|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On March 28 2021 01:33 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2021 01:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 28 2021 00:32 JimmiC wrote:
I learned something new today, I had no idea there was vaccine snobs. I'll happily take whatever approved one they offer me and ASAP hoping others do the same and we can get to herd immunity ASAP. I'm sick of this.
I can kind of see the opposing viewpoint - the "snob" viewpoint - if the currently-accessible vaccine is significantly less effective, and if waiting for a few weeks more would lead to access to the "better" vaccine options. Of course, it totally depends on the location, distribution, available vaccines, etc. If, for example, I was vaccinated with a 70%-effective option today, but could have received a 90%-effective option in a month, getting the 70%-effective option would end up being redundant, a waste of time, and could even force me to the back of the line for the 90%-effective option (if people who are still unvaccinated get priority over me, since I at least have some sort of vaccination, even if it's not the ideal one). I agree with your second paragraph mostly, but the reality is the numbers are not that dramatically different other than with J&J, but it has a big advantage in transporting and one dose so will work well for remote places. It really comes down to collective vs individualist though, do you want what is best for everyone, or what is best for you? Are you OK with everyone being a vaccine snob and it taking until 2023 for herd immunity? Do you think that healthy 20 somethings are the ones that should be getting the "best" vaccine. If someone healthy and young is only holding out for one vaccine they are selfish and a I think the term snob fits. Luckily we don't have a society where everyone is like that, but we should not pretend that those who are like that are not a problem and are not selfish.
That's fair. To be clear, if I were a vaccine snob holding out for my "ideal" vaccine, I would also be 100% continuing to isolate myself from society until I'm finally vaccinated, so that my decision to be a snob didn't jeopardize other people by being around them as a still-unvaccinated person. So I definitely wouldn't be a fan of vaccine snobs who weren't additionally willing to stay away from others in the interim.
|
|
|
On March 28 2021 02:25 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2021 01:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 28 2021 01:33 JimmiC wrote:On March 28 2021 01:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 28 2021 00:32 JimmiC wrote:
I learned something new today, I had no idea there was vaccine snobs. I'll happily take whatever approved one they offer me and ASAP hoping others do the same and we can get to herd immunity ASAP. I'm sick of this.
I can kind of see the opposing viewpoint - the "snob" viewpoint - if the currently-accessible vaccine is significantly less effective, and if waiting for a few weeks more would lead to access to the "better" vaccine options. Of course, it totally depends on the location, distribution, available vaccines, etc. If, for example, I was vaccinated with a 70%-effective option today, but could have received a 90%-effective option in a month, getting the 70%-effective option would end up being redundant, a waste of time, and could even force me to the back of the line for the 90%-effective option (if people who are still unvaccinated get priority over me, since I at least have some sort of vaccination, even if it's not the ideal one). I agree with your second paragraph mostly, but the reality is the numbers are not that dramatically different other than with J&J, but it has a big advantage in transporting and one dose so will work well for remote places. It really comes down to collective vs individualist though, do you want what is best for everyone, or what is best for you? Are you OK with everyone being a vaccine snob and it taking until 2023 for herd immunity? Do you think that healthy 20 somethings are the ones that should be getting the "best" vaccine. If someone healthy and young is only holding out for one vaccine they are selfish and a I think the term snob fits. Luckily we don't have a society where everyone is like that, but we should not pretend that those who are like that are not a problem and are not selfish. That's fair. To be clear, if I were a vaccine snob holding out for my "ideal" vaccine, I would also be 100% continuing to isolate myself from society until I'm finally vaccinated, so that my decision to be a snob didn't jeopardize other people by being around them as a still-unvaccinated person. So I definitely wouldn't be a fan of vaccine snobs who weren't additionally willing to stay away from others in the interim. That is fair, and I think moodoh who is willing to have the isolation and so on last much longer could also hold the opinion that we should get slow everything down and everyone get the best one. It is only a issue to me if you think that others should get a "lesser" one and you the "best" one so things can open ASAP and you are better off then others. But isnt't Moderna and Pfizer basically the same? And from what I have read the Pfyser one is good against UK but not great against SA variant, and nothing on Brazil. With Moderna saying inconclusive on variants but looks promising. Novavax looks strong so far but not approved and then is 76% against symptoms and 100% against death and hospitalization not that good? The way I understand herd is that if 95% of the people had that level of protection the virus would basically die out every time it got anyone because it wouldn't infect others and then Covid would really be just like the flu. And then J&J 72% off one shot, ain't to bad, and seems to be the one doing the best against the SA variant. Also since it is not mRNA it might be good for those who are scared about that. Pretty amazing to me that the switch has happened from mRNA is not a good approach because of logistics and storage, too I'm only going to take this one and so should everyone else.
I don't know much about the other vaccine options, but afaik Pfizer and Moderna are basically the same in terms of overall efficacy (95% vs. 94%). I have the former and my wife has the latter.
|
On March 28 2021 03:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2021 02:25 JimmiC wrote:On March 28 2021 01:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 28 2021 01:33 JimmiC wrote:On March 28 2021 01:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 28 2021 00:32 JimmiC wrote:
I learned something new today, I had no idea there was vaccine snobs. I'll happily take whatever approved one they offer me and ASAP hoping others do the same and we can get to herd immunity ASAP. I'm sick of this.
I can kind of see the opposing viewpoint - the "snob" viewpoint - if the currently-accessible vaccine is significantly less effective, and if waiting for a few weeks more would lead to access to the "better" vaccine options. Of course, it totally depends on the location, distribution, available vaccines, etc. If, for example, I was vaccinated with a 70%-effective option today, but could have received a 90%-effective option in a month, getting the 70%-effective option would end up being redundant, a waste of time, and could even force me to the back of the line for the 90%-effective option (if people who are still unvaccinated get priority over me, since I at least have some sort of vaccination, even if it's not the ideal one). I agree with your second paragraph mostly, but the reality is the numbers are not that dramatically different other than with J&J, but it has a big advantage in transporting and one dose so will work well for remote places. It really comes down to collective vs individualist though, do you want what is best for everyone, or what is best for you? Are you OK with everyone being a vaccine snob and it taking until 2023 for herd immunity? Do you think that healthy 20 somethings are the ones that should be getting the "best" vaccine. If someone healthy and young is only holding out for one vaccine they are selfish and a I think the term snob fits. Luckily we don't have a society where everyone is like that, but we should not pretend that those who are like that are not a problem and are not selfish. That's fair. To be clear, if I were a vaccine snob holding out for my "ideal" vaccine, I would also be 100% continuing to isolate myself from society until I'm finally vaccinated, so that my decision to be a snob didn't jeopardize other people by being around them as a still-unvaccinated person. So I definitely wouldn't be a fan of vaccine snobs who weren't additionally willing to stay away from others in the interim. That is fair, and I think moodoh who is willing to have the isolation and so on last much longer could also hold the opinion that we should get slow everything down and everyone get the best one. It is only a issue to me if you think that others should get a "lesser" one and you the "best" one so things can open ASAP and you are better off then others. But isnt't Moderna and Pfizer basically the same? And from what I have read the Pfyser one is good against UK but not great against SA variant, and nothing on Brazil. With Moderna saying inconclusive on variants but looks promising. Novavax looks strong so far but not approved and then is 76% against symptoms and 100% against death and hospitalization not that good? The way I understand herd is that if 95% of the people had that level of protection the virus would basically die out every time it got anyone because it wouldn't infect others and then Covid would really be just like the flu. And then J&J 72% off one shot, ain't to bad, and seems to be the one doing the best against the SA variant. Also since it is not mRNA it might be good for those who are scared about that. Pretty amazing to me that the switch has happened from mRNA is not a good approach because of logistics and storage, too I'm only going to take this one and so should everyone else. I don't know much about the other vaccine options, but afaik Pfizer and Moderna are basically the same in terms of overall efficacy (95% vs. 94%). I have the former and my wife has the latter.
Pfizer only requires 1 week after 2nd dose IIRC
|
On March 28 2021 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2021 03:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 28 2021 02:25 JimmiC wrote:On March 28 2021 01:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 28 2021 01:33 JimmiC wrote:On March 28 2021 01:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 28 2021 00:32 JimmiC wrote:
I learned something new today, I had no idea there was vaccine snobs. I'll happily take whatever approved one they offer me and ASAP hoping others do the same and we can get to herd immunity ASAP. I'm sick of this.
I can kind of see the opposing viewpoint - the "snob" viewpoint - if the currently-accessible vaccine is significantly less effective, and if waiting for a few weeks more would lead to access to the "better" vaccine options. Of course, it totally depends on the location, distribution, available vaccines, etc. If, for example, I was vaccinated with a 70%-effective option today, but could have received a 90%-effective option in a month, getting the 70%-effective option would end up being redundant, a waste of time, and could even force me to the back of the line for the 90%-effective option (if people who are still unvaccinated get priority over me, since I at least have some sort of vaccination, even if it's not the ideal one). I agree with your second paragraph mostly, but the reality is the numbers are not that dramatically different other than with J&J, but it has a big advantage in transporting and one dose so will work well for remote places. It really comes down to collective vs individualist though, do you want what is best for everyone, or what is best for you? Are you OK with everyone being a vaccine snob and it taking until 2023 for herd immunity? Do you think that healthy 20 somethings are the ones that should be getting the "best" vaccine. If someone healthy and young is only holding out for one vaccine they are selfish and a I think the term snob fits. Luckily we don't have a society where everyone is like that, but we should not pretend that those who are like that are not a problem and are not selfish. That's fair. To be clear, if I were a vaccine snob holding out for my "ideal" vaccine, I would also be 100% continuing to isolate myself from society until I'm finally vaccinated, so that my decision to be a snob didn't jeopardize other people by being around them as a still-unvaccinated person. So I definitely wouldn't be a fan of vaccine snobs who weren't additionally willing to stay away from others in the interim. That is fair, and I think moodoh who is willing to have the isolation and so on last much longer could also hold the opinion that we should get slow everything down and everyone get the best one. It is only a issue to me if you think that others should get a "lesser" one and you the "best" one so things can open ASAP and you are better off then others. But isnt't Moderna and Pfizer basically the same? And from what I have read the Pfyser one is good against UK but not great against SA variant, and nothing on Brazil. With Moderna saying inconclusive on variants but looks promising. Novavax looks strong so far but not approved and then is 76% against symptoms and 100% against death and hospitalization not that good? The way I understand herd is that if 95% of the people had that level of protection the virus would basically die out every time it got anyone because it wouldn't infect others and then Covid would really be just like the flu. And then J&J 72% off one shot, ain't to bad, and seems to be the one doing the best against the SA variant. Also since it is not mRNA it might be good for those who are scared about that. Pretty amazing to me that the switch has happened from mRNA is not a good approach because of logistics and storage, too I'm only going to take this one and so should everyone else. I don't know much about the other vaccine options, but afaik Pfizer and Moderna are basically the same in terms of overall efficacy (95% vs. 94%). I have the former and my wife has the latter. Pfizer only requires 1 week after 2nd dose IIRC
I believe so 
|
I've also heard a head of a federal state here say that Sputnik V seems to be good "according to studies".
I don't really keep up with vaccine development so idk what studies are referred here.
|
This vaccine snobbery seems completely ridiculous to me.
AZ (your "worst" vaccine) is 100 % effective against severe illness and hospitalization. Given that the risk of getting severe complications for me was extremely low before it's basically non existent now. I wasn't afraid of getting the equivalent of a cold before and I'm not now.
So on a personal level it doesn't matter one bit what you get.
On the level of society it's much better that I get vaccinated with an effective vaccine (70 % is more than enough) ASAP and that as many people get it as possible.
So on that level people should just take what they can get as soon as possible.
And when it comes to my life I have patients to treat, work to do and a family to take care of so I'd rather not wait even a single week longer.
I honestly can't see any reason for delaying vaccination to get the "best" vaccine because it doesn't matter unless you are already in complete isolation and have an compromised family member that absolutely can't get sick. In which case statistically you would still probably be better off just taking the first thing you got offered anyway.
|
Here are my notes about vaccines as I've followed news more or less.
AstraZeneca
- less effective than Pfizer though still effective against COVID
- requires a significant time window before 2nd dose is taken for maximum protection - around 75-90 days
- controversial deliveries, meaning less than promised vaccines are received (if you're from EU and not from UK)
- tested method (adenoviral vector)
- didn't mention thrombosis (immune response) though German scientists seem to have discovered how to prevent it
- taken by Boris Johnson (UK prime minister)
- easier storage in terms of temperature
Pfizer
- highest efficacy, about 94-95%
- taken by senior politicians like Biden, Mike Pence which makes it trustworthy subjectively
- no issues with deliveries so far
- new technology, mRNA (uncertainty)
- usually 3 weeks to get 2nd dose (quick)
- difficult storage, it requires -70 C for long-term storage
Moderna
I don't know much about this one except I remember it wasn't very effective against a particular strain of COVID. I think it was the African one. It's a similar vaccine to the Pfizer one.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
AstraZeneca is completely useless against SA strain. South Africa threw that vaccine away, as most other countries should.
The others - Sputnik, Pfizer, Moderna, J&J - all report lesser but still meaningful effectiveness against SA strain. SA strain is the only coronavirus variant that has seemed to be vaccine resistant at this point in time; most every other variant differs in ways that haven't mattered for vaccination.
Despite a new controversy every week and significantly lower than desired efficacy, AstraZeneca gets pushed very hard by some entities. Given that much of the world took an "AstraZeneca or bust" approach to vaccines based on the low cost / favorable logistics it promised, it's hard to admit that it was indeed a bust. I wouldn't be surprised if next summer/winter, another wave of coronavirus disproportionately infected those unfortunate countries that used the lowest quality vaccine on the market - driven by an aggressive outbreak of SA strain derived virus.
|
AZ buys time. It's good enough against regular, UK and brazil from what I've heard that if you don't have a regular supply of other options as is the case in USA/Israel, then it's a far better option to just toss AZ at the population and hope that a SA variant booster/vaccine comes out.
In Canada, we don't really have the supply to give everyone an MRNA jab, so the only solution (at least my province) is to use MRNA to do age based vaccinations, decreasing, and AZ to do occupation based/risk based deployment. It's also much easier to transport/administer, so we're using it to do ring vaccinations at high risk worksites.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
If that's the official strategy rather than an idle talking point, then I certainly hope that all these countries using second fiddle vaccines are securing enough doses of the effective ones with a plan to re-vaccinate 6-12 months from now. The people that got a proper vaccine the first go-around are of course free from this constraint.
At some point, a bad vaccine is just a bad vaccine. At least J&J defends against SA variant and there is definitely a logistical benefit to a one-dose approach - AZ doesn't even have that.
|
On March 27 2021 20:43 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2021 20:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 27 2021 19:51 SC-Shield wrote:On March 27 2021 05:06 LegalLord wrote:
Got my first vaccine dose this morning. Went out of the way to get Pfizer, since I'd be doing myself a disservice if I settled for any of the inferior vaccines being offered. Qualified under an "essential worker" classification; I expect that by the time I get a second dose, vaccinations will start opening up to the general public.
Overall, not the most pleasant vaccine I've ever taken. Causes a pretty strong headache and numbness, and I hear the second dose is more severe on side effects. Oh well, at least it provides reasonable protection from infection rather than 62%. I've also got 1st dose of this vaccine. Apart from very insignificant pain in arm exactly near where vaccine was taken, I have no complaints. I've heard that some of side-effects are felt after 2nd dose. For instance, my GP says she was feeling very tired for up to 24 hours. She says some side-effects (not hers) are face paralysis for up to 24 hours (rare probably), fever, muscleache, etc. After all, these are all neglibile when compared to what COVID does to some people. Also, as Russian, don't you have faith in Sputnik?  Yeah, side effects can vary immensely. I had Pfizer and my first dose gave me no side effects except for a little nausea for one day, and my second dose gave me zero side effects at all! I guess I'm on the luckier side of the spectrum, with regard to symptoms. Congrats to both of you for getting dosed Or you're in the 5% and didn't develop an immune response.  Just kidding, hope it worked. :-)
I was about to make the same joke. Those headaches and stuff is your body's immune response. It means the vaccine is working.
|
On March 28 2021 07:51 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2021 20:43 maybenexttime wrote:On March 27 2021 20:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 27 2021 19:51 SC-Shield wrote:On March 27 2021 05:06 LegalLord wrote:
Got my first vaccine dose this morning. Went out of the way to get Pfizer, since I'd be doing myself a disservice if I settled for any of the inferior vaccines being offered. Qualified under an "essential worker" classification; I expect that by the time I get a second dose, vaccinations will start opening up to the general public.
Overall, not the most pleasant vaccine I've ever taken. Causes a pretty strong headache and numbness, and I hear the second dose is more severe on side effects. Oh well, at least it provides reasonable protection from infection rather than 62%. I've also got 1st dose of this vaccine. Apart from very insignificant pain in arm exactly near where vaccine was taken, I have no complaints. I've heard that some of side-effects are felt after 2nd dose. For instance, my GP says she was feeling very tired for up to 24 hours. She says some side-effects (not hers) are face paralysis for up to 24 hours (rare probably), fever, muscleache, etc. After all, these are all neglibile when compared to what COVID does to some people. Also, as Russian, don't you have faith in Sputnik? Yeah, side effects can vary immensely. I had Pfizer and my first dose gave me no side effects except for a little nausea for one day, and my second dose gave me zero side effects at all! I guess I'm on the luckier side of the spectrum, with regard to symptoms. Congrats to both of you for getting dosed Or you're in the 5% and didn't develop an immune response. Just kidding, hope it worked. :-) I was about to make the same joke. Those headaches and stuff is your body's immune response. It means the vaccine is working.
Right, but thankfully, the lack of side effects doesn't mean that the vaccine isn't working
"Christensen wanted to know if the lack of side effects was a sign that her shots weren't working.
Dr. Meg Sullivan, Medical Director for Mecklenburg Public Health, said not necessarily.
"The lack of side effects does not indicate that the vaccine is not working," said Sullivan.
Similarly, a lack of harsher second-dose side effects, which the CDC also states are more common, doesn't necessarily mean the shots are not working."
https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/verify/verify-covid-19-shots-no-side-effects-effective/275-5c1299b9-ab68-4124-845b-47ccbfd413c9
"But if you don’t experience side effects, does that mean the vaccine did not work?
Good news: The short answer is no, infectious-disease experts say. There is no evidence that a lack of side effects means the vaccinated person is unprotected against COVID-19.
The details require a bit of explanation, but the main reason physicians feel comfortable making that statement is simply math.
In the clinical trials, less than half of vaccine recipients reported moderate or severe episodes of “systemic” side effects such as fever, headache, and fatigue. Yet the drugs prevented most cases of disease, according to those studies. So by the process of elimination, some of that disease prevention must have occurred in the people with mild or no side effects.
Three experts endorsed that line of reasoning: Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia; Glenn Rall, a Fox Chase Cancer Center immunologist; and Sarah Coles, a family physician and assistant professor at the University of Arizona College of Medicine."
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/side-effects-mean-your-covid-19-vaccine-is-working-but-what-if-you-dont-have-a-reaction/
"However, with everyone braced for certain common symptoms, those patients who have been vaccinated but have not experienced any side effects may be wondering if their lack of a reaction is cause for concern. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) official vaccine guidance notes that "some people have no side effects.""
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/means-no-vaccine-side-effects-142924400.html
"COVID-19 vaccination will help protect you from getting COVID-19. You may have some side effects, which are normal signs that your body is building protection. These side effects may affect your ability to do daily activities, but they should go away in a few days. Some people have no side effects."
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/expect/after.html
|
|
|
Here is what I know from bugging relatives who are scientists/doctors/have to buy their own vaccine because they live in a shit country.
AztraZeneca
-uses old technology, inactivated/dead virus
-worst efficacy and most side effects out of the Western vaccines so far
-cheapest Western vaccine by far
-long delay needed between 1st and 2nd dose
J&J
-uses similar technology to AZ vaccine
-one dose
-can be stored in a refrigerator
-two dose regimen being tested
Russian/Chinese vaccine
-uses similar technology to AZ vaccine
-out of the two, the Russian one looks to be the more effective one
Pfizer
-uses mRNA technology, where they use RNA to induce your cells to create the coronavirus spike protein, creating an immune response
-can be easily altered against new strains (days or weeks instead of the 6+ months needed by the old tech used by AZ/J&J/Russia/China)
-95% efficacy, highest so far
-needs to be stored way below freezer temperatures (roughly -70C)
Moderna
-uses technology similar to Pfizer
-94% efficacy, essentially similar
-can be stored in a freezer
Novavax
-made in insect cells, they make the RNA there followed by the spike protein
-only the spike protein gets injected as the vaccine
-around 89%+ efficacy, similar to the Pfizer and Moderna ones when you consider they started testing later and there are more dangerous strains now
-in a way, it's similar to how the inactivated virus vaccines work but this way there's no chance of some virus still being able to replicate and no chance of your body generating an immune response against all the other proteins on the virus surface
|
On March 28 2021 07:19 LegalLord wrote:
If that's the official strategy rather than an idle talking point, then I certainly hope that all these countries using second fiddle vaccines are securing enough doses of the effective ones with a plan to re-vaccinate 6-12 months from now. The people that got a proper vaccine the first go-around are of course free from this constraint.
At some point, a bad vaccine is just a bad vaccine. At least J&J defends against SA variant and there is definitely a logistical benefit to a one-dose approach - AZ doesn't even have that.
Canada's already got purchase agreements for up to 76m Pfizer, 44m Moderna, up to 38m J&J and over 200m doses of others.
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/services/procuring-vaccines-covid19.html
We have a population of 38m.
We have enough to give everyone one eventually. The problem is getting them which isn't happening for a good few months.
With no domestic vaccine manufacturing, that's just where we're at. We'll have enough by end of 2021, but we're trying to get stuff open by summer which requires non-optimal deployment to get working effectively.
|
With especially the more contagious British variant ravaging its way through Europe there is no reason to not use what AZ countries have in order to curb its spread.
And its not like countries are passing up on other vaccines. There is a massive shortage, you take what you can get.
|
Seeing how well Israel has been doing compared to most/all other comparable countries that were slow with the vaccination process, I think the correct strategy involves getting as many jabs into as many people as possible as quickly as possible. AZ should be in the mix if that helps increase the volume because it protects against variants other than the SA strain and also it has shown no severe cases of hospitalization from covid-19 infections as of yet, only mild cases (link below). Waiting and biting our nails doesn't seem optimal, or worst of all - what a lot of governments have been doing - doing petty politics.
The only two criteria in my opinion should be that the vaccines are considered safe for emergency use and that they have a meaningful overall efficacy. They don't need to be maximally effective. We need to keep our goal in mind: save as many lives as possible and quickly reopen the economy. We need to keep in mind that each day that goes by without reaching something resembling herd immunity is a day that costs lives in the very late future. The researchers are hard at work researching new and improved vaccines, so we can combat specific viral strains later if needed. As long as a safe protocol for the vaccination process is being followed, we should move forward quickly.
The alternative is to keep letting new mutations pop up, and that is the very thing that has got us into this mess in the first place. Even without mass vaccination we'd all be doing quite well now if those mutations never happened.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-03-south-african-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine.html
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 28 2021 08:26 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2021 07:19 LegalLord wrote:
If that's the official strategy rather than an idle talking point, then I certainly hope that all these countries using second fiddle vaccines are securing enough doses of the effective ones with a plan to re-vaccinate 6-12 months from now. The people that got a proper vaccine the first go-around are of course free from this constraint.
At some point, a bad vaccine is just a bad vaccine. At least J&J defends against SA variant and there is definitely a logistical benefit to a one-dose approach - AZ doesn't even have that. Canada's already got purchase agreements for up to 76m Pfizer, 44m Moderna, up to 38m J&J and over 200m doses of others. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/services/procuring-vaccines-covid19.htmlWe have a population of 38m. We have enough to give everyone one eventually. The problem is getting them which isn't happening for a good few months. With no domestic vaccine manufacturing, that's just where we're at. We'll have enough by end of 2021, but we're trying to get stuff open by summer which requires non-optimal deployment to get working effectively.
Well, it certainly sucks to be stuck between a bad vaccine and no vaccine at all.
Looking around, I don't see any evidence of Canada specifically intending to give a second vaccine - only some controversy here and there about whether or not it's wise to draw out the duration between vaccine doses very far outside the recommended range. Everyone committed to buying more than they needed just to be on the safe side; no word as to what is going to actually happen with said doses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
