COVID-19 Vaccine Talk, 2nd Dose

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

The wording 'campus community members and visitors' insinuates it is not only students and staff. Anyone setting foot on campus would have to meet this requirement the way I read it (and I stand to be corrected). For example anyone attending any event on campus (athletic, cultural, etc) would also be required. Including the beer league players whose ice is at the Oval for example.

I'm also wondering if this essentially means ALL classes will need to offer an online option for those unwilling to meet the requirement. Or will it be tough noogies for anyone who won't get vaccinated and therefore cannot attend class?

I'm fully in favor of this BTW, and good to see all the major post secondary institutions aligning themselves together on this.

I believe you are correct. that's how I viewed it too.


my e-mail said

Campus visitors

Securing the safety of our campus and community activities has been the main goal for all of us throughout this pandemic. While we know that welcoming visitors to our campuses enriches the post-secondary experience, to ensure that everyone on our campus can be safe, we will only be welcoming those individuals who are fully vaccinated to our campuses.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Just got my booster (2nd Pfizer).

Confused about the last couple pages. Was this not a thing that is supposed to happen
??

No, your second shot is part of a full vaccination regimen for Pfizer. So first dose is partial, second dose brings you to fully vaccinated status.

Your third dose of vaccine (any vaccine) would be a 'booster' which is what people are talking about. Only people who are severely immunocompromised or got mixed first and second doses and require a matching pair for international travel are getting third doses now.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

How does the university enforce it though? The U of C campus is public, anyone can go there at any time for any reason. Posting security at building entrances would be cost prohibitive, they'd need about 1000 security guards. Can't imagine they'd lock all doors and force students into just one entrance per building, even that would seem impossible.

I wonder if some of these mandates are going to be based on the honour system. Or only enforceable for registered students and official visitors (speakers, guest lecturers etc).

Because enforcing it for a random joe who decides to stop by Mac Hall for lunch doesn't seem feasible.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

No, your second shot is part of a full vaccination regimen for Pfizer. So first dose is partial, second dose brings you to fully vaccinated status.

Your third dose of vaccine (any vaccine) would be a 'booster' which is what people are talking about. Only people who are severely immunocompromised or got mixed first and second doses and require a matching pair for international travel are getting third doses now.

He said it was his second pfizer, not his second shot.

[Strange Brew]

Seems the rush to start jabbing people a third time may have been premature.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnb...-conclude.html

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

He said it was his second pfizer, not his second shot.

Then it sounds like the second case I mentioned; receiving mixed first doses and needing a matching dose for travel.

See "Third dose for immunocompromised" and "Additional doses for travellers".
https://www.alberta.ca/covid19-vaccine.aspx

I would say anyone who got a mixed set for their first two shots and plan on doing any sort of traveling outside of Canada should be looking into it.

[Wastedyouth]

Ah ok, I thought for some reason a third (Second Pfizer) is required even locally with the passport stuff (whenever that is implemented).

I may have to travel internationally for work, so I guess it will work out in the end.

PS. There was no push back on this from the Pharmacist, they just said "Ok here you go!"

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Ah ok, I thought for some reason a third (Second Pfizer) is required even locally with the passport stuff (whenever that is implemented).

I may have to travel internationally for work, so I guess it will work out in the end.

PS. There was no push back on this from the Pharmacist, they just said "Ok here you go!"

I think it makes sense for people with a mixed dose to do this. Its available.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Seems the rush to start jabbing people a third time may have been premature.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnb...-conclude.html

Except for those who need it for travel I suppose.

[DiNaMo]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

There is no reason not to get double vaccinated, even after having covid, so there isn't a good reason to bother with a separate exemption.

The 300,000 or whatever number people would like to use of recovered cases in Alberta represent the 7% most immune/least likely to have negative outcomes of the population so why wouldn't they get equal treatment to those that are ironically more susceptible to getting and having negative outcomes from the virus?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Seems the rush to start jabbing people a third time may have been premature.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnb...-conclude.html

Maybe, maybe not. The evidence out of Israel regarding 60+ year olds is pretty convincing and I think the letter that article is based on is kind of hand waving away all the evidence of waning immunity.

To me, at lot of the scientific pushback against boosters is based on the (correct) idea that 1st and 2nd doses elsewhere will save far more lives than 3rd doses will. And that's fine, but at least be honest about it. Don't try to argue that there's no evidence of waning immunity in the elderly or that boosters won't have a pretty significant benefit in terms of reducing severe breakthrough cases.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by DiNaMo

The 300,000 or whatever number people would like to use of recovered cases in Alberta represent the 7% most immune/least likely to have negative outcomes of the population so why wouldn't they get equal treatment to those that are ironically more susceptible to getting and having negative outcomes from the virus?

I'd imagine most of the previously infected have also got vaccinated, so the number is much smaller. I'm not sure where your bolded bit comes from? We do know that getting covid and then getting vaccinated provides stronger protection than just getting covid. So logically, it makes sense to have those people vaccinated.

I suspect the bigger issue is messaging, because if you give people an out for getting vaccinated, they will take it. "I'll wait for natural immunity!" is not a good plan. The goal is to get as many people vaccinated as possible. Adding caveats will make reaching that goal harder.


Here's some good reading on why you should still get vaccinated if you had covid:
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/c...ore-than-once/

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'd imagine most of the previously infected have also got vaccinated, so the number is much smaller. I'm not sure where your bolded bit comes from? We do know that getting covid and then getting vaccinated provides stronger protection than just getting covid. So logically, it makes sense to have those people vaccinated.

I suspect the bigger issue is messaging, because if you give people an out for getting vaccinated, they will take it. "I'll wait for natural immunity!" is not a good plan. The goal is to get as many people vaccinated as possible. Adding caveats will make reaching that goal harder.


Here's some good reading on why you should still get vaccinated if you had covid:
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/c...ore-than-once/

Yeah, this is spot on, and, I think this is kind of the biggest issue here.
The idea is to incentivize people to get vaccinated, not to catch COVID.

And yes, I 100% believe there is a portion of the population that, if given that choice, is dumb enough to actively choose the later.

[DiNaMo]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'd imagine most of the previously infected have also got vaccinated, so the number is much smaller. I'm not sure where your bolded bit comes from? We do know that getting covid and then getting vaccinated provides stronger protection than just getting covid. So logically, it makes sense to have those people vaccinated.

I suspect the bigger issue is messaging, because if you give people an out for getting vaccinated, they will take it. "I'll wait for natural immunity!" is not a good plan. The goal is to get as many people vaccinated as possible. Adding caveats will make reaching that goal harder.


Here's some good reading on why you should still get vaccinated if you had covid:
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/c...ore-than-once/

https://www.science.org/content/arti...-remains-vital

The new analysis relies on the database of Maccabi Healthcare Services, which enrolls about 2.5 million Israelis. The study, led by Tal Patalon and Sivan Gazit at KSM, the system’s research and innovation arm, found in two analyses that never-infected people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus. In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher.

[Fuzz]

But this part seems to be the key takeaway:

The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated.

It's great that they are finding people unfortunate enough to get infected with covid have good protection, but it can be even better, which is better for everyone, so they should still get vaccinated. There's no good argument not to, so providing additional motivation to not get vaccinated is not good public policy.

[V]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

How does the university enforce it though? The U of C campus is public, anyone can go there at any time for any reason. Posting security at building entrances would be cost prohibitive, they'd need about 1000 security guards. Can't imagine they'd lock all doors and force students into just one entrance per building, even that would seem impossible.

I wonder if some of these mandates are going to be based on the honour system. Or only enforceable for registered students and official visitors (speakers, guest lecturers etc).

Because enforcing it for a random joe who decides to stop by Mac Hall for lunch doesn't seem feasible.

There's no way to enforce it. My daughter's going into Grade 12 this year, so I took her to the University this summer to show her what it's all about. All of the doors were locked, only to be opened by those with a OneCard, but we managed to tailgate into any building and go basically anywhere we wanted to. You can try to enforce access at the University, but it's way too spread out, and there are way too many people there for it to work.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Maybe, maybe not. The evidence out of Israel regarding 60+ year olds is pretty convincing and I think the letter that article is based on is kind of hand waving away all the evidence of waning immunity.

To me, at lot of the scientific pushback against boosters is based on the (correct) idea that 1st and 2nd doses elsewhere will save far more lives than 3rd doses will. And that's fine, but at least be honest about it. Don't try to argue that there's no evidence of waning immunity in the elderly or that boosters won't have a pretty significant benefit in terms of reducing severe breakthrough cases.

Wasn't that the study with data showing a positive effect one week after the third dose, which is probably too quickly for many people to build an effective immune response?

I have seen speculation that the effect was derived from changing behaviour among those who received a booster.

Anyway, even the study above (which is better outlined in the NYT) recommends third vaccines for the immuno-compromised.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by peter12

Wasn't that the study with data showing a positive effect one week after the third dose, which is probably too quickly for many people to build an effective immune response?

I have seen speculation that the effect was derived from changing behaviour among those who received a booster.

Anyway, even the study above (which is better outlined in the NYT) recommends third vaccines for the immuno-compromised.

Antibody response after a booster dose (beyond the 1st) is normally quite quick. The 2nd dose of the mRNA vaccines got about 90% of the way to their peak efficacy within a week of being administered, so I don't think it's implausible that the same would happen with the 3rd. And they monitored beyond the 7 days, and the effect continued (improved, actually).

There are confounding variables (as there are with almost any real-world study), but I think the effect is pretty clear.

[Fire]

Booked my 3rd shot (2nd shot of Pfizer) for tomorrow. Have a trip booked for Vegas in December, which I may still cancel, but I figured I might as well get the shot.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Fire

Booked my 3rd shot (2nd shot of Pfizer) for tomorrow. Have a trip booked for Vegas in December, which I may still cancel, but I figured I might as well get the shot.

Yours is a good example. Let's say you were planning on taking in a Raiders home game during your trip. Any event in Allegiant Stadium is restricted to fully vaccinated. I'm not saying you would have a problem as is,
but your second dose of Pfizer guarantees you would not.