Super excited about the coronavirus vaccines

I know that vaccine discussions can rile people up, so I'm starting this in the ulcer factor, rather than the main boards. However, I'm super excited about the progress on these new vaccines. It's a serious positive step towards relaxing the restrictions on our lives. I'm sad it hasn't come in time to make a difference for christmas, but I can tolerate another few months of restrictions knowing it is on the horizon.

I found out that my mother is likely to get the BioNTech vaccine as soon as two weeks time. She is a frontline NHS doctor who deals with covid positive patients on a near daily basis. The last few months have been horrible for all health care workers - they have had regular weekly screening tests in the workplace, and horrible restrictions in terms of the PPE needed to keep themselves safe. My mum is also near retirement and right at the age where covid risks start increasing dramatically.

My dad had covid really early, before testing was available. 7 months later he still has no sense of smell. He got covid before loss of sense of smell was even a recognised symptom. We have been working under the assumption that he has some form of immunity now as a result.

The up shot of all this is that, by Christmas, my last immediate family member that was are concerned about will be vaccinated.

And that is absolutely awesome.

I'm also eager for the vaccine, but have a sinking feeling that I won't have access to it yet for months to come

I am in the pessimistic optimist group. I am buoyed by the success rates at preventing the disease, but am also concerned about what we have been hearing since the start, and then increasingly since the three-month mark of the pandemic, that natural immunity has a very short life, shorter even than the flu, perhaps, which has already resulted in no fewer than two documented cases of reinfection.

My concern is that the vaccines will work exactly as well as they say they will... for about three months, after which we'll all need reimmunization. If I have my numbers straight, that's an undertaking that ranks somewhere between financially prohibitive (that's pronounced, "fatally ruinous") and literally impossible.

But hey, that's based on two cases in the states, one in the Philippines, and one in Thailand, I believe. It concurred with everything that was, and is, being said about projected natural immunity, but I am having trouble with the sources now. I will post back when I find them.

Nothing wrong with being optimistic, but honestly, I haven't seen anything to be excited about.

-CK

I understand the concern, but even if the vaccine needs a booster annual, its going to be an economically better bet than not having it at all. Each covid case that ends up needing hospital treatment costs thousands, and puts a burden on the health care profession. Here in the Uk we have had nearly a year where routine medical treatment has been delayed/disrupted and it looks like those backlogs will take years to clear.

I can see that in a few years time they will give covid vaccines to all vulnerable people on a regular basis, and perhaps not so regular to the wider population. But those are answers that will evolve as data comes in over the next few years.

There is a facebook group run by a friend of mine dedicated to understanding and disseminating the research on the virus: Lab Coat Heroes. Someone in the group posted a link to an article that says immunity appears to be fairly long-lasting, enough to be well worthwhile. Vaccine Possibilities.

"Super exited" overstates my mental state, mostly because it's a very long time yet before I have much prospect of getting it.  I'm in a state where the public health response has ranged from minimalist to denialist, so I don't expect any impressive official efforts to facilitate or hasten distribution.  Unless the Creek Nation (inside the boundaries of which I consider myself fortunate to reside) steps up with a general vaccine distribution for non-tribal members resident in their communities (which they did for the flu vaccine this year, in the interest of general community health) I don't expect vaccines to be available for many months yet.  But I am pleased that the process is beginning.

I do not believe that a vaccine will be very effective except as a placebo. If you were going to have a chance at an immunity your best chance would be to actually have the Covid and then recover with your body building an immunity to it.

I personally have a friend that lives nearby and works at the Volkswagen plant. He was sick in the first part of the year and tested positive, he was sent home for the quarantine period. Afterwards he went back to work, within a few months he again contracted the sickness and again tested positive. I believe he is still in voluntary quarantine at his home.

I have never taken the regular flu shot, and I will not be getting vaccinated this time. Nor will my family. Mainly because it has long been known that vaccines are rarely successful when developed as a preventative for a virus, because a virus mutates to quickly.

That is why the regular flu vaccine is only partially successful, because it is built for last year's flu. And only a small percentage of the cases each year are preventable by that method.

I guess like Chris K., I'm in the optimist/pessimist group but for different reasons.

Although the human population may have already cycled through one or several other Coronavirus pandemics throughout history, the current SARS-CoV2 is novel enough that most of the population appears susceptible to the virus.  And both our 'new' and 'old' immune systems may be quite naive to this new virus, so it will take some time to be exposed to it, with or without the assistance of a vaccine, before the interaction is something more mild for a greater number of people.  Until we know for sure what the nature of apparent 're-infections' is (some transient immunity followed by relapse versus infection with a novel strain of SARS-CoV2), it's difficult to speculate how those cases will end up impacting the larger population.

The top running vaccines seem effective and with low immediate side effects (optimist), although I wince when they say "It' safe!...." without really knowing 3 to 5 to 10 to 30 years down the road if there's something they missed just for lack of testing time (pessimist).  Two things I will say that I feel are game changers both for COVID-19 and influenza.  First, the mRNA vaccine technology, when coupled with the next generation genome sequencing,  will allow for much faster turnaround time in vaccine production -AND- in reacting, on a population scale, to strain changes in the virus.  Both mRNA and DNA-based vaccines have been used for over 15 years now in antibody induction in laboratory settings.....the ability to induce an immune response in this way is pretty undisputed at this point.  Doing it in humans is what the new anti-SARS-CoV2 mRNA vaccines are all about and as long as good safety testing has been done, I would certainly risk taking it myself.  Second, and separate from the COVID-19 story.......indeed, somewhat unfortunately dwarfed by COVID because of the pandemic....is the apparent rolling out of newer influenza vaccine approaches that are at least guided by the desire to be less vulnerable to the caprice of influenza virus mutability.  If I recall correctly, it not only involves using mixtures of 'epitopes' (mimicking the different influenza mutations predicted to be circulating in any given year), but also includes more antigens representing other parts of the influenza genome. This approach is likely to gain traction in later COVID vaccines if that virus continues to be a problem past the current pandemic.  Thus, rather than just use the 'spike' protein as the main antigen against which we are charging the immune system with the vaccine, the efforts would be expanded with a mixture that would include antigens from other parts of the virus, bolstering the effectiveness of the vaccine.

All of this is to say that, with the history of vaccination laid down as it has been dating back many decades, we are seeing yet another application of deeper knowledge on the issue that hopefully will provide extra tools for society even as they continue to monitor and eliminate side effects as they may arise.  For me, enough there for any optimist/pessimist to weigh when deciding which course to take.
'

John Weiland wrote:
The top running vaccines seem effective and with low immediate side effects (optimist), although I wince when they say "It' safe!...." without really knowing 3 to 5 to 10 to 30 years down the road if there's something they missed just for lack of testing time
'

I believe that we can already say, based on the evidence that has come in from the human trials, that having any of the covid vaccines is safer than remaining unvaccinated.

Covid itself has a non-trivial death rate, and that is before we even start looking at long term health impacts that it seems to have on around 10% of people. So when we consider covid vaccine safety we need to compare the disease itself, with the potential vaccine harm - not to a baseline of zero risk.

I am pro Vax, generally - the pro's of vaccination for most diseases, FAR outweighs the cons, both individually, and for the community at large. The flu vaccine is a prime example; the risk for myself is slight, for OTHERS it can be fatal. I get vaccinated for the well being of those in my community. Herd immunity is critical for public health, and in my opinion, a societal responsibility.

That said, with the exception of the flu (which is remixed annually based on best evidence as to which strains will be prevalent - but not "created from scratch"!) most vaccines take years to develop, be tested, and long term effects evaluated. This extensive process often takes at least a decade BEFORE it is felt completely safe for the entire population - including the most vulnerable, such as the very young, immune compromised and the elderly.

Having a robust immune system is lovely, but it is no guarantee, nor even a significant advantage, when dealing with a novel virus. The immune system is predicated on rapid identification of an "invader" and the timely deployment of the appropriate measures to combat the invader. Unfortunately, when dealing with a novel virus, it simply is not "in the data bank"; so there is no developed plan to recognize it, or mount a defense.  When one "develops symptoms" (of any contagious disease) it is actually the ACT of our body throwing resources at the invader, that commonly "makes " us ill. Fever, an attempt to kill by heat; nasal discharge, vomiting, diarrhea,  all attempts to flush out an invader. It is the "side effects" of these "battles" that make us feel sick, as opposed to the actual invading organism, in many cases.

Based on the prevalence of those who truly believe this is a "hoax" and the associated conspiracy mentality, there may simply not be enough who choose to get vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. A vaccine must be both safe and effective to succeed, but without an overwhelming "buy in" it also fails.  

Healing the covid divide may prove more effective in beating this virus than vaccination, at least initially. Until it is treated with deadly seriousness by the majority of the population, availability of an effective vaccine is moot. Those who don't see or believe covid is a threat will not only refuse vaccination, but continue to act and behave in ways that promote the spread of the virus.    It would be illogical to get vaccinated for a virus if you a) do not think is real; b) believe your immune system will easily handle it; c) believe vaccination harms the immune system...

As much as I know how desperately we need this vaccine, I am concerned the rapidity of it's development and deployment has not allowed for sufficient long term testing on both safety and efficacy.  

I believe vaccination for Covid is critical and necessary - but the skeptic in me is wary, oh so wary, of the fast tracked nature of this vaccine.  As of now, my personal conundrum remains, and I am compelled to continue to research this matter intensely.

Lorinne Anderson wrote:
As much as I know how desperately we need this vaccine, I am concerned the rapidity of it's development and deployment has not allowed for sufficient long term testing on both safety and efficacy.  

I believe vaccination for Covid is critical and necessary - but the skeptic in me is wary, oh so wary, of the fast tracked nature of this vaccine.  As of now, my personal conundrum remains, and I am compelled to continue to research this matter intensely.

What evidence would you want to see to be convinced of safety and efficacy of these vaccines?  What is your personal threshold for being confident in them?

Yes, the development has been faster than normal, in that much of the process has been compressed. They have, for example, gone through the human trials vey quickly. But they haven't reduced the number of people the vaccines have been given to in the those trials, they have been given to tens of thousands of individuals over the space of months. Instead of deploying those same doses over a number of years. How many human doses do you personally feel will be sufficient for you to feel confident about the safety?

I don't mean this facetiously; the same logic that you are working through is being repeated by half the population of the world at the moment. Understanding how to convince the public it is safe is a different proposition than convincing the medical profession it is safe.

In my day job I teach statistics, and deal with evaluations of risk and uncertainty all the time. I have train my brain to think in terms of likelihoods. But just yesterday I had a conversation with a class where it was clear that they had no sense at all of how to evaluate comparative risk factors in a decision making process. With a choice between two options their intuition had them choosing a path which had a 1000 times greater likelihood of serious harm. Their intuition was dead wrong, but it took a full hour of working through the numbers to convince them.

Safe short term, vs long term is my personal issue - no way to know until those in human trials have "time" to show IF issues develop. Not that thalidomide is a vaccine, but it is an example trials failing to validate safety, for all, long term.

The first manufacturer to "cross the finish line" with a Covid Vaccine will make gagillions of billions of dollars...a serious incentive to hide possible issues, or perhaps avoid scrutinizing all negative reports as carefully as could be done...I'm wary the incentive to "look the other way" may be too great.

I might plan to get Trump's vaccine, never Bill Gates with his nanobots.

I see how it goes...  Our Pastor died of COVID-19.

I understand the logic behind vaccination, and I do believe in vaccinations for certain things. My children were all vaccinated for the common diseases AFTER they could talk. It was important to me to know if the fevers that are sometimes brought on by vaccines would change them. My brother got measles immediately after getting the shot as a small child. Nobody else in our family got sick.

I know that the Corona virus is a real thing, and that it is sometimes fatal. I know that among the older and infirm population in my own small town the death rate seems higher this winter.

As for my family, we have been taking precautions. My kids didn't play soccer this fall, either my wife or I go into the store, not both. Hand Sanitizer of course, standing a bit of a distance from people.

I have two good friends that have gotten the Corona virus, and their families. But they live in the city, and one of them wasn't doing anything to prevent his own infection.

Looks like hit or miss.

Michael Moreken wrote:I might plan to get Trump's vaccine, never Bill Gates with his nanobots.

I see how it goes...  Our Pastor died of COVID-19.

I don't really follow the news, so the above statement surprised me. I thought nanotech was still science fiction. Do they have functional nanobots? I'd like to know more about how long we've had them and their track record before putting them into my body. It's worth noting that I think I'm fairly low risk, and that affects my decision making. Given the choice, I'll wait to see how the vaccine(s) perform in terms of effectiveness and side effects before I participate. (Just like I declined the flu vaccine for the first several years, but I take it now.) I totally get how others might make a difterent choice, though.

I am very scared of the vaccines.

Who is responsible if the long term effects are no good? I've read the vaccine companies have immunity deals.
There has been no chance to investigate the long term effects.
99% of people who contract Covid survive if not more. The people who do die mostly have underlying causes like obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
The chances of contracting it are significantly lower in the country side where i chose to live.

I am all for freedom, if you want to take the vaccine, please do, it's your body, but do i get granted the liberty of refusing the vaccine? Somehow i doubt that.

I've heard talk of digital vaccine passports and refusing entry to concerts, flying, passing borders if i don't comply.  

I am extremely wary of a government which is suddenly concerned for it's citizens well being, while hardly ever promoting healthy life styles, and constantly promoting an illusion that techno fixes will solve every problem "easily and in the near future".

We are incredibly powerful beings and i hope we as a humanity chose the path of doing as much as we can to stay healthy ourselves while healing the planet.

Have a great day everybody.

Have a nice day.

Michael Moreken wrote:I might plan to get Trump's vaccine...

There is no “Trump Vaccine”. I presume you are referring to the one that is being manufactured by Pfizer. The research was actually done by a German company - BioNTech - and has nothing to do with Trump or the US. It hasn’t received any funding from the US. Pfizer is involved in the manufacturing only, and again they have not had any government funding to support the production.

In the news this morning:

Pfizer vaccine approved for use in the UK

Hugo Morvan wrote:I am very scared of the vaccines.

Who is responsible if the long term effects are no good? I've read the vaccine companies have immunity deals.
There has been no chance to investigate the long term effects.
99% of people who contract Covid survive if not more. The people who do die mostly have underlying causes like obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
The chances of contracting it are significantly lower in the country side where i chose to live.

I find focussing exclusively on death rates to be unhelpful. We know that deaths tend to occur in the elderly, or those who are clinically vulnerable. That is not to discount or downplay those deaths,  but it seems to end up with people who are not in those categories feeling like the risk are overblown.

More relevant for the younger and healthier proportion of the population are the impacts of "long covid", which are still being explored. I was talking just yesterday with a colleague who had Covid back in April. Before covid she was an incredibly fit ultra marathon runner. Post covid she can't run to the end of the street. Her lungs have been seriously damaged and months later she has still not recovered fully. There are life changing implications to covid, even for those who don't die.

I have been participating in a data collection project here in the UK - they have around 4 million people self reporting their health on a regular basis via an app, and linking that to test results. From that data they have been able to explore the "long covid" issue, and I have linked their summary here:
Long Covid
Bottom line is they expect around 1 in 20 people to suffer from some form of Long Covid. My colleague is one. My father with his lost sense of smell is another that I know of personally. So when thinking about the long term effects of a vaccine, you aren't weighing up against a choice between having the vaccine and not having the vaccine. You are weighing up between having the vaccine (which may or may not have any long term side effects, there is currently zero evidence of side effects) and catching covid (which has a high and known chance of substantial life changing damage). I know what side of that equation I would personal prefer to be on.

On a lighter note:
People are leaving bad reviews of scented candles, unaware that they have COVID

I'm pretty personally invested in this. I teach in a secondary boarding school in the UK. We have had 10 confirmed cases that I know of so far, including two staff who have caught it from students. We are facing regular disruption to teaching, as pupils face periods self isolating. Some of my students have not returned physically to lessons, and are at home participating online only. We can't socialise with our teaching colleagues. Every lesson is a crap-shoot; will today be the day that I student I am teaching gives it to me.

I want this vaccine out so that day to day life can get back to normal, both for my own sake, and so that I can feel like I'm doing a good job of teaching my students.

Even if a vaccine came out with some small known chance of harm, I'm pretty clear in my own head that it would still be worth taking it. A vaccine with no evidence of harm at all? Yes please. Soon as possible!

IN any case, there is going to be a shortage of vaccine doses for the foreseeable future, despite the manufacturers producing them as fast as possible. If you don't want to be in the first few million to be given out, and would rather wait and see, I don't think anyone is going to protest. But they might, for example, stop you visiting Granny in the old people's home if you choose not to get vaccinated.

Michael Cox wrote:IN any case, there is going to be a shortage of vaccine doses for the foreseeable future, despite the manufacturers producing them as fast as possible. If you don't want to be in the first few million to be given out, and would rather wait and see, I don't think anyone is going to protest. But they might, for example, stop you visiting Granny in the old people's home if you choose not to get vaccinated.

That seems more than fair. Seems that leaves room for my liberty to wait and see, and allows Granny to stay isolated from potential carriers. (That is, after people start getting vaccinated. Right now, I guess everyone's a potential carrier, so for Granny, this is a step up.)

For what it's worth, I'm not anti-vax, I have all my childhood vaccines and stay up to date on tetanus. For the last few years I've gotten vaccinated for flu and pneumonia. Right now I don't have a Granny in the home character. If I did (or if I spent more time in public, interacting with people face to face) it would change my risk / reward assessment. I would get in line to vaccinate earlier than I currently plan to. For now, there are a lot of people who need it (and want it) more than I do.

I am cautiously optimistic, The speed in which it was developed and now being put into circulation is admirable. With such a high rate of recovery I'm not going to just jump into receiving the vaccine. There are others that would be in a higher risk situation. The rapidity of placing the vaccine in service does give me pause to consider if I would be jumping in to the first or even second wave of recipients.  There was an earlier thread about "assessing risk" and in all probability there will be no adverse side affects from the new vaccines but I will place: underlying conditions, age, recovery rate, the degree I interact with others into my consideration for receiving the vaccine.

The UK have published the priority order for distributing the first set of vaccines.

It looks very sensible.  I suspect it will be a number of months before the bulk of the population get access. They have also made it clear that there are none privately available, so you can't pay to get in early, at least at this stage.

When will I get a vaccine?

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has advised that people are given the vaccine in the following order, although there is likely to be some overlap between groups:

residents in a care home for older adults, and their carers
everyone aged 80 and over, and frontline health and social care workers
everyone aged 75 and over
everyone aged 70 and over, and those who are clinically extremely vulnerable
everyone aged 65 and over
people aged 16 to 64 with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious disease and death from Covid-19
everyone aged 60 and over
everyone aged 55 and over
everyone aged 50 and over

Michael Cox wrote:...The research was actually done by a German company - BioNTech - and has nothing to do with Trump or the US. It hasn’t received any funding from the US. Pfizer is involved in the manufacturing only, and again they have not had any government funding to support the production.

From cbs58.com:  Pfizer fact check

"It's true that Pfizer, unlike some other pharmaceutical companies, did not accept federal money for research into a coronavirus vaccine. Pfizer, unlike these competitors, is not getting payments up front even before proving its effort has been successful.

However, the Trump administration agreed in July to buy at least $1.95 billion worth of a Pfizer vaccine, at least 100 million doses, if Pfizer does get a vaccine authorized by the Food and Drug Administration.

Three experts told CNN that this purchase promise may have played an important role in expediting Pfizer's vaccine development process. So after Pfizer's initial claim to the New York Times that it has never been part of Operation Warp Speed, CNN asked the company if there was any more nuance to the situation.

In response, Pfizer spokesperson Sharon Castillo provided a statement that said the company is indeed part of Operation Warp Speed.

"Pfizer is one of various vaccine manufacturers participating in Operation Warp Speed as a supplier of a potential COVID-19 vaccine," Castillo said in an email. "While Pfizer did reach an advanced purchase agreement with the U.S. government, the company did not accept (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) funding for the research and development process. All the investment for R&D was made by Pfizer at risk. Dr. Jansen was emphasizing that last point.""

I thought nanotech was still science fiction. Do they have functional nanobots?

Yes, that's what I thought!
A lot of science fiction becomes reality after some years so maybe it's happening ....I actually love the thought of tiny nanobots going through my body and 'fixing' things...how cool.

...and I am very happy that a vaccine is on it's way.
I've never had a flu shot, have always declined but this is different and much more important that there is a mass of folks getting immunized.

I will surprise my doctor as for years now, along with the flu shot, I've declined mammograms, colonoscopies and their 'wellness' programs where they tell me how I should be eating and exercising...they never ask how I do eat and exercise which is always so much better than their suggestions.

As a major player in the virus and vaccine saga, I want to know why W.H.O. PCR test protocol gives a 45 Cycle Threshold as the level that indicates 'positive' (aka 'a case').   Medical experts say that anything above 33-35 CT is measuring an astronomically dilute solution of dead virus fragments, that is incapable of infecting anything, and means nothing.  This is the kind of question that gets me scratching my head... and I've never seen any reference to this important part of the test on the news.

My understanding is that the tests lean towards giving a few false positives, rather than a few false negatives. False positives mean a few people who aren't infectious end up self isolating. That's annoying, but not a disaster. False negative end up with infectious people heading out into the community, which potentially spreads covid and causes deaths. I can see why they went with that approach.

Does anyone have preferences for which vaccine they get?
I always thought, if given a choice, I would choose the one Dr Faucci gets as he has a better sense of the big. long range picture concerning this virus.

The first one I can!

Currently I think the stats from the BioNTech version seem to indicate slightly stronger protection, but the actual degree of protection for any of them will take time to determine beyond “they work well”.

For those who have hesitancy regarding the 'warp speed' vaccines,  this may be heartening news .....it appears a very effective and affordable treatment is available.  Science is nailing down the details as we speak : )   (references to the studies are at the website)  Ivermectin May Defeat Covid-19

Ivermectin against covid-19
Published: November 29, 2020

According to recent studies and RCTs in various countries, the antiparasitic drug ivermectin – a WHO essential medicine – is achieving a covid-19 risk reduction of up to 98% in pre-exposure prophylaxis and up to 91% in early treatment. A recent French study found a reduction in severe and fatal covid by 100% even in high-risk nursing home patients with an average age of 90.

Moreover, an analysis just published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents found that African countries using ivermectin as prophylaxis against parasites report a much lower – in fact, near zero – covid incidence compared to other African and non-African countries.

The very high reported effectiveness of low-cost ivermectin against SARS-like coronavirus infections may turn out to be a major medical discovery. Doctors and health authorities are encouraged to consider the ivermectin studies overview and the ivermectin-based US-FLCCC treatment protocol.

https://swprs.org/ivermectin-may-defeat-covid-19/

nancy sutton wrote:As a major player in the virus and vaccine saga, I want to know why W.H.O. PCR test protocol gives a 45 Cycle Threshold as the level that indicates 'positive' (aka 'a case').   Medical experts say that anything above 33-35 CT is measuring an astronomically dilute solution of dead virus fragments, that is incapable of infecting anything, and means nothing.  This is the kind of question that gets me scratching my head... and I've never seen any reference to this important part of the test on the news.

I would guess Michael C. is correct here......they are erring on the side of caution and calling "detection at 45 cycles" a positive test.  If someone says "You said I was positive for the virus and I wasn't!....", that's a much easier situation to deal with, generally speaking, then the scenario where you say "You said I was negative for the virus and I had it!....".   Truthfully, all PCR-based tests are pretty darned sensitive, which has its pros and cons.  But I certainly see why WHO has chosen the approach that it has.  Also, I would really caution against assuming that detection of levels of very low amount of virus might be equated with detecting "dead virus fragments".  Although that *might* be the case in some circumstances, it's just as likely that one was testing at either end of the infection curve for that individual.....either just when that person was getting the infection or just after their immune system was nearly finished clearing it from their system.

See  https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/main/2020/09/cycle-threshold-values-sars-cov2-pcr.pdf?la=en   for the source of the image below:

nancy sutton wrote:For those who have hesitancy regarding the 'warp speed' vaccines,  this may be heartening news .....it appears a very effective and affordable treatment is available.  Science is nailing down the details as we speak : )   (references to the studies are at the website)  Ivermectin May Defeat Covid-19

Actually, I've been waiting to see how this was going to pan out.  Just looking at Wikipedia, it appears Ivermectin has limited use in the US in humans in de-licing, but fairly wide-spread use in other countries for deworming.  In the US, it's mostly used in veterinary medicine.  There are several reports of its effects in cell culture as an inhibitor of positive-strand RNA viruses like SARS-CoV, but larger, whole organism and human studies that would confirm this seem only recently to be reaching some conclusion in this regard.  Should be interesting to see some of the initial correlative studies examining routine ivermectin use in a given population, what protective measures were taken otherwise by that population and what kind of incidence of COVID-19 occurred there.

Well, John, I think  you can see "some of the initial correlative studies " by following the links at the website. I hope you do and report back :)  I think this has the potential for dramatically reducing the threat  from Covid19.

FWIW..... here's a pretty recent one that is open-access and addresses such correlative studies:   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920304684?via%3Dihub

Another link to science direct:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920304258
"Therefore, the odds of hospitalisation of treated patients was 84% less than in the untreated patients. "
A treatment that reduces  hospitalisations by 84%.
If there were that many fewer people in the hostpital it wouldn't even be a pandemic.

I know, not vaccine related except shows with such a safe and easy treatment there might be no need for vaccines,.. for most people.
So much thanks to this site because when I got covid I beat it pretty quick.
I was prepared before I got it.  

Vaccines have been accused of sterilization before.
Now one of these new ones might be designed to do that:
https://healthandmoneynews.wordpress.com/2020/12/02/head-of-pfizer-research-covid-vaccine-is-female-sterilization/

Do modern vaccines alter your DNA?
https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/77283/lets-factcheck-reuters-they-say-dna-vaccines-dont-change-your-genetic-makeuptrue-or.html
Is that a bad thing?