Friends Whom Are Not Getting The Vaccine

lastexitlondon

The interval is a good thing  science is showing  antibodies grow over time . Mixing  im not sure about.

oftenreading

lastexitlondon said:

The interval is a good thing  science is showing  antibodies grow over time . Mixing  im not sure about.

We wait for evidence. It's in process. There is sound immunological logic to suggest that mixing is a good thing too. 

lastexitlondon

I agree

DarthMaeglin

oftenreading said:

DarthMaeglin said:

I'll put myself forward as someone who's quasi-hesitant. My concerns however are unique to my country as far as I know (Canada).

Talking with my sister the other night she clearly didn't like that I'm considering waiting for my first shot because my governments (both federal and provincial) are extending the second shot to 16 weeks over the manufacturer's protests.  I'm not against being vaccinated but am contemplating waiting until our supply shortens the gap (I'd personally prefer the more traditional vaccine from AstraZeneca). I'm equally uncomfortable with mixing vaccines,  something my provincial government is looking at. 

The deciding factor may be that I live with my parents who are both over 70 (both have had their first Pfizer shot).

The choice is obviously yours but you are increasing your risk by waiting just so that you can have your two doses closer together. The protection from a first dose is nothing to sneeze at and appears to be durable for at least the time interval, unless one is in some way immunocompromised. If you get a first dose and then wait up to 16 weeks for the second dose you have protection of around 70% in that interval, compared to no immunity.

The manufacturers are obliged to reinforce the interval for which they received their approval, because saying anything else contradicts their own submission; however, they know the evidence as well as anyone. There is some evidence now to suggest improved protection with the longer gap once the two shots have been given, rather than lessened protection. 

Unfortunately my hesitation on the gap falls into the category of "not a lab rat," lol. This is the first I've heard of the gap leading to good protection so I need to look into that,  thanks for the input (everything I've read until now suggested lower protection overall,  with no real studies either way...yet).

And just to be clear,  I truly hope this policy doesn't backfire on us. My biggest fear is actually that Canada will deliver the vaccine-resistant variant to the world, again hoping (and praying) I'm wrong.

lastexitlondon

There is clear evidence  i will see if i can find it. Im not internet savvy though. India will be providing  the variant that you speak of at this  very moment i would guess.

oftenreading

DarthMaeglin said:

oftenreading said:

DarthMaeglin said:

I'll put myself forward as someone who's quasi-hesitant. My concerns however are unique to my country as far as I know (Canada).

Talking with my sister the other night she clearly didn't like that I'm considering waiting for my first shot because my governments (both federal and provincial) are extending the second shot to 16 weeks over the manufacturer's protests.  I'm not against being vaccinated but am contemplating waiting until our supply shortens the gap (I'd personally prefer the more traditional vaccine from AstraZeneca). I'm equally uncomfortable with mixing vaccines,  something my provincial government is looking at. 

The deciding factor may be that I live with my parents who are both over 70 (both have had their first Pfizer shot).

The choice is obviously yours but you are increasing your risk by waiting just so that you can have your two doses closer together. The protection from a first dose is nothing to sneeze at and appears to be durable for at least the time interval, unless one is in some way immunocompromised. If you get a first dose and then wait up to 16 weeks for the second dose you have protection of around 70% in that interval, compared to no immunity.

The manufacturers are obliged to reinforce the interval for which they received their approval, because saying anything else contradicts their own submission; however, they know the evidence as well as anyone. There is some evidence now to suggest improved protection with the longer gap once the two shots have been given, rather than lessened protection. 

Unfortunately my hesitation on the gap falls into the category of "not a lab rat," lol. This is the first I've heard of the gap leading to good protection so I need to look into that,  thanks for the input (everything I've read until now suggested lower protection overall,  with no real studies either way...yet).

And just to be clear,  I truly hope this policy doesn't backfire on us. My biggest fear is actually that Canada will deliver the vaccine-resistant variant to the world, again hoping (and praying) I'm wrong.

I am really not at all convinced that the dosing strategy of spreading out the intervals will lead to any worsening in the pandemic, and in particular won't lead to any worsening variants. I think people tend to confuse vaccination with an active treatment like, say, antibiotics. Antibiotics work to treat a present infection, and if the infection isn't completely cleared, like if the person doesn't complete their course of antibiotics, then this selects for resistant strains and further problems.

However, vaccination is not at all like that. Vaccination works to prevent infection, and where it can't do that, reduce the severity of the infection. In the absence of vaccination you are essentially at 100% risk of getting infected and transmitting the virus to others if exposed (I'm simplifying here), and in this manner provide a reservoir of infection, and it's this reservoir of infected or potentially infected people that leads to development of variants.

A first dose of vaccine provides a good but not perfect level of protection (the data varies, somewhere between around 70% to the high 80s%). That means that the vaccinated people are significantly less likely to act as a reservoir of infection, and thus to contribute to development of variants. There is no partial treatment effect that promotes variants; the two situations are simply not comparable. Getting even one dose provides you with good protection AND reduces the risk that you will get infected, develop a mutated version of the virus, and transmit it to others. 

Johnny Abruzzo

lastexitlondon said:

70 and worried  about long term? What age do they expect to live to? 110? Man thats odd

Yeah you got it.

Matts3221

tbergs said:

I know several people who aren't getting it, and frankly, I don't care. I got it and so did my wife. We've both also had Covid. Why are people worrying so much about those who don't want to get it? If someone chooses not to get vaccinated, that's up to them and their possible health complications. I find it disappointing when such a small amount of the population is willing to be vaccinated, but because of who was president and how this pandemic was handled, our chance for herd immunity was dead in the water. 20 years from now this moment in time will be looked back on as a great failure and a generation will wonder why the people of today decided against achieving herd immunity.

But its not just them , there are people who cannot get the vaccine ( auto immune issue , currently going thru chemo ) so that person can still be a carrier and give it to someone who medical cannot get the vaccine and that person could get very sick or die.

Also the variants are going to grow as time goes on and those that are not vaccinated will spread them , potentially creating a variant that will make the vaccine useless and put us back at square one come Winter.   

I know message boards can sometimes come across as arguments , I am not shitting on you for your opinion. I have people like my mom who will be 79 this year and she just does not understand. Like when polio was a thing my mom remembers the news reels of those with Iron Lungs , no one marching around saying we are rejecting the Polio vaccine and its something we got rid of.

We may not see eye to eye on this but there are much large repercussions in my opinion to the whole world.   

tempo_n_groove

oftenreading said:

DarthMaeglin said:

oftenreading said:

DarthMaeglin said:

I'll put myself forward as someone who's quasi-hesitant. My concerns however are unique to my country as far as I know (Canada).

Talking with my sister the other night she clearly didn't like that I'm considering waiting for my first shot because my governments (both federal and provincial) are extending the second shot to 16 weeks over the manufacturer's protests.  I'm not against being vaccinated but am contemplating waiting until our supply shortens the gap (I'd personally prefer the more traditional vaccine from AstraZeneca). I'm equally uncomfortable with mixing vaccines,  something my provincial government is looking at. 

The deciding factor may be that I live with my parents who are both over 70 (both have had their first Pfizer shot).

The choice is obviously yours but you are increasing your risk by waiting just so that you can have your two doses closer together. The protection from a first dose is nothing to sneeze at and appears to be durable for at least the time interval, unless one is in some way immunocompromised. If you get a first dose and then wait up to 16 weeks for the second dose you have protection of around 70% in that interval, compared to no immunity.

The manufacturers are obliged to reinforce the interval for which they received their approval, because saying anything else contradicts their own submission; however, they know the evidence as well as anyone. There is some evidence now to suggest improved protection with the longer gap once the two shots have been given, rather than lessened protection. 

Unfortunately my hesitation on the gap falls into the category of "not a lab rat," lol. This is the first I've heard of the gap leading to good protection so I need to look into that,  thanks for the input (everything I've read until now suggested lower protection overall,  with no real studies either way...yet).

And just to be clear,  I truly hope this policy doesn't backfire on us. My biggest fear is actually that Canada will deliver the vaccine-resistant variant to the world, again hoping (and praying) I'm wrong.

I am really not at all convinced that the dosing strategy of spreading out the intervals will lead to any worsening in the pandemic, and in particular won't lead to any worsening variants. I think people tend to confuse vaccination with an active treatment like, say, antibiotics. Antibiotics work to treat a present infection, and if the infection isn't completely cleared, like if the person doesn't complete their course of antibiotics, then this selects for resistant strains and further problems.

However, vaccination is not at all like that. Vaccination works to prevent infection, and where it can't do that, reduce the severity of the infection. In the absence of vaccination you are essentially at 100% risk of getting infected and transmitting the virus to others if exposed (I'm simplifying here), and in this manner provide a reservoir of infection, and it's this reservoir of infected or potentially infected people that leads to development of variants.

A first dose of vaccine provides a good but not perfect level of protection (the data varies, somewhere between around 70% to the high 80s%). That means that the vaccinated people are significantly less likely to act as a reservoir of infection, and thus to contribute to development of variants. There is no partial treatment effect that promotes variants; the two situations are simply not comparable. Getting even one dose provides you with good protection AND reduces the risk that you will get infected, develop a mutated version of the virus, and transmit it to others. 

Your body is building an immunity.  Makes sense.

oftenreading

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

DarthMaeglin said:

oftenreading said:

DarthMaeglin said:

I'll put myself forward as someone who's quasi-hesitant. My concerns however are unique to my country as far as I know (Canada).

Talking with my sister the other night she clearly didn't like that I'm considering waiting for my first shot because my governments (both federal and provincial) are extending the second shot to 16 weeks over the manufacturer's protests.  I'm not against being vaccinated but am contemplating waiting until our supply shortens the gap (I'd personally prefer the more traditional vaccine from AstraZeneca). I'm equally uncomfortable with mixing vaccines,  something my provincial government is looking at. 

The deciding factor may be that I live with my parents who are both over 70 (both have had their first Pfizer shot).

The choice is obviously yours but you are increasing your risk by waiting just so that you can have your two doses closer together. The protection from a first dose is nothing to sneeze at and appears to be durable for at least the time interval, unless one is in some way immunocompromised. If you get a first dose and then wait up to 16 weeks for the second dose you have protection of around 70% in that interval, compared to no immunity.

The manufacturers are obliged to reinforce the interval for which they received their approval, because saying anything else contradicts their own submission; however, they know the evidence as well as anyone. There is some evidence now to suggest improved protection with the longer gap once the two shots have been given, rather than lessened protection. 

Unfortunately my hesitation on the gap falls into the category of "not a lab rat," lol. This is the first I've heard of the gap leading to good protection so I need to look into that,  thanks for the input (everything I've read until now suggested lower protection overall,  with no real studies either way...yet).

And just to be clear,  I truly hope this policy doesn't backfire on us. My biggest fear is actually that Canada will deliver the vaccine-resistant variant to the world, again hoping (and praying) I'm wrong.

I am really not at all convinced that the dosing strategy of spreading out the intervals will lead to any worsening in the pandemic, and in particular won't lead to any worsening variants. I think people tend to confuse vaccination with an active treatment like, say, antibiotics. Antibiotics work to treat a present infection, and if the infection isn't completely cleared, like if the person doesn't complete their course of antibiotics, then this selects for resistant strains and further problems.

However, vaccination is not at all like that. Vaccination works to prevent infection, and where it can't do that, reduce the severity of the infection. In the absence of vaccination you are essentially at 100% risk of getting infected and transmitting the virus to others if exposed (I'm simplifying here), and in this manner provide a reservoir of infection, and it's this reservoir of infected or potentially infected people that leads to development of variants.

A first dose of vaccine provides a good but not perfect level of protection (the data varies, somewhere between around 70% to the high 80s%). That means that the vaccinated people are significantly less likely to act as a reservoir of infection, and thus to contribute to development of variants. There is no partial treatment effect that promotes variants; the two situations are simply not comparable. Getting even one dose provides you with good protection AND reduces the risk that you will get infected, develop a mutated version of the virus, and transmit it to others. 

Your body is building an immunity.  Makes sense.

Yes. I'm not sure I gave the simplest explanation up there, though I tried

Maybe this is a more coherent answer - with an antibiotic, it's a pharmaceutical agent that is largely doing the job of getting rid of the infection, but with vaccination, it's your own immune system. You either go into an infection with no prior exposure or you go into it with some prior exposure from the vaccine, but in either case it's just your own immune system working the best it can. The better job it is able to do, the better your chance at staying well, destroying the virus, and not passing on mutated versions. 

DarthMaeglin

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

DarthMaeglin said:

oftenreading said:

DarthMaeglin said:

I'll put myself forward as someone who's quasi-hesitant. My concerns however are unique to my country as far as I know (Canada).

Talking with my sister the other night she clearly didn't like that I'm considering waiting for my first shot because my governments (both federal and provincial) are extending the second shot to 16 weeks over the manufacturer's protests.  I'm not against being vaccinated but am contemplating waiting until our supply shortens the gap (I'd personally prefer the more traditional vaccine from AstraZeneca). I'm equally uncomfortable with mixing vaccines,  something my provincial government is looking at. 

The deciding factor may be that I live with my parents who are both over 70 (both have had their first Pfizer shot).

The choice is obviously yours but you are increasing your risk by waiting just so that you can have your two doses closer together. The protection from a first dose is nothing to sneeze at and appears to be durable for at least the time interval, unless one is in some way immunocompromised. If you get a first dose and then wait up to 16 weeks for the second dose you have protection of around 70% in that interval, compared to no immunity.

The manufacturers are obliged to reinforce the interval for which they received their approval, because saying anything else contradicts their own submission; however, they know the evidence as well as anyone. There is some evidence now to suggest improved protection with the longer gap once the two shots have been given, rather than lessened protection. 

Unfortunately my hesitation on the gap falls into the category of "not a lab rat," lol. This is the first I've heard of the gap leading to good protection so I need to look into that,  thanks for the input (everything I've read until now suggested lower protection overall,  with no real studies either way...yet).

And just to be clear,  I truly hope this policy doesn't backfire on us. My biggest fear is actually that Canada will deliver the vaccine-resistant variant to the world, again hoping (and praying) I'm wrong.

I am really not at all convinced that the dosing strategy of spreading out the intervals will lead to any worsening in the pandemic, and in particular won't lead to any worsening variants. I think people tend to confuse vaccination with an active treatment like, say, antibiotics. Antibiotics work to treat a present infection, and if the infection isn't completely cleared, like if the person doesn't complete their course of antibiotics, then this selects for resistant strains and further problems.

However, vaccination is not at all like that. Vaccination works to prevent infection, and where it can't do that, reduce the severity of the infection. In the absence of vaccination you are essentially at 100% risk of getting infected and transmitting the virus to others if exposed (I'm simplifying here), and in this manner provide a reservoir of infection, and it's this reservoir of infected or potentially infected people that leads to development of variants.

A first dose of vaccine provides a good but not perfect level of protection (the data varies, somewhere between around 70% to the high 80s%). That means that the vaccinated people are significantly less likely to act as a reservoir of infection, and thus to contribute to development of variants. There is no partial treatment effect that promotes variants; the two situations are simply not comparable. Getting even one dose provides you with good protection AND reduces the risk that you will get infected, develop a mutated version of the virus, and transmit it to others. 

Your body is building an immunity.  Makes sense.

Yes. I'm not sure I gave the simplest explanation up there, though I tried

Maybe this is a more coherent answer - with an antibiotic, it's a pharmaceutical agent that is largely doing the job of getting rid of the infection, but with vaccination, it's your own immune system. You either go into an infection with no prior exposure or you go into it with some prior exposure from the vaccine, but in either case it's just your own immune system working the best it can. The better job it is able to do, the better your chance at staying well, destroying the virus, and not passing on mutated versions. 

Both descriptions made good sense to me, thanks again.  As it is it sounds like Toronto is booked until June (unless I manage catch a pop-up clinic for a hotspot). The booking system in Toronto and Ontario is not easily navigable.

As I said above living with my older parents will likely be the deciding factor for me.

cblock4life

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

DarthMaeglin said:

oftenreading said:

DarthMaeglin said:

I'll put myself forward as someone who's quasi-hesitant. My concerns however are unique to my country as far as I know (Canada).

Talking with my sister the other night she clearly didn't like that I'm considering waiting for my first shot because my governments (both federal and provincial) are extending the second shot to 16 weeks over the manufacturer's protests.  I'm not against being vaccinated but am contemplating waiting until our supply shortens the gap (I'd personally prefer the more traditional vaccine from AstraZeneca). I'm equally uncomfortable with mixing vaccines,  something my provincial government is looking at. 

The deciding factor may be that I live with my parents who are both over 70 (both have had their first Pfizer shot).

The choice is obviously yours but you are increasing your risk by waiting just so that you can have your two doses closer together. The protection from a first dose is nothing to sneeze at and appears to be durable for at least the time interval, unless one is in some way immunocompromised. If you get a first dose and then wait up to 16 weeks for the second dose you have protection of around 70% in that interval, compared to no immunity.

The manufacturers are obliged to reinforce the interval for which they received their approval, because saying anything else contradicts their own submission; however, they know the evidence as well as anyone. There is some evidence now to suggest improved protection with the longer gap once the two shots have been given, rather than lessened protection. 

Unfortunately my hesitation on the gap falls into the category of "not a lab rat," lol. This is the first I've heard of the gap leading to good protection so I need to look into that,  thanks for the input (everything I've read until now suggested lower protection overall,  with no real studies either way...yet).

And just to be clear,  I truly hope this policy doesn't backfire on us. My biggest fear is actually that Canada will deliver the vaccine-resistant variant to the world, again hoping (and praying) I'm wrong.

I am really not at all convinced that the dosing strategy of spreading out the intervals will lead to any worsening in the pandemic, and in particular won't lead to any worsening variants. I think people tend to confuse vaccination with an active treatment like, say, antibiotics. Antibiotics work to treat a present infection, and if the infection isn't completely cleared, like if the person doesn't complete their course of antibiotics, then this selects for resistant strains and further problems.

However, vaccination is not at all like that. Vaccination works to prevent infection, and where it can't do that, reduce the severity of the infection. In the absence of vaccination you are essentially at 100% risk of getting infected and transmitting the virus to others if exposed (I'm simplifying here), and in this manner provide a reservoir of infection, and it's this reservoir of infected or potentially infected people that leads to development of variants.

A first dose of vaccine provides a good but not perfect level of protection (the data varies, somewhere between around 70% to the high 80s%). That means that the vaccinated people are significantly less likely to act as a reservoir of infection, and thus to contribute to development of variants. There is no partial treatment effect that promotes variants; the two situations are simply not comparable. Getting even one dose provides you with good protection AND reduces the risk that you will get infected, develop a mutated version of the virus, and transmit it to others. 

Your body is building an immunity.  Makes sense.

Yes. I'm not sure I gave the simplest explanation up there, though I tried

Maybe this is a more coherent answer - with an antibiotic, it's a pharmaceutical agent that is largely doing the job of getting rid of the infection, but with vaccination, it's your own immune system. You either go into an infection with no prior exposure or you go into it with some prior exposure from the vaccine, but in either case it's just your own immune system working the best it can. The better job it is able to do, the better your chance at staying well, destroying the virus, and not passing on mutated versions. 

You seem to be extremely knowledgeable about this...any idea why someone who had covid (some self immunity) then received the vaccine would get so sick?  Is my body saying I already have enough? 

oftenreading

cblock4life said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

DarthMaeglin said:

oftenreading said:

DarthMaeglin said:

I'll put myself forward as someone who's quasi-hesitant. My concerns however are unique to my country as far as I know (Canada).

Talking with my sister the other night she clearly didn't like that I'm considering waiting for my first shot because my governments (both federal and provincial) are extending the second shot to 16 weeks over the manufacturer's protests.  I'm not against being vaccinated but am contemplating waiting until our supply shortens the gap (I'd personally prefer the more traditional vaccine from AstraZeneca). I'm equally uncomfortable with mixing vaccines,  something my provincial government is looking at. 

The deciding factor may be that I live with my parents who are both over 70 (both have had their first Pfizer shot).

The choice is obviously yours but you are increasing your risk by waiting just so that you can have your two doses closer together. The protection from a first dose is nothing to sneeze at and appears to be durable for at least the time interval, unless one is in some way immunocompromised. If you get a first dose and then wait up to 16 weeks for the second dose you have protection of around 70% in that interval, compared to no immunity.

The manufacturers are obliged to reinforce the interval for which they received their approval, because saying anything else contradicts their own submission; however, they know the evidence as well as anyone. There is some evidence now to suggest improved protection with the longer gap once the two shots have been given, rather than lessened protection. 

Unfortunately my hesitation on the gap falls into the category of "not a lab rat," lol. This is the first I've heard of the gap leading to good protection so I need to look into that,  thanks for the input (everything I've read until now suggested lower protection overall,  with no real studies either way...yet).

And just to be clear,  I truly hope this policy doesn't backfire on us. My biggest fear is actually that Canada will deliver the vaccine-resistant variant to the world, again hoping (and praying) I'm wrong.

I am really not at all convinced that the dosing strategy of spreading out the intervals will lead to any worsening in the pandemic, and in particular won't lead to any worsening variants. I think people tend to confuse vaccination with an active treatment like, say, antibiotics. Antibiotics work to treat a present infection, and if the infection isn't completely cleared, like if the person doesn't complete their course of antibiotics, then this selects for resistant strains and further problems.

However, vaccination is not at all like that. Vaccination works to prevent infection, and where it can't do that, reduce the severity of the infection. In the absence of vaccination you are essentially at 100% risk of getting infected and transmitting the virus to others if exposed (I'm simplifying here), and in this manner provide a reservoir of infection, and it's this reservoir of infected or potentially infected people that leads to development of variants.

A first dose of vaccine provides a good but not perfect level of protection (the data varies, somewhere between around 70% to the high 80s%). That means that the vaccinated people are significantly less likely to act as a reservoir of infection, and thus to contribute to development of variants. There is no partial treatment effect that promotes variants; the two situations are simply not comparable. Getting even one dose provides you with good protection AND reduces the risk that you will get infected, develop a mutated version of the virus, and transmit it to others. 

Your body is building an immunity.  Makes sense.

Yes. I'm not sure I gave the simplest explanation up there, though I tried

Maybe this is a more coherent answer - with an antibiotic, it's a pharmaceutical agent that is largely doing the job of getting rid of the infection, but with vaccination, it's your own immune system. You either go into an infection with no prior exposure or you go into it with some prior exposure from the vaccine, but in either case it's just your own immune system working the best it can. The better job it is able to do, the better your chance at staying well, destroying the virus, and not passing on mutated versions. 

You seem to be extremely knowledgeable about this...any idea why someone who had covid (some self immunity) then received the vaccine would get so sick?  Is my body saying I already have enough? 

Just part and parcel of how the immune system reacts, and everyone is a bit different. When a foreign substance is first detected there is no specific immunity, just the activation of the different parts of the immune system that can react in a non-specific way. Then things gear up and the more specific parts of the immune system, particularly the T and B cells, get going and you start to develop immunity to the SARS-CoV2 virus itself, or at least parts of it, over a couple of weeks or more. The side effects we get initially with the general immune response are at least partly related to release of cytokines, which can make us feel crappy. This happens also when our immune systems are fighting off actual infectious particles, whether they are bacteria or viruses or parasites or whatever (which means that at least part of the crappy feeling when we are fighting off an infection is our own body's work, not the direct effect of the invader). 

When we get the second dose or a first dose after infection, it provokes a response from both the specific and non-specific parts of the immune system, in a stronger way because it's a familiar antigen. Some people have more extreme side effects the second time, but not necessarily, and significant side effects are still the minority. It's not a sign that the body has had "enough", it's just a normal part of the immune response (not so fun, though). At this point there is no evidence that more severe side effects signal a more effective immune response, or that people who don't get side effects have a worse immune response.

There's more in this article for anyone interested:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/what-covid-vaccine-side-effects-can-and-cant-tell-you-about-your-bodys-immune-response

cblock4life

oftenreading said:

cblock4life said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

DarthMaeglin said:

oftenreading said:

DarthMaeglin said:

I'll put myself forward as someone who's quasi-hesitant. My concerns however are unique to my country as far as I know (Canada).

Talking with my sister the other night she clearly didn't like that I'm considering waiting for my first shot because my governments (both federal and provincial) are extending the second shot to 16 weeks over the manufacturer's protests.  I'm not against being vaccinated but am contemplating waiting until our supply shortens the gap (I'd personally prefer the more traditional vaccine from AstraZeneca). I'm equally uncomfortable with mixing vaccines,  something my provincial government is looking at. 

The deciding factor may be that I live with my parents who are both over 70 (both have had their first Pfizer shot).

The choice is obviously yours but you are increasing your risk by waiting just so that you can have your two doses closer together. The protection from a first dose is nothing to sneeze at and appears to be durable for at least the time interval, unless one is in some way immunocompromised. If you get a first dose and then wait up to 16 weeks for the second dose you have protection of around 70% in that interval, compared to no immunity.

The manufacturers are obliged to reinforce the interval for which they received their approval, because saying anything else contradicts their own submission; however, they know the evidence as well as anyone. There is some evidence now to suggest improved protection with the longer gap once the two shots have been given, rather than lessened protection. 

Unfortunately my hesitation on the gap falls into the category of "not a lab rat," lol. This is the first I've heard of the gap leading to good protection so I need to look into that,  thanks for the input (everything I've read until now suggested lower protection overall,  with no real studies either way...yet).

And just to be clear,  I truly hope this policy doesn't backfire on us. My biggest fear is actually that Canada will deliver the vaccine-resistant variant to the world, again hoping (and praying) I'm wrong.

I am really not at all convinced that the dosing strategy of spreading out the intervals will lead to any worsening in the pandemic, and in particular won't lead to any worsening variants. I think people tend to confuse vaccination with an active treatment like, say, antibiotics. Antibiotics work to treat a present infection, and if the infection isn't completely cleared, like if the person doesn't complete their course of antibiotics, then this selects for resistant strains and further problems.

However, vaccination is not at all like that. Vaccination works to prevent infection, and where it can't do that, reduce the severity of the infection. In the absence of vaccination you are essentially at 100% risk of getting infected and transmitting the virus to others if exposed (I'm simplifying here), and in this manner provide a reservoir of infection, and it's this reservoir of infected or potentially infected people that leads to development of variants.

A first dose of vaccine provides a good but not perfect level of protection (the data varies, somewhere between around 70% to the high 80s%). That means that the vaccinated people are significantly less likely to act as a reservoir of infection, and thus to contribute to development of variants. There is no partial treatment effect that promotes variants; the two situations are simply not comparable. Getting even one dose provides you with good protection AND reduces the risk that you will get infected, develop a mutated version of the virus, and transmit it to others. 

Your body is building an immunity.  Makes sense.

Yes. I'm not sure I gave the simplest explanation up there, though I tried

Maybe this is a more coherent answer - with an antibiotic, it's a pharmaceutical agent that is largely doing the job of getting rid of the infection, but with vaccination, it's your own immune system. You either go into an infection with no prior exposure or you go into it with some prior exposure from the vaccine, but in either case it's just your own immune system working the best it can. The better job it is able to do, the better your chance at staying well, destroying the virus, and not passing on mutated versions. 

You seem to be extremely knowledgeable about this...any idea why someone who had covid (some self immunity) then received the vaccine would get so sick?  Is my body saying I already have enough? 

Just part and parcel of how the immune system reacts, and everyone is a bit different. When a foreign substance is first detected there is no specific immunity, just the activation of the different parts of the immune system that can react in a non-specific way. Then things gear up and the more specific parts of the immune system, particularly the T and B cells, get going and you start to develop immunity to the SARS-CoV2 virus itself, or at least parts of it, over a couple of weeks or more. The side effects we get initially with the general immune response are at least partly related to release of cytokines, which can make us feel crappy. This happens also when our immune systems are fighting off actual infectious particles, whether they are bacteria or viruses or parasites or whatever (which means that at least part of the crappy feeling when we are fighting off an infection is our own body's work, not the direct effect of the invader). 

When we get the second dose or a first dose after infection, it provokes a response from both the specific and non-specific parts of the immune system, in a stronger way because it's a familiar antigen. Some people have more extreme side effects the second time, but not necessarily, and significant side effects are still the minority. It's not a sign that the body has had "enough", it's just a normal part of the immune response (not so fun, though). At this point there is no evidence that more severe side effects signal a more effective immune response, or that people who don't get side effects have a worse immune response.

There's more in this article for anyone interested:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/what-covid-vaccine-side-effects-can-and-cant-tell-you-about-your-bodys-immune-response

Thanks!  I’ll keep reading.  

lastexitlondon

My dr seems to think  a bad reaction  to the vaccine  means you would have suffered  more from  covid .  I dont know the science  of this?

PureandEasy

It is a personal decision; however, I highly encourage everyone to get vaccinated.  Being vaccinated will not protect you from infection or spreading the virus but it will protect you from becoming seriously ill if you are infected.

I work in a field where we have been testing people for the antibody to the virus for almost a year now.  People who have been infected have tested positive for the antibody. 

People who have shown no positivity for the antibody to COVID 19 previously are now testing positive/reactive for the antibody to the virus after having been vaccinated.  This is an indication that the vaccine is doing exactly what is expected of the vaccine, developing antibody to a virus offers protection.  Period.  The vaccine is expected to prevent replication of the virus, if infected.  

Having antibody from prior infection will not provide that protection.

Get vaccinated people!!!!

 

oftenreading

PureandEasy said:

It is a personal decision; however, I highly encourage everyone to get vaccinated.  Being vaccinated will not protect you from infection or spreading the virus but it will protect you from becoming seriously ill if you are infected.

I work in a field where we have been testing people for the antibody to the virus for almost a year now.  People who have been infected have tested positive for the antibody. 

People who have shown no positivity for the antibody to COVID 19 previously are now testing positive/reactive for the antibody to the virus after having been vaccinated.  This is an indication that the vaccine is doing exactly what is expected of the vaccine, developing antibody to a virus offers protection.  Period.  The vaccine is expected to prevent replication of the virus, if infected.  

Having antibody from prior infection will not provide that protection.

Get vaccinated people!!!!

 

There is a longer discussion about this in the COVID thread on AMT, which I won’t repeat here, but the short form is that yes, there is good evidence that the available vaccines do a lot to reduce infection and transmission.

More info in this article. 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/yes-vaccines-block-most-transmission-of-covid-19

Meltdown99

DarthMaeglin said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

DarthMaeglin said:

oftenreading said:

DarthMaeglin said:

I'll put myself forward as someone who's quasi-hesitant. My concerns however are unique to my country as far as I know (Canada).

Talking with my sister the other night she clearly didn't like that I'm considering waiting for my first shot because my governments (both federal and provincial) are extending the second shot to 16 weeks over the manufacturer's protests.  I'm not against being vaccinated but am contemplating waiting until our supply shortens the gap (I'd personally prefer the more traditional vaccine from AstraZeneca). I'm equally uncomfortable with mixing vaccines,  something my provincial government is looking at. 

The deciding factor may be that I live with my parents who are both over 70 (both have had their first Pfizer shot).

The choice is obviously yours but you are increasing your risk by waiting just so that you can have your two doses closer together. The protection from a first dose is nothing to sneeze at and appears to be durable for at least the time interval, unless one is in some way immunocompromised. If you get a first dose and then wait up to 16 weeks for the second dose you have protection of around 70% in that interval, compared to no immunity.

The manufacturers are obliged to reinforce the interval for which they received their approval, because saying anything else contradicts their own submission; however, they know the evidence as well as anyone. There is some evidence now to suggest improved protection with the longer gap once the two shots have been given, rather than lessened protection. 

Unfortunately my hesitation on the gap falls into the category of "not a lab rat," lol. This is the first I've heard of the gap leading to good protection so I need to look into that,  thanks for the input (everything I've read until now suggested lower protection overall,  with no real studies either way...yet).

And just to be clear,  I truly hope this policy doesn't backfire on us. My biggest fear is actually that Canada will deliver the vaccine-resistant variant to the world, again hoping (and praying) I'm wrong.

I am really not at all convinced that the dosing strategy of spreading out the intervals will lead to any worsening in the pandemic, and in particular won't lead to any worsening variants. I think people tend to confuse vaccination with an active treatment like, say, antibiotics. Antibiotics work to treat a present infection, and if the infection isn't completely cleared, like if the person doesn't complete their course of antibiotics, then this selects for resistant strains and further problems.

However, vaccination is not at all like that. Vaccination works to prevent infection, and where it can't do that, reduce the severity of the infection. In the absence of vaccination you are essentially at 100% risk of getting infected and transmitting the virus to others if exposed (I'm simplifying here), and in this manner provide a reservoir of infection, and it's this reservoir of infected or potentially infected people that leads to development of variants.

A first dose of vaccine provides a good but not perfect level of protection (the data varies, somewhere between around 70% to the high 80s%). That means that the vaccinated people are significantly less likely to act as a reservoir of infection, and thus to contribute to development of variants. There is no partial treatment effect that promotes variants; the two situations are simply not comparable. Getting even one dose provides you with good protection AND reduces the risk that you will get infected, develop a mutated version of the virus, and transmit it to others. 

Your body is building an immunity.  Makes sense.

Yes. I'm not sure I gave the simplest explanation up there, though I tried

Maybe this is a more coherent answer - with an antibiotic, it's a pharmaceutical agent that is largely doing the job of getting rid of the infection, but with vaccination, it's your own immune system. You either go into an infection with no prior exposure or you go into it with some prior exposure from the vaccine, but in either case it's just your own immune system working the best it can. The better job it is able to do, the better your chance at staying well, destroying the virus, and not passing on mutated versions. 

Both descriptions made good sense to me, thanks again.  As it is it sounds like Toronto is booked until June (unless I manage catch a pop-up clinic for a hotspot). The booking system in Toronto and Ontario is not easily navigable.

As I said above living with my older parents will likely be the deciding factor for me.

I booked my vaccine app in less than 5 minutes through our local health.  I booked my fathers vaccine app. In just a few minutes via telephone.  So not all of Ontario is having problems.

DarthMaeglin

Meltdown99 said:

DarthMaeglin said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

DarthMaeglin said:

oftenreading said:

DarthMaeglin said:

I'll put myself forward as someone who's quasi-hesitant. My concerns however are unique to my country as far as I know (Canada).

Talking with my sister the other night she clearly didn't like that I'm considering waiting for my first shot because my governments (both federal and provincial) are extending the second shot to 16 weeks over the manufacturer's protests.  I'm not against being vaccinated but am contemplating waiting until our supply shortens the gap (I'd personally prefer the more traditional vaccine from AstraZeneca). I'm equally uncomfortable with mixing vaccines,  something my provincial government is looking at. 

The deciding factor may be that I live with my parents who are both over 70 (both have had their first Pfizer shot).

The choice is obviously yours but you are increasing your risk by waiting just so that you can have your two doses closer together. The protection from a first dose is nothing to sneeze at and appears to be durable for at least the time interval, unless one is in some way immunocompromised. If you get a first dose and then wait up to 16 weeks for the second dose you have protection of around 70% in that interval, compared to no immunity.

The manufacturers are obliged to reinforce the interval for which they received their approval, because saying anything else contradicts their own submission; however, they know the evidence as well as anyone. There is some evidence now to suggest improved protection with the longer gap once the two shots have been given, rather than lessened protection. 

Unfortunately my hesitation on the gap falls into the category of "not a lab rat," lol. This is the first I've heard of the gap leading to good protection so I need to look into that,  thanks for the input (everything I've read until now suggested lower protection overall,  with no real studies either way...yet).

And just to be clear,  I truly hope this policy doesn't backfire on us. My biggest fear is actually that Canada will deliver the vaccine-resistant variant to the world, again hoping (and praying) I'm wrong.

I am really not at all convinced that the dosing strategy of spreading out the intervals will lead to any worsening in the pandemic, and in particular won't lead to any worsening variants. I think people tend to confuse vaccination with an active treatment like, say, antibiotics. Antibiotics work to treat a present infection, and if the infection isn't completely cleared, like if the person doesn't complete their course of antibiotics, then this selects for resistant strains and further problems.

However, vaccination is not at all like that. Vaccination works to prevent infection, and where it can't do that, reduce the severity of the infection. In the absence of vaccination you are essentially at 100% risk of getting infected and transmitting the virus to others if exposed (I'm simplifying here), and in this manner provide a reservoir of infection, and it's this reservoir of infected or potentially infected people that leads to development of variants.

A first dose of vaccine provides a good but not perfect level of protection (the data varies, somewhere between around 70% to the high 80s%). That means that the vaccinated people are significantly less likely to act as a reservoir of infection, and thus to contribute to development of variants. There is no partial treatment effect that promotes variants; the two situations are simply not comparable. Getting even one dose provides you with good protection AND reduces the risk that you will get infected, develop a mutated version of the virus, and transmit it to others. 

Your body is building an immunity.  Makes sense.

Yes. I'm not sure I gave the simplest explanation up there, though I tried

Maybe this is a more coherent answer - with an antibiotic, it's a pharmaceutical agent that is largely doing the job of getting rid of the infection, but with vaccination, it's your own immune system. You either go into an infection with no prior exposure or you go into it with some prior exposure from the vaccine, but in either case it's just your own immune system working the best it can. The better job it is able to do, the better your chance at staying well, destroying the virus, and not passing on mutated versions. 

Both descriptions made good sense to me, thanks again.  As it is it sounds like Toronto is booked until June (unless I manage catch a pop-up clinic for a hotspot). The booking system in Toronto and Ontario is not easily navigable.

As I said above living with my older parents will likely be the deciding factor for me.

I booked my vaccine app in less than 5 minutes through our local health.  I booked my fathers vaccine app. In just a few minutes via telephone.  So not all of Ontario is having problems.

Toronto seems to be a strange patchwork system with multiple booking options: the provincial system, the city’s system, local hospital networks and (I believe) select pharmacies, as well as the popup clinics.

Based on my sister’s experience in Ottawa my preferred option is probably the pharmacy where I can likely get the AstraZeneca shot. I’m digging into my options as a birthday present to mom, lol.

Separately, I would like to thank everyone for your insights and (moreso) engaging reasonably and without any bullying/pushiness. Doesn’t always happen and I do try to give thanks when I feel it’s due.

Meltdown99

DarthMaeglin said:

Meltdown99 said:

DarthMaeglin said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

DarthMaeglin said:

oftenreading said:

DarthMaeglin said:

I'll put myself forward as someone who's quasi-hesitant. My concerns however are unique to my country as far as I know (Canada).

Talking with my sister the other night she clearly didn't like that I'm considering waiting for my first shot because my governments (both federal and provincial) are extending the second shot to 16 weeks over the manufacturer's protests.  I'm not against being vaccinated but am contemplating waiting until our supply shortens the gap (I'd personally prefer the more traditional vaccine from AstraZeneca). I'm equally uncomfortable with mixing vaccines,  something my provincial government is looking at. 

The deciding factor may be that I live with my parents who are both over 70 (both have had their first Pfizer shot).

The choice is obviously yours but you are increasing your risk by waiting just so that you can have your two doses closer together. The protection from a first dose is nothing to sneeze at and appears to be durable for at least the time interval, unless one is in some way immunocompromised. If you get a first dose and then wait up to 16 weeks for the second dose you have protection of around 70% in that interval, compared to no immunity.

The manufacturers are obliged to reinforce the interval for which they received their approval, because saying anything else contradicts their own submission; however, they know the evidence as well as anyone. There is some evidence now to suggest improved protection with the longer gap once the two shots have been given, rather than lessened protection. 

Unfortunately my hesitation on the gap falls into the category of "not a lab rat," lol. This is the first I've heard of the gap leading to good protection so I need to look into that,  thanks for the input (everything I've read until now suggested lower protection overall,  with no real studies either way...yet).

And just to be clear,  I truly hope this policy doesn't backfire on us. My biggest fear is actually that Canada will deliver the vaccine-resistant variant to the world, again hoping (and praying) I'm wrong.

I am really not at all convinced that the dosing strategy of spreading out the intervals will lead to any worsening in the pandemic, and in particular won't lead to any worsening variants. I think people tend to confuse vaccination with an active treatment like, say, antibiotics. Antibiotics work to treat a present infection, and if the infection isn't completely cleared, like if the person doesn't complete their course of antibiotics, then this selects for resistant strains and further problems.

However, vaccination is not at all like that. Vaccination works to prevent infection, and where it can't do that, reduce the severity of the infection. In the absence of vaccination you are essentially at 100% risk of getting infected and transmitting the virus to others if exposed (I'm simplifying here), and in this manner provide a reservoir of infection, and it's this reservoir of infected or potentially infected people that leads to development of variants.

A first dose of vaccine provides a good but not perfect level of protection (the data varies, somewhere between around 70% to the high 80s%). That means that the vaccinated people are significantly less likely to act as a reservoir of infection, and thus to contribute to development of variants. There is no partial treatment effect that promotes variants; the two situations are simply not comparable. Getting even one dose provides you with good protection AND reduces the risk that you will get infected, develop a mutated version of the virus, and transmit it to others. 

Your body is building an immunity.  Makes sense.

Yes. I'm not sure I gave the simplest explanation up there, though I tried

Maybe this is a more coherent answer - with an antibiotic, it's a pharmaceutical agent that is largely doing the job of getting rid of the infection, but with vaccination, it's your own immune system. You either go into an infection with no prior exposure or you go into it with some prior exposure from the vaccine, but in either case it's just your own immune system working the best it can. The better job it is able to do, the better your chance at staying well, destroying the virus, and not passing on mutated versions. 

Both descriptions made good sense to me, thanks again.  As it is it sounds like Toronto is booked until June (unless I manage catch a pop-up clinic for a hotspot). The booking system in Toronto and Ontario is not easily navigable.

As I said above living with my older parents will likely be the deciding factor for me.

I booked my vaccine app in less than 5 minutes through our local health.  I booked my fathers vaccine app. In just a few minutes via telephone.  So not all of Ontario is having problems.

Toronto seems to be a strange patchwork system with multiple booking options: the provincial system, the city’s system, local hospital networks and (I believe) select pharmacies, as well as the popup clinics.

Based on my sister’s experience in Ottawa my preferred option is probably the pharmacy where I can likely get the AstraZeneca shot. I’m digging into my options as a birthday present to mom, lol.

Separately, I would like to thank everyone for your insights and (moreso) engaging reasonably and without any bullying/pushiness. Doesn’t always happen and I do try to give thanks when I feel it’s due.

I understand what you are saying.  The rollout has gone poorly I’m many places.  It is what it is at this point.  A lot of folks in Ontario is losing their shit…on both sides…lol