Slashdot Interviews an Oxford Vaccine Trial Participant 80
Jennifer Riggins is participating in the Oxford Vaccine Trial. She's an American technology journalist and marketer who's self-employed in London — and she's also agreed to answer some questions from Slashdot!
Slashdot: Can you give me any details on what it's like when you go in for your shots? (Like, are they somber, or enthusiastic...?) Do you chat at all? Do they know you by name?
JR: For sure they know me by name, at least after glancing at charts or if I call the hotline. The doctors and nurses don't know which dose I got — this COVID vaccine or the placebo which is the meningitis vaccine. It's their job to make me feel comfortable so I stay volunteering and they can get as much info from me (like about reactions) as they can.
It's actually a lot of fun for me. I love the medical talk and ask loads of questions and they are totally transparent and kind.
Plus working from home with my also full-time-working husband and our three year old during the pandemic, a surprise benefit is a bit of me time including the hour-long walk to hospital each way.
Slashdot: Have you ever made contact with any of the other participants?
JR: Just a nod "hello" here and there. No one I've seen chats like me — ha. But also we are kept far apart because, you know, pandemic.
And Jennifer had a lot more to say about her experience, the rewards, the reactions, and the media coverage of it all...
Slashdot: Did you have to meet any special qualifications to participate? Slashdot: Can you give me any details on what it's like when you go in for your shots? (Like, are they somber, or enthusiastic...?) Do you chat at all? Do they know you by name?
JR: For sure they know me by name, at least after glancing at charts or if I call the hotline. The doctors and nurses don't know which dose I got — this COVID vaccine or the placebo which is the meningitis vaccine. It's their job to make me feel comfortable so I stay volunteering and they can get as much info from me (like about reactions) as they can.
It's actually a lot of fun for me. I love the medical talk and ask loads of questions and they are totally transparent and kind.
Plus working from home with my also full-time-working husband and our three year old during the pandemic, a surprise benefit is a bit of me time including the hour-long walk to hospital each way.
Slashdot: Have you ever made contact with any of the other participants?
JR: Just a nod "hello" here and there. No one I've seen chats like me — ha. But also we are kept far apart because, you know, pandemic.
And Jennifer had a lot more to say about her experience, the rewards, the reactions, and the media coverage of it all...
JR: The only qualifications were a willingness to volunteer, being within an age range which I think is 18 to 55, no underlying immune conditions, not pregnant or breastfeeding and not shielding anyone else who is at risk.
I got bloods and vitals taken at pre-check, including serology to make sure I haven't had COVID-19 already. Then a week later I had bloods and temperature checked again and I got a vaccine. (The people preparing the vaccines are in a different room and are the only people to know which one.) Then four weeks later I had another blood test and temperature check. In eight weeks I will again.
Slashdot: I've heard that it requires a 12-month commitment, with anywhere from 6 to 12 visits. Do you get just one shot of the vaccine, and then swing by for follow-up tests — or are there injections in more than one visit?
JR: Every week — maybe for the full year — I also have to take the swab test to check if I have the virus, which I do at home and mail in, registering online for results. I get those results texted to me in less than 48 hours.
In the next month I believe I will get the booster shot — of whichever dose I was given before.
It's all voluntary so I can refuse or drop out at any time but don't plan to.
Slashdot: Can you tell me if there's anything special you have to do while participating? (I understand some participants were given a diary to complete.) Do they still let you drink alcohol or other day-to-day activities? Are there restrictions if you wanted to leave the country?
JR: The only rules are that for a year from vaccine I cannot donate blood and I must use contraception to avoid pregnancy. Also if I have any coronavirus symptoms, I am to call the hotline and they will come administer a test. I am not allowed to take any COVID tests except those through the clinical trial for a year. I did give them feedback on the minor side effects I had which have subsided.
I have weekly tests, so ideally if I do travel I'll try to work around them. But it's voluntary so just doing the best I can should be good enough. And frankly I don't think I'll be flying anywhere until there's an actual approved vaccine widely distributed anyway.
Slashdot: Are there any risks in participating — and have you ever been tempted to stop participating?
JR: I've never had a second thought. It's Phase III not I. By the time I joined it was already deemed lower risk so it's always been a nothing/potential-win scenario. And I've already had the meningitis vaccine before going to college so that wasn't a risk either.
Now that the results of Phase I have been released and this vaccine is the front runner so far, it is even more exciting, even while there's only a 50 percent chance I got the Covid vaccine. I won't find out which I had supposedly until 12 months from receiving the first dose. It could change as the research and everything about the trial is evolving more rapidly but I've no expectations before that.
Slashdot: This week Wired argued a vaccine with minor side effects "could still be pretty bad." What's your reaction when reading articles like that?
JR: I think the article is a poorly written, poorly researched opinion piece. It says offering acetaminophen or paracetamol is unusual with vaccines. I'm a working mom with a three-year-old, and you are told to give them acetaminophen or paracetamol before all live vaccines as they can cause discomfort and fever for the first 24 to 48 hours.
I'm actually surprised this article was in Wired that tends to be reputable. It seems to be written by a vaccine skeptic at best who knows little about them. This is a dangerous message because we most likely won't have a widely distributed vaccine til 2021 at earliest. Even longer if you consider, like the chicken pox vaccine, it needs a booster for efficacy. This flu season is going to be awful and then combined with this coronavirus. Add to that less kids are getting vaccinated or at least are delayed during the pandemic. Any antivaxxer message is incredibly dangerous. We won't be able to have herd immunity for Covid-19 by winter but we could for the flu which will save so many lives.
Slashdot: How do you feel about the way your vaccine trials are being covered in the media?
JR: I think a lot of the U.S. coverage of the Oxford vaccine results has been oddly more optimistic than in European coverage — probably to do with the upcoming election. I think there's reason for optimism but do encourage people to always read the academic research.
Besides the actual published academic papers, I find these two sources the most accurate, unbiased and up to date:
The New York Times Coronavirus Vaccine Tracker
And for understanding the lingo of vaccines and where we are, Axio's recent piece "State of the Global Race for a Coronavirus Vaccine."
Slashdot: So what happens when you tell people you're participating in the vaccine trial?
JR: People are excited! Seriously grateful.
I worry people — especially Americans — are hinging their lives on the promise of a vaccine in the Fall. This is dangerous and essentially impossible. Now is not the time to go back to normal. It's the time to stay distant and wear a mask. It sucks how few are wearing masks in central London even while now it's finally enforced. Don't be selfish.
Slashdot: Do you have a message for the bystanders wishing you success?
JR: I just want to make a note about volunteering for the trial. At least in the UK and US, there is a lack of non-white volunteers for clinical trials. People of color and especially Black people have been systematically excluded from equal and safe access to healthcare systems — made blatant across the board including maternal mortality rates, diabetic amputee rates, and this pandemic, to name a few. I understand these excluded have valid reasons to not trust these healthcare systems and to not participate in clinical trials, so I'm not going to try to compel anyone to volunteer. I just wanted to note that there is a shortage of Black American and Black British volunteers in clinical trials. And in this pandemic where Black outcomes are direly worse — due to systemic inequity and unequal treatment and bias from healthcare providers — I am scared at a lack of diversity in vaccine trial participants. I am worried that a lot of demographics and health conditions are not being included.
To everyone, there are over a hundred vaccine trials happening right now in the U.S. and around the world. They all need volunteers. If you or someone you are caring for isn't shielding someone else who is at risk, you should really consider volunteering. This is a global battle and we need global citizens involved. Plus it's easy to participate.
Most crucially, we all have to prioritize science right now.
Re:Systemic inequality? (Score:4, Insightful)
In the UK healthcare is free* but non-white people still tend to get worse outcomes and in the case of COVID-19 it appears that some genetic factor makes it worse for them. Even after that became apparent there wasn't much effort made to do anything about it, e.g. to shield black/Asian healthcare staff.
* It's free but the Home Office has been discriminating against non-white people for a decade, taking away their right to healthcare illegally and unfairly.
Re:Systemic inequality? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The answer seems to be "Maybe". IIUC people with highly pigmented skin also have a slightly different way to metabolize vitamin D, so it's not clear that they really are deficient. Just "probably deficient". That said, I don't know of any studies that say a slightly higher than minimal dose of vitamin D is not unhealthy. So **MODERATE** vitamin D supplements are probably a good idea.
Re:Systemic inequality? (Score:5, Interesting)
In the UK healthcare is free* but non-white people still tend to get worse outcomes
I'm not sure that's true. I think that the issue is poverty and black families tend to be poorer (which is at least partly due to systemic racism) but even with COVID I don't think the research suggests that the issue is directly related to skin colour or other genetic characteristics commonly possessed by people with black skin. Poor white people have very similar outcomes, including with COVID. However, there is a lot of research on this and not a lot of clarity (which in itself is suggestive of there being no real link to genetics).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of it is due to poverty, which itself is linked to race in the UK, but also simply because medical research tends to target affluent white people because they are the biggest market. Issues that mostly affect non-white people get less attention and money thrown at them. Medical staff tend to be less familiar with them.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of it is due to poverty, which itself is linked to race in the UK, but also simply because medical research tends to target affluent white people because they are the biggest market. Issues that mostly affect non-white people get less attention and money thrown at them. Medical staff tend to be less familiar with them.
Affluent people are probably also more likely to get recruited into medical studies and have the time to participate, especially if subjects are recruited from existing patients (for example we take our daughter to see a specialist and they ask every time if we would be willing to be included in a research study if they wanted us to). Poorer people are probably less likely to see doctors to begin with (so there's a recruitment channel lost) and more likely to have work schedules that would preclude them fr
Re: (Score:2)
Issues that mostly affect non-white people
Someone mentioned high blood pressure and diabetes. Are these the issues that don't affect white people? Looking around myself I seriously doubt that.
Re: (Score:2)
I was speaking generally as we don't know what the exact factors at play here are. There does appear to be something that makes COVID-19 worse for certain genetics but AFAIK nobody knows what it is.
Nonwhite ergo poor ergo sick (Score:2)
Someone mentioned high blood pressure and diabetes. Are these the issues that don't affect white people?
Uncontrolled hypertension (high blood pressure) disproportionately affects poor people because rich people are more likely to see a physician regularly and get put on metoprolol and a reducing diet. Because of bigoted state laws prior to the mid-1960s, poor people in the United States are disproportionately nonwhite.
Systemic Sexism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
determining why men or particular racial groups are worst hit is not really the highest priority at the moment. The focus is on developing treatments and vaccines.
I would have thought that understanding the commonality between victims would be key to any treatment and most vaccines.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even after that became apparent there wasn't much effort made to do anything about it, e.g. to shield black/Asian healthcare staff.
Men get much worse outcomes than women, but even after that has become apparent, there wasn't much effort made to do anything about it.
Does it make governments Misandrist?
Re:Systemic inequality? (Score:4, Insightful)
In what area? For example the amount of money spent on testicular cancer far outweighs the amount spent on most other cancers on a per-case basis.
There are area's where men's health is underfunded, e.g. mental health. But it's not as simple as a blanket statement, and it intersects with race and poverty too.
Re: (Score:1)
wow
Yeah, some things are more complex than a simple binary choice. Mind blowing isn't it?
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
In what area? For example the amount of money spent on testicular cancer far outweighs the amount spent on most other cancers on a per-case basis.
In most, if not all, countries, government spending on fighting breast cancer far oughteighs spending on fighting prostate cancer.
The "per case basis" as in "let me cherry pick some random stat to deny men are disadvantaged" is commendable, but, remind me, why you have mentioned cancers at all in COVID-19 vulnerability discussion?
The question, if you have forgotten it, was: if government doing nothing to mitigate higher death rate among POC shows it is racist, does government doing nothing about men show i [dw.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The "per case basis" as in "let me cherry pick some random stat to deny men are disadvantaged"
It's not cherry picking, it's trying to compare like-for-like. Since breast cancer is far more common of course more money is spent on it.
if government doing nothing to mitigate higher death rate among POC shows it is racist, does government doing nothing about men show it is misandrist?
In that case you are begging the question. Is it racist? There might be some institutional racism in there but it might also be genetic. Probably a bit of both.
Also the question is based on a false premise, namely that the government is doing nothing about men.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not cherry picking, it's trying to compare like-for-like. Since breast cancer is far more common of course more money is spent on it.
I thought you've just stated that more money was spent on prostate cancer, but good to know.
Actually, roughly similar numbers die from both cancer.
There might be some institutional racism in there but it might also be genetic. Probably a bit of both.
I have just applied the same metrics that you have used to call out "institutionalized racism".
Still not sure what your answer is, can we call that "institutionalized misandry"?
Also the question is based on a false premise, namely that the government is doing nothing about men.
Oh, if government did something to protect the gender that is more likely to die from COVID19 but I have missed it, please, point out.
Re: Systemic inequality? (Score:2)
She is the resident misandrist of Slashdot. For people like her, buck stops at misandry.
Re: (Score:2)
why you have mentioned cancers at all in COVID-19 vulnerability discussion?
It seems you were the one which invoked the government as some sexist entity. So maybe you want to refine your statement to "Government health workers exclusive to virology are misandrist".
Otherwise if you're going to invoke the government in general and then cancer statistics are very much a relevant counter point to your proclamation. Also giving examples while asking you for citations isn't cherry picking, it's solid arguing. On the other hand moving the goalposts around like you're doing is not.
Re: (Score:1)
Otherwise if you're going to invoke the government in general and then cancer statistics are very much a relevant counter point to your proclamation.
For starters, "government is not doing something for group X => government is against group X" is the original statement and, no, what is going on with cancer, doesn't change it.
But it is ironic, that cancers got mentioned at all in that twisted "per case bases" statement. Breast cancer spending beats prostate cancer research spending in any country on this planet.
Both are roughly as deadly, roughly 1 in 40 men/women dies from it.
Re: Systemic inequality? (Score:2)
"Men are disadvantaged"
Maybe because we smoke and drink more, and kick each other in the balls a lot. Grow a pair.
Re: (Score:1)
Government spends less on men specific cancer, because men drink and smoke, got it.
Makes sense.
Teachers 'give higher marks to girls' [bbc.com], because boys misbehave. Again, makes perfect sense.
When it gets to exams and "teacher gender bonus" is gone, it is perceived as a problem. Hence Oxford University Plans 'Takeout' Exam to Help Women Get Better Grades [news18.com], again, makes even more sense, doesn't it?
Re:Systemic inequality? (Score:5, Informative)
Testicular cancer is comparable to ovarian cancer, which is "far" similar to testicular cancer. What "far outweighs" is just the amount spent.
You have history of bullshitting about men's issues so I don't expect any honesty from you. But just to make sure:
https://prostate.org.nz/2014/0... [prostate.org.nz]
The only thing I expect you to do is spend inordinate about of time cherry-picking data to keep sure the idiots who keep giving you modpoints don't recognize your sexist bigotry.
Re: (Score:2)
So how do you explain this? Men still have most power in the countries where these cancer treatments are developed, the heads of the companies doing the research are mostly men. Where is the misandry coming from?
I know the answer but I don't think you want to hear it.
Re: (Score:1)
So how do you explain this? Men still have most power in the countries...
It is quite simple, actually: men in power acting in the interests of male gender as a whole is an obvious lie.
Actual studies show that women exhibit strong in group bias, while men don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Gender traitors? I'm not buying it. They act for the benefit of men in general at other times.
Re: (Score:2)
Gender traitors?
What?
Lack of in group bias among men (and strong presence of it among women) perhaps explains why certain folks of certain gender even came up with the "gender traitor" term".
People engaged in gender tribalism might be surprised to learn that many humans, men in particular, are not viewing themselves to be part of the gender tribe.
They act for the benefit of men in general at other times.
No, they clearly have not, but feel free to make it up to support "the narrative".
Re: (Score:2)
Testicular cancer is comparable to ovarian cancer, which is "far" similar to testicular cancer.
No it isn't. They're not even remotely similar.
Most testicular cancers are cancer of the germ cell (e.g. seminoma). Testicles are constantly producing sperm, which happens because germ cells are constantly dividing. More dividing means a greater chance of copying error.
Ovarian cancer, on the other hand, doesn't actually exist in the sense of ovarian tissue becoming cancerous. Rather, cancer cells from other parts of the body find a hormone-rich environment around the ovary and decide to grow there.
TL;DR Tes
Re: (Score:1)
In the context of "gargantuan disparity in spending on gender specific diseases" you went after biological nuances behind cancers.
Isn't it called nitpicking [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Here's what I responded to:
I interpreted this as saying that testicular cancer and ovarian cancer are similar, and the only difference is the amount of money invested. I fully concede that I may have misinterpreted it.
My point is merely that the amount of funding may have its basis in how difficult the actual diseases are to diagnose, treat, and hopefully cure.
Re: (Score:2)
IIUC, the problem with pancreatic cancer is that it's almost never diagnosed before it metastasizes. There just aren't any symptoms. I knew a person that had it, and survived. The detected it only when they were doing an operation for something else. I think it was something duodenal. Once they knew it was there they took it out and started treatments, and there were minimal problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Raises hand. Yeppers, that's what happened with me. They were treating something else when a routine CT scan saw something
Overall Outcome (Score:2)
In what area?
How about overall: men's life expectancies are consistently lower than women's.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not because of lack of medical research though, it's down to social issues. I agree it should get more attention but unfortunately there are a lot of people fighting hard to prevent it getting better.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of other reasons than just genetics though.
Many non-whites in the UK are generally recent or 1 and 2 generation immigrants. They are more likely to live in larger multigeneration families, or alternatively live in small apartments in high-rise apartment building with shared access (lifts, front door etc.).
They are over-represented in jobs that put them at increased risk of exposure, like medical, care and also other face to face customer jobs (bus drivers, uber/minicabs, store clerk etc).
Th
Re: (Score:2)
That's all true. I think the main thing that lends credibility to the genetic argument is that it was first noticed among NHS staff on the front lines. Not just that they were getting it more often, but that when they got it the outcomes were worse.
Re:Systemic inequality? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The US doesn't have any systemic inequality in availability of healthcare" is astonishingly ignorant, as is "anyone can get the care they need". Not only are those things not true, they are less true in the USA than in any other developed nation. And yes, minorities have less access to care and receive poorer quality care than other people. These aren't political statements, they are statements of statistical fact. Please at least spend an hour looking at healthcare costs, outcomes, and access before you say this stuff because you are patting yourself on the back for living in a healthcare system that charges more, for less, than any other healthcare system in the developed world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh my apologies: https://lmgtfy.com/?q=minority... [lmgtfy.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if they're doctors outside the coverage.
Re: (Score:2)
but the US doesn't have any systemic inequality in availability of healthcare
Are you high? The inequality of US healthcare is so apparent that your country is the butt of jokes across the world, made by both Americans and foreigners. It's almost a universal truth: Water is wet, the sky is blue, in the USA you better be a rich white male with health insurance if you want good health outcomes.
Seriously normally the retort to this would be the sarcastic question of "are you even American", but in this case it would be justifiable to say "do you even live on this planet, or are you just
Re: (Score:2)
Inequality is economics-based, not racial. A rich Black man can get exactly the same care as a White man of the same economic status. A poor white hick will get the same bad care as an inner city Black.
Plasma doners needed too (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, so that they can make plasma rifles? No thanks, I'm a pacifist.
Re: (Score:2)
Bollocks (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Bollocks (Score:5, Interesting)
And the US has free public schooling, but there is a clear disparity in school facility and infrastructure between affluent, more white districts and poorer, minority districts.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to buy that argument. Then California passed a proposition for statewide funding of schools, but somehow the distribution of funds remained as unbalanced as ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a link [ed100.org] of where funding comes from which includes local property tax. Also, educational results are not always correlated with funding. Local demographics can also play a part.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately hospitals are not built in every neighborhood and even more rarely in upper class neighborhoods. There's also things called ambulances which will pick you up from your shitty slum to take you to a hospital.
Comparing that to a very localised example of schooling where the choice of school is limited, the private sector provides far better outcomes (it doesn't for UK healthcare), and schools are so plentiful that they very much take on the affluency of a single neighborhood rather than that of hal
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
It's not propaganda when the good guys are doing it. You will need to report for an attitude re-orientation seminar, citizen!
Our consultants at Consultants Factory are among the very few who have actually worked in-the-trenches on IT Governance implementation engagements for global companies. Our IT Governance consultancy services are based on COBIT Consulting. cobit consulting [consultantsfactory.com] cobit consulting service [consultantsfactory.com] cobit certification [consultantsfactory.com] it governance consulting [consultantsfactory.com] it governance consultancy [consultantsfactory.com]
You also need zero health problems to volunteer (Score:2)
A simple localised paresthesia in my foot was enough to disqualify me.
They would also be getting paid £thousands.
Deliberate exposure (Score:2)
If the virus was extremely serious we would be having human challenge trials, where patients are deliberately exposed to the virus. That's how animal studies are done. How many people would volunteer for that?
Placebo, really? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Without that, results cannot be trusted.
I don't know why you think that. The reason to have a control group is so you can eliminate unrelated confounding factors from your study. How does using saline solution do that better than a meningitis vaccine?
Re: (Score:1)
It's like comparing a rotten apple with a rotten peach. One can seem a little better or a little worse maybe and you can draw some (flawed) conclusions from that, but I'd rather have a fresh apple or peach included in the comparison, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like comparing a rotten apple with a rotten peach. One can seem a little better or a little worse maybe and you can draw some (flawed) conclusions from that,
This analogy doesn't hold. Your point is that you can only draw flawed conclusions by comparing the two vaccines, but you must demonstrate that applies in the original example.
The purpose of the control group is to be able to eliminate unrelated confounding factors from the study. What confounding factors do you think will be hidden by the meningitis vaccine (compared to saline)?
Re: (Score:1)
She said she was in a placebo group. A meningitis vaccine is clearly not a placebo. You seem unable to grasp that concept. Therefore, I've no interest in discussing with you further.
Re: (Score:2)
Therefore, I've no interest in discussing with you further.
Of course not, because you are right.
Last Paragraph (Score:2)
She kind of went out of her way to make sure we all know what an progressive, forward thinking citizen she is with that last paragraph speech.