"Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts"

[Cecilie1200]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

I think there is a huge consensus among just everybody in the healthcare field in regard to mask wearing. Of course it probably does not include your local bartender who is out of work, Sam the Surfer, and my granddaughter that thinks wearing a mask makes her look ugly. And there is a lot evidence coming contact tracing that shows that people that are asymptomatic are spreading the virus.

I read the opposite from the CDC just a few weeks ago. This tells you how everything changes. First a mask was no good, now it's mandated in cities and states across the country. Before asymptomatic people were low risk for spreading, now the risk of spreading is the same.

I think there is a difference between going to a restaurant and going to a doctors office. Doctors are exposed to ill people day in day out. For most of us, we will probably never be around a person with Covid unless you are a socialite, or your business relies on personal contact with people all day long. Although our antibody testing is far from perfected, some are suggesting that we are already in the herd process and there's no stopping it.

The problem with this thing is we've never experienced anything like it; at least with the technology we have today. Who knows......next year at this time, they may be telling us what a waste of time and money it was for us to wear a mask. We simply don't know.

Early on CDC said that masks would not protect you which was true then and is basically true today. Actually, there is a very small amount of protection for the wearer but not much. Herd immunity as defined by the scientist is a calculated estimate based on transmission rate and reproductive numbers for the virus. For this virus herd immunity is 70% of the population having been exposed, that is they have antibodies. That can be off by 10 or 15%. If the scientists definition of herd immunity is used, there should not be much difference in the calculation.

We may not have all the details of a virus but we know a lot about epidemics and how to control them. For example any airborne virus or a virus whose most common transmission is through the air, the key to stopping transmission is preventing the virus from reaching a host. Masks, plastic shields, staying away from the source of virus, staying at home, etc prevents the spread, a really easy to understand concept but pretty hard to implement in a large population.

We also know a lot about a virus based on the characteristics of the family. There are 6 types of coronavirus that can infect humans which includes Mers and SARS. They have many of the same characteristic but there are some differences. It's really fortunate that there was work done developing the SARS vaccine because this gave researchers a starting point in developing the vaccine for this member of the family. Making changes to the vaccine can be very simple. However, every time you change the vaccine you start over in testing. This is why it takes so long to develop a vaccine. The fact that we are willing to accept a vaccine which has is not very effective, 40% makes it more likely we will get one sooner rather later.

It's wishful thinking, but there certainly is no guarantee a vaccine can be developed. We still don't have vaccines for HIV, flu, even the common cold.

If a new vaccine came out and was approved by September, many Americans would be hesitant to take it including myself. It reminds me of when I bought my first computer and read up on it. It was a Dummy's book. The author warned his readers to never buy software 2.0. 2.0 software is the original version. When thousands of people use it problem free in trials, it's different than when you start passing it out to millions of people. That's when they discover the hidden flaws and imperfections. It's why you always wait until version 2.2. or 2.3 to come out. Those are the versions where the flaws have been corrected.

It's the same with new medications. Yes, it undergoes intense testing, but we won't know the results or drawbacks until it's been used on tens of millions of people. Even then, it could take years to find out if it has any long-term negative effects.

Before I take it, I would need 100% guarantee from my doctor that it won't have any harmful effects on me, corroborated by my cousin, who is a retired research doctor that supervised the laboratory where she worked. Until I get that, I may wait for a while if and when a vaccine comes out.

I agree with your assessment of a vaccine with a few exceptions.
We do have a vaccine for the flu. I get one every year. A vaccine to prevent the common cold has been difficult to make, primarily because there are more than 200 different varieties of viruses that can cause colds. Also, if there were such a vaccine, you would have to get a new one every year like the flu vaccine, plus it would probably be not very effective due to the rate these viruses mutate.

The HIV is nothing like the coronations family of viruses. The problem developing a vaccine for HIV lies in genetic makeup of the virus. Unlike coronavirus, HIV has an incredibly fast replication cycle, less than 24 hour. However, the real show stopper is that HIV is prone to frequent replication errors, churning out mutated copies of itself which recombine into new strains as the virus is passed from person to person.

This coronavirus is very similar to SARS which we have developed a vaccine. Also most of the organizations developing vaccines have already proved in the lab that their vaccine kills the virus and is so far harmless to humans. The big question market is how effective the vaccine will be. Typically vaccines like these are 40% to 70% effective. The CDC has implied that a 40% effective vaccine would be acceptable. Think about what this really means. If we are able to produce enough of the vaccine to make it available like the flu vaccine at every primary care doctors office, every pharmacy, hospital, and public health clinic, we might be able to get the same inoculation numbers as the flu vaccine which is 45% of the population by the end of next year. So we might just have have 148 million vaccinated with 40% less chance of getting the virus and the remainder no protection since they were not vaccinated. After a year or so we get more effective vaccines and thus more protection. My guess is we will reach herd immunity about the time of 2024 election.

I don't think we're going see an unemployment rate of less than 5% for at least a year or so and people will dying from coronavirus for many years, hopefully at a greatly reduced rate.

BTW You will never get a 100% guarantee that a vaccine will not harm you. Deaths caused by vaccines are less than 2 per million and in almost all of those cases the person had a compromised immune system or had other conditions. You're probably more likely to get killed by a lightening strike than a vaccine.

I happen to be one of those people. I am 60 years old, and one of my two major medical conditions is the number one condition associated with death. It's one of the reasons I'd be so hesitant to take it.

If we (or others) do develop a vaccine for this thing, it should be able to wipe it out. Unlike the flu, it won't mutate so rapidly or differently, if it does at all. Experts have said if it would, then a weaker much less deadly strain would take it's place, unlike the flu. And if it does again, the next strain will be weaker yet.

Plus I think careless people have become more conscious of cleanliness now. You still can't find hand sanitizer or liquid soap in some stores. Fortunately for me, one of my tenants works at a store where they had and abundance of it because of customer limitations. She brought home some sanitizer for me and I was grateful she did. I should have plenty for while, at least until the shelves get fully stocked again. In addition, GoJo, the people who make Purell, are opening up a factory in my suburb. With some luck, they will let the citizens buy direct from them. And thanks to President Trump, there is this:

US bets on small, untested company to deliver COVID vaccine

When precious vats of COVID-19 vaccine are finally ready, jabbing the lifesaving solution into the arms of Americans will require hundreds of millions of injections.

fox8.com

Every vaccine is different. For the influenza vaccine given to day, you should avoid it if you:

• Have had an allergic reaction after a previous dose of influenza vaccine, or have any severe, life-threatening allergies.
• Have ever had Guillain-Barré Syndrome (also called GBS).

In order to wipe out the coronavirus, we would need a participation much more than the 45% we get with the influenza vaccine. The CDC did a big study of why people don't get the flu vaccine. As it turns only about 2% of the population has medical condition to disqualify them. If everyone that was eligible to take the flu shot did, we would nearly wipe it out. That means last year we would have saved the lives of nearly 57,000 people, prevented an illness that sickens nearly 40 million people plus an economic impact in the hundreds of millions.

With over 50 vaccines in test trials, I don't think we will need to worry about a vaccine being available next year.

I only take the flu shot once in a while. I've known many people who came down with illness after they took the shot. Some years, you get vaccinated for one strain, but a new strain comes out that makes the original vaccine worthless.

I have little doubt a vaccine for Covid will be made, it's just a matter of how effective it is, how many people get it, how many are restricted from getting it, and any serious side-effects many of us will be waiting for before we have confidence it's beneficial to us.

The reason you have a flu shot every year is to pickup protection for new strains of the viruses.

Viruses making you ill go back years when live viruses were used in most vaccines. That is no longer necessary. Today, if one person get's a flu shot and get's sick, they are almost certain to spread the news. However, for the tens of thousands of people that get flu shots and have no reaction at all, they remain silent. Ray, how often do people stop you on the street or call you and say, "Ray, guess what I got a flu yesterday and I feel just fine. My wife and I and most of my brothers and sisters have been getting flu shots every year for over 40 years and I can't remember anyone telling me they got sick. Thy myth that flu shots will make you sick has certainly contributed to the number of people that don't get vaccinated which cost us tens of thousands of lives every year.

I'm sure a majority don't get sick, but if you feel well, and then are faced with the possibility of getting sick because of the shot, you just don't take it. The times I've taken it, I've never experienced such a thing, but that doesn't mean it will always be that way in the future. My sister, who spent much of her life working in the hospital, took the shot and got the flu a week later.

If an when a vaccine comes out, I'm sure a lot of people will have reservations about getting one for some time. We can't deal out the media in this game. They will search high and low for stories of people getting ill or dying, because that's what sells newspapers and brings people to their internet
site, even if it is all bullshit. President Trump is absolutely correct when he says how dishonest most of our media is. They don't care about informing people, they care about making money, even if it's a disadvantage to society as a whole.

The vaccine tracker has 40 vaccines in progress.
There will certainly be a choice.

And Trump is last person you want to hear from about the media.
Because his favorite is OAN, a questionable source, at best.

And that choice may well be a burden as well as an opportunity. Who and how will decisions be made between less side effects and a higher percent effective, between costs and availability, single dose or multiple dose, etc. Also the successful vaccines will not become available all at the same time; that is we may have a 40% effective vaccine requiring two doses available in March and 3 months latter a 60% effective single dose vaccine with more side effects. My guess is that we will be lucky to have a vaccine available to the general public by the end of next year and even then it will take many months of inoculations before we start seeing decreasing numbers. This means we are going to have waves and hot spots breaking out for at least the next two years. So we better learn how to live with this virus and make decisions based on sound medical and economic data and advice, devoid of politics. It would be best if the president and other politicians would stop implying that a vaccine is just right around the corner and it's going wipe out the virus anytime in the near future. And telling the public that the virus is just going to disappear is about as helpful as a fart in spacesuit. We need to concentrate on saving lives and the economy, not some magical cure that does not exist and may not exist for a long time.

I have trouble understanding the logic stream of mask Nazis who scream about, "Just wear it, you MUST avoid catching Covid at all costs until there's a vaccine" . . . at which point, they're going to infect me with the disease they insisted I avoid being infected with. I honestly have to wonder if some people don't understand the concept of vaccines.

 

[dudmuck]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

I think there is a huge consensus among just everybody in the healthcare field in regard to mask wearing. Of course it probably does not include your local bartender who is out of work, Sam the Surfer, and my granddaughter that thinks wearing a mask makes her look ugly. And there is a lot evidence coming contact tracing that shows that people that are asymptomatic are spreading the virus.

I read the opposite from the CDC just a few weeks ago. This tells you how everything changes. First a mask was no good, now it's mandated in cities and states across the country. Before asymptomatic people were low risk for spreading, now the risk of spreading is the same.

I think there is a difference between going to a restaurant and going to a doctors office. Doctors are exposed to ill people day in day out. For most of us, we will probably never be around a person with Covid unless you are a socialite, or your business relies on personal contact with people all day long. Although our antibody testing is far from perfected, some are suggesting that we are already in the herd process and there's no stopping it.

The problem with this thing is we've never experienced anything like it; at least with the technology we have today. Who knows......next year at this time, they may be telling us what a waste of time and money it was for us to wear a mask. We simply don't know.

Early on CDC said that masks would not protect you which was true then and is basically true today. Actually, there is a very small amount of protection for the wearer but not much. Herd immunity as defined by the scientist is a calculated estimate based on transmission rate and reproductive numbers for the virus. For this virus herd immunity is 70% of the population having been exposed, that is they have antibodies. That can be off by 10 or 15%. If the scientists definition of herd immunity is used, there should not be much difference in the calculation.

We may not have all the details of a virus but we know a lot about epidemics and how to control them. For example any airborne virus or a virus whose most common transmission is through the air, the key to stopping transmission is preventing the virus from reaching a host. Masks, plastic shields, staying away from the source of virus, staying at home, etc prevents the spread, a really easy to understand concept but pretty hard to implement in a large population.

We also know a lot about a virus based on the characteristics of the family. There are 6 types of coronavirus that can infect humans which includes Mers and SARS. They have many of the same characteristic but there are some differences. It's really fortunate that there was work done developing the SARS vaccine because this gave researchers a starting point in developing the vaccine for this member of the family. Making changes to the vaccine can be very simple. However, every time you change the vaccine you start over in testing. This is why it takes so long to develop a vaccine. The fact that we are willing to accept a vaccine which has is not very effective, 40% makes it more likely we will get one sooner rather later.

It's wishful thinking, but there certainly is no guarantee a vaccine can be developed. We still don't have vaccines for HIV, flu, even the common cold.

If a new vaccine came out and was approved by September, many Americans would be hesitant to take it including myself. It reminds me of when I bought my first computer and read up on it. It was a Dummy's book. The author warned his readers to never buy software 2.0. 2.0 software is the original version. When thousands of people use it problem free in trials, it's different than when you start passing it out to millions of people. That's when they discover the hidden flaws and imperfections. It's why you always wait until version 2.2. or 2.3 to come out. Those are the versions where the flaws have been corrected.

It's the same with new medications. Yes, it undergoes intense testing, but we won't know the results or drawbacks until it's been used on tens of millions of people. Even then, it could take years to find out if it has any long-term negative effects.

Before I take it, I would need 100% guarantee from my doctor that it won't have any harmful effects on me, corroborated by my cousin, who is a retired research doctor that supervised the laboratory where she worked. Until I get that, I may wait for a while if and when a vaccine comes out.

I agree with your assessment of a vaccine with a few exceptions.
We do have a vaccine for the flu. I get one every year. A vaccine to prevent the common cold has been difficult to make, primarily because there are more than 200 different varieties of viruses that can cause colds. Also, if there were such a vaccine, you would have to get a new one every year like the flu vaccine, plus it would probably be not very effective due to the rate these viruses mutate.

The HIV is nothing like the coronations family of viruses. The problem developing a vaccine for HIV lies in genetic makeup of the virus. Unlike coronavirus, HIV has an incredibly fast replication cycle, less than 24 hour. However, the real show stopper is that HIV is prone to frequent replication errors, churning out mutated copies of itself which recombine into new strains as the virus is passed from person to person.

This coronavirus is very similar to SARS which we have developed a vaccine. Also most of the organizations developing vaccines have already proved in the lab that their vaccine kills the virus and is so far harmless to humans. The big question market is how effective the vaccine will be. Typically vaccines like these are 40% to 70% effective. The CDC has implied that a 40% effective vaccine would be acceptable. Think about what this really means. If we are able to produce enough of the vaccine to make it available like the flu vaccine at every primary care doctors office, every pharmacy, hospital, and public health clinic, we might be able to get the same inoculation numbers as the flu vaccine which is 45% of the population by the end of next year. So we might just have have 148 million vaccinated with 40% less chance of getting the virus and the remainder no protection since they were not vaccinated. After a year or so we get more effective vaccines and thus more protection. My guess is we will reach herd immunity about the time of 2024 election.

I don't think we're going see an unemployment rate of less than 5% for at least a year or so and people will dying from coronavirus for many years, hopefully at a greatly reduced rate.

BTW You will never get a 100% guarantee that a vaccine will not harm you. Deaths caused by vaccines are less than 2 per million and in almost all of those cases the person had a compromised immune system or had other conditions. You're probably more likely to get killed by a lightening strike than a vaccine.

I happen to be one of those people. I am 60 years old, and one of my two major medical conditions is the number one condition associated with death. It's one of the reasons I'd be so hesitant to take it.

If we (or others) do develop a vaccine for this thing, it should be able to wipe it out. Unlike the flu, it won't mutate so rapidly or differently, if it does at all. Experts have said if it would, then a weaker much less deadly strain would take it's place, unlike the flu. And if it does again, the next strain will be weaker yet.

Plus I think careless people have become more conscious of cleanliness now. You still can't find hand sanitizer or liquid soap in some stores. Fortunately for me, one of my tenants works at a store where they had and abundance of it because of customer limitations. She brought home some sanitizer for me and I was grateful she did. I should have plenty for while, at least until the shelves get fully stocked again. In addition, GoJo, the people who make Purell, are opening up a factory in my suburb. With some luck, they will let the citizens buy direct from them. And thanks to President Trump, there is this:

US bets on small, untested company to deliver COVID vaccine

When precious vats of COVID-19 vaccine are finally ready, jabbing the lifesaving solution into the arms of Americans will require hundreds of millions of injections.

fox8.com

Every vaccine is different. For the influenza vaccine given to day, you should avoid it if you:

• Have had an allergic reaction after a previous dose of influenza vaccine, or have any severe, life-threatening allergies.
• Have ever had Guillain-Barré Syndrome (also called GBS).

In order to wipe out the coronavirus, we would need a participation much more than the 45% we get with the influenza vaccine. The CDC did a big study of why people don't get the flu vaccine. As it turns only about 2% of the population has medical condition to disqualify them. If everyone that was eligible to take the flu shot did, we would nearly wipe it out. That means last year we would have saved the lives of nearly 57,000 people, prevented an illness that sickens nearly 40 million people plus an economic impact in the hundreds of millions.

With over 50 vaccines in test trials, I don't think we will need to worry about a vaccine being available next year.

I only take the flu shot once in a while. I've known many people who came down with illness after they took the shot. Some years, you get vaccinated for one strain, but a new strain comes out that makes the original vaccine worthless.

I have little doubt a vaccine for Covid will be made, it's just a matter of how effective it is, how many people get it, how many are restricted from getting it, and any serious side-effects many of us will be waiting for before we have confidence it's beneficial to us.

The reason you have a flu shot every year is to pickup protection for new strains of the viruses.

Viruses making you ill go back years when live viruses were used in most vaccines. That is no longer necessary. Today, if one person get's a flu shot and get's sick, they are almost certain to spread the news. However, for the tens of thousands of people that get flu shots and have no reaction at all, they remain silent. Ray, how often do people stop you on the street or call you and say, "Ray, guess what I got a flu yesterday and I feel just fine. My wife and I and most of my brothers and sisters have been getting flu shots every year for over 40 years and I can't remember anyone telling me they got sick. Thy myth that flu shots will make you sick has certainly contributed to the number of people that don't get vaccinated which cost us tens of thousands of lives every year.

I'm sure a majority don't get sick, but if you feel well, and then are faced with the possibility of getting sick because of the shot, you just don't take it. The times I've taken it, I've never experienced such a thing, but that doesn't mean it will always be that way in the future. My sister, who spent much of her life working in the hospital, took the shot and got the flu a week later.

If an when a vaccine comes out, I'm sure a lot of people will have reservations about getting one for some time. We can't deal out the media in this game. They will search high and low for stories of people getting ill or dying, because that's what sells newspapers and brings people to their internet
site, even if it is all bullshit. President Trump is absolutely correct when he says how dishonest most of our media is. They don't care about informing people, they care about making money, even if it's a disadvantage to society as a whole.

The vaccine tracker has 40 vaccines in progress.
There will certainly be a choice.

And Trump is last person you want to hear from about the media.
Because his favorite is OAN, a questionable source, at best.

And that choice may well be a burden as well as an opportunity. Who and how will decisions be made between less side effects and a higher percent effective, between costs and availability, single dose or multiple dose, etc. Also the successful vaccines will not become available all at the same time; that is we may have a 40% effective vaccine requiring two doses available in March and 3 months latter a 60% effective single dose vaccine with more side effects. My guess is that we will be lucky to have a vaccine available to the general public by the end of next year and even then it will take many months of inoculations before we start seeing decreasing numbers. This means we are going to have waves and hot spots breaking out for at least the next two years. So we better learn how to live with this virus and make decisions based on sound medical and economic data and advice, devoid of politics. It would be best if the president and other politicians would stop implying that a vaccine is just right around the corner and it's going wipe out the virus anytime in the near future. And telling the public that the virus is just going to disappear is about as helpful as a fart in spacesuit. We need to concentrate on saving lives and the economy, not some magical cure that does not exist and may not exist for a long time.

I have trouble understanding the logic stream of mask Nazis who scream about, "Just wear it, you MUST avoid catching Covid at all costs until there's a vaccine" . . . at which point, they're going to infect me with the disease they insisted I avoid being infected with. I honestly have to wonder if some people don't understand the concept of vaccines.

The concept of a vaccine is to train your immune system to generate the antibodies against the virus, without causing harm to the vaccinated person.
The reason it takes so long to get a vaccine its the requirement to verify that its effective and that it doesnt cause harm. This requires double-blind randomized trials.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

I think there is a huge consensus among just everybody in the healthcare field in regard to mask wearing. Of course it probably does not include your local bartender who is out of work, Sam the Surfer, and my granddaughter that thinks wearing a mask makes her look ugly. And there is a lot evidence coming contact tracing that shows that people that are asymptomatic are spreading the virus.

I read the opposite from the CDC just a few weeks ago. This tells you how everything changes. First a mask was no good, now it's mandated in cities and states across the country. Before asymptomatic people were low risk for spreading, now the risk of spreading is the same.

I think there is a difference between going to a restaurant and going to a doctors office. Doctors are exposed to ill people day in day out. For most of us, we will probably never be around a person with Covid unless you are a socialite, or your business relies on personal contact with people all day long. Although our antibody testing is far from perfected, some are suggesting that we are already in the herd process and there's no stopping it.

The problem with this thing is we've never experienced anything like it; at least with the technology we have today. Who knows......next year at this time, they may be telling us what a waste of time and money it was for us to wear a mask. We simply don't know.

Early on CDC said that masks would not protect you which was true then and is basically true today. Actually, there is a very small amount of protection for the wearer but not much. Herd immunity as defined by the scientist is a calculated estimate based on transmission rate and reproductive numbers for the virus. For this virus herd immunity is 70% of the population having been exposed, that is they have antibodies. That can be off by 10 or 15%. If the scientists definition of herd immunity is used, there should not be much difference in the calculation.

We may not have all the details of a virus but we know a lot about epidemics and how to control them. For example any airborne virus or a virus whose most common transmission is through the air, the key to stopping transmission is preventing the virus from reaching a host. Masks, plastic shields, staying away from the source of virus, staying at home, etc prevents the spread, a really easy to understand concept but pretty hard to implement in a large population.

We also know a lot about a virus based on the characteristics of the family. There are 6 types of coronavirus that can infect humans which includes Mers and SARS. They have many of the same characteristic but there are some differences. It's really fortunate that there was work done developing the SARS vaccine because this gave researchers a starting point in developing the vaccine for this member of the family. Making changes to the vaccine can be very simple. However, every time you change the vaccine you start over in testing. This is why it takes so long to develop a vaccine. The fact that we are willing to accept a vaccine which has is not very effective, 40% makes it more likely we will get one sooner rather later.

It's wishful thinking, but there certainly is no guarantee a vaccine can be developed. We still don't have vaccines for HIV, flu, even the common cold.

If a new vaccine came out and was approved by September, many Americans would be hesitant to take it including myself. It reminds me of when I bought my first computer and read up on it. It was a Dummy's book. The author warned his readers to never buy software 2.0. 2.0 software is the original version. When thousands of people use it problem free in trials, it's different than when you start passing it out to millions of people. That's when they discover the hidden flaws and imperfections. It's why you always wait until version 2.2. or 2.3 to come out. Those are the versions where the flaws have been corrected.

It's the same with new medications. Yes, it undergoes intense testing, but we won't know the results or drawbacks until it's been used on tens of millions of people. Even then, it could take years to find out if it has any long-term negative effects.

Before I take it, I would need 100% guarantee from my doctor that it won't have any harmful effects on me, corroborated by my cousin, who is a retired research doctor that supervised the laboratory where she worked. Until I get that, I may wait for a while if and when a vaccine comes out.

I agree with your assessment of a vaccine with a few exceptions.
We do have a vaccine for the flu. I get one every year. A vaccine to prevent the common cold has been difficult to make, primarily because there are more than 200 different varieties of viruses that can cause colds. Also, if there were such a vaccine, you would have to get a new one every year like the flu vaccine, plus it would probably be not very effective due to the rate these viruses mutate.

The HIV is nothing like the coronations family of viruses. The problem developing a vaccine for HIV lies in genetic makeup of the virus. Unlike coronavirus, HIV has an incredibly fast replication cycle, less than 24 hour. However, the real show stopper is that HIV is prone to frequent replication errors, churning out mutated copies of itself which recombine into new strains as the virus is passed from person to person.

This coronavirus is very similar to SARS which we have developed a vaccine. Also most of the organizations developing vaccines have already proved in the lab that their vaccine kills the virus and is so far harmless to humans. The big question market is how effective the vaccine will be. Typically vaccines like these are 40% to 70% effective. The CDC has implied that a 40% effective vaccine would be acceptable. Think about what this really means. If we are able to produce enough of the vaccine to make it available like the flu vaccine at every primary care doctors office, every pharmacy, hospital, and public health clinic, we might be able to get the same inoculation numbers as the flu vaccine which is 45% of the population by the end of next year. So we might just have have 148 million vaccinated with 40% less chance of getting the virus and the remainder no protection since they were not vaccinated. After a year or so we get more effective vaccines and thus more protection. My guess is we will reach herd immunity about the time of 2024 election.

I don't think we're going see an unemployment rate of less than 5% for at least a year or so and people will dying from coronavirus for many years, hopefully at a greatly reduced rate.

BTW You will never get a 100% guarantee that a vaccine will not harm you. Deaths caused by vaccines are less than 2 per million and in almost all of those cases the person had a compromised immune system or had other conditions. You're probably more likely to get killed by a lightening strike than a vaccine.

I happen to be one of those people. I am 60 years old, and one of my two major medical conditions is the number one condition associated with death. It's one of the reasons I'd be so hesitant to take it.

If we (or others) do develop a vaccine for this thing, it should be able to wipe it out. Unlike the flu, it won't mutate so rapidly or differently, if it does at all. Experts have said if it would, then a weaker much less deadly strain would take it's place, unlike the flu. And if it does again, the next strain will be weaker yet.

Plus I think careless people have become more conscious of cleanliness now. You still can't find hand sanitizer or liquid soap in some stores. Fortunately for me, one of my tenants works at a store where they had and abundance of it because of customer limitations. She brought home some sanitizer for me and I was grateful she did. I should have plenty for while, at least until the shelves get fully stocked again. In addition, GoJo, the people who make Purell, are opening up a factory in my suburb. With some luck, they will let the citizens buy direct from them. And thanks to President Trump, there is this:

US bets on small, untested company to deliver COVID vaccine

When precious vats of COVID-19 vaccine are finally ready, jabbing the lifesaving solution into the arms of Americans will require hundreds of millions of injections.

fox8.com

Every vaccine is different. For the influenza vaccine given to day, you should avoid it if you:

• Have had an allergic reaction after a previous dose of influenza vaccine, or have any severe, life-threatening allergies.
• Have ever had Guillain-Barré Syndrome (also called GBS).

In order to wipe out the coronavirus, we would need a participation much more than the 45% we get with the influenza vaccine. The CDC did a big study of why people don't get the flu vaccine. As it turns only about 2% of the population has medical condition to disqualify them. If everyone that was eligible to take the flu shot did, we would nearly wipe it out. That means last year we would have saved the lives of nearly 57,000 people, prevented an illness that sickens nearly 40 million people plus an economic impact in the hundreds of millions.

With over 50 vaccines in test trials, I don't think we will need to worry about a vaccine being available next year.

I only take the flu shot once in a while. I've known many people who came down with illness after they took the shot. Some years, you get vaccinated for one strain, but a new strain comes out that makes the original vaccine worthless.

I have little doubt a vaccine for Covid will be made, it's just a matter of how effective it is, how many people get it, how many are restricted from getting it, and any serious side-effects many of us will be waiting for before we have confidence it's beneficial to us.

The reason you have a flu shot every year is to pickup protection for new strains of the viruses.

Viruses making you ill go back years when live viruses were used in most vaccines. That is no longer necessary. Today, if one person get's a flu shot and get's sick, they are almost certain to spread the news. However, for the tens of thousands of people that get flu shots and have no reaction at all, they remain silent. Ray, how often do people stop you on the street or call you and say, "Ray, guess what I got a flu yesterday and I feel just fine. My wife and I and most of my brothers and sisters have been getting flu shots every year for over 40 years and I can't remember anyone telling me they got sick. Thy myth that flu shots will make you sick has certainly contributed to the number of people that don't get vaccinated which cost us tens of thousands of lives every year.

I'm sure a majority don't get sick, but if you feel well, and then are faced with the possibility of getting sick because of the shot, you just don't take it. The times I've taken it, I've never experienced such a thing, but that doesn't mean it will always be that way in the future. My sister, who spent much of her life working in the hospital, took the shot and got the flu a week later.

If an when a vaccine comes out, I'm sure a lot of people will have reservations about getting one for some time. We can't deal out the media in this game. They will search high and low for stories of people getting ill or dying, because that's what sells newspapers and brings people to their internet
site, even if it is all bullshit. President Trump is absolutely correct when he says how dishonest most of our media is. They don't care about informing people, they care about making money, even if it's a disadvantage to society as a whole.

The vaccine tracker has 40 vaccines in progress.
There will certainly be a choice.

And Trump is last person you want to hear from about the media.
Because his favorite is OAN, a questionable source, at best.

And that choice may well be a burden as well as an opportunity. Who and how will decisions be made between less side effects and a higher percent effective, between costs and availability, single dose or multiple dose, etc. Also the successful vaccines will not become available all at the same time; that is we may have a 40% effective vaccine requiring two doses available in March and 3 months latter a 60% effective single dose vaccine with more side effects. My guess is that we will be lucky to have a vaccine available to the general public by the end of next year and even then it will take many months of inoculations before we start seeing decreasing numbers. This means we are going to have waves and hot spots breaking out for at least the next two years. So we better learn how to live with this virus and make decisions based on sound medical and economic data and advice, devoid of politics. It would be best if the president and other politicians would stop implying that a vaccine is just right around the corner and it's going wipe out the virus anytime in the near future. And telling the public that the virus is just going to disappear is about as helpful as a fart in spacesuit. We need to concentrate on saving lives and the economy, not some magical cure that does not exist and may not exist for a long time.

I have trouble understanding the logic stream of mask Nazis who scream about, "Just wear it, you MUST avoid catching Covid at all costs until there's a vaccine" . . . at which point, they're going to infect me with the disease they insisted I avoid being infected with. I honestly have to wonder if some people don't understand the concept of vaccines.

The concept of a vaccine is to train your immune system to generate the antibodies against the virus, without causing harm to the vaccinated person.
The reason it takes so long to get a vaccine its the requirement to verify that its effective and that it doesnt cause harm. This requires double-blind randomized trials.

Except that the virus wouldn't cause harm to me, either, any more than any of the other germs I come into contact with every day. And I can acquire immunity that way a hell of a lot faster than I can through FDA approval.

Understand, I don't have a problem with vaccinations for diseases that are a serious threat. As a child, I was vaccinated against measles, mumps, everything but chickenpox (that vaccine didn't exist at the time). All my kids have received the standard childhood vaccinations. And I think a vaccine for Covid-19, assuming an effective one is developed, is a great idea for those in vulnerable populations.

But my post is talking about ME. I don't get flu vaccines every year, because the flu is nothing more than an inconvenience to my immune system, and it's very easy for me to avoid people who are vulnerable to it until after I've caught that year's strain and fought it off. Left to my own devices, instead of being hysterically "protected" by the political hypochondriacs among us, I would actually prefer to simply catch coronavirus, get over it, and move the fuck on to being forced to act like it's the second coming of the Black Death.

 

[dudmuck]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

I think there is a huge consensus among just everybody in the healthcare field in regard to mask wearing. Of course it probably does not include your local bartender who is out of work, Sam the Surfer, and my granddaughter that thinks wearing a mask makes her look ugly. And there is a lot evidence coming contact tracing that shows that people that are asymptomatic are spreading the virus.

I read the opposite from the CDC just a few weeks ago. This tells you how everything changes. First a mask was no good, now it's mandated in cities and states across the country. Before asymptomatic people were low risk for spreading, now the risk of spreading is the same.

I think there is a difference between going to a restaurant and going to a doctors office. Doctors are exposed to ill people day in day out. For most of us, we will probably never be around a person with Covid unless you are a socialite, or your business relies on personal contact with people all day long. Although our antibody testing is far from perfected, some are suggesting that we are already in the herd process and there's no stopping it.

The problem with this thing is we've never experienced anything like it; at least with the technology we have today. Who knows......next year at this time, they may be telling us what a waste of time and money it was for us to wear a mask. We simply don't know.

Early on CDC said that masks would not protect you which was true then and is basically true today. Actually, there is a very small amount of protection for the wearer but not much. Herd immunity as defined by the scientist is a calculated estimate based on transmission rate and reproductive numbers for the virus. For this virus herd immunity is 70% of the population having been exposed, that is they have antibodies. That can be off by 10 or 15%. If the scientists definition of herd immunity is used, there should not be much difference in the calculation.

We may not have all the details of a virus but we know a lot about epidemics and how to control them. For example any airborne virus or a virus whose most common transmission is through the air, the key to stopping transmission is preventing the virus from reaching a host. Masks, plastic shields, staying away from the source of virus, staying at home, etc prevents the spread, a really easy to understand concept but pretty hard to implement in a large population.

We also know a lot about a virus based on the characteristics of the family. There are 6 types of coronavirus that can infect humans which includes Mers and SARS. They have many of the same characteristic but there are some differences. It's really fortunate that there was work done developing the SARS vaccine because this gave researchers a starting point in developing the vaccine for this member of the family. Making changes to the vaccine can be very simple. However, every time you change the vaccine you start over in testing. This is why it takes so long to develop a vaccine. The fact that we are willing to accept a vaccine which has is not very effective, 40% makes it more likely we will get one sooner rather later.

It's wishful thinking, but there certainly is no guarantee a vaccine can be developed. We still don't have vaccines for HIV, flu, even the common cold.

If a new vaccine came out and was approved by September, many Americans would be hesitant to take it including myself. It reminds me of when I bought my first computer and read up on it. It was a Dummy's book. The author warned his readers to never buy software 2.0. 2.0 software is the original version. When thousands of people use it problem free in trials, it's different than when you start passing it out to millions of people. That's when they discover the hidden flaws and imperfections. It's why you always wait until version 2.2. or 2.3 to come out. Those are the versions where the flaws have been corrected.

It's the same with new medications. Yes, it undergoes intense testing, but we won't know the results or drawbacks until it's been used on tens of millions of people. Even then, it could take years to find out if it has any long-term negative effects.

Before I take it, I would need 100% guarantee from my doctor that it won't have any harmful effects on me, corroborated by my cousin, who is a retired research doctor that supervised the laboratory where she worked. Until I get that, I may wait for a while if and when a vaccine comes out.

I agree with your assessment of a vaccine with a few exceptions.
We do have a vaccine for the flu. I get one every year. A vaccine to prevent the common cold has been difficult to make, primarily because there are more than 200 different varieties of viruses that can cause colds. Also, if there were such a vaccine, you would have to get a new one every year like the flu vaccine, plus it would probably be not very effective due to the rate these viruses mutate.

The HIV is nothing like the coronations family of viruses. The problem developing a vaccine for HIV lies in genetic makeup of the virus. Unlike coronavirus, HIV has an incredibly fast replication cycle, less than 24 hour. However, the real show stopper is that HIV is prone to frequent replication errors, churning out mutated copies of itself which recombine into new strains as the virus is passed from person to person.

This coronavirus is very similar to SARS which we have developed a vaccine. Also most of the organizations developing vaccines have already proved in the lab that their vaccine kills the virus and is so far harmless to humans. The big question market is how effective the vaccine will be. Typically vaccines like these are 40% to 70% effective. The CDC has implied that a 40% effective vaccine would be acceptable. Think about what this really means. If we are able to produce enough of the vaccine to make it available like the flu vaccine at every primary care doctors office, every pharmacy, hospital, and public health clinic, we might be able to get the same inoculation numbers as the flu vaccine which is 45% of the population by the end of next year. So we might just have have 148 million vaccinated with 40% less chance of getting the virus and the remainder no protection since they were not vaccinated. After a year or so we get more effective vaccines and thus more protection. My guess is we will reach herd immunity about the time of 2024 election.

I don't think we're going see an unemployment rate of less than 5% for at least a year or so and people will dying from coronavirus for many years, hopefully at a greatly reduced rate.

BTW You will never get a 100% guarantee that a vaccine will not harm you. Deaths caused by vaccines are less than 2 per million and in almost all of those cases the person had a compromised immune system or had other conditions. You're probably more likely to get killed by a lightening strike than a vaccine.

I happen to be one of those people. I am 60 years old, and one of my two major medical conditions is the number one condition associated with death. It's one of the reasons I'd be so hesitant to take it.

If we (or others) do develop a vaccine for this thing, it should be able to wipe it out. Unlike the flu, it won't mutate so rapidly or differently, if it does at all. Experts have said if it would, then a weaker much less deadly strain would take it's place, unlike the flu. And if it does again, the next strain will be weaker yet.

Plus I think careless people have become more conscious of cleanliness now. You still can't find hand sanitizer or liquid soap in some stores. Fortunately for me, one of my tenants works at a store where they had and abundance of it because of customer limitations. She brought home some sanitizer for me and I was grateful she did. I should have plenty for while, at least until the shelves get fully stocked again. In addition, GoJo, the people who make Purell, are opening up a factory in my suburb. With some luck, they will let the citizens buy direct from them. And thanks to President Trump, there is this:

US bets on small, untested company to deliver COVID vaccine

When precious vats of COVID-19 vaccine are finally ready, jabbing the lifesaving solution into the arms of Americans will require hundreds of millions of injections.

fox8.com

Every vaccine is different. For the influenza vaccine given to day, you should avoid it if you:

• Have had an allergic reaction after a previous dose of influenza vaccine, or have any severe, life-threatening allergies.
• Have ever had Guillain-Barré Syndrome (also called GBS).

In order to wipe out the coronavirus, we would need a participation much more than the 45% we get with the influenza vaccine. The CDC did a big study of why people don't get the flu vaccine. As it turns only about 2% of the population has medical condition to disqualify them. If everyone that was eligible to take the flu shot did, we would nearly wipe it out. That means last year we would have saved the lives of nearly 57,000 people, prevented an illness that sickens nearly 40 million people plus an economic impact in the hundreds of millions.

With over 50 vaccines in test trials, I don't think we will need to worry about a vaccine being available next year.

I only take the flu shot once in a while. I've known many people who came down with illness after they took the shot. Some years, you get vaccinated for one strain, but a new strain comes out that makes the original vaccine worthless.

I have little doubt a vaccine for Covid will be made, it's just a matter of how effective it is, how many people get it, how many are restricted from getting it, and any serious side-effects many of us will be waiting for before we have confidence it's beneficial to us.

The reason you have a flu shot every year is to pickup protection for new strains of the viruses.

Viruses making you ill go back years when live viruses were used in most vaccines. That is no longer necessary. Today, if one person get's a flu shot and get's sick, they are almost certain to spread the news. However, for the tens of thousands of people that get flu shots and have no reaction at all, they remain silent. Ray, how often do people stop you on the street or call you and say, "Ray, guess what I got a flu yesterday and I feel just fine. My wife and I and most of my brothers and sisters have been getting flu shots every year for over 40 years and I can't remember anyone telling me they got sick. Thy myth that flu shots will make you sick has certainly contributed to the number of people that don't get vaccinated which cost us tens of thousands of lives every year.

I'm sure a majority don't get sick, but if you feel well, and then are faced with the possibility of getting sick because of the shot, you just don't take it. The times I've taken it, I've never experienced such a thing, but that doesn't mean it will always be that way in the future. My sister, who spent much of her life working in the hospital, took the shot and got the flu a week later.

If an when a vaccine comes out, I'm sure a lot of people will have reservations about getting one for some time. We can't deal out the media in this game. They will search high and low for stories of people getting ill or dying, because that's what sells newspapers and brings people to their internet
site, even if it is all bullshit. President Trump is absolutely correct when he says how dishonest most of our media is. They don't care about informing people, they care about making money, even if it's a disadvantage to society as a whole.

The vaccine tracker has 40 vaccines in progress.
There will certainly be a choice.

And Trump is last person you want to hear from about the media.
Because his favorite is OAN, a questionable source, at best.

And that choice may well be a burden as well as an opportunity. Who and how will decisions be made between less side effects and a higher percent effective, between costs and availability, single dose or multiple dose, etc. Also the successful vaccines will not become available all at the same time; that is we may have a 40% effective vaccine requiring two doses available in March and 3 months latter a 60% effective single dose vaccine with more side effects. My guess is that we will be lucky to have a vaccine available to the general public by the end of next year and even then it will take many months of inoculations before we start seeing decreasing numbers. This means we are going to have waves and hot spots breaking out for at least the next two years. So we better learn how to live with this virus and make decisions based on sound medical and economic data and advice, devoid of politics. It would be best if the president and other politicians would stop implying that a vaccine is just right around the corner and it's going wipe out the virus anytime in the near future. And telling the public that the virus is just going to disappear is about as helpful as a fart in spacesuit. We need to concentrate on saving lives and the economy, not some magical cure that does not exist and may not exist for a long time.

I have trouble understanding the logic stream of mask Nazis who scream about, "Just wear it, you MUST avoid catching Covid at all costs until there's a vaccine" . . . at which point, they're going to infect me with the disease they insisted I avoid being infected with. I honestly have to wonder if some people don't understand the concept of vaccines.

The concept of a vaccine is to train your immune system to generate the antibodies against the virus, without causing harm to the vaccinated person.
The reason it takes so long to get a vaccine its the requirement to verify that its effective and that it doesnt cause harm. This requires double-blind randomized trials.

Except that the virus wouldn't cause harm to me, either, any more than any of the other germs I come into contact with every day. And I can acquire immunity that way a hell of a lot faster than I can through FDA approval.

Understand, I don't have a problem with vaccinations for diseases that are a serious threat. As a child, I was vaccinated against measles, mumps, everything but chickenpox (that vaccine didn't exist at the time). All my kids have received the standard childhood vaccinations. And I think a vaccine for Covid-19, assuming an effective one is developed, is a great idea for those in vulnerable populations.

But my post is talking about ME. I don't get flu vaccines every year, because the flu is nothing more than an inconvenience to my immune system, and it's very easy for me to avoid people who are vulnerable to it until after I've caught that year's strain and fought it off. Left to my own devices, instead of being hysterically "protected" by the political hypochondriacs among us, I would actually prefer to simply catch coronavirus, get over it, and move the fuck on to being forced to act like it's the second coming of the Black Death.

I would also prefer to catch the virus and get it over with, but...
1) we dont know how long antibodies for this stay in the body. Can we become re-infected, after X months?
2) how bad our reaction to the virus depends on the viral load. If we're exposed to too much of the virus quickly, our immune system cant generate antibodies quick enough to fight the virus. The virus itself could be a good vaccine if delivered in known quantities, but how to measure.
3) people who react badly to the virus have: A) high sugar diet (compromised endothelial function) aka high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity. Before being exposed to virus, these need to be fixed, along with sufficient vitamin D levels, zinc, etc. Other factors such as blood type. (the virus blocks ACE2 receptor function)

 

[Slyhunter]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

I think there is a huge consensus among just everybody in the healthcare field in regard to mask wearing. Of course it probably does not include your local bartender who is out of work, Sam the Surfer, and my granddaughter that thinks wearing a mask makes her look ugly. And there is a lot evidence coming contact tracing that shows that people that are asymptomatic are spreading the virus.

I read the opposite from the CDC just a few weeks ago. This tells you how everything changes. First a mask was no good, now it's mandated in cities and states across the country. Before asymptomatic people were low risk for spreading, now the risk of spreading is the same.

I think there is a difference between going to a restaurant and going to a doctors office. Doctors are exposed to ill people day in day out. For most of us, we will probably never be around a person with Covid unless you are a socialite, or your business relies on personal contact with people all day long. Although our antibody testing is far from perfected, some are suggesting that we are already in the herd process and there's no stopping it.

The problem with this thing is we've never experienced anything like it; at least with the technology we have today. Who knows......next year at this time, they may be telling us what a waste of time and money it was for us to wear a mask. We simply don't know.

Early on CDC said that masks would not protect you which was true then and is basically true today. Actually, there is a very small amount of protection for the wearer but not much. Herd immunity as defined by the scientist is a calculated estimate based on transmission rate and reproductive numbers for the virus. For this virus herd immunity is 70% of the population having been exposed, that is they have antibodies. That can be off by 10 or 15%. If the scientists definition of herd immunity is used, there should not be much difference in the calculation.

We may not have all the details of a virus but we know a lot about epidemics and how to control them. For example any airborne virus or a virus whose most common transmission is through the air, the key to stopping transmission is preventing the virus from reaching a host. Masks, plastic shields, staying away from the source of virus, staying at home, etc prevents the spread, a really easy to understand concept but pretty hard to implement in a large population.

We also know a lot about a virus based on the characteristics of the family. There are 6 types of coronavirus that can infect humans which includes Mers and SARS. They have many of the same characteristic but there are some differences. It's really fortunate that there was work done developing the SARS vaccine because this gave researchers a starting point in developing the vaccine for this member of the family. Making changes to the vaccine can be very simple. However, every time you change the vaccine you start over in testing. This is why it takes so long to develop a vaccine. The fact that we are willing to accept a vaccine which has is not very effective, 40% makes it more likely we will get one sooner rather later.

It's wishful thinking, but there certainly is no guarantee a vaccine can be developed. We still don't have vaccines for HIV, flu, even the common cold.

If a new vaccine came out and was approved by September, many Americans would be hesitant to take it including myself. It reminds me of when I bought my first computer and read up on it. It was a Dummy's book. The author warned his readers to never buy software 2.0. 2.0 software is the original version. When thousands of people use it problem free in trials, it's different than when you start passing it out to millions of people. That's when they discover the hidden flaws and imperfections. It's why you always wait until version 2.2. or 2.3 to come out. Those are the versions where the flaws have been corrected.

It's the same with new medications. Yes, it undergoes intense testing, but we won't know the results or drawbacks until it's been used on tens of millions of people. Even then, it could take years to find out if it has any long-term negative effects.

Before I take it, I would need 100% guarantee from my doctor that it won't have any harmful effects on me, corroborated by my cousin, who is a retired research doctor that supervised the laboratory where she worked. Until I get that, I may wait for a while if and when a vaccine comes out.

I agree with your assessment of a vaccine with a few exceptions.
We do have a vaccine for the flu. I get one every year. A vaccine to prevent the common cold has been difficult to make, primarily because there are more than 200 different varieties of viruses that can cause colds. Also, if there were such a vaccine, you would have to get a new one every year like the flu vaccine, plus it would probably be not very effective due to the rate these viruses mutate.

The HIV is nothing like the coronations family of viruses. The problem developing a vaccine for HIV lies in genetic makeup of the virus. Unlike coronavirus, HIV has an incredibly fast replication cycle, less than 24 hour. However, the real show stopper is that HIV is prone to frequent replication errors, churning out mutated copies of itself which recombine into new strains as the virus is passed from person to person.

This coronavirus is very similar to SARS which we have developed a vaccine. Also most of the organizations developing vaccines have already proved in the lab that their vaccine kills the virus and is so far harmless to humans. The big question market is how effective the vaccine will be. Typically vaccines like these are 40% to 70% effective. The CDC has implied that a 40% effective vaccine would be acceptable. Think about what this really means. If we are able to produce enough of the vaccine to make it available like the flu vaccine at every primary care doctors office, every pharmacy, hospital, and public health clinic, we might be able to get the same inoculation numbers as the flu vaccine which is 45% of the population by the end of next year. So we might just have have 148 million vaccinated with 40% less chance of getting the virus and the remainder no protection since they were not vaccinated. After a year or so we get more effective vaccines and thus more protection. My guess is we will reach herd immunity about the time of 2024 election.

I don't think we're going see an unemployment rate of less than 5% for at least a year or so and people will dying from coronavirus for many years, hopefully at a greatly reduced rate.

BTW You will never get a 100% guarantee that a vaccine will not harm you. Deaths caused by vaccines are less than 2 per million and in almost all of those cases the person had a compromised immune system or had other conditions. You're probably more likely to get killed by a lightening strike than a vaccine.

I happen to be one of those people. I am 60 years old, and one of my two major medical conditions is the number one condition associated with death. It's one of the reasons I'd be so hesitant to take it.

If we (or others) do develop a vaccine for this thing, it should be able to wipe it out. Unlike the flu, it won't mutate so rapidly or differently, if it does at all. Experts have said if it would, then a weaker much less deadly strain would take it's place, unlike the flu. And if it does again, the next strain will be weaker yet.

Plus I think careless people have become more conscious of cleanliness now. You still can't find hand sanitizer or liquid soap in some stores. Fortunately for me, one of my tenants works at a store where they had and abundance of it because of customer limitations. She brought home some sanitizer for me and I was grateful she did. I should have plenty for while, at least until the shelves get fully stocked again. In addition, GoJo, the people who make Purell, are opening up a factory in my suburb. With some luck, they will let the citizens buy direct from them. And thanks to President Trump, there is this:

US bets on small, untested company to deliver COVID vaccine

When precious vats of COVID-19 vaccine are finally ready, jabbing the lifesaving solution into the arms of Americans will require hundreds of millions of injections.

fox8.com

Every vaccine is different. For the influenza vaccine given to day, you should avoid it if you:

• Have had an allergic reaction after a previous dose of influenza vaccine, or have any severe, life-threatening allergies.
• Have ever had Guillain-Barré Syndrome (also called GBS).

In order to wipe out the coronavirus, we would need a participation much more than the 45% we get with the influenza vaccine. The CDC did a big study of why people don't get the flu vaccine. As it turns only about 2% of the population has medical condition to disqualify them. If everyone that was eligible to take the flu shot did, we would nearly wipe it out. That means last year we would have saved the lives of nearly 57,000 people, prevented an illness that sickens nearly 40 million people plus an economic impact in the hundreds of millions.

With over 50 vaccines in test trials, I don't think we will need to worry about a vaccine being available next year.

I only take the flu shot once in a while. I've known many people who came down with illness after they took the shot. Some years, you get vaccinated for one strain, but a new strain comes out that makes the original vaccine worthless.

I have little doubt a vaccine for Covid will be made, it's just a matter of how effective it is, how many people get it, how many are restricted from getting it, and any serious side-effects many of us will be waiting for before we have confidence it's beneficial to us.

The reason you have a flu shot every year is to pickup protection for new strains of the viruses.

Viruses making you ill go back years when live viruses were used in most vaccines. That is no longer necessary. Today, if one person get's a flu shot and get's sick, they are almost certain to spread the news. However, for the tens of thousands of people that get flu shots and have no reaction at all, they remain silent. Ray, how often do people stop you on the street or call you and say, "Ray, guess what I got a flu yesterday and I feel just fine. My wife and I and most of my brothers and sisters have been getting flu shots every year for over 40 years and I can't remember anyone telling me they got sick. Thy myth that flu shots will make you sick has certainly contributed to the number of people that don't get vaccinated which cost us tens of thousands of lives every year.

I'm sure a majority don't get sick, but if you feel well, and then are faced with the possibility of getting sick because of the shot, you just don't take it. The times I've taken it, I've never experienced such a thing, but that doesn't mean it will always be that way in the future. My sister, who spent much of her life working in the hospital, took the shot and got the flu a week later.

If an when a vaccine comes out, I'm sure a lot of people will have reservations about getting one for some time. We can't deal out the media in this game. They will search high and low for stories of people getting ill or dying, because that's what sells newspapers and brings people to their internet
site, even if it is all bullshit. President Trump is absolutely correct when he says how dishonest most of our media is. They don't care about informing people, they care about making money, even if it's a disadvantage to society as a whole.

The vaccine tracker has 40 vaccines in progress.
There will certainly be a choice.

And Trump is last person you want to hear from about the media.
Because his favorite is OAN, a questionable source, at best.

And that choice may well be a burden as well as an opportunity. Who and how will decisions be made between less side effects and a higher percent effective, between costs and availability, single dose or multiple dose, etc. Also the successful vaccines will not become available all at the same time; that is we may have a 40% effective vaccine requiring two doses available in March and 3 months latter a 60% effective single dose vaccine with more side effects. My guess is that we will be lucky to have a vaccine available to the general public by the end of next year and even then it will take many months of inoculations before we start seeing decreasing numbers. This means we are going to have waves and hot spots breaking out for at least the next two years. So we better learn how to live with this virus and make decisions based on sound medical and economic data and advice, devoid of politics. It would be best if the president and other politicians would stop implying that a vaccine is just right around the corner and it's going wipe out the virus anytime in the near future. And telling the public that the virus is just going to disappear is about as helpful as a fart in spacesuit. We need to concentrate on saving lives and the economy, not some magical cure that does not exist and may not exist for a long time.

I have trouble understanding the logic stream of mask Nazis who scream about, "Just wear it, you MUST avoid catching Covid at all costs until there's a vaccine" . . . at which point, they're going to infect me with the disease they insisted I avoid being infected with. I honestly have to wonder if some people don't understand the concept of vaccines.

The concept of a vaccine is to train your immune system to generate the antibodies against the virus, without causing harm to the vaccinated person.
The reason it takes so long to get a vaccine its the requirement to verify that its effective and that it doesnt cause harm. This requires double-blind randomized trials.

Ever think that maybe vaccinations are the problem? What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

I think there is a huge consensus among just everybody in the healthcare field in regard to mask wearing. Of course it probably does not include your local bartender who is out of work, Sam the Surfer, and my granddaughter that thinks wearing a mask makes her look ugly. And there is a lot evidence coming contact tracing that shows that people that are asymptomatic are spreading the virus.

I read the opposite from the CDC just a few weeks ago. This tells you how everything changes. First a mask was no good, now it's mandated in cities and states across the country. Before asymptomatic people were low risk for spreading, now the risk of spreading is the same.

I think there is a difference between going to a restaurant and going to a doctors office. Doctors are exposed to ill people day in day out. For most of us, we will probably never be around a person with Covid unless you are a socialite, or your business relies on personal contact with people all day long. Although our antibody testing is far from perfected, some are suggesting that we are already in the herd process and there's no stopping it.

The problem with this thing is we've never experienced anything like it; at least with the technology we have today. Who knows......next year at this time, they may be telling us what a waste of time and money it was for us to wear a mask. We simply don't know.

Early on CDC said that masks would not protect you which was true then and is basically true today. Actually, there is a very small amount of protection for the wearer but not much. Herd immunity as defined by the scientist is a calculated estimate based on transmission rate and reproductive numbers for the virus. For this virus herd immunity is 70% of the population having been exposed, that is they have antibodies. That can be off by 10 or 15%. If the scientists definition of herd immunity is used, there should not be much difference in the calculation.

We may not have all the details of a virus but we know a lot about epidemics and how to control them. For example any airborne virus or a virus whose most common transmission is through the air, the key to stopping transmission is preventing the virus from reaching a host. Masks, plastic shields, staying away from the source of virus, staying at home, etc prevents the spread, a really easy to understand concept but pretty hard to implement in a large population.

We also know a lot about a virus based on the characteristics of the family. There are 6 types of coronavirus that can infect humans which includes Mers and SARS. They have many of the same characteristic but there are some differences. It's really fortunate that there was work done developing the SARS vaccine because this gave researchers a starting point in developing the vaccine for this member of the family. Making changes to the vaccine can be very simple. However, every time you change the vaccine you start over in testing. This is why it takes so long to develop a vaccine. The fact that we are willing to accept a vaccine which has is not very effective, 40% makes it more likely we will get one sooner rather later.

It's wishful thinking, but there certainly is no guarantee a vaccine can be developed. We still don't have vaccines for HIV, flu, even the common cold.

If a new vaccine came out and was approved by September, many Americans would be hesitant to take it including myself. It reminds me of when I bought my first computer and read up on it. It was a Dummy's book. The author warned his readers to never buy software 2.0. 2.0 software is the original version. When thousands of people use it problem free in trials, it's different than when you start passing it out to millions of people. That's when they discover the hidden flaws and imperfections. It's why you always wait until version 2.2. or 2.3 to come out. Those are the versions where the flaws have been corrected.

It's the same with new medications. Yes, it undergoes intense testing, but we won't know the results or drawbacks until it's been used on tens of millions of people. Even then, it could take years to find out if it has any long-term negative effects.

Before I take it, I would need 100% guarantee from my doctor that it won't have any harmful effects on me, corroborated by my cousin, who is a retired research doctor that supervised the laboratory where she worked. Until I get that, I may wait for a while if and when a vaccine comes out.

I agree with your assessment of a vaccine with a few exceptions.
We do have a vaccine for the flu. I get one every year. A vaccine to prevent the common cold has been difficult to make, primarily because there are more than 200 different varieties of viruses that can cause colds. Also, if there were such a vaccine, you would have to get a new one every year like the flu vaccine, plus it would probably be not very effective due to the rate these viruses mutate.

The HIV is nothing like the coronations family of viruses. The problem developing a vaccine for HIV lies in genetic makeup of the virus. Unlike coronavirus, HIV has an incredibly fast replication cycle, less than 24 hour. However, the real show stopper is that HIV is prone to frequent replication errors, churning out mutated copies of itself which recombine into new strains as the virus is passed from person to person.

This coronavirus is very similar to SARS which we have developed a vaccine. Also most of the organizations developing vaccines have already proved in the lab that their vaccine kills the virus and is so far harmless to humans. The big question market is how effective the vaccine will be. Typically vaccines like these are 40% to 70% effective. The CDC has implied that a 40% effective vaccine would be acceptable. Think about what this really means. If we are able to produce enough of the vaccine to make it available like the flu vaccine at every primary care doctors office, every pharmacy, hospital, and public health clinic, we might be able to get the same inoculation numbers as the flu vaccine which is 45% of the population by the end of next year. So we might just have have 148 million vaccinated with 40% less chance of getting the virus and the remainder no protection since they were not vaccinated. After a year or so we get more effective vaccines and thus more protection. My guess is we will reach herd immunity about the time of 2024 election.

I don't think we're going see an unemployment rate of less than 5% for at least a year or so and people will dying from coronavirus for many years, hopefully at a greatly reduced rate.

BTW You will never get a 100% guarantee that a vaccine will not harm you. Deaths caused by vaccines are less than 2 per million and in almost all of those cases the person had a compromised immune system or had other conditions. You're probably more likely to get killed by a lightening strike than a vaccine.

I happen to be one of those people. I am 60 years old, and one of my two major medical conditions is the number one condition associated with death. It's one of the reasons I'd be so hesitant to take it.

If we (or others) do develop a vaccine for this thing, it should be able to wipe it out. Unlike the flu, it won't mutate so rapidly or differently, if it does at all. Experts have said if it would, then a weaker much less deadly strain would take it's place, unlike the flu. And if it does again, the next strain will be weaker yet.

Plus I think careless people have become more conscious of cleanliness now. You still can't find hand sanitizer or liquid soap in some stores. Fortunately for me, one of my tenants works at a store where they had and abundance of it because of customer limitations. She brought home some sanitizer for me and I was grateful she did. I should have plenty for while, at least until the shelves get fully stocked again. In addition, GoJo, the people who make Purell, are opening up a factory in my suburb. With some luck, they will let the citizens buy direct from them. And thanks to President Trump, there is this:

US bets on small, untested company to deliver COVID vaccine

When precious vats of COVID-19 vaccine are finally ready, jabbing the lifesaving solution into the arms of Americans will require hundreds of millions of injections.

fox8.com

Every vaccine is different. For the influenza vaccine given to day, you should avoid it if you:

• Have had an allergic reaction after a previous dose of influenza vaccine, or have any severe, life-threatening allergies.
• Have ever had Guillain-Barré Syndrome (also called GBS).

In order to wipe out the coronavirus, we would need a participation much more than the 45% we get with the influenza vaccine. The CDC did a big study of why people don't get the flu vaccine. As it turns only about 2% of the population has medical condition to disqualify them. If everyone that was eligible to take the flu shot did, we would nearly wipe it out. That means last year we would have saved the lives of nearly 57,000 people, prevented an illness that sickens nearly 40 million people plus an economic impact in the hundreds of millions.

With over 50 vaccines in test trials, I don't think we will need to worry about a vaccine being available next year.

I only take the flu shot once in a while. I've known many people who came down with illness after they took the shot. Some years, you get vaccinated for one strain, but a new strain comes out that makes the original vaccine worthless.

I have little doubt a vaccine for Covid will be made, it's just a matter of how effective it is, how many people get it, how many are restricted from getting it, and any serious side-effects many of us will be waiting for before we have confidence it's beneficial to us.

The reason you have a flu shot every year is to pickup protection for new strains of the viruses.

Viruses making you ill go back years when live viruses were used in most vaccines. That is no longer necessary. Today, if one person get's a flu shot and get's sick, they are almost certain to spread the news. However, for the tens of thousands of people that get flu shots and have no reaction at all, they remain silent. Ray, how often do people stop you on the street or call you and say, "Ray, guess what I got a flu yesterday and I feel just fine. My wife and I and most of my brothers and sisters have been getting flu shots every year for over 40 years and I can't remember anyone telling me they got sick. Thy myth that flu shots will make you sick has certainly contributed to the number of people that don't get vaccinated which cost us tens of thousands of lives every year.

I'm sure a majority don't get sick, but if you feel well, and then are faced with the possibility of getting sick because of the shot, you just don't take it. The times I've taken it, I've never experienced such a thing, but that doesn't mean it will always be that way in the future. My sister, who spent much of her life working in the hospital, took the shot and got the flu a week later.

If an when a vaccine comes out, I'm sure a lot of people will have reservations about getting one for some time. We can't deal out the media in this game. They will search high and low for stories of people getting ill or dying, because that's what sells newspapers and brings people to their internet
site, even if it is all bullshit. President Trump is absolutely correct when he says how dishonest most of our media is. They don't care about informing people, they care about making money, even if it's a disadvantage to society as a whole.

The vaccine tracker has 40 vaccines in progress.
There will certainly be a choice.

And Trump is last person you want to hear from about the media.
Because his favorite is OAN, a questionable source, at best.

And that choice may well be a burden as well as an opportunity. Who and how will decisions be made between less side effects and a higher percent effective, between costs and availability, single dose or multiple dose, etc. Also the successful vaccines will not become available all at the same time; that is we may have a 40% effective vaccine requiring two doses available in March and 3 months latter a 60% effective single dose vaccine with more side effects. My guess is that we will be lucky to have a vaccine available to the general public by the end of next year and even then it will take many months of inoculations before we start seeing decreasing numbers. This means we are going to have waves and hot spots breaking out for at least the next two years. So we better learn how to live with this virus and make decisions based on sound medical and economic data and advice, devoid of politics. It would be best if the president and other politicians would stop implying that a vaccine is just right around the corner and it's going wipe out the virus anytime in the near future. And telling the public that the virus is just going to disappear is about as helpful as a fart in spacesuit. We need to concentrate on saving lives and the economy, not some magical cure that does not exist and may not exist for a long time.

I have trouble understanding the logic stream of mask Nazis who scream about, "Just wear it, you MUST avoid catching Covid at all costs until there's a vaccine" . . . at which point, they're going to infect me with the disease they insisted I avoid being infected with. I honestly have to wonder if some people don't understand the concept of vaccines.

The concept of a vaccine is to train your immune system to generate the antibodies against the virus, without causing harm to the vaccinated person.
The reason it takes so long to get a vaccine its the requirement to verify that its effective and that it doesnt cause harm. This requires double-blind randomized trials.

Ever think that maybe vaccinations are the problem? What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

Correct, but the concept is to create a situation where both are accomplished.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

I think there is a huge consensus among just everybody in the healthcare field in regard to mask wearing. Of course it probably does not include your local bartender who is out of work, Sam the Surfer, and my granddaughter that thinks wearing a mask makes her look ugly. And there is a lot evidence coming contact tracing that shows that people that are asymptomatic are spreading the virus.

I read the opposite from the CDC just a few weeks ago. This tells you how everything changes. First a mask was no good, now it's mandated in cities and states across the country. Before asymptomatic people were low risk for spreading, now the risk of spreading is the same.

I think there is a difference between going to a restaurant and going to a doctors office. Doctors are exposed to ill people day in day out. For most of us, we will probably never be around a person with Covid unless you are a socialite, or your business relies on personal contact with people all day long. Although our antibody testing is far from perfected, some are suggesting that we are already in the herd process and there's no stopping it.

The problem with this thing is we've never experienced anything like it; at least with the technology we have today. Who knows......next year at this time, they may be telling us what a waste of time and money it was for us to wear a mask. We simply don't know.

Early on CDC said that masks would not protect you which was true then and is basically true today. Actually, there is a very small amount of protection for the wearer but not much. Herd immunity as defined by the scientist is a calculated estimate based on transmission rate and reproductive numbers for the virus. For this virus herd immunity is 70% of the population having been exposed, that is they have antibodies. That can be off by 10 or 15%. If the scientists definition of herd immunity is used, there should not be much difference in the calculation.

We may not have all the details of a virus but we know a lot about epidemics and how to control them. For example any airborne virus or a virus whose most common transmission is through the air, the key to stopping transmission is preventing the virus from reaching a host. Masks, plastic shields, staying away from the source of virus, staying at home, etc prevents the spread, a really easy to understand concept but pretty hard to implement in a large population.

We also know a lot about a virus based on the characteristics of the family. There are 6 types of coronavirus that can infect humans which includes Mers and SARS. They have many of the same characteristic but there are some differences. It's really fortunate that there was work done developing the SARS vaccine because this gave researchers a starting point in developing the vaccine for this member of the family. Making changes to the vaccine can be very simple. However, every time you change the vaccine you start over in testing. This is why it takes so long to develop a vaccine. The fact that we are willing to accept a vaccine which has is not very effective, 40% makes it more likely we will get one sooner rather later.

It's wishful thinking, but there certainly is no guarantee a vaccine can be developed. We still don't have vaccines for HIV, flu, even the common cold.

If a new vaccine came out and was approved by September, many Americans would be hesitant to take it including myself. It reminds me of when I bought my first computer and read up on it. It was a Dummy's book. The author warned his readers to never buy software 2.0. 2.0 software is the original version. When thousands of people use it problem free in trials, it's different than when you start passing it out to millions of people. That's when they discover the hidden flaws and imperfections. It's why you always wait until version 2.2. or 2.3 to come out. Those are the versions where the flaws have been corrected.

It's the same with new medications. Yes, it undergoes intense testing, but we won't know the results or drawbacks until it's been used on tens of millions of people. Even then, it could take years to find out if it has any long-term negative effects.

Before I take it, I would need 100% guarantee from my doctor that it won't have any harmful effects on me, corroborated by my cousin, who is a retired research doctor that supervised the laboratory where she worked. Until I get that, I may wait for a while if and when a vaccine comes out.

I agree with your assessment of a vaccine with a few exceptions.
We do have a vaccine for the flu. I get one every year. A vaccine to prevent the common cold has been difficult to make, primarily because there are more than 200 different varieties of viruses that can cause colds. Also, if there were such a vaccine, you would have to get a new one every year like the flu vaccine, plus it would probably be not very effective due to the rate these viruses mutate.

The HIV is nothing like the coronations family of viruses. The problem developing a vaccine for HIV lies in genetic makeup of the virus. Unlike coronavirus, HIV has an incredibly fast replication cycle, less than 24 hour. However, the real show stopper is that HIV is prone to frequent replication errors, churning out mutated copies of itself which recombine into new strains as the virus is passed from person to person.

This coronavirus is very similar to SARS which we have developed a vaccine. Also most of the organizations developing vaccines have already proved in the lab that their vaccine kills the virus and is so far harmless to humans. The big question market is how effective the vaccine will be. Typically vaccines like these are 40% to 70% effective. The CDC has implied that a 40% effective vaccine would be acceptable. Think about what this really means. If we are able to produce enough of the vaccine to make it available like the flu vaccine at every primary care doctors office, every pharmacy, hospital, and public health clinic, we might be able to get the same inoculation numbers as the flu vaccine which is 45% of the population by the end of next year. So we might just have have 148 million vaccinated with 40% less chance of getting the virus and the remainder no protection since they were not vaccinated. After a year or so we get more effective vaccines and thus more protection. My guess is we will reach herd immunity about the time of 2024 election.

I don't think we're going see an unemployment rate of less than 5% for at least a year or so and people will dying from coronavirus for many years, hopefully at a greatly reduced rate.

BTW You will never get a 100% guarantee that a vaccine will not harm you. Deaths caused by vaccines are less than 2 per million and in almost all of those cases the person had a compromised immune system or had other conditions. You're probably more likely to get killed by a lightening strike than a vaccine.

I happen to be one of those people. I am 60 years old, and one of my two major medical conditions is the number one condition associated with death. It's one of the reasons I'd be so hesitant to take it.

If we (or others) do develop a vaccine for this thing, it should be able to wipe it out. Unlike the flu, it won't mutate so rapidly or differently, if it does at all. Experts have said if it would, then a weaker much less deadly strain would take it's place, unlike the flu. And if it does again, the next strain will be weaker yet.

Plus I think careless people have become more conscious of cleanliness now. You still can't find hand sanitizer or liquid soap in some stores. Fortunately for me, one of my tenants works at a store where they had and abundance of it because of customer limitations. She brought home some sanitizer for me and I was grateful she did. I should have plenty for while, at least until the shelves get fully stocked again. In addition, GoJo, the people who make Purell, are opening up a factory in my suburb. With some luck, they will let the citizens buy direct from them. And thanks to President Trump, there is this:

US bets on small, untested company to deliver COVID vaccine

When precious vats of COVID-19 vaccine are finally ready, jabbing the lifesaving solution into the arms of Americans will require hundreds of millions of injections.

fox8.com

Every vaccine is different. For the influenza vaccine given to day, you should avoid it if you:

• Have had an allergic reaction after a previous dose of influenza vaccine, or have any severe, life-threatening allergies.
• Have ever had Guillain-Barré Syndrome (also called GBS).

In order to wipe out the coronavirus, we would need a participation much more than the 45% we get with the influenza vaccine. The CDC did a big study of why people don't get the flu vaccine. As it turns only about 2% of the population has medical condition to disqualify them. If everyone that was eligible to take the flu shot did, we would nearly wipe it out. That means last year we would have saved the lives of nearly 57,000 people, prevented an illness that sickens nearly 40 million people plus an economic impact in the hundreds of millions.

With over 50 vaccines in test trials, I don't think we will need to worry about a vaccine being available next year.

I only take the flu shot once in a while. I've known many people who came down with illness after they took the shot. Some years, you get vaccinated for one strain, but a new strain comes out that makes the original vaccine worthless.

I have little doubt a vaccine for Covid will be made, it's just a matter of how effective it is, how many people get it, how many are restricted from getting it, and any serious side-effects many of us will be waiting for before we have confidence it's beneficial to us.

The reason you have a flu shot every year is to pickup protection for new strains of the viruses.

Viruses making you ill go back years when live viruses were used in most vaccines. That is no longer necessary. Today, if one person get's a flu shot and get's sick, they are almost certain to spread the news. However, for the tens of thousands of people that get flu shots and have no reaction at all, they remain silent. Ray, how often do people stop you on the street or call you and say, "Ray, guess what I got a flu yesterday and I feel just fine. My wife and I and most of my brothers and sisters have been getting flu shots every year for over 40 years and I can't remember anyone telling me they got sick. Thy myth that flu shots will make you sick has certainly contributed to the number of people that don't get vaccinated which cost us tens of thousands of lives every year.

I'm sure a majority don't get sick, but if you feel well, and then are faced with the possibility of getting sick because of the shot, you just don't take it. The times I've taken it, I've never experienced such a thing, but that doesn't mean it will always be that way in the future. My sister, who spent much of her life working in the hospital, took the shot and got the flu a week later.

If an when a vaccine comes out, I'm sure a lot of people will have reservations about getting one for some time. We can't deal out the media in this game. They will search high and low for stories of people getting ill or dying, because that's what sells newspapers and brings people to their internet
site, even if it is all bullshit. President Trump is absolutely correct when he says how dishonest most of our media is. They don't care about informing people, they care about making money, even if it's a disadvantage to society as a whole.

The vaccine tracker has 40 vaccines in progress.
There will certainly be a choice.

And Trump is last person you want to hear from about the media.
Because his favorite is OAN, a questionable source, at best.

And that choice may well be a burden as well as an opportunity. Who and how will decisions be made between less side effects and a higher percent effective, between costs and availability, single dose or multiple dose, etc. Also the successful vaccines will not become available all at the same time; that is we may have a 40% effective vaccine requiring two doses available in March and 3 months latter a 60% effective single dose vaccine with more side effects. My guess is that we will be lucky to have a vaccine available to the general public by the end of next year and even then it will take many months of inoculations before we start seeing decreasing numbers. This means we are going to have waves and hot spots breaking out for at least the next two years. So we better learn how to live with this virus and make decisions based on sound medical and economic data and advice, devoid of politics. It would be best if the president and other politicians would stop implying that a vaccine is just right around the corner and it's going wipe out the virus anytime in the near future. And telling the public that the virus is just going to disappear is about as helpful as a fart in spacesuit. We need to concentrate on saving lives and the economy, not some magical cure that does not exist and may not exist for a long time.

I have trouble understanding the logic stream of mask Nazis who scream about, "Just wear it, you MUST avoid catching Covid at all costs until there's a vaccine" . . . at which point, they're going to infect me with the disease they insisted I avoid being infected with. I honestly have to wonder if some people don't understand the concept of vaccines.

The concept of a vaccine is to train your immune system to generate the antibodies against the virus, without causing harm to the vaccinated person.
The reason it takes so long to get a vaccine its the requirement to verify that its effective and that it doesnt cause harm. This requires double-blind randomized trials.

Except that the virus wouldn't cause harm to me, either, any more than any of the other germs I come into contact with every day. And I can acquire immunity that way a hell of a lot faster than I can through FDA approval.

Understand, I don't have a problem with vaccinations for diseases that are a serious threat. As a child, I was vaccinated against measles, mumps, everything but chickenpox (that vaccine didn't exist at the time). All my kids have received the standard childhood vaccinations. And I think a vaccine for Covid-19, assuming an effective one is developed, is a great idea for those in vulnerable populations.

But my post is talking about ME. I don't get flu vaccines every year, because the flu is nothing more than an inconvenience to my immune system, and it's very easy for me to avoid people who are vulnerable to it until after I've caught that year's strain and fought it off. Left to my own devices, instead of being hysterically "protected" by the political hypochondriacs among us, I would actually prefer to simply catch coronavirus, get over it, and move the fuck on to being forced to act like it's the second coming of the Black Death.

I would also prefer to catch the virus and get it over with, but...
1) we dont know how long antibodies for this stay in the body. Can we become re-infected, after X months?
2) how bad our reaction to the virus depends on the viral load. If we're exposed to too much of the virus quickly, our immune system cant generate antibodies quick enough to fight the virus. The virus itself could be a good vaccine if delivered in known quantities, but how to measure.
3) people who react badly to the virus have: A) high sugar diet (compromised endothelial function) aka high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity. Before being exposed to virus, these need to be fixed, along with sufficient vitamin D levels, zinc, etc. Other factors such as blood type. (the virus blocks ACE2 receptor function)

Well, #1 is equally true of vaccines, but that doesn't seem to stop anyone from treating them as the be-all and end-all we must bring the world to dead stop to wait for.

#2, you continue to act like this virus is overwhelmingly dangerous and life-threatening to large numbers of people. While you're not necessarily wrong about viral loads, you're DEAD wrong in your assumption that this is an issue for any but a small percentage of people, which indicates that you're totally ignoring all news, stats, and evidence that doesn't support your preferred apocalyptic vision.

#3, I'm well aware of all those facts, and I have no idea why you think it's necessary to gas away about them in response to my post about myself, since I have none of those indicators.

The fact remains, the decisions about what's best for me are being made by people who know nothing about me, on the basis of their own priorities and agendas, not mine.

 

[dudmuck]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

I think there is a huge consensus among just everybody in the healthcare field in regard to mask wearing. Of course it probably does not include your local bartender who is out of work, Sam the Surfer, and my granddaughter that thinks wearing a mask makes her look ugly. And there is a lot evidence coming contact tracing that shows that people that are asymptomatic are spreading the virus.

I read the opposite from the CDC just a few weeks ago. This tells you how everything changes. First a mask was no good, now it's mandated in cities and states across the country. Before asymptomatic people were low risk for spreading, now the risk of spreading is the same.

I think there is a difference between going to a restaurant and going to a doctors office. Doctors are exposed to ill people day in day out. For most of us, we will probably never be around a person with Covid unless you are a socialite, or your business relies on personal contact with people all day long. Although our antibody testing is far from perfected, some are suggesting that we are already in the herd process and there's no stopping it.

The problem with this thing is we've never experienced anything like it; at least with the technology we have today. Who knows......next year at this time, they may be telling us what a waste of time and money it was for us to wear a mask. We simply don't know.

Early on CDC said that masks would not protect you which was true then and is basically true today. Actually, there is a very small amount of protection for the wearer but not much. Herd immunity as defined by the scientist is a calculated estimate based on transmission rate and reproductive numbers for the virus. For this virus herd immunity is 70% of the population having been exposed, that is they have antibodies. That can be off by 10 or 15%. If the scientists definition of herd immunity is used, there should not be much difference in the calculation.

We may not have all the details of a virus but we know a lot about epidemics and how to control them. For example any airborne virus or a virus whose most common transmission is through the air, the key to stopping transmission is preventing the virus from reaching a host. Masks, plastic shields, staying away from the source of virus, staying at home, etc prevents the spread, a really easy to understand concept but pretty hard to implement in a large population.

We also know a lot about a virus based on the characteristics of the family. There are 6 types of coronavirus that can infect humans which includes Mers and SARS. They have many of the same characteristic but there are some differences. It's really fortunate that there was work done developing the SARS vaccine because this gave researchers a starting point in developing the vaccine for this member of the family. Making changes to the vaccine can be very simple. However, every time you change the vaccine you start over in testing. This is why it takes so long to develop a vaccine. The fact that we are willing to accept a vaccine which has is not very effective, 40% makes it more likely we will get one sooner rather later.

It's wishful thinking, but there certainly is no guarantee a vaccine can be developed. We still don't have vaccines for HIV, flu, even the common cold.

If a new vaccine came out and was approved by September, many Americans would be hesitant to take it including myself. It reminds me of when I bought my first computer and read up on it. It was a Dummy's book. The author warned his readers to never buy software 2.0. 2.0 software is the original version. When thousands of people use it problem free in trials, it's different than when you start passing it out to millions of people. That's when they discover the hidden flaws and imperfections. It's why you always wait until version 2.2. or 2.3 to come out. Those are the versions where the flaws have been corrected.

It's the same with new medications. Yes, it undergoes intense testing, but we won't know the results or drawbacks until it's been used on tens of millions of people. Even then, it could take years to find out if it has any long-term negative effects.

Before I take it, I would need 100% guarantee from my doctor that it won't have any harmful effects on me, corroborated by my cousin, who is a retired research doctor that supervised the laboratory where she worked. Until I get that, I may wait for a while if and when a vaccine comes out.

I agree with your assessment of a vaccine with a few exceptions.
We do have a vaccine for the flu. I get one every year. A vaccine to prevent the common cold has been difficult to make, primarily because there are more than 200 different varieties of viruses that can cause colds. Also, if there were such a vaccine, you would have to get a new one every year like the flu vaccine, plus it would probably be not very effective due to the rate these viruses mutate.

The HIV is nothing like the coronations family of viruses. The problem developing a vaccine for HIV lies in genetic makeup of the virus. Unlike coronavirus, HIV has an incredibly fast replication cycle, less than 24 hour. However, the real show stopper is that HIV is prone to frequent replication errors, churning out mutated copies of itself which recombine into new strains as the virus is passed from person to person.

This coronavirus is very similar to SARS which we have developed a vaccine. Also most of the organizations developing vaccines have already proved in the lab that their vaccine kills the virus and is so far harmless to humans. The big question market is how effective the vaccine will be. Typically vaccines like these are 40% to 70% effective. The CDC has implied that a 40% effective vaccine would be acceptable. Think about what this really means. If we are able to produce enough of the vaccine to make it available like the flu vaccine at every primary care doctors office, every pharmacy, hospital, and public health clinic, we might be able to get the same inoculation numbers as the flu vaccine which is 45% of the population by the end of next year. So we might just have have 148 million vaccinated with 40% less chance of getting the virus and the remainder no protection since they were not vaccinated. After a year or so we get more effective vaccines and thus more protection. My guess is we will reach herd immunity about the time of 2024 election.

I don't think we're going see an unemployment rate of less than 5% for at least a year or so and people will dying from coronavirus for many years, hopefully at a greatly reduced rate.

BTW You will never get a 100% guarantee that a vaccine will not harm you. Deaths caused by vaccines are less than 2 per million and in almost all of those cases the person had a compromised immune system or had other conditions. You're probably more likely to get killed by a lightening strike than a vaccine.

I happen to be one of those people. I am 60 years old, and one of my two major medical conditions is the number one condition associated with death. It's one of the reasons I'd be so hesitant to take it.

If we (or others) do develop a vaccine for this thing, it should be able to wipe it out. Unlike the flu, it won't mutate so rapidly or differently, if it does at all. Experts have said if it would, then a weaker much less deadly strain would take it's place, unlike the flu. And if it does again, the next strain will be weaker yet.

Plus I think careless people have become more conscious of cleanliness now. You still can't find hand sanitizer or liquid soap in some stores. Fortunately for me, one of my tenants works at a store where they had and abundance of it because of customer limitations. She brought home some sanitizer for me and I was grateful she did. I should have plenty for while, at least until the shelves get fully stocked again. In addition, GoJo, the people who make Purell, are opening up a factory in my suburb. With some luck, they will let the citizens buy direct from them. And thanks to President Trump, there is this:

US bets on small, untested company to deliver COVID vaccine

When precious vats of COVID-19 vaccine are finally ready, jabbing the lifesaving solution into the arms of Americans will require hundreds of millions of injections.

fox8.com

Every vaccine is different. For the influenza vaccine given to day, you should avoid it if you:

• Have had an allergic reaction after a previous dose of influenza vaccine, or have any severe, life-threatening allergies.
• Have ever had Guillain-Barré Syndrome (also called GBS).

In order to wipe out the coronavirus, we would need a participation much more than the 45% we get with the influenza vaccine. The CDC did a big study of why people don't get the flu vaccine. As it turns only about 2% of the population has medical condition to disqualify them. If everyone that was eligible to take the flu shot did, we would nearly wipe it out. That means last year we would have saved the lives of nearly 57,000 people, prevented an illness that sickens nearly 40 million people plus an economic impact in the hundreds of millions.

With over 50 vaccines in test trials, I don't think we will need to worry about a vaccine being available next year.

I only take the flu shot once in a while. I've known many people who came down with illness after they took the shot. Some years, you get vaccinated for one strain, but a new strain comes out that makes the original vaccine worthless.

I have little doubt a vaccine for Covid will be made, it's just a matter of how effective it is, how many people get it, how many are restricted from getting it, and any serious side-effects many of us will be waiting for before we have confidence it's beneficial to us.

The reason you have a flu shot every year is to pickup protection for new strains of the viruses.

Viruses making you ill go back years when live viruses were used in most vaccines. That is no longer necessary. Today, if one person get's a flu shot and get's sick, they are almost certain to spread the news. However, for the tens of thousands of people that get flu shots and have no reaction at all, they remain silent. Ray, how often do people stop you on the street or call you and say, "Ray, guess what I got a flu yesterday and I feel just fine. My wife and I and most of my brothers and sisters have been getting flu shots every year for over 40 years and I can't remember anyone telling me they got sick. Thy myth that flu shots will make you sick has certainly contributed to the number of people that don't get vaccinated which cost us tens of thousands of lives every year.

I'm sure a majority don't get sick, but if you feel well, and then are faced with the possibility of getting sick because of the shot, you just don't take it. The times I've taken it, I've never experienced such a thing, but that doesn't mean it will always be that way in the future. My sister, who spent much of her life working in the hospital, took the shot and got the flu a week later.

If an when a vaccine comes out, I'm sure a lot of people will have reservations about getting one for some time. We can't deal out the media in this game. They will search high and low for stories of people getting ill or dying, because that's what sells newspapers and brings people to their internet
site, even if it is all bullshit. President Trump is absolutely correct when he says how dishonest most of our media is. They don't care about informing people, they care about making money, even if it's a disadvantage to society as a whole.

The vaccine tracker has 40 vaccines in progress.
There will certainly be a choice.

And Trump is last person you want to hear from about the media.
Because his favorite is OAN, a questionable source, at best.

And that choice may well be a burden as well as an opportunity. Who and how will decisions be made between less side effects and a higher percent effective, between costs and availability, single dose or multiple dose, etc. Also the successful vaccines will not become available all at the same time; that is we may have a 40% effective vaccine requiring two doses available in March and 3 months latter a 60% effective single dose vaccine with more side effects. My guess is that we will be lucky to have a vaccine available to the general public by the end of next year and even then it will take many months of inoculations before we start seeing decreasing numbers. This means we are going to have waves and hot spots breaking out for at least the next two years. So we better learn how to live with this virus and make decisions based on sound medical and economic data and advice, devoid of politics. It would be best if the president and other politicians would stop implying that a vaccine is just right around the corner and it's going wipe out the virus anytime in the near future. And telling the public that the virus is just going to disappear is about as helpful as a fart in spacesuit. We need to concentrate on saving lives and the economy, not some magical cure that does not exist and may not exist for a long time.

I have trouble understanding the logic stream of mask Nazis who scream about, "Just wear it, you MUST avoid catching Covid at all costs until there's a vaccine" . . . at which point, they're going to infect me with the disease they insisted I avoid being infected with. I honestly have to wonder if some people don't understand the concept of vaccines.

The concept of a vaccine is to train your immune system to generate the antibodies against the virus, without causing harm to the vaccinated person.
The reason it takes so long to get a vaccine its the requirement to verify that its effective and that it doesnt cause harm. This requires double-blind randomized trials.

Except that the virus wouldn't cause harm to me, either, any more than any of the other germs I come into contact with every day. And I can acquire immunity that way a hell of a lot faster than I can through FDA approval.

Understand, I don't have a problem with vaccinations for diseases that are a serious threat. As a child, I was vaccinated against measles, mumps, everything but chickenpox (that vaccine didn't exist at the time). All my kids have received the standard childhood vaccinations. And I think a vaccine for Covid-19, assuming an effective one is developed, is a great idea for those in vulnerable populations.

But my post is talking about ME. I don't get flu vaccines every year, because the flu is nothing more than an inconvenience to my immune system, and it's very easy for me to avoid people who are vulnerable to it until after I've caught that year's strain and fought it off. Left to my own devices, instead of being hysterically "protected" by the political hypochondriacs among us, I would actually prefer to simply catch coronavirus, get over it, and move the fuck on to being forced to act like it's the second coming of the Black Death.

I would also prefer to catch the virus and get it over with, but...
1) we dont know how long antibodies for this stay in the body. Can we become re-infected, after X months?
2) how bad our reaction to the virus depends on the viral load. If we're exposed to too much of the virus quickly, our immune system cant generate antibodies quick enough to fight the virus. The virus itself could be a good vaccine if delivered in known quantities, but how to measure.
3) people who react badly to the virus have: A) high sugar diet (compromised endothelial function) aka high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity. Before being exposed to virus, these need to be fixed, along with sufficient vitamin D levels, zinc, etc. Other factors such as blood type. (the virus blocks ACE2 receptor function)

Well, #1 is equally true of vaccines, but that doesn't seem to stop anyone from treating them as the be-all and end-all we must bring the world to dead stop to wait for.

#2, you continue to act like this virus is overwhelmingly dangerous and life-threatening to large numbers of people. While you're not necessarily wrong about viral loads, you're DEAD wrong in your assumption that this is an issue for any but a small percentage of people, which indicates that you're totally ignoring all news, stats, and evidence that doesn't support your preferred apocalyptic vision.

#3, I'm well aware of all those facts, and I have no idea why you think it's necessary to gas away about them in response to my post about myself, since I have none of those indicators.

The fact remains, the decisions about what's best for me are being made by people who know nothing about me, on the basis of their own priorities and agendas, not mine.

1) No country needed to dead stop. It only effects gathers of people indoors. The countries that rid themselves of this have listened to scientists.

2) Around 1 in every 5 people who are infected with COVID-19 develop difficulty in breathing and require hospital care. The intent is to prevent hospitals from overflowing.

3) this is a public forum, others read it.

 

[Gracie]

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

Yup. And I STILL don't wear mine. I'd rather be tossed out and die than be stuck inside and burn up.

 

[Flopper]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

I think there is a huge consensus among just everybody in the healthcare field in regard to mask wearing. Of course it probably does not include your local bartender who is out of work, Sam the Surfer, and my granddaughter that thinks wearing a mask makes her look ugly. And there is a lot evidence coming contact tracing that shows that people that are asymptomatic are spreading the virus.

I read the opposite from the CDC just a few weeks ago. This tells you how everything changes. First a mask was no good, now it's mandated in cities and states across the country. Before asymptomatic people were low risk for spreading, now the risk of spreading is the same.

I think there is a difference between going to a restaurant and going to a doctors office. Doctors are exposed to ill people day in day out. For most of us, we will probably never be around a person with Covid unless you are a socialite, or your business relies on personal contact with people all day long. Although our antibody testing is far from perfected, some are suggesting that we are already in the herd process and there's no stopping it.

The problem with this thing is we've never experienced anything like it; at least with the technology we have today. Who knows......next year at this time, they may be telling us what a waste of time and money it was for us to wear a mask. We simply don't know.

Early on CDC said that masks would not protect you which was true then and is basically true today. Actually, there is a very small amount of protection for the wearer but not much. Herd immunity as defined by the scientist is a calculated estimate based on transmission rate and reproductive numbers for the virus. For this virus herd immunity is 70% of the population having been exposed, that is they have antibodies. That can be off by 10 or 15%. If the scientists definition of herd immunity is used, there should not be much difference in the calculation.

We may not have all the details of a virus but we know a lot about epidemics and how to control them. For example any airborne virus or a virus whose most common transmission is through the air, the key to stopping transmission is preventing the virus from reaching a host. Masks, plastic shields, staying away from the source of virus, staying at home, etc prevents the spread, a really easy to understand concept but pretty hard to implement in a large population.

We also know a lot about a virus based on the characteristics of the family. There are 6 types of coronavirus that can infect humans which includes Mers and SARS. They have many of the same characteristic but there are some differences. It's really fortunate that there was work done developing the SARS vaccine because this gave researchers a starting point in developing the vaccine for this member of the family. Making changes to the vaccine can be very simple. However, every time you change the vaccine you start over in testing. This is why it takes so long to develop a vaccine. The fact that we are willing to accept a vaccine which has is not very effective, 40% makes it more likely we will get one sooner rather later.

It's wishful thinking, but there certainly is no guarantee a vaccine can be developed. We still don't have vaccines for HIV, flu, even the common cold.

If a new vaccine came out and was approved by September, many Americans would be hesitant to take it including myself. It reminds me of when I bought my first computer and read up on it. It was a Dummy's book. The author warned his readers to never buy software 2.0. 2.0 software is the original version. When thousands of people use it problem free in trials, it's different than when you start passing it out to millions of people. That's when they discover the hidden flaws and imperfections. It's why you always wait until version 2.2. or 2.3 to come out. Those are the versions where the flaws have been corrected.

It's the same with new medications. Yes, it undergoes intense testing, but we won't know the results or drawbacks until it's been used on tens of millions of people. Even then, it could take years to find out if it has any long-term negative effects.

Before I take it, I would need 100% guarantee from my doctor that it won't have any harmful effects on me, corroborated by my cousin, who is a retired research doctor that supervised the laboratory where she worked. Until I get that, I may wait for a while if and when a vaccine comes out.

I agree with your assessment of a vaccine with a few exceptions.
We do have a vaccine for the flu. I get one every year. A vaccine to prevent the common cold has been difficult to make, primarily because there are more than 200 different varieties of viruses that can cause colds. Also, if there were such a vaccine, you would have to get a new one every year like the flu vaccine, plus it would probably be not very effective due to the rate these viruses mutate.

The HIV is nothing like the coronations family of viruses. The problem developing a vaccine for HIV lies in genetic makeup of the virus. Unlike coronavirus, HIV has an incredibly fast replication cycle, less than 24 hour. However, the real show stopper is that HIV is prone to frequent replication errors, churning out mutated copies of itself which recombine into new strains as the virus is passed from person to person.

This coronavirus is very similar to SARS which we have developed a vaccine. Also most of the organizations developing vaccines have already proved in the lab that their vaccine kills the virus and is so far harmless to humans. The big question market is how effective the vaccine will be. Typically vaccines like these are 40% to 70% effective. The CDC has implied that a 40% effective vaccine would be acceptable. Think about what this really means. If we are able to produce enough of the vaccine to make it available like the flu vaccine at every primary care doctors office, every pharmacy, hospital, and public health clinic, we might be able to get the same inoculation numbers as the flu vaccine which is 45% of the population by the end of next year. So we might just have have 148 million vaccinated with 40% less chance of getting the virus and the remainder no protection since they were not vaccinated. After a year or so we get more effective vaccines and thus more protection. My guess is we will reach herd immunity about the time of 2024 election.

I don't think we're going see an unemployment rate of less than 5% for at least a year or so and people will dying from coronavirus for many years, hopefully at a greatly reduced rate.

BTW You will never get a 100% guarantee that a vaccine will not harm you. Deaths caused by vaccines are less than 2 per million and in almost all of those cases the person had a compromised immune system or had other conditions. You're probably more likely to get killed by a lightening strike than a vaccine.

I happen to be one of those people. I am 60 years old, and one of my two major medical conditions is the number one condition associated with death. It's one of the reasons I'd be so hesitant to take it.

If we (or others) do develop a vaccine for this thing, it should be able to wipe it out. Unlike the flu, it won't mutate so rapidly or differently, if it does at all. Experts have said if it would, then a weaker much less deadly strain would take it's place, unlike the flu. And if it does again, the next strain will be weaker yet.

Plus I think careless people have become more conscious of cleanliness now. You still can't find hand sanitizer or liquid soap in some stores. Fortunately for me, one of my tenants works at a store where they had and abundance of it because of customer limitations. She brought home some sanitizer for me and I was grateful she did. I should have plenty for while, at least until the shelves get fully stocked again. In addition, GoJo, the people who make Purell, are opening up a factory in my suburb. With some luck, they will let the citizens buy direct from them. And thanks to President Trump, there is this:

US bets on small, untested company to deliver COVID vaccine

When precious vats of COVID-19 vaccine are finally ready, jabbing the lifesaving solution into the arms of Americans will require hundreds of millions of injections.

fox8.com

Every vaccine is different. For the influenza vaccine given to day, you should avoid it if you:

• Have had an allergic reaction after a previous dose of influenza vaccine, or have any severe, life-threatening allergies.
• Have ever had Guillain-Barré Syndrome (also called GBS).

In order to wipe out the coronavirus, we would need a participation much more than the 45% we get with the influenza vaccine. The CDC did a big study of why people don't get the flu vaccine. As it turns only about 2% of the population has medical condition to disqualify them. If everyone that was eligible to take the flu shot did, we would nearly wipe it out. That means last year we would have saved the lives of nearly 57,000 people, prevented an illness that sickens nearly 40 million people plus an economic impact in the hundreds of millions.

With over 50 vaccines in test trials, I don't think we will need to worry about a vaccine being available next year.

I only take the flu shot once in a while. I've known many people who came down with illness after they took the shot. Some years, you get vaccinated for one strain, but a new strain comes out that makes the original vaccine worthless.

I have little doubt a vaccine for Covid will be made, it's just a matter of how effective it is, how many people get it, how many are restricted from getting it, and any serious side-effects many of us will be waiting for before we have confidence it's beneficial to us.

The reason you have a flu shot every year is to pickup protection for new strains of the viruses.

Viruses making you ill go back years when live viruses were used in most vaccines. That is no longer necessary. Today, if one person get's a flu shot and get's sick, they are almost certain to spread the news. However, for the tens of thousands of people that get flu shots and have no reaction at all, they remain silent. Ray, how often do people stop you on the street or call you and say, "Ray, guess what I got a flu yesterday and I feel just fine. My wife and I and most of my brothers and sisters have been getting flu shots every year for over 40 years and I can't remember anyone telling me they got sick. Thy myth that flu shots will make you sick has certainly contributed to the number of people that don't get vaccinated which cost us tens of thousands of lives every year.

I'm sure a majority don't get sick, but if you feel well, and then are faced with the possibility of getting sick because of the shot, you just don't take it. The times I've taken it, I've never experienced such a thing, but that doesn't mean it will always be that way in the future. My sister, who spent much of her life working in the hospital, took the shot and got the flu a week later.

If an when a vaccine comes out, I'm sure a lot of people will have reservations about getting one for some time. We can't deal out the media in this game. They will search high and low for stories of people getting ill or dying, because that's what sells newspapers and brings people to their internet
site, even if it is all bullshit. President Trump is absolutely correct when he says how dishonest most of our media is. They don't care about informing people, they care about making money, even if it's a disadvantage to society as a whole.

The vaccine tracker has 40 vaccines in progress.
There will certainly be a choice.

And Trump is last person you want to hear from about the media.
Because his favorite is OAN, a questionable source, at best.

OAN is not really mainstream media, just media with a very small audience.

I (like most people I'm sure) are anxious for a safe and reliable vaccine to come out. Yes, people are working 24/7 around the globe to get it done. Of course, the winner of the race will get very wealthy provided no serious side-effects happen when they start vaccinating tens or hundreds of millions of people.

I've seen great economies and terrible economies. I've seen people predicting the end of the world for one reason or another. I've seen situations that look hopeless for not only myself, but more importantly, the country. But this is a new animal we've never experienced before. This is like a nightmare that won't stop, and you're just praying to wake up and realize it was nothing but a terrible dream.

Yes it is a nightmare. We are now retired with all the money we need to see the world, visit or favorite restaurants go to baseball and football games, attend jazz festivals, plays, concerts, spend much needed time at my local gym, and visit all my grandchildren, yet I sit at this damn computer, watch old movies, and clean out the the storage room for the third time. With probably only a few years left on this earth, I sure as hell hate to spend my time like this but having experience with a ventilator I certainly don't want to spend any time there either. I know a lot of people that have it worse, but it still really sucks.

However, looking at the situation from a more global point of view, this country made it through the depression which lasted about 10 years and it was far worse than this.

Ray, I would really be surprised to see much change for at least a year. I figure by then we will either have a vaccine that is reducing the spread of the virus or we will have better treatments that will take the fear out of the disease.

And both are being worked on every living minute. People who had the virus and survived, developed antibodies that fight Covid off. Blood transfusions have a very encouraging future even if no vaccine is produced. As more people get it and recover, more subjects can donate this valuable plasma, particularly to front line healthcare workers, first responders, and eventually to people like me who are at high risk.

Medications have been politicizes such as hydroxychloroquine. Many doctors and experts say it is helping their patients with proper dosage. The problem is, Trump endorsed it's use, and now we have people on the right supporting the treatment, and people on the left, plus the MSM, who are against it for no reason other than Trump saying doctors who believe in the results should be allowed to prescribe it.

Everything in our country today is about politics unfortunately.

hydroxychloroquine is a zinc ionophore, meaning it helps zinc to be absorbed into cells. But it doesnt do any good unless you have zinc available. Zinc is one of the components of a functioning immune system. The other components are avoiding sugar in diet, adequate vitamin D levels, and vitamin C in diet. But perhaps just as effective zinc ionophore is quercetin, which can be supplemented over the counter, or just by eating quercetin containing foods.

So, the reason hydroxychloroquine is "politicized" is because nobody explains such things. And that these components are relevant to any virus, flu or covid or whatever. Trump is too brain dead to be able to tell people about such things.

Laura has experts on her show all the time about how it works, what real studies show, and how they are treating patients successfully with the combo of drugs. After all, she's the one who brought HCQ to light. Trump just happens to watch her show.

WaPo did an opinion piece a while back, ‘The real reason Trump is obsessed with hydroxychloroquine,’ and it has some insight.

Basically, he’s looking for that silver bullet that ‘cures’ the virus, makes everyone think he’s brilliant, and he wins the election. It’s desperation.

Put in the frame of disinfectant injection, and it makes sense. Trump cures pandemic using only a turkey baster, some pliers and a bottle of dish soap. He wants to be the guy that discovered bleach. He wants to be smart again.

A study came out saying ‘Hydroxychloroquine’ works—and he’s like, ‘See, I told you so!’ He’s vindicated.

Well.....it actually has worked. Trump promoted it because he believes it has worked here and abroad. Trump will do anything to get this behind us, and I support anybody that has the same goal.

It's the left that politicized it, not Trump. If Trump originally came out and said he's against the use of HCQ, the left would have been shouting from the rooftops how Trump is not for saving Americans. How Trump is hoping we turn to a solution from a company he has investments in. Every news outlet on cable television would be promoting the use of HCQ, and demanding that it be made as an over the counter drug for anybody to get their hands on.

Unfortunately Trump is new at politics, and didn't think this out clearly before supporting the use of HCQ.

I'm ok with a president giving advice on basketball or the stock market. The worst that can happen is some money is lost or the team loses. In the field of medicine bad advice can result in people dying. Trump is not a doctor and as far as I can tell, he has absolutely no background in science. Recommendations on medical treatment should come from people who know what they talking about.

When the President ever addressed this product, he has always stated for people to discuss the use of it with their doctor first. They really have no choice though, because it needs to be prescribed.

My question is why did the president say anything about this to the public? If the article he read made him think that there might be something to it, he should have handed it to FDA for investigation.

It appears to me that Trump can not resist being a commentator whether he has any knowledge of the subject or not. As Donald Trump the businessman that's fine but not Donald Trump the president. Words have power and a huge amount of power when they come from the president. It might be pleasing to hear a president speaking to you like your next door neighbor but that is a big mistake. What the president says needs to be sanitized because we all say things at times we don't mean or that's incorrect. It doesn't mean much if we do it but not the president. Once the president says something it will be written in stone. If his words are subject to interpretation, as most of what Trump says when he's off script, his opposition will interpret his words negatively and his supporters will interpret them positive. And the rest will just scratch their head wondering what the fuck the president really mean by saying this.

Trump's inability to control his mouth and speak coherently is the major reason I would never vote for him.

Come now Flopper, I'm sure you have a list of reasons, including that he's with the Republican party.

Trump never said don't use X, and use HCQ instead. There was nothing better at the time, and still isn't, although there are new breakthroughs with remdesivir. It's much more costly of course, and research is still ongoing.

My point here is that by Trump talking about HCQ, nobody got hurt by it. If anything, he may have saved many lives because of it. If you didn't see that video I posted, I suggest you watch it. I know, I hate watching videos here too, but it's reasonably short.

If you don't have the time, it's a state rep that gave Trump credit for saving her life. The clinicians gave up hope for her while suffering with Covid, and then she demanded that they give her HCQ, because she seen the President support it's use. And BTW, she's a Democrat.

Her doctors were hesitant, but thought to themselves, why not? We have little to lose at this point.

After all her suffering, she claims to have seen improvements in her condition within a few hours of taking the combo. It only got better from there, and eventually she made a full recovery.

She probably still won't vote for Trump, but wanted to show her support for this drug to help others that may be in her position right now.

I said his inability to control his mouth and speak coherently is the major reason. Of course I have more and you've probably read a number of them but being a republican is not the only reason to vote against him.

Unlike most presidential candidates who fought for the presidency to make changes, Donald Trump fought for the presidency to just win. The republican issues he select were just a means to an end, winning. The same is true as president. The issue is of little importance but winning is everything. If Trump wins this election, you better hope the democrats don't get control of congress. If that happens, you will see a new Donald Trump that will make you wonder whether he was ever a republican. Trump will do anything to win. If he decides to back a bill and that means given a democrat congress a liberal supreme court judge, he would do it in heartbeat. The issues mean nothing to him. They never have because as you said, he's not a politician.

Well........we could take that risk that Trump might do these things. On the other hand, if Biden wins, we know these are things he will do. So our better odds are voting for the reelection of President Trump.

President Trump has made changes, many of which he ran on. He did a fantastic job on the border in spite of Democrats who want an open one. He went around them by using military funds for the wall he promised us. He attacked immigration on every level possible: From pressuring Mexico to stop migrants from crossing their country to get to ours, to redoing asylum applications which now must be done at their embassy, to creating policy that all asylum applications will be rejected IF they were offered asylum in Mexico or elsewhere, to addressing the Birther Tourism problem, to the Visa problem, which he currently decided if they are going to have virtual college classes, they can return home and take them from their own country; just every possible level.

Yes, Trump concentrated on winning, because winning is the only way he could make the changes he wanted. How could he make any changes by losing? Every presidential or congressional candidate concentrates on winning first.

What makes me confident that Trump will not be a lame duck? President Trump has lost over a billion dollars of net worth since running for this position. He has donated every presidential paycheck. IMO, he's not in this for himself, he's in this for us. No President in our history has given up so much to do this job than President Trump.

That's why I think your theory is flawed.

I completely disagree with your statement, "Trump concentrated on winning, because winning is the only way he could make the changes he wanted." In the campaign, Trump concentrated on the changes you wanted because it was the only way he could win the election. The same is true now.

I'll agree that his motives are irrelevant as long he accomplished what you want. However looking ahead, suppose I'm right and his motive is strictly to win and the particularly issues are irrelevant to him. If he wins the election and democrats win the congress, do you really think he would go down fighting for an immigration bill you want and the repeal of Obamacare that would fail in congress. Or would he work with democrats and pass a landmark immigration reform bill and a healthcare bill that surpasses Obamacare in coverage and benefits. A true republican politician would never turn his back on the party and would go down swinging rather support such liberal issues, but Trump is not a politician and he would not chose to end his 2nd term as a loser.

What he has been doing for three and a half years is winning. So correct, why would he change that?

If he wins the election and Democrats keep the House, and even get a majority in the Senate, not much changes except for the possibility of not getting his judges nominated should that come about, which I think it will; Ginsburg isn't going to make it another four and a half years.

There may be slight changes in the House if Republicans take it, but that would hinge on how many more Republicans we have. We need to out vote the RINO's and TDS people, and the same goes in the Senate if we keep that. So I think no matter what happens, Commie Care will continue to be with us unless some issue or another surfaces and they take that up to the Supreme Court.

What do you mean nothing changes? If democrats controls the House and Senate, they can block every piece of legislation Trump proposes, de-fund any project including the wall, strip his budget, block any appoints, nix his nomination of judges, change the laws under which he operates, and kick him and any of his people out of office. Do you really think the master deal maker would put up with that for 4 years. He would be cutting deals right and left with congress to put his signature on historic liberal legislation.

Well we can agree on Obamacare, it's going be with us a long time simple Republicans don't want to tackle healthcare. Republicans controlled the congress and presidency in Trump's first 2 years and the best they could do was remove the mandate which just pushed rates up leaving most of Obamacare in place because republicans had no replacement.

Like I said, nothing changes except when it comes to SC nominees, because he won't have a Republican led Senate to confirm. Democrats in the House are already stopping everything Trump has proposed. They can't defund anything because doing so would still require the Presidents signature. Please explain how they would kick him out of office. You do know that even if they pulled another fake impeachment, you still need 2/3 of the Senate for removal, and they have no power to remove anybody from his administration either.

First, off if congress approves the budget and the president refuses to sign it, the budget will go back to congress. If the House and Senate do not agree on a bill, then either can call for a budget reconciliation bill. This bill provides government funding but not necessarily what president wants. If only requires a simple majority in each house and does not require the president's signature.

It's true that that a 2/3 vote in a Senate impeachment trial is required to convict. However, if democrats control the Senate, republicans in the Senate can not dismiss the bill of impeachment without a trial as they did this year. That means democrats can conduct the trial at their leisure, even modifying the bill of impeachment and calling as many witnesses as they see necessary to convince a handful of republicans to vote against Trump. All republicans in the Senate backing trump when he's a lame duck, is not likely.

Democrat control of senate also means all federal judges and the 1200 presidential appointments have to be approved by the senate as well as most trade deals and treaties or modifications there of.

What I am saying is most of the Trump destruction to the nation could be stopped by a democrat congress but not erased. However Trump could still do quite a bit of damage through executive orders, forcing the country into war, and declarations of national emergencies.

 

[Flopper]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

I think there is a huge consensus among just everybody in the healthcare field in regard to mask wearing. Of course it probably does not include your local bartender who is out of work, Sam the Surfer, and my granddaughter that thinks wearing a mask makes her look ugly. And there is a lot evidence coming contact tracing that shows that people that are asymptomatic are spreading the virus.

I read the opposite from the CDC just a few weeks ago. This tells you how everything changes. First a mask was no good, now it's mandated in cities and states across the country. Before asymptomatic people were low risk for spreading, now the risk of spreading is the same.

I think there is a difference between going to a restaurant and going to a doctors office. Doctors are exposed to ill people day in day out. For most of us, we will probably never be around a person with Covid unless you are a socialite, or your business relies on personal contact with people all day long. Although our antibody testing is far from perfected, some are suggesting that we are already in the herd process and there's no stopping it.

The problem with this thing is we've never experienced anything like it; at least with the technology we have today. Who knows......next year at this time, they may be telling us what a waste of time and money it was for us to wear a mask. We simply don't know.

Early on CDC said that masks would not protect you which was true then and is basically true today. Actually, there is a very small amount of protection for the wearer but not much. Herd immunity as defined by the scientist is a calculated estimate based on transmission rate and reproductive numbers for the virus. For this virus herd immunity is 70% of the population having been exposed, that is they have antibodies. That can be off by 10 or 15%. If the scientists definition of herd immunity is used, there should not be much difference in the calculation.

We may not have all the details of a virus but we know a lot about epidemics and how to control them. For example any airborne virus or a virus whose most common transmission is through the air, the key to stopping transmission is preventing the virus from reaching a host. Masks, plastic shields, staying away from the source of virus, staying at home, etc prevents the spread, a really easy to understand concept but pretty hard to implement in a large population.

We also know a lot about a virus based on the characteristics of the family. There are 6 types of coronavirus that can infect humans which includes Mers and SARS. They have many of the same characteristic but there are some differences. It's really fortunate that there was work done developing the SARS vaccine because this gave researchers a starting point in developing the vaccine for this member of the family. Making changes to the vaccine can be very simple. However, every time you change the vaccine you start over in testing. This is why it takes so long to develop a vaccine. The fact that we are willing to accept a vaccine which has is not very effective, 40% makes it more likely we will get one sooner rather later.

It's wishful thinking, but there certainly is no guarantee a vaccine can be developed. We still don't have vaccines for HIV, flu, even the common cold.

If a new vaccine came out and was approved by September, many Americans would be hesitant to take it including myself. It reminds me of when I bought my first computer and read up on it. It was a Dummy's book. The author warned his readers to never buy software 2.0. 2.0 software is the original version. When thousands of people use it problem free in trials, it's different than when you start passing it out to millions of people. That's when they discover the hidden flaws and imperfections. It's why you always wait until version 2.2. or 2.3 to come out. Those are the versions where the flaws have been corrected.

It's the same with new medications. Yes, it undergoes intense testing, but we won't know the results or drawbacks until it's been used on tens of millions of people. Even then, it could take years to find out if it has any long-term negative effects.

Before I take it, I would need 100% guarantee from my doctor that it won't have any harmful effects on me, corroborated by my cousin, who is a retired research doctor that supervised the laboratory where she worked. Until I get that, I may wait for a while if and when a vaccine comes out.

I agree with your assessment of a vaccine with a few exceptions.
We do have a vaccine for the flu. I get one every year. A vaccine to prevent the common cold has been difficult to make, primarily because there are more than 200 different varieties of viruses that can cause colds. Also, if there were such a vaccine, you would have to get a new one every year like the flu vaccine, plus it would probably be not very effective due to the rate these viruses mutate.

The HIV is nothing like the coronations family of viruses. The problem developing a vaccine for HIV lies in genetic makeup of the virus. Unlike coronavirus, HIV has an incredibly fast replication cycle, less than 24 hour. However, the real show stopper is that HIV is prone to frequent replication errors, churning out mutated copies of itself which recombine into new strains as the virus is passed from person to person.

This coronavirus is very similar to SARS which we have developed a vaccine. Also most of the organizations developing vaccines have already proved in the lab that their vaccine kills the virus and is so far harmless to humans. The big question market is how effective the vaccine will be. Typically vaccines like these are 40% to 70% effective. The CDC has implied that a 40% effective vaccine would be acceptable. Think about what this really means. If we are able to produce enough of the vaccine to make it available like the flu vaccine at every primary care doctors office, every pharmacy, hospital, and public health clinic, we might be able to get the same inoculation numbers as the flu vaccine which is 45% of the population by the end of next year. So we might just have have 148 million vaccinated with 40% less chance of getting the virus and the remainder no protection since they were not vaccinated. After a year or so we get more effective vaccines and thus more protection. My guess is we will reach herd immunity about the time of 2024 election.

I don't think we're going see an unemployment rate of less than 5% for at least a year or so and people will dying from coronavirus for many years, hopefully at a greatly reduced rate.

BTW You will never get a 100% guarantee that a vaccine will not harm you. Deaths caused by vaccines are less than 2 per million and in almost all of those cases the person had a compromised immune system or had other conditions. You're probably more likely to get killed by a lightening strike than a vaccine.

I happen to be one of those people. I am 60 years old, and one of my two major medical conditions is the number one condition associated with death. It's one of the reasons I'd be so hesitant to take it.

If we (or others) do develop a vaccine for this thing, it should be able to wipe it out. Unlike the flu, it won't mutate so rapidly or differently, if it does at all. Experts have said if it would, then a weaker much less deadly strain would take it's place, unlike the flu. And if it does again, the next strain will be weaker yet.

Plus I think careless people have become more conscious of cleanliness now. You still can't find hand sanitizer or liquid soap in some stores. Fortunately for me, one of my tenants works at a store where they had and abundance of it because of customer limitations. She brought home some sanitizer for me and I was grateful she did. I should have plenty for while, at least until the shelves get fully stocked again. In addition, GoJo, the people who make Purell, are opening up a factory in my suburb. With some luck, they will let the citizens buy direct from them. And thanks to President Trump, there is this:

US bets on small, untested company to deliver COVID vaccine

When precious vats of COVID-19 vaccine are finally ready, jabbing the lifesaving solution into the arms of Americans will require hundreds of millions of injections.

fox8.com

Every vaccine is different. For the influenza vaccine given to day, you should avoid it if you:

• Have had an allergic reaction after a previous dose of influenza vaccine, or have any severe, life-threatening allergies.
• Have ever had Guillain-Barré Syndrome (also called GBS).

In order to wipe out the coronavirus, we would need a participation much more than the 45% we get with the influenza vaccine. The CDC did a big study of why people don't get the flu vaccine. As it turns only about 2% of the population has medical condition to disqualify them. If everyone that was eligible to take the flu shot did, we would nearly wipe it out. That means last year we would have saved the lives of nearly 57,000 people, prevented an illness that sickens nearly 40 million people plus an economic impact in the hundreds of millions.

With over 50 vaccines in test trials, I don't think we will need to worry about a vaccine being available next year.

I only take the flu shot once in a while. I've known many people who came down with illness after they took the shot. Some years, you get vaccinated for one strain, but a new strain comes out that makes the original vaccine worthless.

I have little doubt a vaccine for Covid will be made, it's just a matter of how effective it is, how many people get it, how many are restricted from getting it, and any serious side-effects many of us will be waiting for before we have confidence it's beneficial to us.

The reason you have a flu shot every year is to pickup protection for new strains of the viruses.

Viruses making you ill go back years when live viruses were used in most vaccines. That is no longer necessary. Today, if one person get's a flu shot and get's sick, they are almost certain to spread the news. However, for the tens of thousands of people that get flu shots and have no reaction at all, they remain silent. Ray, how often do people stop you on the street or call you and say, "Ray, guess what I got a flu yesterday and I feel just fine. My wife and I and most of my brothers and sisters have been getting flu shots every year for over 40 years and I can't remember anyone telling me they got sick. Thy myth that flu shots will make you sick has certainly contributed to the number of people that don't get vaccinated which cost us tens of thousands of lives every year.

I'm sure a majority don't get sick, but if you feel well, and then are faced with the possibility of getting sick because of the shot, you just don't take it. The times I've taken it, I've never experienced such a thing, but that doesn't mean it will always be that way in the future. My sister, who spent much of her life working in the hospital, took the shot and got the flu a week later.

If an when a vaccine comes out, I'm sure a lot of people will have reservations about getting one for some time. We can't deal out the media in this game. They will search high and low for stories of people getting ill or dying, because that's what sells newspapers and brings people to their internet
site, even if it is all bullshit. President Trump is absolutely correct when he says how dishonest most of our media is. They don't care about informing people, they care about making money, even if it's a disadvantage to society as a whole.

The vaccine tracker has 40 vaccines in progress.
There will certainly be a choice.

And Trump is last person you want to hear from about the media.
Because his favorite is OAN, a questionable source, at best.

And that choice may well be a burden as well as an opportunity. Who and how will decisions be made between less side effects and a higher percent effective, between costs and availability, single dose or multiple dose, etc. Also the successful vaccines will not become available all at the same time; that is we may have a 40% effective vaccine requiring two doses available in March and 3 months latter a 60% effective single dose vaccine with more side effects. My guess is that we will be lucky to have a vaccine available to the general public by the end of next year and even then it will take many months of inoculations before we start seeing decreasing numbers. This means we are going to have waves and hot spots breaking out for at least the next two years. So we better learn how to live with this virus and make decisions based on sound medical and economic data and advice, devoid of politics. It would be best if the president and other politicians would stop implying that a vaccine is just right around the corner and it's going wipe out the virus anytime in the near future. And telling the public that the virus is just going to disappear is about as helpful as a fart in spacesuit. We need to concentrate on saving lives and the economy, not some magical cure that does not exist and may not exist for a long time.

I have trouble understanding the logic stream of mask Nazis who scream about, "Just wear it, you MUST avoid catching Covid at all costs until there's a vaccine" . . . at which point, they're going to infect me with the disease they insisted I avoid being infected with. I honestly have to wonder if some people don't understand the concept of vaccines.

The concept is incredible simple, I wear a mask to protect you and you wear a mask to protect me. That's enough for 63% of Americans who wear masks consistently. However, that percentage needs to exceed 85% to stop the virus. I don't believe it is possible to close that gap in this country because mask wearing is just not part our culture. After a couple of more epidemics the US will be responding well.

In far eastern countries such as South Korean and Japan, the people were told to put on the masks and about 90% of the population wore masks consistently. Of course, this is not their first rodeo. They've been hit by other airborne epidemics and they know masks work. This coupled with a rapid and consistent testing response to the virus has made these countries an example of how to manage an epidemic while the US sets an example of how not to. Another big difference is these countries moved rapidly in sealing off entrance to the country before the epidemic spread and the isolated infected areas in their country. Since the virus was never out of control, most business remained open with some restrictions. However, these government operated on the premise that fixing the health problem of the nation was the key to fixing the economic health of the nation. In the US, instead the economy being driven by the health consideration the opposite has been the case.

Japan with a population 41% of the US has had .6% of the deaths
South Korea with a population of 18% of the US has had .2% of the deaths
Thailand with a population of 21% of the US has had .04% of the deaths
India with a population of 4.1 times the US has had 17% of the deaths.

 

[Flopper]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

I think there is a huge consensus among just everybody in the healthcare field in regard to mask wearing. Of course it probably does not include your local bartender who is out of work, Sam the Surfer, and my granddaughter that thinks wearing a mask makes her look ugly. And there is a lot evidence coming contact tracing that shows that people that are asymptomatic are spreading the virus.

I read the opposite from the CDC just a few weeks ago. This tells you how everything changes. First a mask was no good, now it's mandated in cities and states across the country. Before asymptomatic people were low risk for spreading, now the risk of spreading is the same.

I think there is a difference between going to a restaurant and going to a doctors office. Doctors are exposed to ill people day in day out. For most of us, we will probably never be around a person with Covid unless you are a socialite, or your business relies on personal contact with people all day long. Although our antibody testing is far from perfected, some are suggesting that we are already in the herd process and there's no stopping it.

The problem with this thing is we've never experienced anything like it; at least with the technology we have today. Who knows......next year at this time, they may be telling us what a waste of time and money it was for us to wear a mask. We simply don't know.

Early on CDC said that masks would not protect you which was true then and is basically true today. Actually, there is a very small amount of protection for the wearer but not much. Herd immunity as defined by the scientist is a calculated estimate based on transmission rate and reproductive numbers for the virus. For this virus herd immunity is 70% of the population having been exposed, that is they have antibodies. That can be off by 10 or 15%. If the scientists definition of herd immunity is used, there should not be much difference in the calculation.

We may not have all the details of a virus but we know a lot about epidemics and how to control them. For example any airborne virus or a virus whose most common transmission is through the air, the key to stopping transmission is preventing the virus from reaching a host. Masks, plastic shields, staying away from the source of virus, staying at home, etc prevents the spread, a really easy to understand concept but pretty hard to implement in a large population.

We also know a lot about a virus based on the characteristics of the family. There are 6 types of coronavirus that can infect humans which includes Mers and SARS. They have many of the same characteristic but there are some differences. It's really fortunate that there was work done developing the SARS vaccine because this gave researchers a starting point in developing the vaccine for this member of the family. Making changes to the vaccine can be very simple. However, every time you change the vaccine you start over in testing. This is why it takes so long to develop a vaccine. The fact that we are willing to accept a vaccine which has is not very effective, 40% makes it more likely we will get one sooner rather later.

It's wishful thinking, but there certainly is no guarantee a vaccine can be developed. We still don't have vaccines for HIV, flu, even the common cold.

If a new vaccine came out and was approved by September, many Americans would be hesitant to take it including myself. It reminds me of when I bought my first computer and read up on it. It was a Dummy's book. The author warned his readers to never buy software 2.0. 2.0 software is the original version. When thousands of people use it problem free in trials, it's different than when you start passing it out to millions of people. That's when they discover the hidden flaws and imperfections. It's why you always wait until version 2.2. or 2.3 to come out. Those are the versions where the flaws have been corrected.

It's the same with new medications. Yes, it undergoes intense testing, but we won't know the results or drawbacks until it's been used on tens of millions of people. Even then, it could take years to find out if it has any long-term negative effects.

Before I take it, I would need 100% guarantee from my doctor that it won't have any harmful effects on me, corroborated by my cousin, who is a retired research doctor that supervised the laboratory where she worked. Until I get that, I may wait for a while if and when a vaccine comes out.

I agree with your assessment of a vaccine with a few exceptions.
We do have a vaccine for the flu. I get one every year. A vaccine to prevent the common cold has been difficult to make, primarily because there are more than 200 different varieties of viruses that can cause colds. Also, if there were such a vaccine, you would have to get a new one every year like the flu vaccine, plus it would probably be not very effective due to the rate these viruses mutate.

The HIV is nothing like the coronations family of viruses. The problem developing a vaccine for HIV lies in genetic makeup of the virus. Unlike coronavirus, HIV has an incredibly fast replication cycle, less than 24 hour. However, the real show stopper is that HIV is prone to frequent replication errors, churning out mutated copies of itself which recombine into new strains as the virus is passed from person to person.

This coronavirus is very similar to SARS which we have developed a vaccine. Also most of the organizations developing vaccines have already proved in the lab that their vaccine kills the virus and is so far harmless to humans. The big question market is how effective the vaccine will be. Typically vaccines like these are 40% to 70% effective. The CDC has implied that a 40% effective vaccine would be acceptable. Think about what this really means. If we are able to produce enough of the vaccine to make it available like the flu vaccine at every primary care doctors office, every pharmacy, hospital, and public health clinic, we might be able to get the same inoculation numbers as the flu vaccine which is 45% of the population by the end of next year. So we might just have have 148 million vaccinated with 40% less chance of getting the virus and the remainder no protection since they were not vaccinated. After a year or so we get more effective vaccines and thus more protection. My guess is we will reach herd immunity about the time of 2024 election.

I don't think we're going see an unemployment rate of less than 5% for at least a year or so and people will dying from coronavirus for many years, hopefully at a greatly reduced rate.

BTW You will never get a 100% guarantee that a vaccine will not harm you. Deaths caused by vaccines are less than 2 per million and in almost all of those cases the person had a compromised immune system or had other conditions. You're probably more likely to get killed by a lightening strike than a vaccine.

I happen to be one of those people. I am 60 years old, and one of my two major medical conditions is the number one condition associated with death. It's one of the reasons I'd be so hesitant to take it.

If we (or others) do develop a vaccine for this thing, it should be able to wipe it out. Unlike the flu, it won't mutate so rapidly or differently, if it does at all. Experts have said if it would, then a weaker much less deadly strain would take it's place, unlike the flu. And if it does again, the next strain will be weaker yet.

Plus I think careless people have become more conscious of cleanliness now. You still can't find hand sanitizer or liquid soap in some stores. Fortunately for me, one of my tenants works at a store where they had and abundance of it because of customer limitations. She brought home some sanitizer for me and I was grateful she did. I should have plenty for while, at least until the shelves get fully stocked again. In addition, GoJo, the people who make Purell, are opening up a factory in my suburb. With some luck, they will let the citizens buy direct from them. And thanks to President Trump, there is this:

US bets on small, untested company to deliver COVID vaccine

When precious vats of COVID-19 vaccine are finally ready, jabbing the lifesaving solution into the arms of Americans will require hundreds of millions of injections.

fox8.com

Every vaccine is different. For the influenza vaccine given to day, you should avoid it if you:

• Have had an allergic reaction after a previous dose of influenza vaccine, or have any severe, life-threatening allergies.
• Have ever had Guillain-Barré Syndrome (also called GBS).

In order to wipe out the coronavirus, we would need a participation much more than the 45% we get with the influenza vaccine. The CDC did a big study of why people don't get the flu vaccine. As it turns only about 2% of the population has medical condition to disqualify them. If everyone that was eligible to take the flu shot did, we would nearly wipe it out. That means last year we would have saved the lives of nearly 57,000 people, prevented an illness that sickens nearly 40 million people plus an economic impact in the hundreds of millions.

With over 50 vaccines in test trials, I don't think we will need to worry about a vaccine being available next year.

I only take the flu shot once in a while. I've known many people who came down with illness after they took the shot. Some years, you get vaccinated for one strain, but a new strain comes out that makes the original vaccine worthless.

I have little doubt a vaccine for Covid will be made, it's just a matter of how effective it is, how many people get it, how many are restricted from getting it, and any serious side-effects many of us will be waiting for before we have confidence it's beneficial to us.

The reason you have a flu shot every year is to pickup protection for new strains of the viruses.

Viruses making you ill go back years when live viruses were used in most vaccines. That is no longer necessary. Today, if one person get's a flu shot and get's sick, they are almost certain to spread the news. However, for the tens of thousands of people that get flu shots and have no reaction at all, they remain silent. Ray, how often do people stop you on the street or call you and say, "Ray, guess what I got a flu yesterday and I feel just fine. My wife and I and most of my brothers and sisters have been getting flu shots every year for over 40 years and I can't remember anyone telling me they got sick. Thy myth that flu shots will make you sick has certainly contributed to the number of people that don't get vaccinated which cost us tens of thousands of lives every year.

I'm sure a majority don't get sick, but if you feel well, and then are faced with the possibility of getting sick because of the shot, you just don't take it. The times I've taken it, I've never experienced such a thing, but that doesn't mean it will always be that way in the future. My sister, who spent much of her life working in the hospital, took the shot and got the flu a week later.

If an when a vaccine comes out, I'm sure a lot of people will have reservations about getting one for some time. We can't deal out the media in this game. They will search high and low for stories of people getting ill or dying, because that's what sells newspapers and brings people to their internet
site, even if it is all bullshit. President Trump is absolutely correct when he says how dishonest most of our media is. They don't care about informing people, they care about making money, even if it's a disadvantage to society as a whole.

The vaccine tracker has 40 vaccines in progress.
There will certainly be a choice.

And Trump is last person you want to hear from about the media.
Because his favorite is OAN, a questionable source, at best.

And that choice may well be a burden as well as an opportunity. Who and how will decisions be made between less side effects and a higher percent effective, between costs and availability, single dose or multiple dose, etc. Also the successful vaccines will not become available all at the same time; that is we may have a 40% effective vaccine requiring two doses available in March and 3 months latter a 60% effective single dose vaccine with more side effects. My guess is that we will be lucky to have a vaccine available to the general public by the end of next year and even then it will take many months of inoculations before we start seeing decreasing numbers. This means we are going to have waves and hot spots breaking out for at least the next two years. So we better learn how to live with this virus and make decisions based on sound medical and economic data and advice, devoid of politics. It would be best if the president and other politicians would stop implying that a vaccine is just right around the corner and it's going wipe out the virus anytime in the near future. And telling the public that the virus is just going to disappear is about as helpful as a fart in spacesuit. We need to concentrate on saving lives and the economy, not some magical cure that does not exist and may not exist for a long time.

I have trouble understanding the logic stream of mask Nazis who scream about, "Just wear it, you MUST avoid catching Covid at all costs until there's a vaccine" . . . at which point, they're going to infect me with the disease they insisted I avoid being infected with. I honestly have to wonder if some people don't understand the concept of vaccines.

The concept of a vaccine is to train your immune system to generate the antibodies against the virus, without causing harm to the vaccinated person.
The reason it takes so long to get a vaccine its the requirement to verify that its effective and that it doesnt cause harm. This requires double-blind randomized trials.

Except that the virus wouldn't cause harm to me, either, any more than any of the other germs I come into contact with every day. And I can acquire immunity that way a hell of a lot faster than I can through FDA approval.

Understand, I don't have a problem with vaccinations for diseases that are a serious threat. As a child, I was vaccinated against measles, mumps, everything but chickenpox (that vaccine didn't exist at the time). All my kids have received the standard childhood vaccinations. And I think a vaccine for Covid-19, assuming an effective one is developed, is a great idea for those in vulnerable populations.

But my post is talking about ME. I don't get flu vaccines every year, because the flu is nothing more than an inconvenience to my immune system, and it's very easy for me to avoid people who are vulnerable to it until after I've caught that year's strain and fought it off. Left to my own devices, instead of being hysterically "protected" by the political hypochondriacs among us, I would actually prefer to simply catch coronavirus, get over it, and move the fuck on to being forced to act like it's the second coming of the Black Death.

I wish I had your immune system. However, keep in mind the coronavirus has some of the same symptoms as the flu but it is an entirely different virus from a different family. Doctors are being continually surprised by people with risk conditions that are generally very healthy and rarely ill that are hit very hard by the virus. Statistically, 1 in 5 people infected who develop symptoms will have serve enough breathing problems that they will have to be admitted to the hospital. I had pneumonia some years ago and had to go on a ventilator for 9 days. I will never do that again. If I had choice, I would wear a mask day and night the rest of my life before every going on ventilator again.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Japan with a population 41% of the US has had .6% of the deaths
South Korea with a population of 18% of the US has had .2% of the deaths
Thailand with a population of 21% of the US has had .04% of the deaths
India with a population of 4.1 times the US has had 17% of the deaths.

Then there is the question of who and what is considered a Covid death. You can die with Covid, and you can die from Covid. It seems in the US, both are exactly the same. Look at those studies in Florida. Some tests were coming back 100% positive, and other labs reporting the same or close to it. It simply isn't possible.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

I think there is a huge consensus among just everybody in the healthcare field in regard to mask wearing. Of course it probably does not include your local bartender who is out of work, Sam the Surfer, and my granddaughter that thinks wearing a mask makes her look ugly. And there is a lot evidence coming contact tracing that shows that people that are asymptomatic are spreading the virus.

I read the opposite from the CDC just a few weeks ago. This tells you how everything changes. First a mask was no good, now it's mandated in cities and states across the country. Before asymptomatic people were low risk for spreading, now the risk of spreading is the same.

I think there is a difference between going to a restaurant and going to a doctors office. Doctors are exposed to ill people day in day out. For most of us, we will probably never be around a person with Covid unless you are a socialite, or your business relies on personal contact with people all day long. Although our antibody testing is far from perfected, some are suggesting that we are already in the herd process and there's no stopping it.

The problem with this thing is we've never experienced anything like it; at least with the technology we have today. Who knows......next year at this time, they may be telling us what a waste of time and money it was for us to wear a mask. We simply don't know.

Early on CDC said that masks would not protect you which was true then and is basically true today. Actually, there is a very small amount of protection for the wearer but not much. Herd immunity as defined by the scientist is a calculated estimate based on transmission rate and reproductive numbers for the virus. For this virus herd immunity is 70% of the population having been exposed, that is they have antibodies. That can be off by 10 or 15%. If the scientists definition of herd immunity is used, there should not be much difference in the calculation.

We may not have all the details of a virus but we know a lot about epidemics and how to control them. For example any airborne virus or a virus whose most common transmission is through the air, the key to stopping transmission is preventing the virus from reaching a host. Masks, plastic shields, staying away from the source of virus, staying at home, etc prevents the spread, a really easy to understand concept but pretty hard to implement in a large population.

We also know a lot about a virus based on the characteristics of the family. There are 6 types of coronavirus that can infect humans which includes Mers and SARS. They have many of the same characteristic but there are some differences. It's really fortunate that there was work done developing the SARS vaccine because this gave researchers a starting point in developing the vaccine for this member of the family. Making changes to the vaccine can be very simple. However, every time you change the vaccine you start over in testing. This is why it takes so long to develop a vaccine. The fact that we are willing to accept a vaccine which has is not very effective, 40% makes it more likely we will get one sooner rather later.

It's wishful thinking, but there certainly is no guarantee a vaccine can be developed. We still don't have vaccines for HIV, flu, even the common cold.

If a new vaccine came out and was approved by September, many Americans would be hesitant to take it including myself. It reminds me of when I bought my first computer and read up on it. It was a Dummy's book. The author warned his readers to never buy software 2.0. 2.0 software is the original version. When thousands of people use it problem free in trials, it's different than when you start passing it out to millions of people. That's when they discover the hidden flaws and imperfections. It's why you always wait until version 2.2. or 2.3 to come out. Those are the versions where the flaws have been corrected.

It's the same with new medications. Yes, it undergoes intense testing, but we won't know the results or drawbacks until it's been used on tens of millions of people. Even then, it could take years to find out if it has any long-term negative effects.

Before I take it, I would need 100% guarantee from my doctor that it won't have any harmful effects on me, corroborated by my cousin, who is a retired research doctor that supervised the laboratory where she worked. Until I get that, I may wait for a while if and when a vaccine comes out.

I agree with your assessment of a vaccine with a few exceptions.
We do have a vaccine for the flu. I get one every year. A vaccine to prevent the common cold has been difficult to make, primarily because there are more than 200 different varieties of viruses that can cause colds. Also, if there were such a vaccine, you would have to get a new one every year like the flu vaccine, plus it would probably be not very effective due to the rate these viruses mutate.

The HIV is nothing like the coronations family of viruses. The problem developing a vaccine for HIV lies in genetic makeup of the virus. Unlike coronavirus, HIV has an incredibly fast replication cycle, less than 24 hour. However, the real show stopper is that HIV is prone to frequent replication errors, churning out mutated copies of itself which recombine into new strains as the virus is passed from person to person.

This coronavirus is very similar to SARS which we have developed a vaccine. Also most of the organizations developing vaccines have already proved in the lab that their vaccine kills the virus and is so far harmless to humans. The big question market is how effective the vaccine will be. Typically vaccines like these are 40% to 70% effective. The CDC has implied that a 40% effective vaccine would be acceptable. Think about what this really means. If we are able to produce enough of the vaccine to make it available like the flu vaccine at every primary care doctors office, every pharmacy, hospital, and public health clinic, we might be able to get the same inoculation numbers as the flu vaccine which is 45% of the population by the end of next year. So we might just have have 148 million vaccinated with 40% less chance of getting the virus and the remainder no protection since they were not vaccinated. After a year or so we get more effective vaccines and thus more protection. My guess is we will reach herd immunity about the time of 2024 election.

I don't think we're going see an unemployment rate of less than 5% for at least a year or so and people will dying from coronavirus for many years, hopefully at a greatly reduced rate.

BTW You will never get a 100% guarantee that a vaccine will not harm you. Deaths caused by vaccines are less than 2 per million and in almost all of those cases the person had a compromised immune system or had other conditions. You're probably more likely to get killed by a lightening strike than a vaccine.

I happen to be one of those people. I am 60 years old, and one of my two major medical conditions is the number one condition associated with death. It's one of the reasons I'd be so hesitant to take it.

If we (or others) do develop a vaccine for this thing, it should be able to wipe it out. Unlike the flu, it won't mutate so rapidly or differently, if it does at all. Experts have said if it would, then a weaker much less deadly strain would take it's place, unlike the flu. And if it does again, the next strain will be weaker yet.

Plus I think careless people have become more conscious of cleanliness now. You still can't find hand sanitizer or liquid soap in some stores. Fortunately for me, one of my tenants works at a store where they had and abundance of it because of customer limitations. She brought home some sanitizer for me and I was grateful she did. I should have plenty for while, at least until the shelves get fully stocked again. In addition, GoJo, the people who make Purell, are opening up a factory in my suburb. With some luck, they will let the citizens buy direct from them. And thanks to President Trump, there is this:

US bets on small, untested company to deliver COVID vaccine

When precious vats of COVID-19 vaccine are finally ready, jabbing the lifesaving solution into the arms of Americans will require hundreds of millions of injections.

fox8.com

Every vaccine is different. For the influenza vaccine given to day, you should avoid it if you:

• Have had an allergic reaction after a previous dose of influenza vaccine, or have any severe, life-threatening allergies.
• Have ever had Guillain-Barré Syndrome (also called GBS).

In order to wipe out the coronavirus, we would need a participation much more than the 45% we get with the influenza vaccine. The CDC did a big study of why people don't get the flu vaccine. As it turns only about 2% of the population has medical condition to disqualify them. If everyone that was eligible to take the flu shot did, we would nearly wipe it out. That means last year we would have saved the lives of nearly 57,000 people, prevented an illness that sickens nearly 40 million people plus an economic impact in the hundreds of millions.

With over 50 vaccines in test trials, I don't think we will need to worry about a vaccine being available next year.

I only take the flu shot once in a while. I've known many people who came down with illness after they took the shot. Some years, you get vaccinated for one strain, but a new strain comes out that makes the original vaccine worthless.

I have little doubt a vaccine for Covid will be made, it's just a matter of how effective it is, how many people get it, how many are restricted from getting it, and any serious side-effects many of us will be waiting for before we have confidence it's beneficial to us.

The reason you have a flu shot every year is to pickup protection for new strains of the viruses.

Viruses making you ill go back years when live viruses were used in most vaccines. That is no longer necessary. Today, if one person get's a flu shot and get's sick, they are almost certain to spread the news. However, for the tens of thousands of people that get flu shots and have no reaction at all, they remain silent. Ray, how often do people stop you on the street or call you and say, "Ray, guess what I got a flu yesterday and I feel just fine. My wife and I and most of my brothers and sisters have been getting flu shots every year for over 40 years and I can't remember anyone telling me they got sick. Thy myth that flu shots will make you sick has certainly contributed to the number of people that don't get vaccinated which cost us tens of thousands of lives every year.

I'm sure a majority don't get sick, but if you feel well, and then are faced with the possibility of getting sick because of the shot, you just don't take it. The times I've taken it, I've never experienced such a thing, but that doesn't mean it will always be that way in the future. My sister, who spent much of her life working in the hospital, took the shot and got the flu a week later.

If an when a vaccine comes out, I'm sure a lot of people will have reservations about getting one for some time. We can't deal out the media in this game. They will search high and low for stories of people getting ill or dying, because that's what sells newspapers and brings people to their internet
site, even if it is all bullshit. President Trump is absolutely correct when he says how dishonest most of our media is. They don't care about informing people, they care about making money, even if it's a disadvantage to society as a whole.

The vaccine tracker has 40 vaccines in progress.
There will certainly be a choice.

And Trump is last person you want to hear from about the media.
Because his favorite is OAN, a questionable source, at best.

OAN is not really mainstream media, just media with a very small audience.

I (like most people I'm sure) are anxious for a safe and reliable vaccine to come out. Yes, people are working 24/7 around the globe to get it done. Of course, the winner of the race will get very wealthy provided no serious side-effects happen when they start vaccinating tens or hundreds of millions of people.

I've seen great economies and terrible economies. I've seen people predicting the end of the world for one reason or another. I've seen situations that look hopeless for not only myself, but more importantly, the country. But this is a new animal we've never experienced before. This is like a nightmare that won't stop, and you're just praying to wake up and realize it was nothing but a terrible dream.

Yes it is a nightmare. We are now retired with all the money we need to see the world, visit or favorite restaurants go to baseball and football games, attend jazz festivals, plays, concerts, spend much needed time at my local gym, and visit all my grandchildren, yet I sit at this damn computer, watch old movies, and clean out the the storage room for the third time. With probably only a few years left on this earth, I sure as hell hate to spend my time like this but having experience with a ventilator I certainly don't want to spend any time there either. I know a lot of people that have it worse, but it still really sucks.

However, looking at the situation from a more global point of view, this country made it through the depression which lasted about 10 years and it was far worse than this.

Ray, I would really be surprised to see much change for at least a year. I figure by then we will either have a vaccine that is reducing the spread of the virus or we will have better treatments that will take the fear out of the disease.

And both are being worked on every living minute. People who had the virus and survived, developed antibodies that fight Covid off. Blood transfusions have a very encouraging future even if no vaccine is produced. As more people get it and recover, more subjects can donate this valuable plasma, particularly to front line healthcare workers, first responders, and eventually to people like me who are at high risk.

Medications have been politicizes such as hydroxychloroquine. Many doctors and experts say it is helping their patients with proper dosage. The problem is, Trump endorsed it's use, and now we have people on the right supporting the treatment, and people on the left, plus the MSM, who are against it for no reason other than Trump saying doctors who believe in the results should be allowed to prescribe it.

Everything in our country today is about politics unfortunately.

hydroxychloroquine is a zinc ionophore, meaning it helps zinc to be absorbed into cells. But it doesnt do any good unless you have zinc available. Zinc is one of the components of a functioning immune system. The other components are avoiding sugar in diet, adequate vitamin D levels, and vitamin C in diet. But perhaps just as effective zinc ionophore is quercetin, which can be supplemented over the counter, or just by eating quercetin containing foods.

So, the reason hydroxychloroquine is "politicized" is because nobody explains such things. And that these components are relevant to any virus, flu or covid or whatever. Trump is too brain dead to be able to tell people about such things.

Laura has experts on her show all the time about how it works, what real studies show, and how they are treating patients successfully with the combo of drugs. After all, she's the one who brought HCQ to light. Trump just happens to watch her show.

WaPo did an opinion piece a while back, ‘The real reason Trump is obsessed with hydroxychloroquine,’ and it has some insight.

Basically, he’s looking for that silver bullet that ‘cures’ the virus, makes everyone think he’s brilliant, and he wins the election. It’s desperation.

Put in the frame of disinfectant injection, and it makes sense. Trump cures pandemic using only a turkey baster, some pliers and a bottle of dish soap. He wants to be the guy that discovered bleach. He wants to be smart again.

A study came out saying ‘Hydroxychloroquine’ works—and he’s like, ‘See, I told you so!’ He’s vindicated.

Well.....it actually has worked. Trump promoted it because he believes it has worked here and abroad. Trump will do anything to get this behind us, and I support anybody that has the same goal.

It's the left that politicized it, not Trump. If Trump originally came out and said he's against the use of HCQ, the left would have been shouting from the rooftops how Trump is not for saving Americans. How Trump is hoping we turn to a solution from a company he has investments in. Every news outlet on cable television would be promoting the use of HCQ, and demanding that it be made as an over the counter drug for anybody to get their hands on.

Unfortunately Trump is new at politics, and didn't think this out clearly before supporting the use of HCQ.

I'm ok with a president giving advice on basketball or the stock market. The worst that can happen is some money is lost or the team loses. In the field of medicine bad advice can result in people dying. Trump is not a doctor and as far as I can tell, he has absolutely no background in science. Recommendations on medical treatment should come from people who know what they talking about.

When the President ever addressed this product, he has always stated for people to discuss the use of it with their doctor first. They really have no choice though, because it needs to be prescribed.

My question is why did the president say anything about this to the public? If the article he read made him think that there might be something to it, he should have handed it to FDA for investigation.

It appears to me that Trump can not resist being a commentator whether he has any knowledge of the subject or not. As Donald Trump the businessman that's fine but not Donald Trump the president. Words have power and a huge amount of power when they come from the president. It might be pleasing to hear a president speaking to you like your next door neighbor but that is a big mistake. What the president says needs to be sanitized because we all say things at times we don't mean or that's incorrect. It doesn't mean much if we do it but not the president. Once the president says something it will be written in stone. If his words are subject to interpretation, as most of what Trump says when he's off script, his opposition will interpret his words negatively and his supporters will interpret them positive. And the rest will just scratch their head wondering what the fuck the president really mean by saying this.

Trump's inability to control his mouth and speak coherently is the major reason I would never vote for him.

Come now Flopper, I'm sure you have a list of reasons, including that he's with the Republican party.

Trump never said don't use X, and use HCQ instead. There was nothing better at the time, and still isn't, although there are new breakthroughs with remdesivir. It's much more costly of course, and research is still ongoing.

My point here is that by Trump talking about HCQ, nobody got hurt by it. If anything, he may have saved many lives because of it. If you didn't see that video I posted, I suggest you watch it. I know, I hate watching videos here too, but it's reasonably short.

If you don't have the time, it's a state rep that gave Trump credit for saving her life. The clinicians gave up hope for her while suffering with Covid, and then she demanded that they give her HCQ, because she seen the President support it's use. And BTW, she's a Democrat.

Her doctors were hesitant, but thought to themselves, why not? We have little to lose at this point.

After all her suffering, she claims to have seen improvements in her condition within a few hours of taking the combo. It only got better from there, and eventually she made a full recovery.

She probably still won't vote for Trump, but wanted to show her support for this drug to help others that may be in her position right now.

I said his inability to control his mouth and speak coherently is the major reason. Of course I have more and you've probably read a number of them but being a republican is not the only reason to vote against him.

Unlike most presidential candidates who fought for the presidency to make changes, Donald Trump fought for the presidency to just win. The republican issues he select were just a means to an end, winning. The same is true as president. The issue is of little importance but winning is everything. If Trump wins this election, you better hope the democrats don't get control of congress. If that happens, you will see a new Donald Trump that will make you wonder whether he was ever a republican. Trump will do anything to win. If he decides to back a bill and that means given a democrat congress a liberal supreme court judge, he would do it in heartbeat. The issues mean nothing to him. They never have because as you said, he's not a politician.

Well........we could take that risk that Trump might do these things. On the other hand, if Biden wins, we know these are things he will do. So our better odds are voting for the reelection of President Trump.

President Trump has made changes, many of which he ran on. He did a fantastic job on the border in spite of Democrats who want an open one. He went around them by using military funds for the wall he promised us. He attacked immigration on every level possible: From pressuring Mexico to stop migrants from crossing their country to get to ours, to redoing asylum applications which now must be done at their embassy, to creating policy that all asylum applications will be rejected IF they were offered asylum in Mexico or elsewhere, to addressing the Birther Tourism problem, to the Visa problem, which he currently decided if they are going to have virtual college classes, they can return home and take them from their own country; just every possible level.

Yes, Trump concentrated on winning, because winning is the only way he could make the changes he wanted. How could he make any changes by losing? Every presidential or congressional candidate concentrates on winning first.

What makes me confident that Trump will not be a lame duck? President Trump has lost over a billion dollars of net worth since running for this position. He has donated every presidential paycheck. IMO, he's not in this for himself, he's in this for us. No President in our history has given up so much to do this job than President Trump.

That's why I think your theory is flawed.

I completely disagree with your statement, "Trump concentrated on winning, because winning is the only way he could make the changes he wanted." In the campaign, Trump concentrated on the changes you wanted because it was the only way he could win the election. The same is true now.

I'll agree that his motives are irrelevant as long he accomplished what you want. However looking ahead, suppose I'm right and his motive is strictly to win and the particularly issues are irrelevant to him. If he wins the election and democrats win the congress, do you really think he would go down fighting for an immigration bill you want and the repeal of Obamacare that would fail in congress. Or would he work with democrats and pass a landmark immigration reform bill and a healthcare bill that surpasses Obamacare in coverage and benefits. A true republican politician would never turn his back on the party and would go down swinging rather support such liberal issues, but Trump is not a politician and he would not chose to end his 2nd term as a loser.

What he has been doing for three and a half years is winning. So correct, why would he change that?

If he wins the election and Democrats keep the House, and even get a majority in the Senate, not much changes except for the possibility of not getting his judges nominated should that come about, which I think it will; Ginsburg isn't going to make it another four and a half years.

There may be slight changes in the House if Republicans take it, but that would hinge on how many more Republicans we have. We need to out vote the RINO's and TDS people, and the same goes in the Senate if we keep that. So I think no matter what happens, Commie Care will continue to be with us unless some issue or another surfaces and they take that up to the Supreme Court.

What do you mean nothing changes? If democrats controls the House and Senate, they can block every piece of legislation Trump proposes, de-fund any project including the wall, strip his budget, block any appoints, nix his nomination of judges, change the laws under which he operates, and kick him and any of his people out of office. Do you really think the master deal maker would put up with that for 4 years. He would be cutting deals right and left with congress to put his signature on historic liberal legislation.

Well we can agree on Obamacare, it's going be with us a long time simple Republicans don't want to tackle healthcare. Republicans controlled the congress and presidency in Trump's first 2 years and the best they could do was remove the mandate which just pushed rates up leaving most of Obamacare in place because republicans had no replacement.

Like I said, nothing changes except when it comes to SC nominees, because he won't have a Republican led Senate to confirm. Democrats in the House are already stopping everything Trump has proposed. They can't defund anything because doing so would still require the Presidents signature. Please explain how they would kick him out of office. You do know that even if they pulled another fake impeachment, you still need 2/3 of the Senate for removal, and they have no power to remove anybody from his administration either.

First, off if congress approves the budget and the president refuses to sign it, the budget will go back to congress. If the House and Senate do not agree on a bill, then either can call for a budget reconciliation bill. This bill provides government funding but not necessarily what president wants. If only requires a simple majority in each house and does not require the president's signature.

It's true that that a 2/3 vote in a Senate impeachment trial is required to convict. However, if democrats control the Senate, republicans in the Senate can not dismiss the bill of impeachment without a trial as they did this year. That means democrats can conduct the trial at their leisure, even modifying the bill of impeachment and calling as many witnesses as they see necessary to convince a handful of republicans to vote against Trump. All republicans in the Senate backing trump when he's a lame duck, is not likely.

Democrat control of senate also means all federal judges and the 1200 presidential appointments have to be approved by the senate as well as most trade deals and treaties or modifications there of.

What I am saying is most of the Trump destruction to the nation could be stopped by a democrat congress but not erased. However Trump could still do quite a bit of damage through executive orders, forcing the country into war, and declarations of national emergencies.

A war? A war with whom?

There will never be enough Republicans in the Senate to make 2/3. It's never happened before and likely never will unless we get an actual criminal. Any Republican Senator who would vote that way may likely be ending their political career. Then there is the party. Such an action just might spark a reemergence of Tea Party people wanting to make the Tea Party an actual party, thus ending any kind of leadership by Republicans in the White House, Senate, and yes, in the House. In other words, it's never going to happen.

When it comes to disagreements, Democrats love to shutdown the government. Why? Because the media is totally on their side and willing to lie for the party, since they are actually part of the party anyway. They simply blame it on whoever the Republican(s) are in charge.

If you consider what Trump did the last three and a half years as damage, let's hope for much more damage the next four and a half years.

 

[Flopper]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

I think there is a huge consensus among just everybody in the healthcare field in regard to mask wearing. Of course it probably does not include your local bartender who is out of work, Sam the Surfer, and my granddaughter that thinks wearing a mask makes her look ugly. And there is a lot evidence coming contact tracing that shows that people that are asymptomatic are spreading the virus.

I read the opposite from the CDC just a few weeks ago. This tells you how everything changes. First a mask was no good, now it's mandated in cities and states across the country. Before asymptomatic people were low risk for spreading, now the risk of spreading is the same.

I think there is a difference between going to a restaurant and going to a doctors office. Doctors are exposed to ill people day in day out. For most of us, we will probably never be around a person with Covid unless you are a socialite, or your business relies on personal contact with people all day long. Although our antibody testing is far from perfected, some are suggesting that we are already in the herd process and there's no stopping it.

The problem with this thing is we've never experienced anything like it; at least with the technology we have today. Who knows......next year at this time, they may be telling us what a waste of time and money it was for us to wear a mask. We simply don't know.

Early on CDC said that masks would not protect you which was true then and is basically true today. Actually, there is a very small amount of protection for the wearer but not much. Herd immunity as defined by the scientist is a calculated estimate based on transmission rate and reproductive numbers for the virus. For this virus herd immunity is 70% of the population having been exposed, that is they have antibodies. That can be off by 10 or 15%. If the scientists definition of herd immunity is used, there should not be much difference in the calculation.

We may not have all the details of a virus but we know a lot about epidemics and how to control them. For example any airborne virus or a virus whose most common transmission is through the air, the key to stopping transmission is preventing the virus from reaching a host. Masks, plastic shields, staying away from the source of virus, staying at home, etc prevents the spread, a really easy to understand concept but pretty hard to implement in a large population.

We also know a lot about a virus based on the characteristics of the family. There are 6 types of coronavirus that can infect humans which includes Mers and SARS. They have many of the same characteristic but there are some differences. It's really fortunate that there was work done developing the SARS vaccine because this gave researchers a starting point in developing the vaccine for this member of the family. Making changes to the vaccine can be very simple. However, every time you change the vaccine you start over in testing. This is why it takes so long to develop a vaccine. The fact that we are willing to accept a vaccine which has is not very effective, 40% makes it more likely we will get one sooner rather later.

It's wishful thinking, but there certainly is no guarantee a vaccine can be developed. We still don't have vaccines for HIV, flu, even the common cold.

If a new vaccine came out and was approved by September, many Americans would be hesitant to take it including myself. It reminds me of when I bought my first computer and read up on it. It was a Dummy's book. The author warned his readers to never buy software 2.0. 2.0 software is the original version. When thousands of people use it problem free in trials, it's different than when you start passing it out to millions of people. That's when they discover the hidden flaws and imperfections. It's why you always wait until version 2.2. or 2.3 to come out. Those are the versions where the flaws have been corrected.

It's the same with new medications. Yes, it undergoes intense testing, but we won't know the results or drawbacks until it's been used on tens of millions of people. Even then, it could take years to find out if it has any long-term negative effects.

Before I take it, I would need 100% guarantee from my doctor that it won't have any harmful effects on me, corroborated by my cousin, who is a retired research doctor that supervised the laboratory where she worked. Until I get that, I may wait for a while if and when a vaccine comes out.

I agree with your assessment of a vaccine with a few exceptions.
We do have a vaccine for the flu. I get one every year. A vaccine to prevent the common cold has been difficult to make, primarily because there are more than 200 different varieties of viruses that can cause colds. Also, if there were such a vaccine, you would have to get a new one every year like the flu vaccine, plus it would probably be not very effective due to the rate these viruses mutate.

The HIV is nothing like the coronations family of viruses. The problem developing a vaccine for HIV lies in genetic makeup of the virus. Unlike coronavirus, HIV has an incredibly fast replication cycle, less than 24 hour. However, the real show stopper is that HIV is prone to frequent replication errors, churning out mutated copies of itself which recombine into new strains as the virus is passed from person to person.

This coronavirus is very similar to SARS which we have developed a vaccine. Also most of the organizations developing vaccines have already proved in the lab that their vaccine kills the virus and is so far harmless to humans. The big question market is how effective the vaccine will be. Typically vaccines like these are 40% to 70% effective. The CDC has implied that a 40% effective vaccine would be acceptable. Think about what this really means. If we are able to produce enough of the vaccine to make it available like the flu vaccine at every primary care doctors office, every pharmacy, hospital, and public health clinic, we might be able to get the same inoculation numbers as the flu vaccine which is 45% of the population by the end of next year. So we might just have have 148 million vaccinated with 40% less chance of getting the virus and the remainder no protection since they were not vaccinated. After a year or so we get more effective vaccines and thus more protection. My guess is we will reach herd immunity about the time of 2024 election.

I don't think we're going see an unemployment rate of less than 5% for at least a year or so and people will dying from coronavirus for many years, hopefully at a greatly reduced rate.

BTW You will never get a 100% guarantee that a vaccine will not harm you. Deaths caused by vaccines are less than 2 per million and in almost all of those cases the person had a compromised immune system or had other conditions. You're probably more likely to get killed by a lightening strike than a vaccine.

I happen to be one of those people. I am 60 years old, and one of my two major medical conditions is the number one condition associated with death. It's one of the reasons I'd be so hesitant to take it.

If we (or others) do develop a vaccine for this thing, it should be able to wipe it out. Unlike the flu, it won't mutate so rapidly or differently, if it does at all. Experts have said if it would, then a weaker much less deadly strain would take it's place, unlike the flu. And if it does again, the next strain will be weaker yet.

Plus I think careless people have become more conscious of cleanliness now. You still can't find hand sanitizer or liquid soap in some stores. Fortunately for me, one of my tenants works at a store where they had and abundance of it because of customer limitations. She brought home some sanitizer for me and I was grateful she did. I should have plenty for while, at least until the shelves get fully stocked again. In addition, GoJo, the people who make Purell, are opening up a factory in my suburb. With some luck, they will let the citizens buy direct from them. And thanks to President Trump, there is this:

US bets on small, untested company to deliver COVID vaccine

When precious vats of COVID-19 vaccine are finally ready, jabbing the lifesaving solution into the arms of Americans will require hundreds of millions of injections.

fox8.com

Every vaccine is different. For the influenza vaccine given to day, you should avoid it if you:

• Have had an allergic reaction after a previous dose of influenza vaccine, or have any severe, life-threatening allergies.
• Have ever had Guillain-Barré Syndrome (also called GBS).

In order to wipe out the coronavirus, we would need a participation much more than the 45% we get with the influenza vaccine. The CDC did a big study of why people don't get the flu vaccine. As it turns only about 2% of the population has medical condition to disqualify them. If everyone that was eligible to take the flu shot did, we would nearly wipe it out. That means last year we would have saved the lives of nearly 57,000 people, prevented an illness that sickens nearly 40 million people plus an economic impact in the hundreds of millions.

With over 50 vaccines in test trials, I don't think we will need to worry about a vaccine being available next year.

I only take the flu shot once in a while. I've known many people who came down with illness after they took the shot. Some years, you get vaccinated for one strain, but a new strain comes out that makes the original vaccine worthless.

I have little doubt a vaccine for Covid will be made, it's just a matter of how effective it is, how many people get it, how many are restricted from getting it, and any serious side-effects many of us will be waiting for before we have confidence it's beneficial to us.

The reason you have a flu shot every year is to pickup protection for new strains of the viruses.

Viruses making you ill go back years when live viruses were used in most vaccines. That is no longer necessary. Today, if one person get's a flu shot and get's sick, they are almost certain to spread the news. However, for the tens of thousands of people that get flu shots and have no reaction at all, they remain silent. Ray, how often do people stop you on the street or call you and say, "Ray, guess what I got a flu yesterday and I feel just fine. My wife and I and most of my brothers and sisters have been getting flu shots every year for over 40 years and I can't remember anyone telling me they got sick. Thy myth that flu shots will make you sick has certainly contributed to the number of people that don't get vaccinated which cost us tens of thousands of lives every year.

I'm sure a majority don't get sick, but if you feel well, and then are faced with the possibility of getting sick because of the shot, you just don't take it. The times I've taken it, I've never experienced such a thing, but that doesn't mean it will always be that way in the future. My sister, who spent much of her life working in the hospital, took the shot and got the flu a week later.

If an when a vaccine comes out, I'm sure a lot of people will have reservations about getting one for some time. We can't deal out the media in this game. They will search high and low for stories of people getting ill or dying, because that's what sells newspapers and brings people to their internet
site, even if it is all bullshit. President Trump is absolutely correct when he says how dishonest most of our media is. They don't care about informing people, they care about making money, even if it's a disadvantage to society as a whole.

The vaccine tracker has 40 vaccines in progress.
There will certainly be a choice.

And Trump is last person you want to hear from about the media.
Because his favorite is OAN, a questionable source, at best.

And that choice may well be a burden as well as an opportunity. Who and how will decisions be made between less side effects and a higher percent effective, between costs and availability, single dose or multiple dose, etc. Also the successful vaccines will not become available all at the same time; that is we may have a 40% effective vaccine requiring two doses available in March and 3 months latter a 60% effective single dose vaccine with more side effects. My guess is that we will be lucky to have a vaccine available to the general public by the end of next year and even then it will take many months of inoculations before we start seeing decreasing numbers. This means we are going to have waves and hot spots breaking out for at least the next two years. So we better learn how to live with this virus and make decisions based on sound medical and economic data and advice, devoid of politics. It would be best if the president and other politicians would stop implying that a vaccine is just right around the corner and it's going wipe out the virus anytime in the near future. And telling the public that the virus is just going to disappear is about as helpful as a fart in spacesuit. We need to concentrate on saving lives and the economy, not some magical cure that does not exist and may not exist for a long time.

I have trouble understanding the logic stream of mask Nazis who scream about, "Just wear it, you MUST avoid catching Covid at all costs until there's a vaccine" . . . at which point, they're going to infect me with the disease they insisted I avoid being infected with. I honestly have to wonder if some people don't understand the concept of vaccines.

The concept of a vaccine is to train your immune system to generate the antibodies against the virus, without causing harm to the vaccinated person.
The reason it takes so long to get a vaccine its the requirement to verify that its effective and that it doesnt cause harm. This requires double-blind randomized trials.

Ever think that maybe vaccinations are the problem? What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

The potential reward of getting exposed to the virus to get immunity is not worth it.

At this point in time we do not know if that immunity will last more than a few weeks. Secondly, the virus will probably mutate and you may have no protection from the mutation. Vaccines are updated to add mutations of the virus to keep you protected.

Of course the real down side is you get sick, really sick. 1 out of every 5 people that test positive and develop symptoms end up in the hospital. I don't know if there is a good way to go, but I can assure you a critical case of Covid 19 is not a good way to die. If you're lucky your heart will give out sooner rather later. Your lungs will fill slowly with mucus. You will spend much time gasping for breath with shooting pains in your lungs with every breath. As the days wear on, your doctor will recommend a ventilator to save your life which requires intubation another world of pain. Since there are only two antivirals to treat covid 19 and they only work less than 1/3 of the time, you will be on a ventilator for some time, days if not weeks. Assuming your heart doesn't give out, kidney disease doesn't get you etc, eventually your body may beat the virus. However, the chances are life will not return to normal when you get home for a long time since most people that come off a ventilator suffers from PTSD as well other problems. Also they are finding some people after beating the virus have virus particles that remain.

Wait for the vaccine, social distance, and wear a mask. The minor inconvenience is worth it.

 

[Flopper]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

I think there is a huge consensus among just everybody in the healthcare field in regard to mask wearing. Of course it probably does not include your local bartender who is out of work, Sam the Surfer, and my granddaughter that thinks wearing a mask makes her look ugly. And there is a lot evidence coming contact tracing that shows that people that are asymptomatic are spreading the virus.

I read the opposite from the CDC just a few weeks ago. This tells you how everything changes. First a mask was no good, now it's mandated in cities and states across the country. Before asymptomatic people were low risk for spreading, now the risk of spreading is the same.

I think there is a difference between going to a restaurant and going to a doctors office. Doctors are exposed to ill people day in day out. For most of us, we will probably never be around a person with Covid unless you are a socialite, or your business relies on personal contact with people all day long. Although our antibody testing is far from perfected, some are suggesting that we are already in the herd process and there's no stopping it.

The problem with this thing is we've never experienced anything like it; at least with the technology we have today. Who knows......next year at this time, they may be telling us what a waste of time and money it was for us to wear a mask. We simply don't know.

Early on CDC said that masks would not protect you which was true then and is basically true today. Actually, there is a very small amount of protection for the wearer but not much. Herd immunity as defined by the scientist is a calculated estimate based on transmission rate and reproductive numbers for the virus. For this virus herd immunity is 70% of the population having been exposed, that is they have antibodies. That can be off by 10 or 15%. If the scientists definition of herd immunity is used, there should not be much difference in the calculation.

We may not have all the details of a virus but we know a lot about epidemics and how to control them. For example any airborne virus or a virus whose most common transmission is through the air, the key to stopping transmission is preventing the virus from reaching a host. Masks, plastic shields, staying away from the source of virus, staying at home, etc prevents the spread, a really easy to understand concept but pretty hard to implement in a large population.

We also know a lot about a virus based on the characteristics of the family. There are 6 types of coronavirus that can infect humans which includes Mers and SARS. They have many of the same characteristic but there are some differences. It's really fortunate that there was work done developing the SARS vaccine because this gave researchers a starting point in developing the vaccine for this member of the family. Making changes to the vaccine can be very simple. However, every time you change the vaccine you start over in testing. This is why it takes so long to develop a vaccine. The fact that we are willing to accept a vaccine which has is not very effective, 40% makes it more likely we will get one sooner rather later.

It's wishful thinking, but there certainly is no guarantee a vaccine can be developed. We still don't have vaccines for HIV, flu, even the common cold.

If a new vaccine came out and was approved by September, many Americans would be hesitant to take it including myself. It reminds me of when I bought my first computer and read up on it. It was a Dummy's book. The author warned his readers to never buy software 2.0. 2.0 software is the original version. When thousands of people use it problem free in trials, it's different than when you start passing it out to millions of people. That's when they discover the hidden flaws and imperfections. It's why you always wait until version 2.2. or 2.3 to come out. Those are the versions where the flaws have been corrected.

It's the same with new medications. Yes, it undergoes intense testing, but we won't know the results or drawbacks until it's been used on tens of millions of people. Even then, it could take years to find out if it has any long-term negative effects.

Before I take it, I would need 100% guarantee from my doctor that it won't have any harmful effects on me, corroborated by my cousin, who is a retired research doctor that supervised the laboratory where she worked. Until I get that, I may wait for a while if and when a vaccine comes out.

I agree with your assessment of a vaccine with a few exceptions.
We do have a vaccine for the flu. I get one every year. A vaccine to prevent the common cold has been difficult to make, primarily because there are more than 200 different varieties of viruses that can cause colds. Also, if there were such a vaccine, you would have to get a new one every year like the flu vaccine, plus it would probably be not very effective due to the rate these viruses mutate.

The HIV is nothing like the coronations family of viruses. The problem developing a vaccine for HIV lies in genetic makeup of the virus. Unlike coronavirus, HIV has an incredibly fast replication cycle, less than 24 hour. However, the real show stopper is that HIV is prone to frequent replication errors, churning out mutated copies of itself which recombine into new strains as the virus is passed from person to person.

This coronavirus is very similar to SARS which we have developed a vaccine. Also most of the organizations developing vaccines have already proved in the lab that their vaccine kills the virus and is so far harmless to humans. The big question market is how effective the vaccine will be. Typically vaccines like these are 40% to 70% effective. The CDC has implied that a 40% effective vaccine would be acceptable. Think about what this really means. If we are able to produce enough of the vaccine to make it available like the flu vaccine at every primary care doctors office, every pharmacy, hospital, and public health clinic, we might be able to get the same inoculation numbers as the flu vaccine which is 45% of the population by the end of next year. So we might just have have 148 million vaccinated with 40% less chance of getting the virus and the remainder no protection since they were not vaccinated. After a year or so we get more effective vaccines and thus more protection. My guess is we will reach herd immunity about the time of 2024 election.

I don't think we're going see an unemployment rate of less than 5% for at least a year or so and people will dying from coronavirus for many years, hopefully at a greatly reduced rate.

BTW You will never get a 100% guarantee that a vaccine will not harm you. Deaths caused by vaccines are less than 2 per million and in almost all of those cases the person had a compromised immune system or had other conditions. You're probably more likely to get killed by a lightening strike than a vaccine.

I happen to be one of those people. I am 60 years old, and one of my two major medical conditions is the number one condition associated with death. It's one of the reasons I'd be so hesitant to take it.

If we (or others) do develop a vaccine for this thing, it should be able to wipe it out. Unlike the flu, it won't mutate so rapidly or differently, if it does at all. Experts have said if it would, then a weaker much less deadly strain would take it's place, unlike the flu. And if it does again, the next strain will be weaker yet.

Plus I think careless people have become more conscious of cleanliness now. You still can't find hand sanitizer or liquid soap in some stores. Fortunately for me, one of my tenants works at a store where they had and abundance of it because of customer limitations. She brought home some sanitizer for me and I was grateful she did. I should have plenty for while, at least until the shelves get fully stocked again. In addition, GoJo, the people who make Purell, are opening up a factory in my suburb. With some luck, they will let the citizens buy direct from them. And thanks to President Trump, there is this:

US bets on small, untested company to deliver COVID vaccine

When precious vats of COVID-19 vaccine are finally ready, jabbing the lifesaving solution into the arms of Americans will require hundreds of millions of injections.

fox8.com

Every vaccine is different. For the influenza vaccine given to day, you should avoid it if you:

• Have had an allergic reaction after a previous dose of influenza vaccine, or have any severe, life-threatening allergies.
• Have ever had Guillain-Barré Syndrome (also called GBS).

In order to wipe out the coronavirus, we would need a participation much more than the 45% we get with the influenza vaccine. The CDC did a big study of why people don't get the flu vaccine. As it turns only about 2% of the population has medical condition to disqualify them. If everyone that was eligible to take the flu shot did, we would nearly wipe it out. That means last year we would have saved the lives of nearly 57,000 people, prevented an illness that sickens nearly 40 million people plus an economic impact in the hundreds of millions.

With over 50 vaccines in test trials, I don't think we will need to worry about a vaccine being available next year.

I only take the flu shot once in a while. I've known many people who came down with illness after they took the shot. Some years, you get vaccinated for one strain, but a new strain comes out that makes the original vaccine worthless.

I have little doubt a vaccine for Covid will be made, it's just a matter of how effective it is, how many people get it, how many are restricted from getting it, and any serious side-effects many of us will be waiting for before we have confidence it's beneficial to us.

The reason you have a flu shot every year is to pickup protection for new strains of the viruses.

Viruses making you ill go back years when live viruses were used in most vaccines. That is no longer necessary. Today, if one person get's a flu shot and get's sick, they are almost certain to spread the news. However, for the tens of thousands of people that get flu shots and have no reaction at all, they remain silent. Ray, how often do people stop you on the street or call you and say, "Ray, guess what I got a flu yesterday and I feel just fine. My wife and I and most of my brothers and sisters have been getting flu shots every year for over 40 years and I can't remember anyone telling me they got sick. Thy myth that flu shots will make you sick has certainly contributed to the number of people that don't get vaccinated which cost us tens of thousands of lives every year.

I'm sure a majority don't get sick, but if you feel well, and then are faced with the possibility of getting sick because of the shot, you just don't take it. The times I've taken it, I've never experienced such a thing, but that doesn't mean it will always be that way in the future. My sister, who spent much of her life working in the hospital, took the shot and got the flu a week later.

If an when a vaccine comes out, I'm sure a lot of people will have reservations about getting one for some time. We can't deal out the media in this game. They will search high and low for stories of people getting ill or dying, because that's what sells newspapers and brings people to their internet
site, even if it is all bullshit. President Trump is absolutely correct when he says how dishonest most of our media is. They don't care about informing people, they care about making money, even if it's a disadvantage to society as a whole.

The vaccine tracker has 40 vaccines in progress.
There will certainly be a choice.

And Trump is last person you want to hear from about the media.
Because his favorite is OAN, a questionable source, at best.

And that choice may well be a burden as well as an opportunity. Who and how will decisions be made between less side effects and a higher percent effective, between costs and availability, single dose or multiple dose, etc. Also the successful vaccines will not become available all at the same time; that is we may have a 40% effective vaccine requiring two doses available in March and 3 months latter a 60% effective single dose vaccine with more side effects. My guess is that we will be lucky to have a vaccine available to the general public by the end of next year and even then it will take many months of inoculations before we start seeing decreasing numbers. This means we are going to have waves and hot spots breaking out for at least the next two years. So we better learn how to live with this virus and make decisions based on sound medical and economic data and advice, devoid of politics. It would be best if the president and other politicians would stop implying that a vaccine is just right around the corner and it's going wipe out the virus anytime in the near future. And telling the public that the virus is just going to disappear is about as helpful as a fart in spacesuit. We need to concentrate on saving lives and the economy, not some magical cure that does not exist and may not exist for a long time.

I have trouble understanding the logic stream of mask Nazis who scream about, "Just wear it, you MUST avoid catching Covid at all costs until there's a vaccine" . . . at which point, they're going to infect me with the disease they insisted I avoid being infected with. I honestly have to wonder if some people don't understand the concept of vaccines.

The concept of a vaccine is to train your immune system to generate the antibodies against the virus, without causing harm to the vaccinated person.
The reason it takes so long to get a vaccine its the requirement to verify that its effective and that it doesnt cause harm. This requires double-blind randomized trials.

Except that the virus wouldn't cause harm to me, either, any more than any of the other germs I come into contact with every day. And I can acquire immunity that way a hell of a lot faster than I can through FDA approval.

Understand, I don't have a problem with vaccinations for diseases that are a serious threat. As a child, I was vaccinated against measles, mumps, everything but chickenpox (that vaccine didn't exist at the time). All my kids have received the standard childhood vaccinations. And I think a vaccine for Covid-19, assuming an effective one is developed, is a great idea for those in vulnerable populations.

But my post is talking about ME. I don't get flu vaccines every year, because the flu is nothing more than an inconvenience to my immune system, and it's very easy for me to avoid people who are vulnerable to it until after I've caught that year's strain and fought it off. Left to my own devices, instead of being hysterically "protected" by the political hypochondriacs among us, I would actually prefer to simply catch coronavirus, get over it, and move the fuck on to being forced to act like it's the second coming of the Black Death.

I would also prefer to catch the virus and get it over with, but...
1) we dont know how long antibodies for this stay in the body. Can we become re-infected, after X months?
2) how bad our reaction to the virus depends on the viral load. If we're exposed to too much of the virus quickly, our immune system cant generate antibodies quick enough to fight the virus. The virus itself could be a good vaccine if delivered in known quantities, but how to measure.
3) people who react badly to the virus have: A) high sugar diet (compromised endothelial function) aka high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity. Before being exposed to virus, these need to be fixed, along with sufficient vitamin D levels, zinc, etc. Other factors such as blood type. (the virus blocks ACE2 receptor function)

Well, #1 is equally true of vaccines, but that doesn't seem to stop anyone from treating them as the be-all and end-all we must bring the world to dead stop to wait for.

#2, you continue to act like this virus is overwhelmingly dangerous and life-threatening to large numbers of people. While you're not necessarily wrong about viral loads, you're DEAD wrong in your assumption that this is an issue for any but a small percentage of people, which indicates that you're totally ignoring all news, stats, and evidence that doesn't support your preferred apocalyptic vision.

#3, I'm well aware of all those facts, and I have no idea why you think it's necessary to gas away about them in response to my post about myself, since I have none of those indicators.

The fact remains, the decisions about what's best for me are being made by people who know nothing about me, on the basis of their own priorities and agendas, not mine.

Actually, the number of people at high risk are probably a lot bigger than you think, being over 60, obscenity, diabetes, COPD, heart disease, Sickle Cell, and a number of disease that compromise the immune system, That number is well over 80 million, about 1/4 of population.

I hear people talking about opening up all business and schools thinking the public will fill retail businesses and things will just go back to normal. That is just wishfully thinking. The more cases and deaths, the bigger the number that will not be fully participating in the economy. Take a look at how well things worked out keeping the country open in Sweden.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The potential reward of getting exposed to the virus to get immunity is not worth it.

At this point in time we do not know if that immunity will last more than a few weeks. Secondly, the virus will probably mutate and you may have no protection from the mutation. Vaccines are updated to add mutations of the virus to keep you protected.

I watched one expert on television last month. He stated it's not likely to mutate, but if it does, mutation generally produces weaker and weaker strains, not stronger or equal ones.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

I think there is a huge consensus among just everybody in the healthcare field in regard to mask wearing. Of course it probably does not include your local bartender who is out of work, Sam the Surfer, and my granddaughter that thinks wearing a mask makes her look ugly. And there is a lot evidence coming contact tracing that shows that people that are asymptomatic are spreading the virus.

I read the opposite from the CDC just a few weeks ago. This tells you how everything changes. First a mask was no good, now it's mandated in cities and states across the country. Before asymptomatic people were low risk for spreading, now the risk of spreading is the same.

I think there is a difference between going to a restaurant and going to a doctors office. Doctors are exposed to ill people day in day out. For most of us, we will probably never be around a person with Covid unless you are a socialite, or your business relies on personal contact with people all day long. Although our antibody testing is far from perfected, some are suggesting that we are already in the herd process and there's no stopping it.

The problem with this thing is we've never experienced anything like it; at least with the technology we have today. Who knows......next year at this time, they may be telling us what a waste of time and money it was for us to wear a mask. We simply don't know.

Early on CDC said that masks would not protect you which was true then and is basically true today. Actually, there is a very small amount of protection for the wearer but not much. Herd immunity as defined by the scientist is a calculated estimate based on transmission rate and reproductive numbers for the virus. For this virus herd immunity is 70% of the population having been exposed, that is they have antibodies. That can be off by 10 or 15%. If the scientists definition of herd immunity is used, there should not be much difference in the calculation.

We may not have all the details of a virus but we know a lot about epidemics and how to control them. For example any airborne virus or a virus whose most common transmission is through the air, the key to stopping transmission is preventing the virus from reaching a host. Masks, plastic shields, staying away from the source of virus, staying at home, etc prevents the spread, a really easy to understand concept but pretty hard to implement in a large population.

We also know a lot about a virus based on the characteristics of the family. There are 6 types of coronavirus that can infect humans which includes Mers and SARS. They have many of the same characteristic but there are some differences. It's really fortunate that there was work done developing the SARS vaccine because this gave researchers a starting point in developing the vaccine for this member of the family. Making changes to the vaccine can be very simple. However, every time you change the vaccine you start over in testing. This is why it takes so long to develop a vaccine. The fact that we are willing to accept a vaccine which has is not very effective, 40% makes it more likely we will get one sooner rather later.

It's wishful thinking, but there certainly is no guarantee a vaccine can be developed. We still don't have vaccines for HIV, flu, even the common cold.

If a new vaccine came out and was approved by September, many Americans would be hesitant to take it including myself. It reminds me of when I bought my first computer and read up on it. It was a Dummy's book. The author warned his readers to never buy software 2.0. 2.0 software is the original version. When thousands of people use it problem free in trials, it's different than when you start passing it out to millions of people. That's when they discover the hidden flaws and imperfections. It's why you always wait until version 2.2. or 2.3 to come out. Those are the versions where the flaws have been corrected.

It's the same with new medications. Yes, it undergoes intense testing, but we won't know the results or drawbacks until it's been used on tens of millions of people. Even then, it could take years to find out if it has any long-term negative effects.

Before I take it, I would need 100% guarantee from my doctor that it won't have any harmful effects on me, corroborated by my cousin, who is a retired research doctor that supervised the laboratory where she worked. Until I get that, I may wait for a while if and when a vaccine comes out.

I agree with your assessment of a vaccine with a few exceptions.
We do have a vaccine for the flu. I get one every year. A vaccine to prevent the common cold has been difficult to make, primarily because there are more than 200 different varieties of viruses that can cause colds. Also, if there were such a vaccine, you would have to get a new one every year like the flu vaccine, plus it would probably be not very effective due to the rate these viruses mutate.

The HIV is nothing like the coronations family of viruses. The problem developing a vaccine for HIV lies in genetic makeup of the virus. Unlike coronavirus, HIV has an incredibly fast replication cycle, less than 24 hour. However, the real show stopper is that HIV is prone to frequent replication errors, churning out mutated copies of itself which recombine into new strains as the virus is passed from person to person.

This coronavirus is very similar to SARS which we have developed a vaccine. Also most of the organizations developing vaccines have already proved in the lab that their vaccine kills the virus and is so far harmless to humans. The big question market is how effective the vaccine will be. Typically vaccines like these are 40% to 70% effective. The CDC has implied that a 40% effective vaccine would be acceptable. Think about what this really means. If we are able to produce enough of the vaccine to make it available like the flu vaccine at every primary care doctors office, every pharmacy, hospital, and public health clinic, we might be able to get the same inoculation numbers as the flu vaccine which is 45% of the population by the end of next year. So we might just have have 148 million vaccinated with 40% less chance of getting the virus and the remainder no protection since they were not vaccinated. After a year or so we get more effective vaccines and thus more protection. My guess is we will reach herd immunity about the time of 2024 election.

I don't think we're going see an unemployment rate of less than 5% for at least a year or so and people will dying from coronavirus for many years, hopefully at a greatly reduced rate.

BTW You will never get a 100% guarantee that a vaccine will not harm you. Deaths caused by vaccines are less than 2 per million and in almost all of those cases the person had a compromised immune system or had other conditions. You're probably more likely to get killed by a lightening strike than a vaccine.

I happen to be one of those people. I am 60 years old, and one of my two major medical conditions is the number one condition associated with death. It's one of the reasons I'd be so hesitant to take it.

If we (or others) do develop a vaccine for this thing, it should be able to wipe it out. Unlike the flu, it won't mutate so rapidly or differently, if it does at all. Experts have said if it would, then a weaker much less deadly strain would take it's place, unlike the flu. And if it does again, the next strain will be weaker yet.

Plus I think careless people have become more conscious of cleanliness now. You still can't find hand sanitizer or liquid soap in some stores. Fortunately for me, one of my tenants works at a store where they had and abundance of it because of customer limitations. She brought home some sanitizer for me and I was grateful she did. I should have plenty for while, at least until the shelves get fully stocked again. In addition, GoJo, the people who make Purell, are opening up a factory in my suburb. With some luck, they will let the citizens buy direct from them. And thanks to President Trump, there is this:

US bets on small, untested company to deliver COVID vaccine

When precious vats of COVID-19 vaccine are finally ready, jabbing the lifesaving solution into the arms of Americans will require hundreds of millions of injections.

fox8.com

Every vaccine is different. For the influenza vaccine given to day, you should avoid it if you:

• Have had an allergic reaction after a previous dose of influenza vaccine, or have any severe, life-threatening allergies.
• Have ever had Guillain-Barré Syndrome (also called GBS).

In order to wipe out the coronavirus, we would need a participation much more than the 45% we get with the influenza vaccine. The CDC did a big study of why people don't get the flu vaccine. As it turns only about 2% of the population has medical condition to disqualify them. If everyone that was eligible to take the flu shot did, we would nearly wipe it out. That means last year we would have saved the lives of nearly 57,000 people, prevented an illness that sickens nearly 40 million people plus an economic impact in the hundreds of millions.

With over 50 vaccines in test trials, I don't think we will need to worry about a vaccine being available next year.

I only take the flu shot once in a while. I've known many people who came down with illness after they took the shot. Some years, you get vaccinated for one strain, but a new strain comes out that makes the original vaccine worthless.

I have little doubt a vaccine for Covid will be made, it's just a matter of how effective it is, how many people get it, how many are restricted from getting it, and any serious side-effects many of us will be waiting for before we have confidence it's beneficial to us.

The reason you have a flu shot every year is to pickup protection for new strains of the viruses.

Viruses making you ill go back years when live viruses were used in most vaccines. That is no longer necessary. Today, if one person get's a flu shot and get's sick, they are almost certain to spread the news. However, for the tens of thousands of people that get flu shots and have no reaction at all, they remain silent. Ray, how often do people stop you on the street or call you and say, "Ray, guess what I got a flu yesterday and I feel just fine. My wife and I and most of my brothers and sisters have been getting flu shots every year for over 40 years and I can't remember anyone telling me they got sick. Thy myth that flu shots will make you sick has certainly contributed to the number of people that don't get vaccinated which cost us tens of thousands of lives every year.

I'm sure a majority don't get sick, but if you feel well, and then are faced with the possibility of getting sick because of the shot, you just don't take it. The times I've taken it, I've never experienced such a thing, but that doesn't mean it will always be that way in the future. My sister, who spent much of her life working in the hospital, took the shot and got the flu a week later.

If an when a vaccine comes out, I'm sure a lot of people will have reservations about getting one for some time. We can't deal out the media in this game. They will search high and low for stories of people getting ill or dying, because that's what sells newspapers and brings people to their internet
site, even if it is all bullshit. President Trump is absolutely correct when he says how dishonest most of our media is. They don't care about informing people, they care about making money, even if it's a disadvantage to society as a whole.

The vaccine tracker has 40 vaccines in progress.
There will certainly be a choice.

And Trump is last person you want to hear from about the media.
Because his favorite is OAN, a questionable source, at best.

And that choice may well be a burden as well as an opportunity. Who and how will decisions be made between less side effects and a higher percent effective, between costs and availability, single dose or multiple dose, etc. Also the successful vaccines will not become available all at the same time; that is we may have a 40% effective vaccine requiring two doses available in March and 3 months latter a 60% effective single dose vaccine with more side effects. My guess is that we will be lucky to have a vaccine available to the general public by the end of next year and even then it will take many months of inoculations before we start seeing decreasing numbers. This means we are going to have waves and hot spots breaking out for at least the next two years. So we better learn how to live with this virus and make decisions based on sound medical and economic data and advice, devoid of politics. It would be best if the president and other politicians would stop implying that a vaccine is just right around the corner and it's going wipe out the virus anytime in the near future. And telling the public that the virus is just going to disappear is about as helpful as a fart in spacesuit. We need to concentrate on saving lives and the economy, not some magical cure that does not exist and may not exist for a long time.

I have trouble understanding the logic stream of mask Nazis who scream about, "Just wear it, you MUST avoid catching Covid at all costs until there's a vaccine" . . . at which point, they're going to infect me with the disease they insisted I avoid being infected with. I honestly have to wonder if some people don't understand the concept of vaccines.

The concept of a vaccine is to train your immune system to generate the antibodies against the virus, without causing harm to the vaccinated person.
The reason it takes so long to get a vaccine its the requirement to verify that its effective and that it doesnt cause harm. This requires double-blind randomized trials.

Except that the virus wouldn't cause harm to me, either, any more than any of the other germs I come into contact with every day. And I can acquire immunity that way a hell of a lot faster than I can through FDA approval.

Understand, I don't have a problem with vaccinations for diseases that are a serious threat. As a child, I was vaccinated against measles, mumps, everything but chickenpox (that vaccine didn't exist at the time). All my kids have received the standard childhood vaccinations. And I think a vaccine for Covid-19, assuming an effective one is developed, is a great idea for those in vulnerable populations.

But my post is talking about ME. I don't get flu vaccines every year, because the flu is nothing more than an inconvenience to my immune system, and it's very easy for me to avoid people who are vulnerable to it until after I've caught that year's strain and fought it off. Left to my own devices, instead of being hysterically "protected" by the political hypochondriacs among us, I would actually prefer to simply catch coronavirus, get over it, and move the fuck on to being forced to act like it's the second coming of the Black Death.

I would also prefer to catch the virus and get it over with, but...
1) we dont know how long antibodies for this stay in the body. Can we become re-infected, after X months?
2) how bad our reaction to the virus depends on the viral load. If we're exposed to too much of the virus quickly, our immune system cant generate antibodies quick enough to fight the virus. The virus itself could be a good vaccine if delivered in known quantities, but how to measure.
3) people who react badly to the virus have: A) high sugar diet (compromised endothelial function) aka high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity. Before being exposed to virus, these need to be fixed, along with sufficient vitamin D levels, zinc, etc. Other factors such as blood type. (the virus blocks ACE2 receptor function)

Well, #1 is equally true of vaccines, but that doesn't seem to stop anyone from treating them as the be-all and end-all we must bring the world to dead stop to wait for.

#2, you continue to act like this virus is overwhelmingly dangerous and life-threatening to large numbers of people. While you're not necessarily wrong about viral loads, you're DEAD wrong in your assumption that this is an issue for any but a small percentage of people, which indicates that you're totally ignoring all news, stats, and evidence that doesn't support your preferred apocalyptic vision.

#3, I'm well aware of all those facts, and I have no idea why you think it's necessary to gas away about them in response to my post about myself, since I have none of those indicators.

The fact remains, the decisions about what's best for me are being made by people who know nothing about me, on the basis of their own priorities and agendas, not mine.

1) No country needed to dead stop. It only effects gathers of people indoors. The countries that rid themselves of this have listened to scientists.

2) Around 1 in every 5 people who are infected with COVID-19 develop difficulty in breathing and require hospital care. The intent is to prevent hospitals from overflowing.

3) this is a public forum, others read it.

#4 You're still wasting my time blathering things not in dispute and irrelevant to the topic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

I think there is a huge consensus among just everybody in the healthcare field in regard to mask wearing. Of course it probably does not include your local bartender who is out of work, Sam the Surfer, and my granddaughter that thinks wearing a mask makes her look ugly. And there is a lot evidence coming contact tracing that shows that people that are asymptomatic are spreading the virus.

I read the opposite from the CDC just a few weeks ago. This tells you how everything changes. First a mask was no good, now it's mandated in cities and states across the country. Before asymptomatic people were low risk for spreading, now the risk of spreading is the same.

I think there is a difference between going to a restaurant and going to a doctors office. Doctors are exposed to ill people day in day out. For most of us, we will probably never be around a person with Covid unless you are a socialite, or your business relies on personal contact with people all day long. Although our antibody testing is far from perfected, some are suggesting that we are already in the herd process and there's no stopping it.

The problem with this thing is we've never experienced anything like it; at least with the technology we have today. Who knows......next year at this time, they may be telling us what a waste of time and money it was for us to wear a mask. We simply don't know.

Early on CDC said that masks would not protect you which was true then and is basically true today. Actually, there is a very small amount of protection for the wearer but not much. Herd immunity as defined by the scientist is a calculated estimate based on transmission rate and reproductive numbers for the virus. For this virus herd immunity is 70% of the population having been exposed, that is they have antibodies. That can be off by 10 or 15%. If the scientists definition of herd immunity is used, there should not be much difference in the calculation.

We may not have all the details of a virus but we know a lot about epidemics and how to control them. For example any airborne virus or a virus whose most common transmission is through the air, the key to stopping transmission is preventing the virus from reaching a host. Masks, plastic shields, staying away from the source of virus, staying at home, etc prevents the spread, a really easy to understand concept but pretty hard to implement in a large population.

We also know a lot about a virus based on the characteristics of the family. There are 6 types of coronavirus that can infect humans which includes Mers and SARS. They have many of the same characteristic but there are some differences. It's really fortunate that there was work done developing the SARS vaccine because this gave researchers a starting point in developing the vaccine for this member of the family. Making changes to the vaccine can be very simple. However, every time you change the vaccine you start over in testing. This is why it takes so long to develop a vaccine. The fact that we are willing to accept a vaccine which has is not very effective, 40% makes it more likely we will get one sooner rather later.

It's wishful thinking, but there certainly is no guarantee a vaccine can be developed. We still don't have vaccines for HIV, flu, even the common cold.

If a new vaccine came out and was approved by September, many Americans would be hesitant to take it including myself. It reminds me of when I bought my first computer and read up on it. It was a Dummy's book. The author warned his readers to never buy software 2.0. 2.0 software is the original version. When thousands of people use it problem free in trials, it's different than when you start passing it out to millions of people. That's when they discover the hidden flaws and imperfections. It's why you always wait until version 2.2. or 2.3 to come out. Those are the versions where the flaws have been corrected.

It's the same with new medications. Yes, it undergoes intense testing, but we won't know the results or drawbacks until it's been used on tens of millions of people. Even then, it could take years to find out if it has any long-term negative effects.

Before I take it, I would need 100% guarantee from my doctor that it won't have any harmful effects on me, corroborated by my cousin, who is a retired research doctor that supervised the laboratory where she worked. Until I get that, I may wait for a while if and when a vaccine comes out.

I agree with your assessment of a vaccine with a few exceptions.
We do have a vaccine for the flu. I get one every year. A vaccine to prevent the common cold has been difficult to make, primarily because there are more than 200 different varieties of viruses that can cause colds. Also, if there were such a vaccine, you would have to get a new one every year like the flu vaccine, plus it would probably be not very effective due to the rate these viruses mutate.

The HIV is nothing like the coronations family of viruses. The problem developing a vaccine for HIV lies in genetic makeup of the virus. Unlike coronavirus, HIV has an incredibly fast replication cycle, less than 24 hour. However, the real show stopper is that HIV is prone to frequent replication errors, churning out mutated copies of itself which recombine into new strains as the virus is passed from person to person.

This coronavirus is very similar to SARS which we have developed a vaccine. Also most of the organizations developing vaccines have already proved in the lab that their vaccine kills the virus and is so far harmless to humans. The big question market is how effective the vaccine will be. Typically vaccines like these are 40% to 70% effective. The CDC has implied that a 40% effective vaccine would be acceptable. Think about what this really means. If we are able to produce enough of the vaccine to make it available like the flu vaccine at every primary care doctors office, every pharmacy, hospital, and public health clinic, we might be able to get the same inoculation numbers as the flu vaccine which is 45% of the population by the end of next year. So we might just have have 148 million vaccinated with 40% less chance of getting the virus and the remainder no protection since they were not vaccinated. After a year or so we get more effective vaccines and thus more protection. My guess is we will reach herd immunity about the time of 2024 election.

I don't think we're going see an unemployment rate of less than 5% for at least a year or so and people will dying from coronavirus for many years, hopefully at a greatly reduced rate.

BTW You will never get a 100% guarantee that a vaccine will not harm you. Deaths caused by vaccines are less than 2 per million and in almost all of those cases the person had a compromised immune system or had other conditions. You're probably more likely to get killed by a lightening strike than a vaccine.

I happen to be one of those people. I am 60 years old, and one of my two major medical conditions is the number one condition associated with death. It's one of the reasons I'd be so hesitant to take it.

If we (or others) do develop a vaccine for this thing, it should be able to wipe it out. Unlike the flu, it won't mutate so rapidly or differently, if it does at all. Experts have said if it would, then a weaker much less deadly strain would take it's place, unlike the flu. And if it does again, the next strain will be weaker yet.

Plus I think careless people have become more conscious of cleanliness now. You still can't find hand sanitizer or liquid soap in some stores. Fortunately for me, one of my tenants works at a store where they had and abundance of it because of customer limitations. She brought home some sanitizer for me and I was grateful she did. I should have plenty for while, at least until the shelves get fully stocked again. In addition, GoJo, the people who make Purell, are opening up a factory in my suburb. With some luck, they will let the citizens buy direct from them. And thanks to President Trump, there is this:

US bets on small, untested company to deliver COVID vaccine

When precious vats of COVID-19 vaccine are finally ready, jabbing the lifesaving solution into the arms of Americans will require hundreds of millions of injections.

fox8.com

Every vaccine is different. For the influenza vaccine given to day, you should avoid it if you:

• Have had an allergic reaction after a previous dose of influenza vaccine, or have any severe, life-threatening allergies.
• Have ever had Guillain-Barré Syndrome (also called GBS).

In order to wipe out the coronavirus, we would need a participation much more than the 45% we get with the influenza vaccine. The CDC did a big study of why people don't get the flu vaccine. As it turns only about 2% of the population has medical condition to disqualify them. If everyone that was eligible to take the flu shot did, we would nearly wipe it out. That means last year we would have saved the lives of nearly 57,000 people, prevented an illness that sickens nearly 40 million people plus an economic impact in the hundreds of millions.

With over 50 vaccines in test trials, I don't think we will need to worry about a vaccine being available next year.

I only take the flu shot once in a while. I've known many people who came down with illness after they took the shot. Some years, you get vaccinated for one strain, but a new strain comes out that makes the original vaccine worthless.

I have little doubt a vaccine for Covid will be made, it's just a matter of how effective it is, how many people get it, how many are restricted from getting it, and any serious side-effects many of us will be waiting for before we have confidence it's beneficial to us.

The reason you have a flu shot every year is to pickup protection for new strains of the viruses.

Viruses making you ill go back years when live viruses were used in most vaccines. That is no longer necessary. Today, if one person get's a flu shot and get's sick, they are almost certain to spread the news. However, for the tens of thousands of people that get flu shots and have no reaction at all, they remain silent. Ray, how often do people stop you on the street or call you and say, "Ray, guess what I got a flu yesterday and I feel just fine. My wife and I and most of my brothers and sisters have been getting flu shots every year for over 40 years and I can't remember anyone telling me they got sick. Thy myth that flu shots will make you sick has certainly contributed to the number of people that don't get vaccinated which cost us tens of thousands of lives every year.

I'm sure a majority don't get sick, but if you feel well, and then are faced with the possibility of getting sick because of the shot, you just don't take it. The times I've taken it, I've never experienced such a thing, but that doesn't mean it will always be that way in the future. My sister, who spent much of her life working in the hospital, took the shot and got the flu a week later.

If an when a vaccine comes out, I'm sure a lot of people will have reservations about getting one for some time. We can't deal out the media in this game. They will search high and low for stories of people getting ill or dying, because that's what sells newspapers and brings people to their internet
site, even if it is all bullshit. President Trump is absolutely correct when he says how dishonest most of our media is. They don't care about informing people, they care about making money, even if it's a disadvantage to society as a whole.

The vaccine tracker has 40 vaccines in progress.
There will certainly be a choice.

And Trump is last person you want to hear from about the media.
Because his favorite is OAN, a questionable source, at best.

And that choice may well be a burden as well as an opportunity. Who and how will decisions be made between less side effects and a higher percent effective, between costs and availability, single dose or multiple dose, etc. Also the successful vaccines will not become available all at the same time; that is we may have a 40% effective vaccine requiring two doses available in March and 3 months latter a 60% effective single dose vaccine with more side effects. My guess is that we will be lucky to have a vaccine available to the general public by the end of next year and even then it will take many months of inoculations before we start seeing decreasing numbers. This means we are going to have waves and hot spots breaking out for at least the next two years. So we better learn how to live with this virus and make decisions based on sound medical and economic data and advice, devoid of politics. It would be best if the president and other politicians would stop implying that a vaccine is just right around the corner and it's going wipe out the virus anytime in the near future. And telling the public that the virus is just going to disappear is about as helpful as a fart in spacesuit. We need to concentrate on saving lives and the economy, not some magical cure that does not exist and may not exist for a long time.

I have trouble understanding the logic stream of mask Nazis who scream about, "Just wear it, you MUST avoid catching Covid at all costs until there's a vaccine" . . . at which point, they're going to infect me with the disease they insisted I avoid being infected with. I honestly have to wonder if some people don't understand the concept of vaccines.

The concept is incredible simple, I wear a mask to protect you and you wear a mask to protect me. That's enough for 63% of Americans who wear masks consistently. However, that percentage needs to exceed 85% to stop the virus. I don't believe it is possible to close that gap in this country because mask wearing is just not part our culture. After a couple of more epidemics the US will be responding well.

In far eastern countries such as South Korean and Japan, the people were told to put on the masks and about 90% of the population wore masks consistently. Of course, this is not their first rodeo. They've been hit by other airborne epidemics and they know masks work. This coupled with a rapid and consistent testing response to the virus has made these countries an example of how to manage an epidemic while the US sets an example of how not to. Another big difference is these countries moved rapidly in sealing off entrance to the country before the epidemic spread and the isolated infected areas in their country. Since the virus was never out of control, most business remained open with some restrictions. However, these government operated on the premise that fixing the health problem of the nation was the key to fixing the economic health of the nation. In the US, instead the economy being driven by the health consideration the opposite has been the case.

Japan with a population 41% of the US has had .6% of the deaths
South Korea with a population of 18% of the US has had .2% of the deaths
Thailand with a population of 21% of the US has had .04% of the deaths
India with a population of 4.1 times the US has had 17% of the deaths.

The concept IS incredibly simple: repeat the talking points over and over, and when someone asks a question outside the talking points . . . just pretend you didn't hear it and repeat the talking points again.

 

[dudmuck]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

I think there is a huge consensus among just everybody in the healthcare field in regard to mask wearing. Of course it probably does not include your local bartender who is out of work, Sam the Surfer, and my granddaughter that thinks wearing a mask makes her look ugly. And there is a lot evidence coming contact tracing that shows that people that are asymptomatic are spreading the virus.

I read the opposite from the CDC just a few weeks ago. This tells you how everything changes. First a mask was no good, now it's mandated in cities and states across the country. Before asymptomatic people were low risk for spreading, now the risk of spreading is the same.

I think there is a difference between going to a restaurant and going to a doctors office. Doctors are exposed to ill people day in day out. For most of us, we will probably never be around a person with Covid unless you are a socialite, or your business relies on personal contact with people all day long. Although our antibody testing is far from perfected, some are suggesting that we are already in the herd process and there's no stopping it.

The problem with this thing is we've never experienced anything like it; at least with the technology we have today. Who knows......next year at this time, they may be telling us what a waste of time and money it was for us to wear a mask. We simply don't know.

Early on CDC said that masks would not protect you which was true then and is basically true today. Actually, there is a very small amount of protection for the wearer but not much. Herd immunity as defined by the scientist is a calculated estimate based on transmission rate and reproductive numbers for the virus. For this virus herd immunity is 70% of the population having been exposed, that is they have antibodies. That can be off by 10 or 15%. If the scientists definition of herd immunity is used, there should not be much difference in the calculation.

We may not have all the details of a virus but we know a lot about epidemics and how to control them. For example any airborne virus or a virus whose most common transmission is through the air, the key to stopping transmission is preventing the virus from reaching a host. Masks, plastic shields, staying away from the source of virus, staying at home, etc prevents the spread, a really easy to understand concept but pretty hard to implement in a large population.

We also know a lot about a virus based on the characteristics of the family. There are 6 types of coronavirus that can infect humans which includes Mers and SARS. They have many of the same characteristic but there are some differences. It's really fortunate that there was work done developing the SARS vaccine because this gave researchers a starting point in developing the vaccine for this member of the family. Making changes to the vaccine can be very simple. However, every time you change the vaccine you start over in testing. This is why it takes so long to develop a vaccine. The fact that we are willing to accept a vaccine which has is not very effective, 40% makes it more likely we will get one sooner rather later.

It's wishful thinking, but there certainly is no guarantee a vaccine can be developed. We still don't have vaccines for HIV, flu, even the common cold.

If a new vaccine came out and was approved by September, many Americans would be hesitant to take it including myself. It reminds me of when I bought my first computer and read up on it. It was a Dummy's book. The author warned his readers to never buy software 2.0. 2.0 software is the original version. When thousands of people use it problem free in trials, it's different than when you start passing it out to millions of people. That's when they discover the hidden flaws and imperfections. It's why you always wait until version 2.2. or 2.3 to come out. Those are the versions where the flaws have been corrected.

It's the same with new medications. Yes, it undergoes intense testing, but we won't know the results or drawbacks until it's been used on tens of millions of people. Even then, it could take years to find out if it has any long-term negative effects.

Before I take it, I would need 100% guarantee from my doctor that it won't have any harmful effects on me, corroborated by my cousin, who is a retired research doctor that supervised the laboratory where she worked. Until I get that, I may wait for a while if and when a vaccine comes out.

I agree with your assessment of a vaccine with a few exceptions.
We do have a vaccine for the flu. I get one every year. A vaccine to prevent the common cold has been difficult to make, primarily because there are more than 200 different varieties of viruses that can cause colds. Also, if there were such a vaccine, you would have to get a new one every year like the flu vaccine, plus it would probably be not very effective due to the rate these viruses mutate.

The HIV is nothing like the coronations family of viruses. The problem developing a vaccine for HIV lies in genetic makeup of the virus. Unlike coronavirus, HIV has an incredibly fast replication cycle, less than 24 hour. However, the real show stopper is that HIV is prone to frequent replication errors, churning out mutated copies of itself which recombine into new strains as the virus is passed from person to person.

This coronavirus is very similar to SARS which we have developed a vaccine. Also most of the organizations developing vaccines have already proved in the lab that their vaccine kills the virus and is so far harmless to humans. The big question market is how effective the vaccine will be. Typically vaccines like these are 40% to 70% effective. The CDC has implied that a 40% effective vaccine would be acceptable. Think about what this really means. If we are able to produce enough of the vaccine to make it available like the flu vaccine at every primary care doctors office, every pharmacy, hospital, and public health clinic, we might be able to get the same inoculation numbers as the flu vaccine which is 45% of the population by the end of next year. So we might just have have 148 million vaccinated with 40% less chance of getting the virus and the remainder no protection since they were not vaccinated. After a year or so we get more effective vaccines and thus more protection. My guess is we will reach herd immunity about the time of 2024 election.

I don't think we're going see an unemployment rate of less than 5% for at least a year or so and people will dying from coronavirus for many years, hopefully at a greatly reduced rate.

BTW You will never get a 100% guarantee that a vaccine will not harm you. Deaths caused by vaccines are less than 2 per million and in almost all of those cases the person had a compromised immune system or had other conditions. You're probably more likely to get killed by a lightening strike than a vaccine.

I happen to be one of those people. I am 60 years old, and one of my two major medical conditions is the number one condition associated with death. It's one of the reasons I'd be so hesitant to take it.

If we (or others) do develop a vaccine for this thing, it should be able to wipe it out. Unlike the flu, it won't mutate so rapidly or differently, if it does at all. Experts have said if it would, then a weaker much less deadly strain would take it's place, unlike the flu. And if it does again, the next strain will be weaker yet.

Plus I think careless people have become more conscious of cleanliness now. You still can't find hand sanitizer or liquid soap in some stores. Fortunately for me, one of my tenants works at a store where they had and abundance of it because of customer limitations. She brought home some sanitizer for me and I was grateful she did. I should have plenty for while, at least until the shelves get fully stocked again. In addition, GoJo, the people who make Purell, are opening up a factory in my suburb. With some luck, they will let the citizens buy direct from them. And thanks to President Trump, there is this:

US bets on small, untested company to deliver COVID vaccine

When precious vats of COVID-19 vaccine are finally ready, jabbing the lifesaving solution into the arms of Americans will require hundreds of millions of injections.

fox8.com

Every vaccine is different. For the influenza vaccine given to day, you should avoid it if you:

• Have had an allergic reaction after a previous dose of influenza vaccine, or have any severe, life-threatening allergies.
• Have ever had Guillain-Barré Syndrome (also called GBS).

In order to wipe out the coronavirus, we would need a participation much more than the 45% we get with the influenza vaccine. The CDC did a big study of why people don't get the flu vaccine. As it turns only about 2% of the population has medical condition to disqualify them. If everyone that was eligible to take the flu shot did, we would nearly wipe it out. That means last year we would have saved the lives of nearly 57,000 people, prevented an illness that sickens nearly 40 million people plus an economic impact in the hundreds of millions.

With over 50 vaccines in test trials, I don't think we will need to worry about a vaccine being available next year.

I only take the flu shot once in a while. I've known many people who came down with illness after they took the shot. Some years, you get vaccinated for one strain, but a new strain comes out that makes the original vaccine worthless.

I have little doubt a vaccine for Covid will be made, it's just a matter of how effective it is, how many people get it, how many are restricted from getting it, and any serious side-effects many of us will be waiting for before we have confidence it's beneficial to us.

The reason you have a flu shot every year is to pickup protection for new strains of the viruses.

Viruses making you ill go back years when live viruses were used in most vaccines. That is no longer necessary. Today, if one person get's a flu shot and get's sick, they are almost certain to spread the news. However, for the tens of thousands of people that get flu shots and have no reaction at all, they remain silent. Ray, how often do people stop you on the street or call you and say, "Ray, guess what I got a flu yesterday and I feel just fine. My wife and I and most of my brothers and sisters have been getting flu shots every year for over 40 years and I can't remember anyone telling me they got sick. Thy myth that flu shots will make you sick has certainly contributed to the number of people that don't get vaccinated which cost us tens of thousands of lives every year.

I'm sure a majority don't get sick, but if you feel well, and then are faced with the possibility of getting sick because of the shot, you just don't take it. The times I've taken it, I've never experienced such a thing, but that doesn't mean it will always be that way in the future. My sister, who spent much of her life working in the hospital, took the shot and got the flu a week later.

If an when a vaccine comes out, I'm sure a lot of people will have reservations about getting one for some time. We can't deal out the media in this game. They will search high and low for stories of people getting ill or dying, because that's what sells newspapers and brings people to their internet
site, even if it is all bullshit. President Trump is absolutely correct when he says how dishonest most of our media is. They don't care about informing people, they care about making money, even if it's a disadvantage to society as a whole.

The vaccine tracker has 40 vaccines in progress.
There will certainly be a choice.

And Trump is last person you want to hear from about the media.
Because his favorite is OAN, a questionable source, at best.

And that choice may well be a burden as well as an opportunity. Who and how will decisions be made between less side effects and a higher percent effective, between costs and availability, single dose or multiple dose, etc. Also the successful vaccines will not become available all at the same time; that is we may have a 40% effective vaccine requiring two doses available in March and 3 months latter a 60% effective single dose vaccine with more side effects. My guess is that we will be lucky to have a vaccine available to the general public by the end of next year and even then it will take many months of inoculations before we start seeing decreasing numbers. This means we are going to have waves and hot spots breaking out for at least the next two years. So we better learn how to live with this virus and make decisions based on sound medical and economic data and advice, devoid of politics. It would be best if the president and other politicians would stop implying that a vaccine is just right around the corner and it's going wipe out the virus anytime in the near future. And telling the public that the virus is just going to disappear is about as helpful as a fart in spacesuit. We need to concentrate on saving lives and the economy, not some magical cure that does not exist and may not exist for a long time.

I have trouble understanding the logic stream of mask Nazis who scream about, "Just wear it, you MUST avoid catching Covid at all costs until there's a vaccine" . . . at which point, they're going to infect me with the disease they insisted I avoid being infected with. I honestly have to wonder if some people don't understand the concept of vaccines.

This should help you understand:

CDC director: U.S. could get coronavirus "under control" in 4-8 weeks if everyone wears masks

"The time is now. We really need to embrace masking," Robert Redfield said.

www.axios.com