nwflyboy
Contributor
Because it's still early days. Answers don't pop out instantly. Learning -- and confirming various things -- takes time. We will know more with the passage of time.
Not a good sign for cruise ship industry return before vaccine
- Thread starter cozcharlie
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Because it's still early days. Answers don't pop out instantly. Learning -- and confirming various things -- takes time. We will know more with the passage of time.
deepsea21
Contributor
What is going to be interesting is how the side effects of the COVID vaccination impact people's willingness to take it. The media hasn't covered this but reports are coming out that the MRNA vaccines have some nasty side effects that last 24-36 hours... Migraine like headache, joint and muscle pain, nausea, etc... Kind of like having the Flu or a bad case of COVID that lasts for a short time frame. Many people couldn't work the next day and stayed home sick after the 1st dose and during the MRNA based vaccine tests that all required 1 vaccination followed by a 2nd a prescribed time frame later there were quite a few who after experiencing the side effects of the 1st refused the 2nd vaccine in the trials.
Personally, I don't think I'd let 2 days of sickness dissuade me from getting vaccinated per the 2 dose protocol (but I haven't experienced the side effects a 1st dose yet). I think the Oxford vaccine that has been based on prior vaccine development techniques and is not MRNA based is the one to watch. That vaccine got a bad wrap because they screwed up the initial dose in 50% of the participants and ended up with 2 batches of data but the data still proved very promising and without the side effects that the MRNA based vaccines have found to be perhaps commonplace. I think it very well may be a better vaccine but whoever handles their PR made a major screw up and failed to spin the mistake as best as possible being, 2 databases and sampling groups that have received different doses, even if by mistake, are better than one.
Personally, I don't think I'd let 2 days of sickness dissuade me from getting vaccinated per the 2 dose protocol (but I haven't experienced the side effects a 1st dose yet). I think the Oxford vaccine that has been based on prior vaccine development techniques and is not MRNA based is the one to watch. That vaccine got a bad wrap because they screwed up the initial dose in 50% of the participants and ended up with 2 batches of data but the data still proved very promising and without the side effects that the MRNA based vaccines have found to be perhaps commonplace. I think it very well may be a better vaccine but whoever handles their PR made a major screw up and failed to spin the mistake as best as possible being, 2 databases and sampling groups that have received different doses, even if by mistake, are better than one.
pepperbelly
Contributor
If it is anything like when iI had the Shingrix vaccine the second is worse, but it beats having shingles. I tried looking it up. The Shingrix is a recombinant zoster vaccine. Is that the same as a mrna vaccine?
You'd think that the contagion data would be as easily available as the illness data, wouldn't you? Maybe you've heard one way or the other, but I haven't.
Actually it isn't quite that simple. The time span between infection to symptom and then symptom to recovery are not a 1:1 correlation with viral shedding. There seems to be a window (presymptomatic to early symptoms) when people shed much more virus and become less contagious as the illness progresses. Further, the degree of viral shedding seems to vary quite a bit between people. Probability of infection and severe disease seem to be at least partly dose dependent. So a person who is shedding a relatively small amount of virus is going to be less contagious than one shedding a lot. Getting efficacy data regarding the vaccine controlling contagion is going to take a bit longer than basic immunization data.
I heard some stuff this morning on the radio from a couple of epidemiologists. They addressed this question but said the answer as of now is unknown.
And that's just it, it's not fully understood what constitutes contagion. If you shed one viral particle does that make you contagious? Probably not. In addition, it also isn't understood if it's possible for the vaccine to protect you against infection, while you still shed virus. So it's possible you could come up negative on a test and still shed virus. It isn't logistically feasible to test all 30 or 40k trial participants on a daily basis. So that means these data have to be inferred over long periods of monitoring.
Similar threads
