vaccine in the military. If you think a vaccine where they forced 200,000 military personnel caused a huge legal issue, you can imagine how bad of a legal battle and uprising will ensue if the government attempts to mandate a virus produced in less than a year for regular citizens.

Mandating vaccines would slow adoption of the vaccine as legal battles ensued and fear was spread by the people engaged in the legal battles against the vaccine producing a lot of information undermining the vaccine.

Suffice it to say attempting to government mandate a vaccine would be more detrimental to adoption than a well thought out and directed marketing campaign. Vaccine mandates are a bad idea.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Anthrax vaccine information which was required by a large group pf soldiers during the first Gulf War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax_vaccine_adsorbed

Even then lawyers mounted a lawsuit to prevent vaccination for military personnel. There was a big battle due to the mandatory nature of this vaccine in the military. If you think a vaccine where they forced 200,000 military personnel caused a huge legal issue, you can imagine how bad of a legal battle and uprising will ensue if the government attempts to mandate a virus produced in less than a year for regular citizens.

Mandating vaccines would slow adoption of the vaccine as legal battles ensued and fear was spread by the people engaged in the legal battles against the vaccine producing a lot of information undermining the vaccine.

Suffice it to say attempting to government mandate a vaccine would be more detrimental to adoption than a well thought out and directed marketing campaign. Vaccine mandates are a bad idea.

None of those lawsuits ever claimed that the government went beyond their authority in mandating that their troops receive the vaccine. Most were over adverse side effects and the safety of the drug, which they started issuing before the FDA had approved it. Here's one:

The court did not find Bosh’s reasoning compelling and ultimately dismissed the case based on the Feres doctrine that the government introduced.

The anthrax vaccine has been controversial in past years. In 2004, the U.S. military was ordered by the courts to stop the inoculation of troops with anthrax vaccine adsorbed, or AVA, until the Food and Drug Administration approved the vaccine as safe for general use.

On Dec. 19, 2005, the FDA classified AVA as “safe and effective and not misbranded,” dissolving the injunction and allowing the military to resume mandatory inoculation of troops.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspec ... s-soldiers

My point has never been that it would be a good idea to institute mandatory vaccinations of the COVID vaccines. Although I would personally support such a measure, my point is that the government does have the right to insist that all of its citizens received the vaccine. No court has ever ruled that they cannot. They have chosen not to in order to avoid PR issues, lawsuits, etc. It would be like re-instituting the draft.

Pfizer submitted their request for FDA approval yesterday. My understanding is not to expect approval before the middle of December but once that approval comes, they'll have trucks rolling almost immediately with doses to vaccinate 20 million people. Interesting comment in the article involving the 2nd dose, which is to follow 2 weeks later:

"Second dose has to be targeted to the people that already received the first dose," Perna told CBS News. "It's essential to our success."

Marion Whicker, one of Perna's deputies, showed "60 Minutes" the Pfizer vaccine kit, complete with a card telling you when to come back for your second shot.

When asked how many of those cards are expected to be lost, Whicker responded, "Probably quite a few, which is why we are recommending to all the administrators to tell people to take pictures of it."

Health care workers are likely to be first to get shots, and Perna estimates that alone could take three months.

It would seem to me that health care workers would be the easiest group to vaccinate. After all, most already work at a location where the shots are likely to be administered.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vacc ... -approval/

Don't forget, Putin's entry into the vaccine game - the Sputnik V. I can see why he wants to call it by that name, but not sure it's the best way to brand it if he wants to make it available globally. Then again, maybe that's his attempt to rekindle to 'ole glory days of the Soviet Union. Would you prefer a vaccine from Pfizer, Moderna, or Sputnik V?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-saudi-russia-idUSKBN2810IY

I-5 wrote:Don't forget, Putin's entry into the vaccine game - the Sputnik V. I can see why he wants to call it by that name, but not sure it's the best way to brand it if he wants to make it available globally. Then again, maybe that's his attempt to rekindle to 'ole glory days of the Soviet Union. Would you prefer a vaccine from Pfizer, Moderna, or Sputnik V?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-saudi-russia-idUSKBN2810IY

The Russian vaccine has been out since last summer, and that's exactly why they named it Sputnik V, as Sputnik was the name of the first man made satellite and hence they were first with a distributable vaccine.

The Chinese have a vaccine out, and have already given out a million doses.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-11- ... ovid-.html

Remember Geraldo Rivera? He's suggesting that they name one of the COVID vaccines after Donald Trump:

Speaking on Friday morning’s Fox & Friends, Rivera suggested naming the COVID-19 vaccine after Trump so he doesn’t feel so bad about himself. Rivera said: “With the world so divided and everybody telling him he’s got to give up and it’s time to leave and time to transition and all the rest of it, why not name the vaccine ‘The Trump?’ Make it like, ‘Have you gotten your Trump yet?’ It would be a nice gesture to him, and, years from now, it would become just a kind of generic name.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/geraldo-s ... eer-him-up

So who's going to be first in line to get their Trump? Hawktalk?

So Russia and China magically have vaccines before us. Ok. This is all very strange that these nations have all been able produce vaccines this quickly. All very odd.

But hey, if it works and it gets things open again, oh well. We don't have much of a choice but to go with it all as the alternative is worse. But sometimes it seems like we're living in a dystopian sci fi novel that seems to be writing itself.

Aseahawkfan wrote:So Russia and China magically have vaccines before us. Ok. This is all very strange that these nations have all been able produce vaccines this quickly. All very odd.

But hey, if it works and it gets things open again, oh well. We don't have much of a choice but to go with it all as the alternative is worse. But sometimes it seems like we're living in a dystopian sci fi novel that seems to be writing itself.

Russia has had theirs out since August, but of course, they didn't subject it to the same rigorous testing that our vaccines have to go through. China's vaccine is a week or two ahead of the American vaccines. That's one of the advantages of totalitarian societies over a democracy.

RiverDog wrote:Russia has had theirs out since August, but of course, they didn't subject it to the same rigorous testing that our vaccines have to go through. China's vaccine is a week or two ahead of the American vaccines. That's one of the advantages of totalitarian societies over a democracy.

And even ours hasn't gone through the same 10 year plus rigorous testing we normally require for a new drug or vaccine. We have to very much hope for no serious issues because any serious issues occur and we're practically back at square one since both viruses are using very similar tech.

RiverDog wrote:Russia has had theirs out since August, but of course, they didn't subject it to the same rigorous testing that our vaccines have to go through. China's vaccine is a week or two ahead of the American vaccines. That's one of the advantages of totalitarian societies over a democracy.

Aseahawkfan wrote:And even ours hasn't gone through the same 10 year plus rigorous testing we normally require for a new drug or vaccine. We have to very much hope for no serious issues because any serious issues occur and we're practically back at square one since both viruses are using very similar tech.

Time isn't a good measure for evaluating the safety of the vaccine. They can do certain steps simultaneously rather than awaiting the result of previous steps. A lot of the reason why it takes so long to get a normal vaccine approved is that the drug companies don't want to put more R&D money into a potential vaccine if it's going to fail, so they'll await the results of one step before the proceed to the next. They usually like to wait several years so they can properly evaluate how long the vaccine will be effective, which has nothing to do with the safety of the vaccine. One of the good things that the Trump Administration has done is that they've helped reduced the financial risk companies take in developing vaccines.

As far as I'm concerned, they haven't taken unreasonable short cuts that significantly compromise the safety of the vaccine. Each of the two companies that have completed Phase 3 trials have vaccinated over 30,000 volunteers and none have developed serious side effects for over two months, the time frame when most side effects become apparent.

But as is the case with all new vaccines, there's going to be unavoidable risks, especially with one that will be given on such a large scale. But in this case, the risks do not justify the consequences of going through a more deliberate process.

There's over 150 COVID vaccines in development throughout the world. The chances of all of them failing is pretty remote. They're using various ways to attack the virus.

I wonder how many businesses will follow suit:

Australia’s largest airline, Qantas, is planning to make coronavirus vaccines — when they become available — compulsory for passengers who want to fly internationally, and its chief executive predicted that other airlines would follow.

He also said he believed vaccinations as a condition for international air travel would be mandated by more airlines: “I’ve talked to my colleagues at other airlines across the globe, and I think it’s going to be a common theme across the board.”

He said airlines and governments around the world have considered developing an electronic vaccination passport that would certify if passengers were vaccinated and with what vaccine. Mr. Joyce’s comments coincided with an announcement by the International Air Transport Association that it was in the final stages of developing a digital health pass that would provide travelers’ testing and vaccine information to governments and airlines.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/11/24 ... -the-world

RiverDog wrote:Time isn't a good measure for evaluating the safety of the vaccine. They can do certain steps simultaneously rather than awaiting the result of previous steps. A lot of the reason why it takes so long to get a normal vaccine approved is that the drug companies don't want to put more R&D money into a potential vaccine if it's going to fail, so they'll await the results of one step before the proceed to the next. They usually like to wait several years so they can properly evaluate how long the vaccine will be effective, which has nothing to do with the safety of the vaccine. One of the good things that the Trump Administration has done is that they've helped reduced the financial risk companies take in developing vaccines.

As far as I'm concerned, they haven't taken unreasonable short cuts that significantly compromise the safety of the vaccine. Each of the two companies that have completed Phase 3 trials have vaccinated over 30,000 volunteers and none have developed serious side effects for over two months, the time frame when most side effects become apparent.

But as is the case with all new vaccines, there's going to be unavoidable risks, especially with one that will be given on such a large scale. But in this case, the risks do not justify the consequences of going through a more deliberate process.

There's over 150 COVID vaccines in development throughout the world. The chances of all of them failing is pretty remote. They're using various ways to attack the virus.

Why do you think this? The long drug development process is not for the reasons you stated. It's because long-term effects can't be measured over a short period of time as in months. So drugs are usually tested over several phases slowly because it has to be determined if doses over a long period of time will cause issues. Drugs are even monitored after release. Safety and efficacy are both tested extensively because of how many different factors could affect a drug upon release. Let's say this drug is safe for a few months, but you take it over several years and long-term side effects start showing up like brain damage or some kind of deadly side effect. What do you think happens at that point? Major liability, which is why the government de-risked the project. The government will have to absorb the liability to allow a drug with this short a development cycle to be released.

Sometimes they fast track something when the benefits outweigh the costs, but make no mistake about it: long-term side effects could most assuredly show up and there will be immense liability if that happens.

Safety is what they determine first. Safety is extremely important throughout the entire process and even after release.

https://www.fda.gov/media/82381/download

Drug Development Process: http://phrma-docs.phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/rd_brochure_022307.pdf

I've invested in a lot of biotech companies since the 90s. Make no mistake, this is an extremely fast development process that could go terribly wrong. They will be watching it closely. I have zero idea why you think a brand new technology like mRNA vaccines are something to shrug about. This is a huge and interesting test of our ability to combat a virus on a global scale. I hope it works, but I know drug development and safety is a long process that was fast-tracked like I've never seen before to deal with an unprecedented viral outbreak.

This vaccine could go off great and everything is good. Or something could go terribly wrong with a death rate that causes immediate withdrawal due to some unforeseen circumstance. Right now even the CEO of Moderna is saying that this vaccine may not work to stop the spread of the virus and get us back to normal. That would in essence mean the vaccine doesn't work and we just wasted our time. I find it extremely surprising they have not tested whether the virus can still be spread by vaccinated people, but given the development time I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

You are way too desperate for this vaccine to work. Never seen you quite this optimistic. Let's hope you're right. Near as I can tell there are still a lot of unknowns due to the fast development process.

RiverDog wrote:I wonder how many businesses will follow suit:

Australia’s largest airline, Qantas, is planning to make coronavirus vaccines — when they become available — compulsory for passengers who want to fly internationally, and its chief executive predicted that other airlines would follow.

He also said he believed vaccinations as a condition for international air travel would be mandated by more airlines: “I’ve talked to my colleagues at other airlines across the globe, and I think it’s going to be a common theme across the board.”

He said airlines and governments around the world have considered developing an electronic vaccination passport that would certify if passengers were vaccinated and with what vaccine. Mr. Joyce’s comments coincided with an announcement by the International Air Transport Association that it was in the final stages of developing a digital health pass that would provide travelers’ testing and vaccine information to governments and airlines.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/11/24 ... -the-world

It will depend on how supportive the government is. I think it will be very tough in Western nations due to Constitutional issues as most Western nations have strong protections for individual liberties, but Asian nations will likely will pass something like this easily.

It likely depends on how effective the vaccines are and whether any unforeseen side effects occur. Gotta hope for no strange deaths or interactions after release.

Aseahawkfan wrote:It (mandantory vaccinations) will depend on how supportive the government is. I think it will be very tough in Western nations due to Constitutional issues as most Western nations have strong protections for individual liberties, but Asian nations will likely will pass something like this easily.

I don't think there's any question that most governments, even democratic ones, have the authority to make a vaccine mandatory. That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be some legal hoops that they'd have to jump through first. Obviously if the military can justify making vaccines mandatory for their troops, other institutions and businesses can require it as well.

If airlines can force their passengers to show proof of a vaccination before boarding, what's stopping the NFL from requiring that anyone entering a stadium produce such proof prior to entry?

Aseahawkfan wrote:It likely depends on how effective the vaccines are and whether any unforeseen side effects occur. Gotta hope for no strange deaths or interactions after release.

There's always a certain amount of risk that any new vaccine or drug will produce unexpected side effects. My wife was on an MS drug for several years before they discovered that certain people were subject to brain damage that prompted her doctor to take her off of it. The good news is that we're not putting all of our eggs in one basket. There's scores of vaccines in the pipeline and many more to come.

RiverDog wrote:I don't think there's any question that most governments, even democratic ones, have the authority to make a vaccine mandatory. That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be some legal hoops that they'd have to jump through first. Obviously if the military can justify making vaccines mandatory for their troops, other institutions and businesses can require it as well.

If airlines can force their passengers to show proof of a vaccination before boarding, what's stopping the NFL from requiring that anyone entering a stadium produce such proof prior to entry?

Airlines cannot currently force you to take a vaccine. You are posting a story jumping the gun once again as thought is already done. It is not.

You really think that the Constitution does not support the right to not inject something into your body? You really believe this? The government can force you to put something in your body that may hurt you? You truly believe this? If you believe this, then at any point in time the government can force you to take a drug? Or what is next? A computer chip for identification? What's next once that line is crossed?

If for some reason the companies start producing drugs that say cut cardio-vascular disease or make it so heroin is usable without addictive qualities, they can force you to take it because well, government? That's the line you want crossed?

There's always a certain amount of risk that any new vaccine or drug will produce unexpected side effects. My wife was on an MS drug for several years before they discovered that certain people were subject to brain damage that prompted her doctor to take her off of it. The good news is that we're not putting all of our eggs in one basket. There's scores of vaccines in the pipeline and many more to come.

And what do you think happens if this vaccine does the same? You think they'll make people take it? How much do you think the government will have to pay out if they mandate a vaccine that causes brain damage?

Like I said, I will not take a vaccine mandated by the government on principle. If you want our jails filled with people resisting taking a vaccine, support this rubbish. You want this vaccine immediately politicized, support at your own risk. But know, this is an issue even I will immediately arm up to resist. I will not have police or the military forcibly injecting me with a drug created by corporations. That is a line I do not want crossed. I will not be alone.

I am not going to entertain this line of thought of with you. I will only make it quite clear I won't take a mandated vaccine. Period. I will stand against tyrannical people like yourself that think it is ok to have the government force a vaccine on people that isn't proven to solve the problem and has been tested for only 9 months. I hope no politician or Western company attempts to harm American freedoms to this degree. I hope politicians and corporations are not dumb enough to immediately politicize a vaccine that could solve this whole issue.

All done talking this garbage with you until I see some politicians really trying to politicize this vaccine and mandate it. I'm going to hope this is a highly effective vaccine that sells itself so this doesn't turn into a Constitutional issue where we get to see if citizens can be forced to inject themselves with a corporate created drug as I think that precedent would be enormously bad.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Airlines cannot currently force you to take a vaccine. You are posting a story jumping the gun once again as thought is already done. It is not.

No, they can't force you to take a vaccine, and I doubt that the government would, either. But they can damn sure deny you access to their property if you don't meet their requirements.

Aseahawkfan wrote:You really think that the Constitution does not support the right to not inject something into your body? You really believe this? The government can force you to put something in your body that may hurt you? You truly believe this? If you believe this, then at any point in time the government can force you to take a drug? Or what is next? A computer chip for identification? What's next once that line is crossed?

Although I think it would be extremely unlikely that they would ever start lining people up and force them to accept a vaccine, I don't see anything in the Constitution that would prevent it. If they can draft you and force you to risk your life for a cause you may not believe in, I don't see where they wouldn't be able to justify giving you a poke in the arm to prevent the spread of a deadly disease. Certainly if there were a disease that was more deadly than COVID, say with 3 or 4 times the mortality rate and with the same transmissibility, they would consider forced vaccinations.

Aseahawkfan wrote:If for some reason the companies start producing drugs that say cut cardio-vascular disease or make it so heroin is usable without addictive qualities, they can force you to take it because well, government? That's the line you want crossed?

I am not advocating forced vaccinations, although I personally wouldn't be against it. My argument is that the government could do it if they saw fit. There is nothing in our laws or our Constitution preventing it.

There's always a certain amount of risk that any new vaccine or drug will produce unexpected side effects. My wife was on an MS drug for several years before they discovered that certain people were subject to brain damage that prompted her doctor to take her off of it. The good news is that we're not putting all of our eggs in one basket. There's scores of vaccines in the pipeline and many more to come.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Like I said, I will not take a vaccine mandated by the government on principle. If you want our jails filled with people resisting taking a vaccine, support this rubbish. You want this vaccine immediately politicized, support at your own risk. But know, this is an issue even I will immediately arm up to resist. I will not have police or the military forcibly injecting me with a drug created by corporations. That is a line I do not want crossed. I will not be alone.

They don't have to line you up and poke you in the arm. They can do it by allowing airlines, football stadiums, schools, employers, etc make it a requirement to use their facilities.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I am not going to entertain this line of thought of with you. I will only make it quite clear I won't take a mandated vaccine. Period. I will stand against tyrannical people like yourself that think it is ok to have the government force a vaccine on people that isn't proven to solve the problem and has been tested for only 9 months. I hope no politician or Western company attempts to harm American freedoms to this degree. I hope politicians and corporations are not dumb enough to immediately politicize a vaccine that could solve this whole issue.

All done talking this garbage with you until I see some politicians really trying to politicize this vaccine and mandate it. I'm going to hope this is a highly effective vaccine that sells itself so this doesn't turn into a Constitutional issue where we get to see if citizens can be forced to inject themselves with a corporate created drug as I think that precedent would be enormously bad.

Once again, I am not advocating it. Even if I were in power, I wouldn't exercise that authority simply due to the reaction of people like yourself.

This is going to be an interesting debate. My former employer is contemplating a vaccine policy. One option they are considering is that if an employee can show proof of a vaccination that they don't have to wear a mask or eat their lunch in a Plexiglas cubicle, at least until the health department relaxes their recommendations. They can probably get away with it as they are giving them a choice.

Well, I'm wrong. I guess you can mandate a vaccine. Here's a nice long article discussing vaccine mandates. You win this debate, Riverdog.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/guides-pubs/downloads/vacc_mandates_chptr13.pdf

If it's safe, I'll be taking it at some point anyway. Not like I'll need it mandated. I guess when it comes to having the government force things on me, I have the natural reaction of an American to resist it. As far as the logical side of my brain, I intend to take advantage of this vaccine if it will get us back to normal. I will read on it extensively first to ensure I know what the possible side effects are. I had sure better see real change. I don't intend to take some vaccine that doesn't change anything because it only works for one strain that isn't even the most dangerous strain or some garbage like that. If this vaccine works, we better see the real results of it in reduced cases and deaths and a return to normal.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Well, I'm wrong. I guess you can mandate a vaccine. Here's a nice long article discussing vaccine mandates. You win this debate, Riverdog.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/guides-pubs/downloads/vacc_mandates_chptr13.pdf

If it's safe, I'll be taking it at some point anyway. Not like I'll need it mandated. I guess when it comes to having the government force things on me, I have the natural reaction of an American to resist it. As far as the logical side of my brain, I intend to take advantage of this vaccine if it will get us back to normal. I will read on it extensively first to ensure I know what the possible side effects are. I had sure better see real change. I don't intend to take some vaccine that doesn't change anything because it only works for one strain that isn't even the most dangerous strain or some garbage like that. If this vaccine works, we better see the real results of it in reduced cases and deaths and a return to normal.

Thanks for your gracious concession and for the link. I have a friend of whom I'm having a similar debate with so that link might come in handy.

We have chemicals in our drinking water, in the foods we eat, and the air we breathe is contaminated with pollutants. The only difference between that and a vaccination is that with a vaccine, we know a lot more about what we're getting and have more of a choice. I can understand some hesitancy to take a vaccine especially when it's brand new and when it comes to giving it to your child, but when it comes down with it, there's all sorts of foreign chemicals that had we the opportunity, we might choose not to ingest them. My wife is on 11 prescription drugs and has undergone infusions that are a lot more dangerous than a vaccine.

Having a vaccine with such a high efficacy really helps as it means that fewer of us have to take it...I think Fauci said 70-75%..in order to end the pandemic. Even if I were asymptomatic and didn't have to worry about getting sick from it, I'd sill take it so that I wouldn't acquire the disease then give it to others.

That's one of the things about this crisis that has been so disappointing to me, that there are so many selfish people out there that care so little about their fellow human beings. That's one of the problems living in a country where we enjoy so many personal freedoms: That we tend to lose sight of our roles within a society, that there are some things that we must do for the common good.

RiverDog wrote:Thanks for your gracious concession and for the link. I have a friend of whom I'm having a similar debate with so that link might come in handy.

We have chemicals in our drinking water, in the foods we eat, and the air we breathe is contaminated with pollutants. The only difference between that and a vaccination is that with a vaccine, we know a lot more about what we're getting and have more of a choice. I can understand some hesitancy to take a vaccine especially when it's brand new and when it comes to giving it to your child, but when it comes down with it, there's all sorts of foreign chemicals that had we the opportunity, we might choose not to ingest them. My wife is on 11 prescription drugs and has undergone infusions that are a lot more dangerous than a vaccine.

Having a vaccine with such a high efficacy really helps as it means that fewer of us have to take it...I think Fauci said 70-75%..in order to end the pandemic. Even if I were asymptomatic and didn't have to worry about getting sick from it, I'd sill take it so that I wouldn't acquire the disease then give it to others.

That's one of the things about this crisis that has been so disappointing to me, that there are so many selfish people out there that care so little about their fellow human beings. That's one of the problems living in a country where we enjoy so many personal freedoms: That we tend to lose sight of our roles within a society, that there are some things that we must do for the common good.

People are f-ing crazy is the reality. While I was driving into work today, I saw a sign displayed on an overpass (apparently that is the thing to do now) saying, "The pandemic is a fraud. Investigate, don't hesitate" or some crap like that.

There is so much information out there you can find support for almost any position no matter how crazy. That's why we have flat earthers in the year 2020 and people who believe the moon landing was a hoax and that Bush Jr. and his cronies orchestrated 9/11. My mother even told that QAnon had people believing some pizza parlor was a place where Hilary Clinton and the liberals were sacrificing children and were part of a Satanic Cult. I don't care for liberal policies, but damn, that is crazy.

I talk with some of these loons. They really believe what this crap. I'll always remember this guy who listened to Art Bell and told me aliens would land on The White House lawn within a year about 30 years ago. Never happened. My mother swears to this day she saw a leprechaun under an old wagon while she was playing with her sister.

It's fun to debate things on an internet forum for entertainment. But man, it's unreal how crazy people are and what they believe in with the barest of evidence. Especially when so much real stuff is happening right in front of their face and they don't need to look under rocks to find bad policies and conspiracies occurring.

Aseahawkfan wrote:People are f-ing crazy is the reality. While I was driving into work today, I saw a sign displayed on an overpass (apparently that is the thing to do now) saying, "The pandemic is a fraud. Investigate, don't hesitate" or some crap like that.

There is so much information out there you can find support for almost any position no matter how crazy. That's why we have flat earthers in the year 2020 and people who believe the moon landing was a hoax and that Bush Jr. and his cronies orchestrated 9/11. My mother even told that QAnon had people believing some pizza parlor was a place where Hilary Clinton and the liberals were sacrificing children and were part of a Satanic Cult. I don't care for liberal policies, but damn, that is crazy.

I talk with some of these loons. They really believe what this crap. I'll always remember this guy who listened to Art Bell and told me aliens would land on The White House lawn within a year about 30 years ago. Never happened. My mother swears to this day she saw a leprechaun under an old wagon while she was playing with her sister.

It's fun to debate things on an internet forum for entertainment. But man, it's unreal how crazy people are and what they believe in with the barest of evidence. Especially when so much real stuff is happening right in front of their face and they don't need to look under rocks to find bad policies and conspiracies occurring.

It's always astounding to hear of things like you are saying, but if the surveys that 30% of American adults can't find the Pacific Ocean on a map are accurate, then I guess it's not too hard to believe how people can be so gullible. I should have gone into business selling snake oil. No wonder 70 million people voted for a true moron like Donald Trump.

Not that anyone needs anymore convincing of the government's ability to force citizens to take a vaccine, here's an article I came across that talks about the current law in Florida:

Anthony Sabatini, a GOP state representative from Florida, said he will file legislation to repeal a state law that could force people to get vaccinated during a public health emergency.

Sabatini warned Floridians that under the current law, Governor Ron DeSantis or any future governor of Florida could violate "personal liberties" by forcing people to quarantine or receive a vaccine.

"Right now in Florida, under the public health emergency statute chapter 381, they can literally take you, test you, quarantine you, but also force you to take a vaccine. They can restrain you and force you to do that," he said. "The powers have not been used yet, but they've been on the books for over 25 years and it's important that Floridians know that this power can't be exercised by government, because it's just too much an invasion of their personal liberties."

Sabatini was referring to chapter 381.00315 of Florida state law, which gives significant powers to the State Public Health Officer in the event of a public emergency, which Florida has been operating under since the pandemic took hold in March.

But the law has never been used, and DeSantis has already stated that he would not force any Floridian to get a COVID-19 vaccine when one is made available. "The state will not mandate that Floridians take these vaccines – that's going to be the choice of each and every Floridian," DeSantis said on November 19.

https://www.newsweek.com/vaccines-could ... da-1550936

This is an interesting proposal:

Would You Be Willing to Get a Covid Vaccine in Exchange for a $1,500 Stimulus Check?

Americans are eager for more one-time stimulus checks, while the U.S. government is working to get Covid-19 vaccinations to the American public.

Now, one proposal from former congressman John Delaney aims to help both sides by providing stimulus checks in exchange for getting vaccinated.
The goal: to reach a 75% vaccination rate faster, which could save both lives and the U.S. economy.

The idea comes from entrepreneur John Delaney, a former Democratic congressman for Maryland who also ran for president in 2020.

"The faster we get 75 percent of this country vaccinated, the faster we end Covid and the sooner everything returns to normal," Delaney said in an interview with CNBC.com.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/busines ... k/2759586/

Although $1500 seems like a lot, I would be 100% for such a proposal. It's a win-win: If you need the money, you'll have no problem lining up to get a shot. It will end the pandemic as it would require an extraordinary amount of personal objection to turn down $1500. And it would provide a boost to the economy.

Nothing like the Almighty Dollar to motivate people to act.

Yesterday the FDA's advisory committee recommended emergency use authorization for the Pfizer vaccine. FDA approval is expected either today or tomorrow with needles in the arm by Monday. Moderna's vaccine is scheduled to undergo the same critical review on the 17th, or next Thursday. Johnson & Johnson's vaccine, perhaps the most promising as it requires just one dose and does not require super cold storage temperatures, is on schedule to file for approval in early January. Astra-Zeneca made some mistakes in their trials but should still be ready to request approval at the end of this month or early next month. There's a good chance that by early January, we'll have 4 FDA approved vaccines.

It appears that more of the American public is expressing a willingness to receive the vaccination with recent surveys ticking up slightly from 60% to 63%. Experts say that we need to achieve a 70-85% vaccination rate to achieve herd immunity.

We're losing 3,000+ lives per day to COVID. I saw a graphic this morning that claims that we have had more deaths due to COVID in the past 9 months than all the American combat deaths in World War 2, which was stretched over nearly 4 years.

RiverDog wrote:Yesterday the FDA's advisory committee recommended emergency use authorization for the Pfizer vaccine. FDA approval is expected either today or tomorrow with needles in the arm by Monday. Moderna's vaccine is scheduled to undergo the same critical review on the 17th, or next Thursday. Johnson & Johnson's vaccine, perhaps the most promising as it requires just one dose and does not require super cold storage temperatures, is on schedule to file for approval in early January. Astra-Zeneca made some mistakes in their trials but should still be ready to request approval at the end of this month or early next month. There's a good chance that by early January, we'll have 4 FDA approved vaccines.

It appears that more of the American public is expressing a willingness to receive the vaccination with recent surveys ticking up slightly from 60% to 63%. Experts say that we need to achieve a 70-85% vaccination rate to achieve herd immunity.

We're losing 3,000+ lives per day to COVID. I saw a graphic this morning that claims that we have had more deaths due to COVID in the past 9 months than all the American combat deaths in World War 2, which was stretched over nearly 4 years.

All of the news I'm watching (local, NBC, Shep Smith) are saying just the 70% target, you are the first I've heard of anywhere near 85%. As for when we can expect to reach that point, late spring/summer seems to be the optimistic projection.

RiverDog wrote:Yesterday the FDA's advisory committee recommended emergency use authorization for the Pfizer vaccine. FDA approval is expected either today or tomorrow with needles in the arm by Monday. Moderna's vaccine is scheduled to undergo the same critical review on the 17th, or next Thursday. Johnson & Johnson's vaccine, perhaps the most promising as it requires just one dose and does not require super cold storage temperatures, is on schedule to file for approval in early January. Astra-Zeneca made some mistakes in their trials but should still be ready to request approval at the end of this month or early next month. There's a good chance that by early January, we'll have 4 FDA approved vaccines.

It appears that more of the American public is expressing a willingness to receive the vaccination with recent surveys ticking up slightly from 60% to 63%. Experts say that we need to achieve a 70-85% vaccination rate to achieve herd immunity.

We're losing 3,000+ lives per day to COVID. I saw a graphic this morning that claims that we have had more deaths due to COVID in the past 9 months than all the American combat deaths in World War 2, which was stretched over nearly 4 years.

c_hawkbob wrote:All of the news I'm watching (local, NBC, Shep Smith) are saying just the 70% target, you are the first I've heard of anywhere near 85%. As for when we can expect to reach that point, late spring/summer seems to be the optimistic projection.

Well, then you heard it from me first!

From there, “the challenge is going to be to convince people to get vaccinated,” Dr. Fauci said. “Because if you have a highly efficacious vaccine and only 50% of the country gets vaccinated, you’re not going to have that umbrella of protection of herd immunity.” What we really need for 75% to 85% of the population to get vaccinated to achieve herd immunity, he explained.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medica ... r-BB1bxeYk

That may have changed in the last couple weeks then because Fauci was one of the guests on Shep Smith last night.

My understanding is that percentage for achieving herd immunity is a mathematical function dependent on the efficacy of the vaccine. The higher the efficacy, the fewer people needed to get vaccinated. The efficacy of the vaccine hasn't changed since they announced the results of their trials.

Prior to the announcement of Pfizer and Moderna's results and under the assumption of a 60-70% efficacy, they were saying that it would require a 90-95% vaccination rate to achieve herd immunity.

The jest I got from Fauci's remarks, and I saw him speaking of the 85% vaccination rate, was that if we really wanted to "stomp out" this disease, that we needed as high as an 85% rate. He may be talking about two different things: Achieving herd immunity, which would require a very high vaccination rate, and ending the pandemic, which would entail a somewhat lower percentage.

I'm not worried about people taking the vaccine. They talk tough now, but once they see this thing working they will rush to take it.

If it doesn't work, then we're screwed.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I'm not worried about people taking the vaccine. They talk tough now, but once they see this thing working they will rush to take it.

If it doesn't work, then we're screwed.

One of the very few things that I can give Donald Trump some kudos for is that he's been four square behind the vaccine. Yesterday he called it a "medical miracle", one of the few assessments of his that I agree with 100%. It's truly a Herculean effort. They've developed it and got it approved, without compromising safety or yielding to political pressure in 11 months when the next shortest time frame was 4 years. Big Pharma, universities, the medical community, and the federal government all came together in a cooperative effort towards a common goal that hasn't been seen since the Apollo program.

Moderna's vaccine is next up. They will undergo the same process that Pfizer did this week, the only difference being that their vaccine hasn't been previously approved by other countries, although that might happen before the advisory board meets this Thursday. After that Johnson & Johnson will unveil their vaccine, in early January.

The race isn't over. They still have to figure out the duration of its effectiveness, if it's safe and effective for children, and if it prevents asymptomatic spread.

Pressuring and encouraging the pharmaceutical industry to focus on a vaccine was an excellent move and shows the power
of the Presidency. However, as it became a worldwide effort, it contradicts his America first (which also played out as America
alone) narrative. As well, some of the biggest steps forward were made from immigrants to their new countries.

It's been said by some of the scientists that the lesser effective vaccines may go to the poorer countries because they are more stable
at higher temperatures. That would seem reasonable in the short term and it would seem that as the science improves, there will be
a way to produce the vaccine with the highest effectiveness that can withstand higher temperatures.

Who knows how long the immunity will last, but if it means another Flu shot each year, then that's a better price to pay than shutdowns.

NorthHawk wrote:Pressuring and encouraging the pharmaceutical industry to focus on a vaccine was an excellent move and shows the power
of the Presidency. However, as it became a worldwide effort, it contradicts his America first (which also played out as America alone) narrative. As well, some of the biggest steps forward were made from immigrants to their new countries.

I should have indicated that the vaccine effort was worldwide and not just limited to the United States. Also, we have to give some credit to China as they identified the genetic sequencing early on and communicated that information with other scientists worldwide.

NorthHawk wrote:It's been said by some of the scientists that the lesser effective vaccines may go to the poorer countries because they are more stable at higher temperatures. That would seem reasonable in the short term and it would seem that as the science improves, there will be
a way to produce the vaccine with the highest effectiveness that can withstand higher temperatures.

It isn't practical to use Pfizer's or Moderna's vaccines for 3rd world countries. Not only is there a problem with the super cold temperatures required for transportation and storage, they require two shots. Third world countries simply do not have the record keeping on their citizens necessary to keep track of who needs the 2nd shot and when. A much better choice is Johnson & Johnson vaccine as not only is it shippable and storable at refrigerator temperatures, it only requires one shot. That way, they can simply line up people and start vaccinating them. J & J's Stage 3 trial results are expected by early next month.

NorthHawk wrote:Who knows how long the immunity will last, but if it means another Flu shot each year, then that's a better price to pay than shutdowns.

They've already been discussing the possibility of combining an annual flu shot with a COVID vaccine into one vaccination. That would be ideal as it would likely increase the number of people getting annual flu vaccinations.

RiverDog wrote:They've already been discussing the possibility of combining an annual flu shot with a COVID vaccine into one vaccination. That would be ideal as it would likely increase the number of people getting annual flu vaccinations.

You're jumping the gun here. You need to understand that this vaccine works on this coronavirus. Coronaviruses are extremely unstable which is why we haven't been able to vaccinate for them overall. If there is another strain out there equally deadly, then this vaccine will not be effective.

The flu vaccine is around 40 to 60% effective depending on the year, sometimes lower. And that is with flu viruses being far more stable than coronaviruses.

This vaccine will either eradicate this strain of the virus or we're in some real trouble. From what I have read this is not a type of virus where you do a yearly vaccine. Either it works and we kill the deadly strain or it doesn't and we're screwed. That's where we're at.

This vaccine is 95% effective against this strain of the coronavirus and either we kill it or life does not return to normal. This will be more like the polio vaccine where eradication will eventually occur or we will have to figure out other vaccines for other strains that will be equally deadly.

SARS-COV1 and MERS were eradicated through containment measures. SARS-COV2 we will eradicate with this vaccine over the next year or two or we're screwed.

Aseahawkfan wrote:This vaccine is 95% effective against this strain of the coronavirus and either we kill it or life does not return to normal. This will be more like the polio vaccine where eradication will eventually occur or we will have to figure out other vaccines for other strains that will be equally deadly.

SARS-COV1 and MERS were eradicated through containment measures. SARS-COV2 we will eradicate with this vaccine over the next year or two or we're screwed.

I disagree. We do not necessarily need to completely eradicate COVID. What the vaccine does is take the pressure off our health care system. The mortality rate of COVID isn't that bad so long as it's not spreading uncontrollably like it is now. The other factor here is treatment. As we learn more about the disease, there's the very strong likelihood of our developing more effective treatments.