12 ms·

I wonder if any, or if many, Moderna employees have been walking around off-the-books immunized since January. I know I would've been tempted.

tehjoker 6y ago
Probably not since January, but maybe after the phase 1 trials and the dosing schedule was figured out. To be honest, if it doesn't come out that they were using it off the books, either they're suckers or we are.
- phreeza 6y ago
  > if it doesn't come out that they were using it off the books, either they're suckers or we are. Or it doesn't come out because they are good at keeping it secret.
  - brodie 6y ago
    Would they need to keep it a secret? Could their own employees have entered the trials?
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    It could be a good thing to leak it to the press. The press would feign a scandal but it would actually have the effect of showing people that they believe in their product and only a slap on the wrist would actually happen (if anything).
- zbrozek 6y ago
  Would it even be a problem if they did? Like presumably people are generally free to do things to themselves. If they self-administered and they were allowed to consume the resource (e.g., it wasn't theft) who was harmed?
  - mywittyname 6y ago
    I wouldn't personally mind. I mean, these researchers are, presumably, the most informed people in the world on the subject.
    - brandmeyer 6y ago
      Hopefully they would be well-informed enough to wait on the trial results. Remember AstraZenica? https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/astrazenecas-best-covid-vaccine-result-was-a-fluke-experts-have-questions/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/astrazenecas-best-co...
  - noja 6y ago
    Surely it's either theft or breaks FDA rules?
  - atonse 6y ago
    My guess is that while the people probably wouldn't be in trouble, the company might get in trouble with regulators for allowing it to happen. But that's a complete, uneducated (but I think, logical) guess.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  > To be honest, if it doesn't come out that they were using it off the books, either they're suckers or we are. Considering high-level officials in the government apparently never received the vaccine, I would be surprised if the people involved in the research took the vaccine. Then again, maybe secret was kept extremely well. My intuition is, if POTUS knew about it, he would have been telegraphing such on twitter back in the summer months.
dontreact 6y ago
A friend of mine has a partner who works for them. She said that employees don't get a free vaccine. Obviously take this rumor with a grain of salt.
- sgc 6y ago
  Sorry boss, I broke a vial.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Sterile fill products are done on assembly lines and don’t really get touched by humans until they are are packaged.
- OJFord 6y ago
  A corporate gifting of one to every rank and file employee like some sort of morally questionable bonus is a bit different from, what I assume GP meant, folks in the lab actually working on it pricking themselves to test, or because they believe in it, can't resist, etc.
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    I think that there is a reasonable argument to be made that those making vaccines need to be immunised early. How early though?
optimalsolver 6y ago
They're very welcome to act as experimental guinea pigs for expedited medical treatments.
jeofken 6y ago
What’s the death rate of COVID-19 compared to for example common flu for working age people (30s, 40s)?
- fnord77 6y ago
  everyone talks about the death rate, but for survivors there's evidence of severe permanent damage in some cases.
  - jayrot 6y ago
    Also the death rate as a catchall metric completely ignores people who here in absolutely critical, life-or-death condition but were only saved from death by incredible medical intervention and/or just pure luck.
    - lostlogin 6y ago
      Another terrible metric comes in here, money. What does the annual flu season cost versus the covid cost? Money is a bad metric but it does boil things down to one measure. I’m sure these aren’t measured the same way but the effects haven’t been similar. Flu $90b per year versus the covid cost of $16t. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1885332 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1885332 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2771764 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2771764
      - xienze 6y ago
        > Flu $90b per year versus the covid cost of $16t. I mean that miiiight have something to do with the fact that we basically ignore the flu despite tens of thousands of deaths every year. Whereas with Covid we collectively decided to shut down the entire world.
        lostlogin 6y ago
        Yes, and why were the shutdowns done? If you compare what happens with uncontrolled covid spread to a those of a flu season, they aren’t really all that similar. Even with the lockdowns, the deaths have been considerably more than tens of thousands.
jnwatson 6y ago
They probably could have finagled themselves into a trial. I know a friend that got the Moderna vaccine that way. Technically, it was double blind, but it is fairly obvious whether you got the real vaccine or not.
- jwilk 6y ago
  How is it obvious?
  - ThrustVectoring 6y ago
    What this class of vaccine does is make a bunch of foreign proteins for your immune system to attack in your arm without actually infecting you with the disease. So you get inflammation and soreness at the injection site, and this is not from the physics of having an injection. The placebo arm injects with a saline solution, so there's no immune response, and you miss those symptoms.
    - NoodleIncident 6y ago
      It might have been the trial for a different vaccine; I think it was the one someone on this site was participating in? But in that trial, the control was another proven vaccine for something most people don't commonly get vaccinated for.
    - ckdarby 6y ago
      Do you think people could perceive having "false" inflammation? I'm thinking that if during the double blind trial they told those not getting the real dose that they should expect inflammation that many of them would believe they're having some form of inflammation.
      - pastrami_panda 6y ago
        Yes, it's called nocebo effect and can be quite harmful actually.
    - 6y ago
michaelt 6y ago
Unless you're in a high-risk group, getting a vaccine early is kinda irrelevant. Being able to go to concerts and sports events and theatres safely is pointless if there aren't any concerts or sports events or theatres open. If you've got elderly loved ones you want to keep safe, you'd need to vaccinate them, not yourself. And if all you want to do is go to the shops without a mask, while everyone assumes you're a dumbass? You don't need a vaccine to do that.
- dag11 6y ago
  There's a strong social benefit too. Being able to more comfortably spend time with friends and family you care about, even if they can't be vaccinated yet, seems worthwhile in itself. There's also the related consideration for dating, etc.
  - closeparen 6y ago
    Unfortunately not. Being vaccinated doesn't stop you from having and transmitting the virus, only from getting sick. It won't be safe for you to see your friends until they have it too.
    - dag11 6y ago
      That's not a blanket statement that can be made, as the data is still coming in. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/fda-analysis-details-support-moderna-covid-vaccine#file-69251--2:~:text=He%20said%20the%20findings%20reflect%20an,support%20this%20key%20benefit%2C%22%20he%20said https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/fda-anal.... > He said the findings reflect an impact on blocking transmission and are very encouraging, hinting at mucosal immunity. "The data aren't conclusive but support this key benefit," he said. Of course, if in the end vaccines don't prevent transmission, then they don't prevent transmission. But we don't know that they don't do that.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > If you've got elderly loved ones you want to keep safe, you'd need to vaccinate them, not yourself. If the vaccine substantially reduces viral load, and degree and period of contagiousness for those who receive it, as well as reducing the risk of illness (which AFAIK it does, while falling short of sterilizing immunity), and you are the elderly loved ones main interface to the outside world, getting vaccinated on top of other precautions provides a real benefit. OTOH, if you have to choose one to be vaccinated, it's them, not you. If you do this for lots of elderly family members, getting yourself vaccinated may be better than getting any one of them vaccinated, though. And, of course, of you are doing an off the books pre-approval use of the vaccine, accepting the risk of unexpected side effects for yourself may be more reasonable than imposing them on, or even suggesting them to, someone else who may be in a more fragile state.

tehjoker 6y ago

Probably not since January, but maybe after the phase 1 trials and the dosing schedule was figured out. To be honest, if it doesn't come out that they were using it off the books, either they're suckers or we are.

phreeza 6y ago
> if it doesn't come out that they were using it off the books, either they're suckers or we are. Or it doesn't come out because they are good at keeping it secret.
- brodie 6y ago
  Would they need to keep it a secret? Could their own employees have entered the trials?
- tehjoker 6y ago
  It could be a good thing to leak it to the press. The press would feign a scandal but it would actually have the effect of showing people that they believe in their product and only a slap on the wrist would actually happen (if anything).
zbrozek 6y ago
Would it even be a problem if they did? Like presumably people are generally free to do things to themselves. If they self-administered and they were allowed to consume the resource (e.g., it wasn't theft) who was harmed?
- mywittyname 6y ago
  I wouldn't personally mind. I mean, these researchers are, presumably, the most informed people in the world on the subject.
  - brandmeyer 6y ago
    Hopefully they would be well-informed enough to wait on the trial results. Remember AstraZenica? https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/astrazenecas-best-covid-vaccine-result-was-a-fluke-experts-have-questions/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/astrazenecas-best-co...
- noja 6y ago
  Surely it's either theft or breaks FDA rules?
- atonse 6y ago
  My guess is that while the people probably wouldn't be in trouble, the company might get in trouble with regulators for allowing it to happen. But that's a complete, uneducated (but I think, logical) guess.
mywittyname 6y ago
> To be honest, if it doesn't come out that they were using it off the books, either they're suckers or we are. Considering high-level officials in the government apparently never received the vaccine, I would be surprised if the people involved in the research took the vaccine. Then again, maybe secret was kept extremely well. My intuition is, if POTUS knew about it, he would have been telegraphing such on twitter back in the summer months.

dontreact 6y ago

A friend of mine has a partner who works for them. She said that employees don't get a free vaccine. Obviously take this rumor with a grain of salt.

sgc 6y ago
Sorry boss, I broke a vial.
- refurb 6y ago
  Sterile fill products are done on assembly lines and don’t really get touched by humans until they are are packaged.
OJFord 6y ago
A corporate gifting of one to every rank and file employee like some sort of morally questionable bonus is a bit different from, what I assume GP meant, folks in the lab actually working on it pricking themselves to test, or because they believe in it, can't resist, etc.
- lostlogin 6y ago
  I think that there is a reasonable argument to be made that those making vaccines need to be immunised early. How early though?

optimalsolver 6y ago

They're very welcome to act as experimental guinea pigs for expedited medical treatments.

jeofken 6y ago

What’s the death rate of COVID-19 compared to for example common flu for working age people (30s, 40s)?

fnord77 6y ago
everyone talks about the death rate, but for survivors there's evidence of severe permanent damage in some cases.
- jayrot 6y ago
  Also the death rate as a catchall metric completely ignores people who here in absolutely critical, life-or-death condition but were only saved from death by incredible medical intervention and/or just pure luck.
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    Another terrible metric comes in here, money. What does the annual flu season cost versus the covid cost? Money is a bad metric but it does boil things down to one measure. I’m sure these aren’t measured the same way but the effects haven’t been similar. Flu $90b per year versus the covid cost of $16t. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1885332 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1885332 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2771764 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2771764
    - xienze 6y ago
      > Flu $90b per year versus the covid cost of $16t. I mean that miiiight have something to do with the fact that we basically ignore the flu despite tens of thousands of deaths every year. Whereas with Covid we collectively decided to shut down the entire world.
      - lostlogin 6y ago
        Yes, and why were the shutdowns done? If you compare what happens with uncontrolled covid spread to a those of a flu season, they aren’t really all that similar. Even with the lockdowns, the deaths have been considerably more than tens of thousands.

jnwatson 6y ago

They probably could have finagled themselves into a trial. I know a friend that got the Moderna vaccine that way. Technically, it was double blind, but it is fairly obvious whether you got the real vaccine or not.

jwilk 6y ago
How is it obvious?
- ThrustVectoring 6y ago
  What this class of vaccine does is make a bunch of foreign proteins for your immune system to attack in your arm without actually infecting you with the disease. So you get inflammation and soreness at the injection site, and this is not from the physics of having an injection. The placebo arm injects with a saline solution, so there's no immune response, and you miss those symptoms.
  - NoodleIncident 6y ago
    It might have been the trial for a different vaccine; I think it was the one someone on this site was participating in? But in that trial, the control was another proven vaccine for something most people don't commonly get vaccinated for.
  - ckdarby 6y ago
    Do you think people could perceive having "false" inflammation? I'm thinking that if during the double blind trial they told those not getting the real dose that they should expect inflammation that many of them would believe they're having some form of inflammation.
    - pastrami_panda 6y ago
      Yes, it's called nocebo effect and can be quite harmful actually.
  - 6y ago

michaelt 6y ago

Unless you're in a high-risk group, getting a vaccine early is kinda irrelevant. Being able to go to concerts and sports events and theatres safely is pointless if there aren't any concerts or sports events or theatres open. If you've got elderly loved ones you want to keep safe, you'd need to vaccinate them, not yourself. And if all you want to do is go to the shops without a mask, while everyone assumes you're a dumbass? You don't need a vaccine to do that.

dag11 6y ago
There's a strong social benefit too. Being able to more comfortably spend time with friends and family you care about, even if they can't be vaccinated yet, seems worthwhile in itself. There's also the related consideration for dating, etc.
- closeparen 6y ago
  Unfortunately not. Being vaccinated doesn't stop you from having and transmitting the virus, only from getting sick. It won't be safe for you to see your friends until they have it too.
  - dag11 6y ago
    That's not a blanket statement that can be made, as the data is still coming in. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/fda-analysis-details-support-moderna-covid-vaccine#file-69251--2:~:text=He%20said%20the%20findings%20reflect%20an,support%20this%20key%20benefit%2C%22%20he%20said https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/fda-anal.... > He said the findings reflect an impact on blocking transmission and are very encouraging, hinting at mucosal immunity. "The data aren't conclusive but support this key benefit," he said. Of course, if in the end vaccines don't prevent transmission, then they don't prevent transmission. But we don't know that they don't do that.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> If you've got elderly loved ones you want to keep safe, you'd need to vaccinate them, not yourself. If the vaccine substantially reduces viral load, and degree and period of contagiousness for those who receive it, as well as reducing the risk of illness (which AFAIK it does, while falling short of sterilizing immunity), and you are the elderly loved ones main interface to the outside world, getting vaccinated on top of other precautions provides a real benefit. OTOH, if you have to choose one to be vaccinated, it's them, not you. If you do this for lots of elderly family members, getting yourself vaccinated may be better than getting any one of them vaccinated, though. And, of course, of you are doing an off the books pre-approval use of the vaccine, accepting the risk of unexpected side effects for yourself may be more reasonable than imposing them on, or even suggesting them to, someone else who may be in a more fragile state.