Coronavirus Thread v.2

[hunnus2000]

Look, I am all for outreach for the uneducated but there are those who refuse to get vaccinated for either political reasons or religious reasons and they pose a clear and present danger to all of our civil liberties.

No, they don't and you haven't shown that they do.  You do NOT have a right to never be sick.
[/quote]

I DO have the right to have dangerous people around me removed. Right now, the unvaccinated are stressing our health system. Perhaps the answer is to not admit them to a hospital. I'm good with that.

[KevShmev]

I DO have the right to have dangerous people around me removed. Right now, the unvaccinated are stressing our health system. Perhaps the answer is to not admit them to a hospital. I'm good with that.

Wow.

Don't get me wrong, I wish everyone would get vaccinated, but suggesting that they not be treated when they do get sick strikes me as a bit unkind.

[TAC]

Stadler....what's the difference between strategic and tactical?

Seriously, or no?  I see the "lol", but a lot of people don't understand the difference.

Well, I guess I don't understand either. I read that in the first paragraph, and thought...I'm already confused.

Strategic thinking is over all-plan, the set of goals, the general roadmap.  The jump from "A" to "C".   Steve Jobs "creating" the iPod.

Tactical thinking is the linear "A" to "B" to "C".  The harddrive will be physical media, there will be a "hold" button, the "wheel" will be a series of microswitches that feed input to the processor...

In a more general sense, it's the difference between thinking of the cause/effect/correlation of two or three discrete variables, versus the more macro "these are ALL the variables that factor in, and what is the outcome?".  Strategic thinking is hard and unrewarding, because there are rarely easy outcomes and there are rarely nice, concise starts and ends.  Tactical thinking tends - doesn't always, but tends - to ignore the collateral damage and the unintended consequences.

I understand that, and basically understood that straight off.  OK, I'll try that post again.

[hunnus2000]

I DO have the right to have dangerous people around me removed. Right now, the unvaccinated are stressing our health system. Perhaps the answer is to not admit them to a hospital. I'm good with that.

Wow.

Don't get me wrong, I wish everyone would get vaccinated, but suggesting that they not be treated when they do get sick strikes me as a bit unkind.

What's unkind is not getting vaccinated. Think of it as a child on a playground hitting other children with a stick. As an adult, you take the stick away and remove them from the playground for the good of all the other children and parents. Let's leave the hospital beds for patients that really need and WANT help.

Yes, I know I am being extreme but other people are thinking it - I'm just saying it......

[Adami]

Hospitals are not playgrounds.

We do not deny treatment to anyone.

[hunnus2000]

Hospitals are not playgrounds.

We do not deny treatment to anyone.

I know and I appreciate all who work on the front lines and their service. I'm just expressing my frustration because it's fucking maniacal.

[Adami]

Hospitals are not playgrounds.

We do not deny treatment to anyone.

I know and I appreciate all who work on the front lines and their service. I'm just expressing my frustration because it's fucking maniacal.

I appreciate your frustration. But there’s no room for cruelty. Even toward those we perceive as harmful. I wouldn’t deny medical help to anyone.

Edit: even Stadler.

[Stadler]

Look, I am all for outreach for the uneducated but there are those who refuse to get vaccinated for either political reasons or religious reasons and they pose a clear and present danger to all of our civil liberties.

No, they don't and you haven't shown that they do.  You do NOT have a right to never be sick.

I DO have the right to have dangerous people around me removed. Right now, the unvaccinated are stressing our health system. Perhaps the answer is to not admit them to a hospital. I'm good with that.
[/quote]

You absolutely do not. I don't know where you get that presumption, but on it's face that is NOT a right you have.  It's not even close.

[Stadler]

I DO have the right to have dangerous people around me removed. Right now, the unvaccinated are stressing our health system. Perhaps the answer is to not admit them to a hospital. I'm good with that.

Wow.

Don't get me wrong, I wish everyone would get vaccinated, but suggesting that they not be treated when they do get sick strikes me as a bit unkind.

What's unkind is not getting vaccinated. Think of it as a child on a playground hitting other children with a stick. As an adult, you take the stick away and remove them from the playground for the good of all the other children and parents. Let's leave the hospital beds for patients that really need and WANT help.

Yes, I know I am being extreme but other people are thinking it - I'm just saying it......

Very serious question, asked honestly so I can understand your point of view.  Can you explain where you derive these assumptions?   You are, to my view, making a very serious and discrete leap of logic.  If I HIT you with a stick, there is a very clear, very tangible assault on your person, and there is no "potential" to that.  Whether I ACTUALLY hurt you or not, I have violated your privacy.  I can't TOUCH you.  I can do that thing that kids do, wave my hands really close to your face to make you flinch, but that's not ASSAULT.  It's just not.  So to potentially, conceptually put you at a some theoretical level of increased risk - me, in Connecticut, not vaccinating has only a conceptual theoretical impact on your risk profile, but in no way, shape or form under ANY construct have I "assaulted" you - is a possibility, but that's not the same thing as what you are talking about.  There's no TANGIBLE impact to you, only potential. 

Where then do you perceive the right to ACTUALLY and TANGIBLY impinge on the stated rights to personal privacy that have been a part of our jurisprudence for almost a century?   

And I think you're being presumptuous about "other people thinking it".  I know I'm not.

[Stadler]

Hospitals are not playgrounds.

We do not deny treatment to anyone.

I know and I appreciate all who work on the front lines and their service. I'm just expressing my frustration because it's fucking maniacal.

I appreciate your frustration. But there’s no room for cruelty. Even toward those we perceive as harmful. I wouldn’t deny medical help to anyone.

Edit: even Stadler.

I would not consider myself either cruel or harmful.  I believe myself - at least in the day-to-day - to be a rather compassionate, caring person.

[Adami]

Hospitals are not playgrounds.

We do not deny treatment to anyone.

I know and I appreciate all who work on the front lines and their service. I'm just expressing my frustration because it's fucking maniacal.

I appreciate your frustration. But there’s no room for cruelty. Even toward those we perceive as harmful. I wouldn’t deny medical help to anyone.

Edit: even Stadler.

I would not consider myself either cruel or harmful.  I believe myself - at least in the day-to-day - to be a rather compassionate, caring person.

You already got medical coverage, no need to beef up your CV for some. 

[KevShmev]

I appreciate your frustration. But there’s no room for cruelty. Even toward those we perceive as harmful. I wouldn’t deny medical help to anyone.

Agreed.  I get the frustration as well, but I cannot get on board with cruelty either.  And that is the problem which some of us have touched on before, is that too many nowadays take the "if you are not on my side, you can f off" approach, or (to paraphrase) "if you are not on my side, you can rot to death rather than receive medical care" in this instance.  I would say I am shocked to see someone here say something like that, but nothing surprises me anymore, sadly.

And I think you're being presumptuous about "other people thinking it".  I know I'm not.

Amen to that.  Those refusing to get vaccinated aggravate the hell out of me as well, but I would never wish death or harm on them.

[Ben_Jamin]

I DO have the right to have dangerous people around me removed. Right now, the unvaccinated are stressing our health system. Perhaps the answer is to not admit them to a hospital. I'm good with that.

Wow.

Don't get me wrong, I wish everyone would get vaccinated, but suggesting that they not be treated when they do get sick strikes me as a bit unkind.

What's unkind is not getting vaccinated. Think of it as a child on a playground hitting other children with a stick. As an adult, you take the stick away and remove them from the playground for the good of all the other children and parents. Let's leave the hospital beds for patients that really need and WANT help.

Yes, I know I am being extreme but other people are thinking it - I'm just saying it......

There's people that want and need health-care but get denied because they do not have insurance, and can't "afford" the healthcare that they desperately want and need.

Is that unkind? I think it is.

Even if you do get vaccinated, who's to say you won't be denied because you also do not have health insurance and can't afford the high, luxury of being treated and healed.

[cramx3]

I DO have the right to have dangerous people around me removed. Right now, the unvaccinated are stressing our health system. Perhaps the answer is to not admit them to a hospital. I'm good with that.

Wow.

Don't get me wrong, I wish everyone would get vaccinated, but suggesting that they not be treated when they do get sick strikes me as a bit unkind.

What's unkind is not getting vaccinated. Think of it as a child on a playground hitting other children with a stick. As an adult, you take the stick away and remove them from the playground for the good of all the other children and parents. Let's leave the hospital beds for patients that really need and WANT help.

Yes, I know I am being extreme but other people are thinking it - I'm just saying it......

There's people that want and need health-care but get denied because they do not have insurance, and can't "afford" the healthcare that they desperately want and need.

Is that unkind? I think it is.

Even if you do get vaccinated, who's to say you won't be denied because you also do not have health insurance and can't afford the high, luxury of being treated and healed.

No one is denied in hospitals in the US.  I'm good with this. Hypothetically if, all things equal with one hospital bed left, there was one unvaccinated American with covid and someone else who were fighting for that last bed, I'd go for the someone else.

[King Postwhore]

As a matter of fact, those without insurance get the same help in a hospital as us with insurance.

When you get a bill for $30 for aspirin,  it's because that's how a hospital makes up it's money.   Guess who pays for it?

[emtee]

Talked to 3 people who had chosen not to get the vaccine. All 3 said they were concerned about potential long term impacts that could not be known until many years pass.

[Skeever]

Talked to 3 people who had chosen not to get the vaccine. All 3 said they were concerned about potential long term impacts that could not be known until many years pass.

What potential long term impacts?
What about the potential long term impacts of having COVID, which are even less understood and seem to be potentially much more scary?

[ProfessorPeart]

No one is denied in hospitals in the US.  I'm good with this. Hypothetically if, all things equal with one hospital bed left, there was one unvaccinated American with covid and someone else who were fighting for that last bed, I'd go for the someone else.

I'm on board with this. I have zero sympathy for an unvaccinated person that gets covid, even less for a covid denier. Everyone does deserve care, but this situation that cram proposed, I'm totally in agreement.

[Stadler]

Talked to 3 people who had chosen not to get the vaccine. All 3 said they were concerned about potential long term impacts that could not be known until many years pass.

What potential long term impacts?
What about the potential long term impacts of having COVID, which are even less understood and seem to be potentially much more scary?

To whom?  Anecdotally, I know multiple people that have tested positive for COVID, including my asthmatic daughter.   So far, there don't seem to be long term effects (my daughter, and her roommate, who tested positive simultaneously, and quarantined together, didn't have any symptoms other than sniffles and the roommate lost her sense of taste and smell).  I don't personally believe that there are no long term effects, but according to this article, it's apparent that among those that initially hadn't gotten the vaccine but were convinced to, it's that type of information that we're working against.  (Having said that, even though I got the vaccine on day one - literally - the impacts of the vaccine itself were a significantly bigger factor than the long-term effects of the virus.  I did worry that my age and weight would make it worse for me, but I didn't segregate out the "long term impacts" as a major factor.)

The point here is simply to point out that it's a PERSONAL DETERMINATION OF RISK.   Your personal determination, or that of the "experts" and "mainstream media" aren't as resonant as that of that person themselves and the people around THEM.  This is basic human nature; anyone who's been married and has read "Love Languages" knows this implicitly.  Anyone who wondered "how can [this person] find [that person] attractive" knows this implicitly.   I'm not sure why this is that hard to follow.

[Stadler]

As a matter of fact, those without insurance get the same help in a hospital as us with insurance.

When you get a bill for $30 for aspirin,  it's because that's how a hospital makes up it's money.   Guess who pays for it?

You and me, babay!!!!

[Skeever]

Talked to 3 people who had chosen not to get the vaccine. All 3 said they were concerned about potential long term impacts that could not be known until many years pass.

What potential long term impacts?
What about the potential long term impacts of having COVID, which are even less understood and seem to be potentially much more scary?

To whom?  Anecdotally, I know multiple people that have tested positive for COVID, including my asthmatic daughter.   So far, there don't seem to be long term effects (my daughter, and her roommate, who tested positive simultaneously, and quarantined together, didn't have any symptoms other than sniffles and the roommate lost her sense of taste and smell).  I don't personally believe that there are no long term effects, but according to this article, it's apparent that among those that initially hadn't gotten the vaccine but were convinced to, it's that type of information that we're working against.  (Having said that, even though I got the vaccine on day one - literally - the impacts of the vaccine itself were a significantly bigger factor than the long-term effects of the virus.  I did worry that my age and weight would make it worse for me, but I didn't segregate out the "long term impacts" as a major factor.)

The point here is simply to point out that it's a PERSONAL DETERMINATION OF RISK.   Your personal determination, or that of the "experts" and "mainstream media" aren't as resonant as that of that person themselves and the people around THEM.  This is basic human nature; anyone who's been married and has read "Love Languages" knows this implicitly.  Anyone who wondered "how can [this person] find [that person] attractive" knows this implicitly.   I'm not sure why this is that hard to follow.

I don't know what this has to do with my original question.

"What potential long term impacts?
What about the potential long term impacts of having COVID, which are even less understood and seem to be potentially much more scary?"

The second question is not a matter of "personal determination" (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-long-term-effects/art-20490351).

What "long term impacts" are of vaccination are we talking about? How are we comparing to the known immediate short term and potential long term impacts of the actual virus?

[Ben_Jamin]

Keywords in that article are "Some", "Many", "Most", and "Can".

This doesn't give numbers of how many people are actually likely to get long term Covid effects. And that could be high or low.

But based on this you "Could" be the lucky "Some" that does end up coming down with long term effects.

[Skeever]

Keywords in that article are "Some", "Many", "Most", and "Can".

This doesn't give numbers of how many people are actually likely to get long term Covid effects. And that could be high or low.

But based on this you "Could" be the lucky "Some" that does end up coming down with long term effects.

You want to take a stab at the two very direct questions I asked emtee or are we all just gonna keep nibbling away at the edges?

[Ben_Jamin]

Keywords in that article are "Some", "Many", "Most", and "Can".

This doesn't give numbers of how many people are actually likely to get long term Covid effects. And that could be high or low.

But based on this you "Could" be the lucky "Some" that does end up coming down with long term effects.

You want to take a stab at the two very direct questions I asked emtee or are we all just gonna keep nibbling away at the edges?

After vaccines are authorized and in use by the public, public health officials continue monitoring the data as an additional safety measure. Manufacturers must have a plan to report follow-up data, including any events such as hospitalizations and deaths, and they must continue research to generate more data on safety and efficacy.

https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19-vaccine-wont-have-long-term-side-effects


The thing is we won't know until time passes.

What they are basing the outweighing on are models and the other vaccines and their side effects. 

The fact is we won't know, that's why they also keep track of these side effects. And why the AstraZeneca and J&J vaccines were pulled on other countries. They had concerns about the possible side effects from these vaccines.

[King Postwhore]

Ben, have you seen medication commercials?  They all have side affects.  This is no surprise. 

[Stadler]

Talked to 3 people who had chosen not to get the vaccine. All 3 said they were concerned about potential long term impacts that could not be known until many years pass.

What potential long term impacts?
What about the potential long term impacts of having COVID, which are even less understood and seem to be potentially much more scary?

To whom?  Anecdotally, I know multiple people that have tested positive for COVID, including my asthmatic daughter.   So far, there don't seem to be long term effects (my daughter, and her roommate, who tested positive simultaneously, and quarantined together, didn't have any symptoms other than sniffles and the roommate lost her sense of taste and smell).  I don't personally believe that there are no long term effects, but according to this article, it's apparent that among those that initially hadn't gotten the vaccine but were convinced to, it's that type of information that we're working against.  (Having said that, even though I got the vaccine on day one - literally - the impacts of the vaccine itself were a significantly bigger factor than the long-term effects of the virus.  I did worry that my age and weight would make it worse for me, but I didn't segregate out the "long term impacts" as a major factor.)

The point here is simply to point out that it's a PERSONAL DETERMINATION OF RISK.   Your personal determination, or that of the "experts" and "mainstream media" aren't as resonant as that of that person themselves and the people around THEM.  This is basic human nature; anyone who's been married and has read "Love Languages" knows this implicitly.  Anyone who wondered "how can [this person] find [that person] attractive" knows this implicitly.   I'm not sure why this is that hard to follow.

I don't know what this has to do with my original question.

"What potential long term impacts?
What about the potential long term impacts of having COVID, which are even less understood and seem to be potentially much more scary?"

The second question is not a matter of "personal determination" (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-long-term-effects/art-20490351).

What "long term impacts" are of vaccination are we talking about? How are we comparing to the known immediate short term and potential long term impacts of the actual virus?

I think I answered you directly.  You seemed to unilaterally determine that the long-term effects of COVID are "scary", or at least scarier than the impacts from the vaccine.  And you should know the answer to your last question if you've even read 10% of my posts:  I don't know how we're comparing because that's up to each individual person.   That's up to THEM to do the comparison and see where they come out. 

FOR ME, personally, I believe the science tells us there is a moderate chance that some people might have lingering effects of the virus after the fact.   FOR ME, personally, I believe the science is telling us there is a very low chance that people will have long term lingering effects from the vaccination itself (generally speaking that's not how vaccines work; we generally know the impacts from a vaccine within two to six months of wide-spread administration).   FOR ME, personally, neither of these were the primary concern when deciding to get or not get the vaccine.

If you read the article I posted, you'd know that of the people that initially resisted the vaccine but then changed their mind about getting it, it was the information regarding the SAFETY of the vaccine that helped convince them, not the hammering on the threats of the virus.

[Stadler]

Ben, have you seen medication commercials?  They all have side affects.  This is no surprise.

As an aside, life-threatening infection of the perineum is the one that not only amazes me - that there is such a thing - and scares me - how do you treat that?  How do you tell people that's what you have?

[King Postwhore]

Ben, have you seen medication commercials?  They all have side affects.  This is no surprise.

As an aside, life-threatening infection of the perineum is the one that not only amazes me - that there is such a thing - and scares me - how do you treat that?  How do you tell people that's what you have?

This is a post from me last week on Facebook 

"If your allergic to Dupixent, stop taking Dupixent.

Under redundant,  see redundant"

If there is so many side affects, why would we use it?  We were better off not knowing. lol

[Skeever]

Stadler and others are overthinking my question.
I was curious exactly what "long term side effects" of the vaccine people are worried about?
I've heard the same stories as others with regards to J&J and I guess people have to weigh that risk against other risks, the risk of the virus chiefly among those.

But what are the other "long term side effects"? Anything concrete? Or just the vague sense of "I don't know if this vaccine will still be capable of producing some side effect to my health 1-2, 5, or even 10 years down the road". And if there's any  basis to this, or is it just general fear of the new and unknown?

[TAC]

But what are the other "long term side effects"? Anything concrete? Or just the vague sense of "I don't know if this vaccine will still be capable of producing some side effect to my health 1-2, 5, or even 10 years down the road". And if there's any  basis to this, or is it just general fear of the new and unknown?

It's this. And it could be because of some misinformation they may have heard, or it simply could be a legit fear.

[cramx3]

Stadler and others are overthinking my question.
I was curious exactly what "long term side effects" of the vaccine people are worried about?
I've heard the same stories as others with regards to J&J and I guess people have to weigh that risk against other risks, the risk of the virus chiefly among those.

But what are the other "long term side effects"? Anything concrete? Or just the vague sense of "I don't know if this vaccine will still be capable of producing some side effect to my health 1-2, 5, or even 10 years down the road". And if there's any  basis to this, or is it just general fear of the new and unknown?

From the people I know who have used that reasoning to not get vaccinated, it seems to be the broad "we just don't know because this is new"  And while there is the truth of the mRNA being new, I just don't understand how this excuse plays out in the real world.  Everything we do can have an unknown consequence and it could be over time as well. I just don't know if a truck is going to kill me on my commute to work in the morning, but I still do it.  I've got no idea if that sushi I am eating is going to be bad and make me very sick, but I trust the restaurant to use good fish.  I know these are not direct comparisons to a vaccine, but I think the point of "not knowing until there is more data" many times is just an excuse and not sound logic.  I say that because there's a lot of data out there that the vaccines are safe.  Taking into account the trials, and people have been getting shots for a year now.  In the US it's been mass vaccinations for 7 months.  Generally, if we see issues, we will know it by now.  And there have been some such as the Astrazeneca and J&J have shown.  But even then, the numbers are soooo low.  Even if we say every death in VAERS after vaccination is a legit death caused by vaccination, it's still something like 0.00017% chance (I'm going off memory so this may be off, but my point is, it's a negligent number).  We aren't in January anymore to say "I need more time and data" because it already exists.

[jingle.boy]

I think I've mentioned this, but our company had a highly 'decorated' infectious disease specialist do a company debrief.  One of the things she mentioned was that, for almost all vaccines, serious side effects reveal themselves within 1-2 months of dosage.

History tells us that severe side effects are extremely rare, and if they if do occur, they usually happen within the first two months.

Source

This is why clinical trials go on for months.  I believe this is part of the reason why the FDA only has issued EMERGENCY authorization, and full authorization could only be applied for after 6 months.

... we don’t know the long-term effects of the vaccines: That’s always the case with new vaccines. But vaccine side effects usually show up within the first couple of months after vaccination, which is why the FDA insisted on two months of safety data before authorizing them. Adverse event reports since then have not detected patterns of death that would indicate a problem with the vaccines, the CDC says.

Source

I sure don't remember this level of furor for the HPV vaccine (not sure if that was a big deal anywhere else, but there was a big inoculation push here in the 2000s)

[hunnus2000]

Stadler and others are overthinking my question.
I was curious exactly what "long term side effects" of the vaccine people are worried about?
I've heard the same stories as others with regards to J&J and I guess people have to weigh that risk against other risks, the risk of the virus chiefly among those.

But what are the other "long term side effects"? Anything concrete? Or just the vague sense of "I don't know if this vaccine will still be capable of producing some side effect to my health 1-2, 5, or even 10 years down the road". And if there's any  basis to this, or is it just general fear of the new and unknown?

From the people I know who have used that reasoning to not get vaccinated, it seems to be the broad "we just don't know because this is new"  And while there is the truth of the mRNA being new, I just don't understand how this excuse plays out in the real world.  Everything we do can have an unknown consequence and it could be over time as well. I just don't know if a truck is going to kill me on my commute to work in the morning, but I still do it.  I've got no idea if that sushi I am eating is going to be bad and make me very sick, but I trust the restaurant to use good fish.  I know these are not direct comparisons to a vaccine, but I think the point of "not knowing until there is more data" many times is just an excuse and not sound logic.  I say that because there's a lot of data out there that the vaccines are safe.  Taking into account the trials, and people have been getting shots for a year now.  In the US it's been mass vaccinations for 7 months.  Generally, if we see issues, we will know it by now.  And there have been some such as the Astrazeneca and J&J have shown.  But even then, the numbers are soooo low.  Even if we say every death in VAERS after vaccination is a legit death caused by vaccination, it's still something like 0.00017% chance (I'm going off memory so this may be off, but my point is, it's a negligent number).  We aren't in January anymore to say "I need more time and data" because it already exists.

The thing is the mRNA technology is NOT new. It's been around for 10 or 15 years and it's come a long way which will help with other diseases. When they sequenced the vaccine in Jan of 2020 they were not only able to come up with a test for COVID but also a vaccine. It was the clinical trials and gathering of data that took time. In fact, I think they had a vaccine within a matter of weeks.

If people are still thinking that mRNA is so new then something is getting lost in the messaging.

[cramx3]

I understand that, but people have not been getting mRNA vaccines like this before.  The tech is not new, but people actually getting the shots is new.  Having said that, things like the J&J kind of rule out that excuse.

[Stadler]

Stadler and others are overthinking my question.
I was curious exactly what "long term side effects" of the vaccine people are worried about?
I've heard the same stories as others with regards to J&J and I guess people have to weigh that risk against other risks, the risk of the virus chiefly among those.

But what are the other "long term side effects"? Anything concrete? Or just the vague sense of "I don't know if this vaccine will still be capable of producing some side effect to my health 1-2, 5, or even 10 years down the road". And if there's any  basis to this, or is it just general fear of the new and unknown?

How do you answer that?  That's up to the person.   My dad has chronic rheumatoid arthritis, to the point that he's got as many artificial joints as real ones. His immune system is the Courtney Love of immune systems.   For some time there was speculation that it may have come from a vaccine; that was shot down (for a while we thought it was an advanced, unique off-shoot of Lyme disease, but that too didn't pan out).  I haven't asked him, but I can imagine some of my family members being leery of that.  I mean, look:  there's concern that the VIRUS, upon entering your body, may cause long-term, unknown effects.   It's not a great leap to think that triggering an artificial reaction by an immune system might have similar long-term effects.  Remember, we know here that it's not quite how mRNA works, but there are still a LOT of people that think "vaccines are sticking a portion of the virus in and triggering the immune system". mRNA is not new technology, but I understand this is the first MAJOR vaccine of it's type to get through human trials and be put into general use.