7 ms·

> “Unlike the mRNA vaccine which targets only the spike protein, CDO-7N-1 induces immunity to all major SARS-CoV-2 proteins and is highly effective against all

> “Unlike the mRNA vaccine which targets only the spike protein, CDO-7N-1 induces immunity to all major SARS-CoV-2 proteins and is highly effective against all major variants to date. > “Importantly, the vaccine remains stable at 4°C for seven months, making it ideal for low- and middle-income countries.” This being a more traditional vaccine, I wonder if any vaccine hold outs will be more receptive

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
4ninesfine 2y ago
As a hold out - basically I'm just not going to take it (the vaccine)
- jbjbjbjb 2y ago
  Do you take any vaccines?
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    Believe it or not, most people who simply question the safety of mRNA vaccines have nothing against vaccines in general. The people who are skeptic with regarding to the mRNA vaccines (or COVID vaccines in general, whatever) are not your typical anti-vaxxers, and it is unfortunate that they are perceived to be.
jeffhuys 2y ago
More receptive, yes, but not enough in my case.
- Sammi 2y ago
  Why?
  - jeffhuys 2y ago
    Mostly because of them not being totally honest to the public from the start with the COVID vaccines, stating that it would be 100% safe (something that's _never_ true about vaccines) and would prevent spreading. It made me distrust my government, something I've never done before, only to be fueled by backlash people received for asking questions, including having 0 TV time. If they would've taken it seriously and were able to answer some simple critical questions, even repeatedly (because it's their goddamn job), then I would not think like this. But they STILL don't want to really talk about it in any "real" media, and in my country you get called a "Wappie" for even asking some questions. They tried (effectively) to turn the general population against critical thinkers, which is something you never do, right? So a big no from me, they messed it up. See my other comment for a bit more info.
    - Elinvynia 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - jeffhuys 2y ago
        Case in point. Thanks for ignoring most of my comment and going straight to “you think wrong, nutjob”. How people don’t see it themselves is interesting to me.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - empath75 2y ago
      > and would prevent spreading. It was _never_ claimed that it would "prevent" the spread of the disease or that it would even prevent _you_ from catching it. If you thought that, you weren't reading anything. It was always claimed that it lowered the likelihood of catching it and _most importantly_ reduced the severity of the disease if you did catch it. If anything, what you should mistrust is your own ability to read and comprehend.
ifyoubuildit 2y ago
Is nasal delivery a traditional thing? Assuming they actually mean that it would stop you from getting and transmitting covid with high probability, and that they're correct, thats a pretty attractive selling point. But like with any other pharma innovation, I'm not gonna be a part of the first commercial wave, or even the second or third unless I'm incredibly worried about the alternative, which I'm not at the moment (although let's see how hard this thing is "marketed" - am I going to be able to live life without it?).
- lbourdages 2y ago
  It's definitely not new technology, having been in use since the 1980s, mostly for flu.
  - ifyoubuildit 2y ago
    Another plus for it then. Still a no go for at least the first few rounds though.
cbeach 2y ago
I didn't want the mRNA jab (and didn't get it), but I WOULD definitely take this intranasal vaccine as its a classic (live attenuated) vaccine. That class of vaccine technology is not flawless, but it has decades of successful deployment and study.
- sethammons 2y ago
  To downvoters, really, why? I asked for opinions and got one and there is nothing non-factual in the response. My only guess is people have lost their ability (or likely never had it) to separate "it is too new" from "it causes autism"
  - stevenAthompson 2y ago
    It's a variation on the prisoners dilemma. The lowest risk option for the herd is that everyone get vaccinated. The lowest risk option for healthy young individuals may or may not be. The parent is publicly admitting that they chose the more selfish of the two options. This rubs the rest of us (who considered the greater good more important than the incredibly small personal risk) the wrong way. It's sometimes ok to be selfish, but it's never going to be the most popular decision and don't expect the herd you are a part of to respect your disdain for the well being of the larger group.
    - jeffhuys 2y ago
      I agree, but this made me think: Is it better for the herd to hear these people and try to convince them through talking, or to push them away/hiding/ridiculing them, potentially causing the Streisand effect? Knee-jerk = A Actual = B In my opinion
    - ifyoubuildit 2y ago
      > The lowest risk option for the herd is that everyone get vaccinated. If the vaccine was very good at stopping infection and transmission, this would be true. It's not though, is it? Are you aware of the numbers needed to treat in order to prevent hospitalizations and deaths in the younger cohorts (especially in those who had already recovered)? It's quite a lot. Like numbers you probably wouldn't ever guess if you didn't already know them. We destroyed a lot of faith in public health in the meantime, adding more to the negative side of the ledger for whatever future infectious shit storm comes our way.
francisofascii 2y ago
I think there is a large percentage of people who got the original mRNA vaccine but don't plan on getting it again, due to being sick for several days or from other "long covid" or vaccine injury fears. So I wonder if that group would be more receptive.
paywallasinbeer 2y ago
Absolutely not. I have lost almost all trust (faith?) with medicine. FYI - I'm not doing/using anything wacky like homeopathy. I'm just simply not interested in anything related to medicine anymore. Hopefully another perspective is interesting.
- jeffhuys 2y ago
  I’m on anti-epileptic medication that allows me to drive again, and to basically be a human again (Carbamazepine). Medicine in and of itself, nothing wrong with it, and we should absolutely NOT disregard it. However I did lose trust in this one, and I’ll be keeping my eyes open much wider than before. See my other comments on this page if you want to know why.
- consteval 2y ago
  > I'm just simply not interested in anything related to medicine anymore My mother is this way now and I'm dreading the day it finally kills her. You can't smoke for 40 years then suddenly be anti-doctor. But she doesn't listen to me. Guess she trusts me as much as medicine. You can't manage your health yourself. You just can't. You don't run your own blood tests. You don't know anything about diseases or disorders. Have some humility. Being anti-medicine is suicide.
nerdjon 2y ago
Unfortunately I highly doubt it. There might be a small number but when the major problem is misinformation I just don't have much faith in it really moving the needle as much as is necessary. Given that we are seeing serious problems with people even getting traditional vaccines right now. For the record: I would love very much to be wrong in everything I said above. But the last few years just don't have me holding out any hope.
- bad_username 2y ago
  From my observations, the relentless and heavy-handed censorship of "misinformation" created more skeptics than "misinformation" itself, especially in cases where the squashed sources were credentialed medical practitioners and researchers.
  - nerdjon 2y ago
    > especially in cases where the squashed sources were credentialed medical practitioners and researchers. Every profession has its quacks and those borderline educated people. You can get a 70% in school (or whatever your school's almost failing grade is) and still become a doctor. The only reason things are more "heavy-handed' today against misinformation (also for the record, putting quotes around a word doesn't change it from being lies) is there being so many people pushing those lies for certain reasons. Largely political (control) and fear mongering. In an attempt to themselves build mistrust against something to further their own goals. This misinformation is causing serious problems that are being pushed to the side. Unlike those that are pushing this misinformation, the scientific method is willing to admit when it is wrong. It is entirely how it is built to work. Maybe instead of being so worried about the "censorship" (which again, to be clear they can continue to say whatever they want but they are also not free from the repercussions), you should ask why there is so much passion behind fighting the misinformation and the damage that misinformation is causing.
  - consteval 2y ago
    > created more skeptics than "misinformation" itself I highly doubt it, because all of this started from misinformation itself. The only reason anyone had any reason to distrust vaccines is because they "cause autism". Which is entirely made-up, by the way. Like not even close to true. A 25 year old lie that has snowballed to something so extreme and so crazy. If you give these conspiracists even a hint that there might not be a perfect solution, they WILL run with it. I mean, it was one obviously false study and here we are - vaccines cause autism. So no, from where I'm sitting the misinformation is because of the misinformation. And because people want to believe it. I mean, you can just lie and people will eat it up if it's vaguely anti-establishment. That's dangerous. I'm talking thousands, if not tens of thousands, of lives dangerous. It's a legitimately difficult problem to address and I think some level of "censorship", or fact checking, is necessary.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

4ninesfine 2y ago

As a hold out - basically I'm just not going to take it (the vaccine)

jbjbjbjb 2y ago
Do you take any vaccines?
- johnisgood 2y ago
  Believe it or not, most people who simply question the safety of mRNA vaccines have nothing against vaccines in general. The people who are skeptic with regarding to the mRNA vaccines (or COVID vaccines in general, whatever) are not your typical anti-vaxxers, and it is unfortunate that they are perceived to be.

jeffhuys 2y ago

More receptive, yes, but not enough in my case.

Sammi 2y ago
Why?
- jeffhuys 2y ago
  Mostly because of them not being totally honest to the public from the start with the COVID vaccines, stating that it would be 100% safe (something that's _never_ true about vaccines) and would prevent spreading. It made me distrust my government, something I've never done before, only to be fueled by backlash people received for asking questions, including having 0 TV time. If they would've taken it seriously and were able to answer some simple critical questions, even repeatedly (because it's their goddamn job), then I would not think like this. But they STILL don't want to really talk about it in any "real" media, and in my country you get called a "Wappie" for even asking some questions. They tried (effectively) to turn the general population against critical thinkers, which is something you never do, right? So a big no from me, they messed it up. See my other comment for a bit more info.
  - Elinvynia 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - jeffhuys 2y ago
      Case in point. Thanks for ignoring most of my comment and going straight to “you think wrong, nutjob”. How people don’t see it themselves is interesting to me.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - empath75 2y ago
    > and would prevent spreading. It was _never_ claimed that it would "prevent" the spread of the disease or that it would even prevent _you_ from catching it. If you thought that, you weren't reading anything. It was always claimed that it lowered the likelihood of catching it and _most importantly_ reduced the severity of the disease if you did catch it. If anything, what you should mistrust is your own ability to read and comprehend.

ifyoubuildit 2y ago

Is nasal delivery a traditional thing? Assuming they actually mean that it would stop you from getting and transmitting covid with high probability, and that they're correct, thats a pretty attractive selling point. But like with any other pharma innovation, I'm not gonna be a part of the first commercial wave, or even the second or third unless I'm incredibly worried about the alternative, which I'm not at the moment (although let's see how hard this thing is "marketed" - am I going to be able to live life without it?).

lbourdages 2y ago
It's definitely not new technology, having been in use since the 1980s, mostly for flu.
- ifyoubuildit 2y ago
  Another plus for it then. Still a no go for at least the first few rounds though.

cbeach 2y ago

I didn't want the mRNA jab (and didn't get it), but I WOULD definitely take this intranasal vaccine as its a classic (live attenuated) vaccine. That class of vaccine technology is not flawless, but it has decades of successful deployment and study.

sethammons 2y ago
To downvoters, really, why? I asked for opinions and got one and there is nothing non-factual in the response. My only guess is people have lost their ability (or likely never had it) to separate "it is too new" from "it causes autism"
- stevenAthompson 2y ago
  It's a variation on the prisoners dilemma. The lowest risk option for the herd is that everyone get vaccinated. The lowest risk option for healthy young individuals may or may not be. The parent is publicly admitting that they chose the more selfish of the two options. This rubs the rest of us (who considered the greater good more important than the incredibly small personal risk) the wrong way. It's sometimes ok to be selfish, but it's never going to be the most popular decision and don't expect the herd you are a part of to respect your disdain for the well being of the larger group.
  - jeffhuys 2y ago
    I agree, but this made me think: Is it better for the herd to hear these people and try to convince them through talking, or to push them away/hiding/ridiculing them, potentially causing the Streisand effect? Knee-jerk = A Actual = B In my opinion
  - ifyoubuildit 2y ago
    > The lowest risk option for the herd is that everyone get vaccinated. If the vaccine was very good at stopping infection and transmission, this would be true. It's not though, is it? Are you aware of the numbers needed to treat in order to prevent hospitalizations and deaths in the younger cohorts (especially in those who had already recovered)? It's quite a lot. Like numbers you probably wouldn't ever guess if you didn't already know them. We destroyed a lot of faith in public health in the meantime, adding more to the negative side of the ledger for whatever future infectious shit storm comes our way.

francisofascii 2y ago

I think there is a large percentage of people who got the original mRNA vaccine but don't plan on getting it again, due to being sick for several days or from other "long covid" or vaccine injury fears. So I wonder if that group would be more receptive.

paywallasinbeer 2y ago

Absolutely not. I have lost almost all trust (faith?) with medicine. FYI - I'm not doing/using anything wacky like homeopathy. I'm just simply not interested in anything related to medicine anymore. Hopefully another perspective is interesting.

jeffhuys 2y ago
I’m on anti-epileptic medication that allows me to drive again, and to basically be a human again (Carbamazepine). Medicine in and of itself, nothing wrong with it, and we should absolutely NOT disregard it. However I did lose trust in this one, and I’ll be keeping my eyes open much wider than before. See my other comments on this page if you want to know why.
consteval 2y ago
> I'm just simply not interested in anything related to medicine anymore My mother is this way now and I'm dreading the day it finally kills her. You can't smoke for 40 years then suddenly be anti-doctor. But she doesn't listen to me. Guess she trusts me as much as medicine. You can't manage your health yourself. You just can't. You don't run your own blood tests. You don't know anything about diseases or disorders. Have some humility. Being anti-medicine is suicide.

nerdjon 2y ago

Unfortunately I highly doubt it. There might be a small number but when the major problem is misinformation I just don't have much faith in it really moving the needle as much as is necessary. Given that we are seeing serious problems with people even getting traditional vaccines right now. For the record: I would love very much to be wrong in everything I said above. But the last few years just don't have me holding out any hope.

bad_username 2y ago
From my observations, the relentless and heavy-handed censorship of "misinformation" created more skeptics than "misinformation" itself, especially in cases where the squashed sources were credentialed medical practitioners and researchers.
- nerdjon 2y ago
  > especially in cases where the squashed sources were credentialed medical practitioners and researchers. Every profession has its quacks and those borderline educated people. You can get a 70% in school (or whatever your school's almost failing grade is) and still become a doctor. The only reason things are more "heavy-handed' today against misinformation (also for the record, putting quotes around a word doesn't change it from being lies) is there being so many people pushing those lies for certain reasons. Largely political (control) and fear mongering. In an attempt to themselves build mistrust against something to further their own goals. This misinformation is causing serious problems that are being pushed to the side. Unlike those that are pushing this misinformation, the scientific method is willing to admit when it is wrong. It is entirely how it is built to work. Maybe instead of being so worried about the "censorship" (which again, to be clear they can continue to say whatever they want but they are also not free from the repercussions), you should ask why there is so much passion behind fighting the misinformation and the damage that misinformation is causing.
- consteval 2y ago
  > created more skeptics than "misinformation" itself I highly doubt it, because all of this started from misinformation itself. The only reason anyone had any reason to distrust vaccines is because they "cause autism". Which is entirely made-up, by the way. Like not even close to true. A 25 year old lie that has snowballed to something so extreme and so crazy. If you give these conspiracists even a hint that there might not be a perfect solution, they WILL run with it. I mean, it was one obviously false study and here we are - vaccines cause autism. So no, from where I'm sitting the misinformation is because of the misinformation. And because people want to believe it. I mean, you can just lie and people will eat it up if it's vaguely anti-establishment. That's dangerous. I'm talking thousands, if not tens of thousands, of lives dangerous. It's a legitimately difficult problem to address and I think some level of "censorship", or fact checking, is necessary.