I'm in Pfizer's COVID vaccine trial, ask me anything.

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Diomedes
    commented on 's reply
    Could go either way. SARS-1 vanished in 2005, hasn't been a single case since. MERS pops up occasionally but doesn't persistently circulate. But there are four other coronaviruses that just cause a cold and circulate persistently. So...who knows.

  • Diomedes
    commented on 's reply
    One of the trials is using a different vaccine as the placebo, but the rest, Pfizer included, are using true saline placebos.

  • Diomedes
    commented on 's reply
    Yes, a prior infection wouldn't interfere with the vaccine. If anything, that would result in more robust immunity, since both doses would effectively act like boosters for the already acquired immunity.

  • boarder2k7
    commented on 's reply
    If it's prehensile this is a feature I'd pay extra for tbh

  • Tarsun2
    commented on 's reply
    ha, my original thought was the poly-a tail but it just wasn't clinking in my mind. I always remembered the telomerase as the genetic time keeper of sorts. lol
    its been a long time since ive seen this stuff.

    i still get a little piece of it working at a hospital in BioMed. Im the guy that has to inventory, install and set up, and maintain the freezers and Cephied analyzer.
    i cover the main lab and contracts but my main focus and training is respiratory. Im the guy that fixes the life safety vents and keeps them going. V60's, LTV's, Engstroms Carestation's, and such

  • Diomedes
    commented on 's reply
    To be fair, the symptoms did the unblinding for us. Other participants have asked about antibody testing and been told "do whatever you want just don't tell us the results". They're tracking objective measures like positive COVID tests, so the participant being unblinded barely matters.

    As far as I know, they're tracking symptomatic cases, but one of the other trials is also testing for asymptomatic. AstraZenica, maybe?

  • Diomedes
    commented on 's reply
    My understanding is that there have been some mutations since the pandemic started, but none that have a large enough effect on the spike protein to cause problems for vaccination. Not yet, anyway. It'll certainly change enough at some point, and if it keeps circulating, that would require updated vaccines, like we do for influenza each year.

  • Arthur
    replied
    Before I ask this question I just want to be clear that I do intend to use this vaccine once it’s available. Is there any concern with provoking too much of an immune response? I’ve had my body really wig out over a virus, hospitalized, it was awful.

    Leave a comment:


  • bellicose
    replied
    Was this volunteer basis, or did you get some sort of compensation? Also, how did you know where to sign up?

    Leave a comment:


  • chrislognshot
    replied
    Originally posted by ford
    I've read Covid-19 can mutate. Does that mean we're going to be gunning for a new Covid vaccine every year like we do with the flu?
    going to be like flu and not go away

    Leave a comment:


  • ta2maki
    replied
    Couldn't you have gotten a random or non-covid flu shot as a control? Making 'getting side effects' not a tell if you got the placebo or not.

    DUN! DUN! DUN!

    Leave a comment:


  • russc
    replied
    Would the vaccine elicit a similar response if you had already been infected with Covid?

    Leave a comment:


  • Axel
    replied
    Does the trial involve any random or regular testing to detect asymptomatic cases among the participants?

    Originally posted by Diomedes
    It's double blind, so we're not *supposed* to know if we got a placebo or the real deal, but we both had textbook post-vaccination side effects (low-grade fever, aches and soreness) for about a day, so we were confident we got the real thing. We both then got antibody tests to check, and yup, real deal.
    Would that not seriously piss you off if you were the researcher and your subjects unblinded themselves? Lol

    Leave a comment:


  • Diomedes
    commented on 's reply
    No idea, but my guess would be no. Part of what they want to figure out is the strength of the vaccine response compared to a natural exposure. It's likely that the response from the vaccine would be stronger and longer lasting, so even with natural protection, it would be better if everyone could be vaccinated.

  • Diomedes
    commented on 's reply
    Potentially yes! The probability would be lower, but the idea is that even with the vaccine, it's possible that you get an infection that causes no symptoms, but can still be spread. Part of the trial is figuring out whether that's the case, but since we won't really know for some time, that's one of the reasons it's critical for everyone (everyone who doesn't have a health reason preventing vaccination) to get vaccinated - so it's mutually reinforcing and mutually protective.
Working...