Friends Whom Are Not Getting The Vaccine

2»

Comments

  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin Toronto Posts: 2,413
    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 :lol:

    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.
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • cblock4lifecblock4life Posts: 1,390
    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 :lol:

    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? 
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,821
    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 :lol:

    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
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • cblock4lifecblock4life Posts: 1,390
    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 :lol:

    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.  
  • lastexitlondonlastexitlondon Posts: 11,694
    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?
    brixton 93
    astoria 06
    albany 06
    hartford 06
    reading 06
    barcelona 06
    paris 06
    wembley 07
    dusseldorf 07
    nijmegen 07

    this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
  • PureandEasyPureandEasy Posts: 5,769

    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!!!!

     


  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,821

    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. 

    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business... Posts: 10,739
    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 :lol:

    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.
    Give Peas A Chance…
  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin Toronto Posts: 2,413
    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 :lol:

    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.
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business... Posts: 10,739
    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 :lol:

    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
    Give Peas A Chance…
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,592
    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?

    If that's true (and it may well be), then I'm guessing if I had gotten COVID I would probably be dead as a door nail.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin Toronto Posts: 2,413
    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 :lol:

    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
    I’m now on the waitlist for my local Rexall, it really was quite simple. See how it goes as the neighbourhood has a few high-rises so I may be waiting a little bit, but since it won’t change my mobility with the stay-at-home order in effect I’m not particularly worried, lol.
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin Toronto Posts: 2,413
    Since the province has stopped first shots of AZ I’m now booked for Monday afternoon at my local hospital, I wonder which of the vaccines I’m leery of that I’ll get, lol.
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business... Posts: 10,739
    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 :lol:

    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
    I’m now on the waitlist for my local Rexall, it really was quite simple. See how it goes as the neighbourhood has a few high-rises so I may be waiting a little bit, but since it won’t change my mobility with the stay-at-home order in effect I’m not particularly worried, lol.
    I got the Pfizer.  Other than a sore arm I had no side effects.  Personally, I wish the land border was open…I’d head to Michigan for my 2nd dose…good luck.  Your parents will be thankful.
    Give Peas A Chance…
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,821
    Since the province has stopped first shots of AZ I’m now booked for Monday afternoon at my local hospital, I wonder which of the vaccines I’m leery of that I’ll get, lol.

    Good luck! I think you said you're getting vaccinated to protect your parents - good for you.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Johnny AbruzzoJohnny Abruzzo Philly Posts: 10,315
    I mean, Pfizer and Moderna just happened to separate their doses by 3 & 4 weeks in their trials - that doesn't mean it's a magic number. I think Canada's strategy is probably optimal given their situation. Of course I'm no doctor or scientist so...
    Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; WF Center 10/21/13;
    WF Center 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; WF Center 4/28/16; WF Center 4/29/16;
    Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; SeaHearNow Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22

    Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,821
    I mean, Pfizer and Moderna just happened to separate their doses by 3 & 4 weeks in their trials - that doesn't mean it's a magic number. I think Canada's strategy is probably optimal given their situation. Of course I'm no doctor or scientist so...
    Yes, their dosing strategy was chosen to provide rapid results rather than optimal immunological response. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin Toronto Posts: 2,413
    Thanks everyone, I don’t mean to dominate this thread (sorry OP!), I just figured since I put my case out there I should make sure that subplot gets wrapped up, lol.

    Coincidentally my first shot is on my sister’s birthday (the hospital was booked through Sunday), lol.
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • The NorthThe North Posts: 95
    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. 

    Great point. But speaking of how they received their approval (or more accurately authorization) ..... Both Moderna's and Pfizer's submissions for emergency use authorization (available for the public to read) did not include anything about preventing infection or preventing transmission. Their trials simply looked at reducing the severity of illness of infected individuals (which they both seem to be great at doing) and short-term safety. So, any talk of vaccination preventing transmission, at this point, is premature and speculative. I do hope, however, that future studies will confirm that the vaccines do prevent transmission...... we just don't know at this time.

    What we do know is that they prevent severe illness and death for those at risk.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,821
    The North 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. 

    Great point. But speaking of how they received their approval (or more accurately authorization) ..... Both Moderna's and Pfizer's submissions for emergency use authorization (available for the public to read) did not include anything about preventing infection or preventing transmission. Their trials simply looked at reducing the severity of illness of infected individuals (which they both seem to be great at doing) and short-term safety. So, any talk of vaccination preventing transmission, at this point, is premature and speculative. I do hope, however, that future studies will confirm that the vaccines do prevent transmission...... we just don't know at this time.

    What we do know is that they prevent severe illness and death for those at risk.
    You are not correct - we do have good data on reduction of transmission now. At the time of submission of the dossiers for approval that data did not exist but it does now. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • The NorthThe North Posts: 95
    The North 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. 

    Great point. But speaking of how they received their approval (or more accurately authorization) ..... Both Moderna's and Pfizer's submissions for emergency use authorization (available for the public to read) did not include anything about preventing infection or preventing transmission. Their trials simply looked at reducing the severity of illness of infected individuals (which they both seem to be great at doing) and short-term safety. So, any talk of vaccination preventing transmission, at this point, is premature and speculative. I do hope, however, that future studies will confirm that the vaccines do prevent transmission...... we just don't know at this time.

    What we do know is that they prevent severe illness and death for those at risk.
    You are not correct - we do have good data on reduction of transmission now. At the time of submission of the dossiers for approval that data did not exist but it does now. 
    I am happy to be corrected, but I'm finding it very difficult to find that data..... Legitimate data like peer reviewed studies. If anyone has any to share, please do so as I think we all need to be accurately informed.
  • The North said:
    The North 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. 

    Great point. But speaking of how they received their approval (or more accurately authorization) ..... Both Moderna's and Pfizer's submissions for emergency use authorization (available for the public to read) did not include anything about preventing infection or preventing transmission. Their trials simply looked at reducing the severity of illness of infected individuals (which they both seem to be great at doing) and short-term safety. So, any talk of vaccination preventing transmission, at this point, is premature and speculative. I do hope, however, that future studies will confirm that the vaccines do prevent transmission...... we just don't know at this time.

    What we do know is that they prevent severe illness and death for those at risk.
    You are not correct - we do have good data on reduction of transmission now. At the time of submission of the dossiers for approval that data did not exist but it does now. 
    I am happy to be corrected, but I'm finding it very difficult to find that data..... Legitimate data like peer reviewed studies. If anyone has any to share, please do so as I think we all need to be accurately informed.
    Anybody? Oh, right....

Sign In or Register to comment.