Stop saying (or believing) that virologists are going to push an unsafe, ineffective vaccine.

[Aristus]

Trump can bleat whatever he wants, and usually does. He has a dim understanding of electoral politics.

But the people who are doing the heavy lifting of producing a vaccine against COVID-19 aren't concerned with politics. They are tasked with the science of creating an immunization. They understand, as should we but we don't, that science doesn't care about politics, or society, or public perception. When it comes to science, it is, as Trump dismissively blithered, what it is.

If Trump says a safe and effective vaccine is available, distrust him with every fiber of your being.

If a credentialed, experienced, qualified virologist and/or immunologist says a safe and effective vaccine is available, you would be right to trust him/her.

And if you're spewing "vaccines are an evil plot to make us all trackable autism patients", kindly shut the front door...

[Mike 03]

1. I'm agnostic on this. But enough smart people are concerned about it that I'm not going

to be the first in line. As I've written before, I'd take a W.H.O., European or Israeli or Canadian vaccine in a second. But when has Trump ever presided over something that succeeded?

Scientists Worry About Political Influence Over Coronavirus Vaccine Project

Operation Warp Speed has moved along at a rapid clip. But some people involved in the process fear pressure to deliver an October surprise for President Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/02/us/politics/coronavirus-vaccine.html

Also, it's not really a distrust of scientists driving this concern; it's a distrust of the FDA under Trump. This isn't the old FDA. It's Trump's FDA.

[Aristus]

7. I don't know what 'concerned' smart people you're talking about.

Of course Trump has politicized the need for a vaccine. That's why any vaccine he pushes should be distrusted.

But as I said in the OP, if a scientist announces that a safe and effective vaccine is available, that's something we can trust. In any case, any safe and effective vaccine will not be available until long after the election in November. Even if, God forbid, Trump gets a second term, any value a vaccine has to the election will be nil.

If one is really that 'concerned', one should do as I suggested, and listen to the qualified ones...

[Mike 03]

10. You might read the article. The "concerned" smart people are in it.

“There are a lot of people on the inside of this process who are very nervous about whether the administration is going to reach their hand into the Warp Speed bucket, pull out one or two or three vaccines, and say, ‘We’ve tested it on a few thousand people, it looks safe, and now we are going to roll it out,’” said Dr. Paul A. Offit of the University of Pennsylvania, who is a member of the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory committee.

“They are really worried about that,” he added. “And they should be.”

Nobody is stopping you from being the first person in line to receive the vaccine!

[Aristus]

30. Dr. Offit is admitting that people are going to be pressured to rush a vaccine.

No one actually tasked with developing one, and possessing the credentials to do so, is going to give in to that pressure. They want to succeed in the sphere of science, not politics.

[redstatebluegirl]

2. I don't think for one minute that a scientist of any kind would do that.

What I do feel, is that money is driving the bus. We have already seen what lengths Trumper will go to, to use money to push a company or lab to put something out before it is ready is not crazy by any means. I am lucky, my husband is a scientist, if he says that they protocols have been followed we get the vaccine. If Trump's "demon doctor" says it is, I don't. I do not blame any scientist, they are all under siege 24/7 by this administration.

[LisaL]

3. Normally vaccine development and testing takes years.

So if somebody tells me vaccine is going to be ready by October, how exactly is that possible?

[Aristus]

8. It's not.

See my reply above.

I just don't want people thinking that any vaccine is automatically going to be unsafe and ineffective.

I deal with enough of that in non-pandemic times...

[dalton99a]

4. Wait until it is recommended by a reputable medical organization

such as the American Academy of Family Physicians

[Aristus]

9. Exactly.

[SlogginThroughIt]

5. Who are the people that you are speaking to?

First is there a large contingent of people here who are anti-vax or anti-science? Also I think it is perfectly ok for people to question whether or not they want to put a medication in their body without full knowledge of it's side effects, the testing process and whether or not any corners were cut in its development and deployment.

Why are you telling people what they should do with their bodies?

[Aristus]

11. I'm a Physician Assistant working in Primary Care.

We are going to be the ones patients come to when a vaccine is available.

And it's possible you haven't been here long enough to know just how many anti-vaxxers we have right here on DU. People who should know better, but spew anti-science bullshit anyway.

And if one has questions, they can come to me. I'll answer them.

Go to Jenny McCarthy or Jim Carrey, and you're on your own...

[SlogginThroughIt]

14. I have been here a LONG time as a reader.

I have not seen a serious amount of anti-vaxxers on this site. What percentage of users would you say it is? Enough to use broad stroke generalizations? I have been reading since 2004 and while there may have been some that peeled off to go to JPR I haven't seen any evidence of anti vaxxers in any real force here.

Can you name some? You could DM me the names to not break the rules.

[Aristus]

20. It's a small, but very vocal, group.

Read any thread about vaccines, and you'll find them there.

This has been going on for years. Every year, at the onset of flu season, we get the "I don't need a vaccine; I never get sick!" types. And the "The flu vaccine gave me the flu, so I never get it anymore" types. And the "You don't know what's in the vaccine, do you? DO YOU???" types.

The kind who spend their lives shitposting for the fun of it, not knowing or not caring how much damage they're causing...

[SlogginThroughIt]

21. Again I haven't seen that. I will take your word for it.

I have seen people skeptical of whether or not they should take a medication that may or may not have been allowed to skip some clinical studies or that has been pushed through in a fraction of time that other vaccines have endured. That to me isn't anti-vax.

[Aristus]

24. The last time a vaccine 'slipped through' the vetting process was in the 1970's.

A vaccine for Yersinia pestis, or bubonic plague, was developed and not tested sufficiently. It turned out to be highly ineffective, and had intolerable side effects. It was quickly withdrawn again. That was a big learning experience. Testing is much more thorough these days.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

37. Actually, the last time an ineffective and dangerous vaccine got through

was the Swine Flu Vaccine in 1976. It was a hurry-up deal based on exactly ONE soldier in Ft. Dix getting flu and dying. A bunch of people got Guillain-Barre syndrome from the vaccine.

I honestly have never heard about a vaccine for bubonic plague, and I live in a state where it's endemic, and several people contract it each year. We had our first death in several years from it recently.

[Aristus]

39. I suppose they thought a vaccine for it was more trouble than it was worth.

Despite the horror it caused in the 13th Century, today it is easily treatable with antibiotics.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

40. Probably.

Here in New Mexico the doctors are real aware of the Plague and so it almost always gets correctly diagnosed in time for successful treatment. It's a slightly greater problem if visitors are exposed and then go back home, because Plague is pretty much the last thing a doctor in New York or Florida would think of.

[ProfessorGAC]

42. You Can Take Aristus' Word...

...without reservation.
I know who those same people are. It's against DU rules so I cannot, but could, list 5 screen names without a pause.

[obamanut2012]

43. I can name four of them

So yup.

[still_one]

6. Thank-you. Any vaccine is going to be peered reviewed. Those floating the conspiracy nonesense

are ridiculous

Just common sense should tell them why it is nonesense. Are all the participants in the clinical trials, and all the researchers part of this "conspiracy"?

When trump tried to push the hydroxychloroquine myth, it was quickly dispelled by multiple clinical trials that were published in credible journals such as NEJM etc.

[SlogginThroughIt]

16. HCQ is still being pushed today

[still_one]

17. but not by any credible source, and 20% believe Obama is a Muslim and not a citizen also

[SlogginThroughIt]

18. Depends on what you believe to be credible.

There are supposed doctors that are pushing it today.

[Aristus]

22. The medical journals are credible. That's not a matter of 'belief'.

They don't owe anything to Trump, or to politics.

Trying to get scientists to agree on anything is a monumental task. There is tremendous pressure to get the science right, and to not be called out by one's peers. When scientists agree, you can pretty much take their findings to the bank.

[SlogginThroughIt]

23. no but they are rushing.

Has nothing to do with Trump.

[Aristus]

26. Do they want a vaccine quickly? yes. Everyone does.

Are they going to be slipshod as a result? No.

The fastest a vaccine has ever been developed was four years. It was for mumps.

They're going to take the time they need. No one with a sliver of scientific intelligence is listening to Trump anyway...

[still_one]

27. Some would like to have you believe it is a debate, but it isn't. The data speaks for itself, and

the vast majority of infectious disease physicians, and clinical trials tell the tale

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. If Trump or Peter Navarro or one of his cronies are pushing it, I'm skeptical (at best)

If Fauci or WHO are promoting it, I'm fine. Trump, et. al have repeatedly damaged their credibility because of their lack of credentials and pushing stuff like HCL in spite of empirical evidence showing that it's not helpful

[gratuitous]

13. Not so long ago, I would have agreed without hesitation

And I may agree again soon. But after watching first Dr. Fauci and then Dr. Birx compromise their professional integrity while Trump stamped his little feet and pretended to know more than they did about public health and pandemics, I was very disappointed. Since those early days, Fauci appears to have regained his former position and Birx is just beginning to act like a medical professional again. But it took each of them a long frickin' time to try to get out from under Trump's shadow. Thousands more died while Trump ginned up pointless squabbles over masks, social distancing, "reopening" the country, injecting disinfectant, and shoving light bulbs up people's nether regions.

I hope Fauci and Birx reassert their independence and continue to do so; the public good will best be served by listening to the professionals and not Lord Littlehands. But I suspect there are still medical and scientific professionals who will subordinate their judgment to whatever hobby horse Trump is riding this particular week.

[Aristus]

15. If that's your concern, go instead to the medical journals, the compilers of which owe Trump nothing

and are concerned only with the veracity of the scientific findings.

Journal of the AMA, the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal. And so on. These are the resources to trust...

[gratuitous]

36. Well, sure

Respected medical journals have a voice and a platform that Fox and thousands of Trump amplifiers simply can't match, and their word in October will overwhelm the shrilling of the administration over a vaccine that doesn't really exist. And the American people will totally resist the blandishments of the administration and its self-serving lie, because that happens all the time. And folks who have merged their identity with the administration will soberly and solemnly weigh the competing claims and side with the resources worthy of trust rather than the resources that tell them what they want to hear.

My concern is that the existence or nonexistence of a vaccine has passed from the realm of scientific study into the political arena, and long before the science weighs in, the political sphere will dominate several news cycles in October and set the narrative for a lot of people on whether there exists a safe, effective vaccine. After all, in 2016 enough people were persuaded (or wanted to believe) that there was something hinky about Hillary Clinton's e-mails during her time as Secretary of State that she lost the electoral college. How much more receptive will the American people be to a pleasing lie that presents them with the prospect of putting the pandemic behind us?

[RockRaven]

19. Having relevant credentials isn't a silver bullet. Birx and Redfield have shown that.

In the main, I agree with your point that we should ignore Trump and his political hacks and listen to experts. But there is a Venn diagram intersection there. We need to prepare ourselves to listen to experts who are not appointed by, or corrupted by, Trump.

[BooScout]

25. Seriously?

You do realize that some companies involved in the race for a vaccine have never produced one before right? You do realize that steps are being skipped in some instances right? You do realize that public health experts are warning of the dangers of rushing a vaccine right? If they rush a vaccine to market this fall, pray tell us all how they determined we would have immunity to Covid19 for at least a year? There are hundreds of questions and concerns being expressed by medical professionals and scientists around the world regarding a rush for a vaccine, yet you are urging us to trust those working to create a vaccine? Ha!

[Aristus]

28. You said it yourself: there are hundreds of questions and concerns being expressed by

medical professionals and scientists around the world.

These are the people I'm urging everyone to listen to. Maybe you misunderstood that.

If a vaccine candidate passes muster with them, that is something we can trust.

[Sgent]

29. Safe and effective

are value judgements that are set via the political process. Something can be overall safe, effective, and potentially dangerous (live polio vaccine).

If the FDA uses and advisory committee and follows their recommendations, then I will probably go for it. If they skip the advisory committee or decide in a different manner than advised, I will skip the vaccine until more is published.

[Aristus]

31. Safe and effective aren't value judgements in the testing process.

If a politicians with an ax to grind says it's 'safe and effective', there's no empiricism behind that.

If the head of a peer-reviewed development program with statistical data regarding the testing model, the patient population, the efficacy level, the number needed to treat, the number needed to harm, and clinical outcomes says the vaccine is effective, that's not a value judgement; it's not an 'opinion'. It's empirical evidence.

[BGBD]

32. I wouldn't have complete faith

given that the people who are really going to be in charge are political appointments and pharma executives. Scientists will develop vaccinations, but we should not discount the number of time executives have pushed a product that their own scientists told them could be unsafe. There would also be a lot of political pressure to approve the vaccine if it were before the election.

[Aristus]

33. Which is why I advised going with the recommendations of the medical journals.

They are much, much less likely to succumb to political pressure. Scientists value their reputation for accuracy above all else. There are encouragingly few who would prostitute their reputations in exchange for a photo op with Trump. And if they did the photo op anyway, that's how we know they're not trustworthy.

[Initech]

34. Virologists won't push one, but Trump will.

And he will do anything that makes him look good for reelection.

[Aristus]

35. Exactly.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

38. Given how effectively the CDC has been silenced,

I would not have any faith in any vaccine produced in this country if they don't produce the actual paperwork connected to testing it, showing how many took the vaccine, what side effects there were, how many people didn't get Covid-19 who otherwise would have, and so on.

Something else to keep in mind. Even if a genuinely excellent, safe, and highly effective vaccine is produced, can we really trust the mass manufacturing? Most people aren't aware that when the Salk vaccine was declared safe and effective, the formula to produce it was given to five different companies so that the millions of doses needed could be produced quickly. Unfortunately, one of them screwed up, causing 40,000 cases of a mild version of polio. 56 children got the paralytic version, and 5 of them died.

Given that the Salk vaccine was not developed in a rush-job environment, that one of the manufacturers could still screw it up, is notable. But a Covid-19 vaccine? Rushed to develop and to get out? No thank you.

I am fortunate in that I'm retired, my income is unaffected by everything that's happened, and it's easy for me to stay home most of the time. There are also a lot of people who need to be ahead of me in any line to be vaccinated, so I will pass until it is obvious to the most casual observer that the vaccine is really safe and effective.

[uponit7771]

41. Not worried about virologist just the Trump admin and their paid shills virologist or not.

[Voltaire2]

44. Russia is releasing a vaccine this week.

According to multiple reports. Think that one is safe and effective? Or perhaps compromised by political interference?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

48. So what's the difference between Russia and Trump? trump

Says his vaccine will be ready in Nov. Like 4 months will make it that much safer? We need to lump trump and Putin together as BOTH being too rash.

[Voltaire2]

49. My point. Those of us still clinging to some

theory that we are not a corrupt autocracy quite similar in many respects to Russia or Brazil should examine the events of the last 4 years.

[yardwork]

45. Hear, hear.

[maxrandb]

46. Yes, because the "adults in the room" have done such a good job

protecting us from a madman!

I'd feel a lot better about what you've said if I hadn't just spent 4 years watching so called "honorable and courageous public servants" crumble and fold like a cheap suit in the face of a nasty tweet.

Remember all those folks that were going to "moderate his worst and evil instincts"?

Yeah, neither do I.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

47. Lost opportunity in my mind that there isn't a mass effort by Dems

To discredit trump as untrustworthy when it comes to touting any virus vaccine.
Given Trump's history with favoritism with vents and PPE, depending on whether you are blue or red, how can anyone trust him with doling out vaccines?

Also think you won't see any scientists say a vaccine is categorically safe. It takes many years of observation and data to know that.