From this article:
“When the vaccine was rolled out the goal should have been to focus on people at risk, and that should still be the focus,” says Memoli. Such risk stratification may have complicated logistics, but it would also require more nuanced messaging. “A lot of public health people have this notion that if the public is told that there’s even the slightest bit of uncertainty about a vaccine, then they won’t get it,” he says. For Memoli, this reflects a bygone paternalism. “I always think it’s much better to be very clear and honest about what we do and don’t know, what the risks and benefits are, and allow people to make decisions for themselves.”
The authors here agree (I’d really like professionals to discuss this for it’s highly disturbing; but obvious why it wasn’t communicated to subjects)
Thx, that’s promising.
I find it interesting that the fda has to play games: technically the vaccine is still under emergency use authorization & not approved (last paragraph)
I don't know if any of the failed vaccines had antibody dependent enhancement issues but even if not it is a failure of medical ethics to not disclose the risk sufficiently since it was a risk for trial participants. This paper is not expressing concern over approved vaccines.
Yes it’s interesting that they are using previous corona profiles. You would think a yr is long enough but I’m patient and will hedge my bet by losing my job.
Previous corona profiles? The article was written before the vaccines were widely available, so the only people who had received them were in the clinical trials.
A year is absolutely long enough. To quote Derek Lowe in the "From the Pipeline" article:
"We have hundreds of millions of people who have been vaccinated to produce antibodies against the non-Delta coronavirus protein domains and are who are now being exposed to the Delta variant. To reiterate, there is (to the best of my knowledge) no evidence whatsoever of ADE in this situation. In fact, we see the opposite: people who have been vaccinated are far less likely to become infected with the Delta variant, and if they become infected, they are far less likely to experience severe disease. These trends have been seen over and over in different populations, and they are the exact opposite of what you would see if ADE were operating. If the mechanism proposed by Yahi et al. were happening in the real world, then we should see higher Delta infection rates among vaccinated people, with more severe disease. We are not. We are seeing the reverse. The vaccines simply to not appear to be causing ADE, no matter how many reasons one might be able to spin for them to do so."
But it was rolled out to those at highest risk first no? It wasn't until many months later my wife (who wasn't employed in healthcare at the time and is relatively young) was able to get scheduled. By that point it had become clear the at risk population hadn't had an opposite effect than intended.
Unfortunately not in much of the country. Many states prioritized healthcare workers, healthcare administrators, and the spouses of healthcare workers regardless of age either simultaneously or before the compromised and elderly. Meanwhile, Florida Governor Ron Desantis was ridiculed by the media for prioritizing elderly and compromised in his state.
The authors here agree (I’d really like professionals to discuss this for it’s highly disturbing; but obvious why it wasn’t communicated to subjects)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7645850/
THE RISK OF ADE IN COVID‐19 VACCINES IS NON‐THEORETICAL AND COMPELLING