COVID-19 Vaccine Talk, 2nd Dose

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by TherapyforGlencross

Got the Phfizer Bivalent shot yesterday. My 4th shot overall. All previous ones I received I only had a sore arm.

This one though is a bit different for me. Sore arm, but terrible headache. Additionally, I’ve been getting body shakes and my heart is thumping loudly with what feels like fast and slow (alternating) heartbeats. However, I can feel the pumping throughout my entire body. Has anyone else had this before ? I’m waiting it out…

27M, haven’t had COVID yet.

That you know of!!

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Pfizer bivalent is booked for tomorrow. I'm expecting not much of anything. The Moderna ones always kicked my arse, higher dosages though.

EDIT: Nothing, barely a stiff right shoulder.

Same. Got mine (Pfizer bivalent) yesterday late afternoon. Sore arm and tired but nothing else.

[calgarygeologist]

I just saw that Quebec has released some new guidelines for boosters which are interesting, to say the least.

Quebec is changing its vaccine strategy: public health officials are now recommending booster shots only for people who have never had COVID-19.

Quebec public health director Dr. Luc Boileau made the announcement at a news conference Thursday afternoon.

"There is no need to get vaccinated if we have had the experience of COVID-19 infection and that we have been vaccinated so far, at least two doses," he said.

Public health is only recommending a booster shot every six months for those who have not been infected and for people who are immunosuppressed, even if they have been infected.

"What we are seeing in the surveillance data and the effectiveness data is that people who have been infected even though they were infected prior to the Omicron wave, so that's over a year ago, we still have good protection against hospitalization and mortality," she said.

Quach-Thanh said hybrid immunity provides much better protection against infection compared to vaccination alone for infection alone, adding that no one should purposely infect themselves.

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/quebec-p...d-19-1.6257156

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I just saw that Quebec has released some new guidelines for boosters which are interesting, to say the least.

Wow finally some common sense. Surprisingly from Quebec of all places.

[ikaris]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...465-5/fulltext

Lots of previous discrimination against people who were previously infected but not vaccinated who would have had the same level of immunity as a vaccinated person (Neither vaccination or previous infection seems to stop transmission, but both seem to mostly prevent severe disease.)

This was said early on the pandemic but “the experts” refused to acknowledge this in public policy. Any previous vaccine mandate should have acknowledged previous infection; some European countries did but here it was all about making sure we used those shots we paid for in advance. The US still has a vaccine required for entry.

[RichieRich]

Originally Posted by ikaris

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...465-5/fulltext

Lots of previous discrimination against people who were previously infected but not vaccinated who would have had the same level of immunity as a vaccinated person (Neither vaccination or previous infection seems to stop transmission, but both seem to mostly prevent severe disease.)

This was said early on the pandemic but “the experts” refused to acknowledge this in public policy. Any previous vaccine mandate should have acknowledged previous infection; some European countries did but here it was all about making sure we used those shots we paid for in advance. The US still has a vaccine required for entry.

A former work colleague was involved early on with C19 antibody testing and had scientific studies done through their organization comparing presence of antibodies over time for both unvac’d and vac’d (single, double, triple). Some real amazing information that could have helped all vac-status groups and individuals. He wanted to make the testing publicly available as his medical team recognized that each person may have slightly different responses to exposure and so some peoples risk levels were much higher and some much lower, again irrespective of vax status. He presented some of it via LinkedIn and also to a number of Alberta medical and government leaders. Not only was he ignored, he and his family were threatened multiple times plus having several short bans from LinkedIn.

That USA requirement is really bizarre given what we know now not to mention the prevalence of all strains globally. this policy really is not aging well and I struggle to understand at all what potential benefit remains.

At this point with what we now know… you do you. I don’t care about your status. But don’t come being sick around me.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by ikaris

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...465-5/fulltext

Lots of previous discrimination against people who were previously infected but not vaccinated who would have had the same level of immunity as a vaccinated person (Neither vaccination or previous infection seems to stop transmission, but both seem to mostly prevent severe disease.)

This was said early on the pandemic but “the experts” refused to acknowledge this in public policy. Any previous vaccine mandate should have acknowledged previous infection; some European countries did but here it was all about making sure we used those shots we paid for in advance. The US still has a vaccine required for entry.

No I don’t think that is quite right. There was not an effective policy method given the limited testing available to hand out prior immunity cards. And some jurisdictions did recognize prior immunity like the waiver from negative tests for entry into the states.

If you had infection based immunity exemptions we would have seen pox parties which would have directly hurt the hospital capacity

I think there is this weird look back affect that is leading to an incorrect view of what happened. Most people have moved on so the people who perceived themselves as being harmed see information that may indicate they shouldn’t have been and then use that to argue that policy was incorrect. This isn’t how decision making works. You make decisions with best available information you have at the time.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by GGG

n based immunity exemptions we would have seen pox parties which would have directly hurt the hospital capacity

Yup, and this happened in several jurisdictions that tried this route.

[shotinthebacklund]

No I don’t think that is quite right. There was not an effective policy method given the limited testing available to hand out prior immunity cards. And some jurisdictions did recognize prior immunity like the waiver from negative tests for entry into the states.

If you had infection based immunity exemptions we would have seen pox parties which would have directly hurt the hospital capacity

I think there is this weird look back affect that is leading to an incorrect view of what happened. Most people have moved on so the people who perceived themselves as being harmed see information that may indicate they shouldn’t have been and then use that to argue that policy was incorrect. This isn’t how decision making works. You make decisions with best available information you have at the time.

I disagree with your viewpoints in this statement. Timeline wise, they knew before approval that stopping transmission and stopping infection was not possible with this vaccine. They just refused to acknowledge this publicly until much later. There is so much to say on these vaccines given the extent of information and studies having been released that look extremely poor at best.

The italicized portion of your statement is interesting, and a interesting summation of how most peoples who have had harm done to them feel.I would assume its very natural. Look at that statement in context to residential schools and see how it stands up.

[Azure]

End of the day there was a demographic of the population that was way more at risk. This was the demographic that we needed to be concerned about, as a high percentage of them getting COVID at once OBVIOUSLY would lead to hospitals being overwhelmed.

Among 4,899,447 hospitalized adults in PHD-SR, 540,667 (11.0%) were patients with COVID-19, of whom 94.9% had at least 1 underlying medical condition.

https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2021/21_0123.htm

The study CONCLUDED in March of 2021.
So if we were really concerned about preventing the breakdown of the health care system and preventing excessive deaths & sickness, public messaging should have strongly focused on this.

But instead, public health and the general public was dogmatic about needing 80%+ overall vaccination rates, because we were tricked and lied into believing that if you got vaccinated, you reduced the risk of spread, when reducing the spread should have been less important than getting at risk people vaccinated.

To this day that lie still exists in many scenarios.
Like unvaccinated people not being able to travel to the US.

[opendoor]

Tricked and lie to, lol. Of course vaccination reduces spread and transmission. It's just that its effect on that is temporary. But so were most vaccine mandates. Once the infection rate between vaccinated and non-vaccinated began to move towards parity with Omicron, most mandates were removed relatively quickly. Some employers kept them, but they're entitled to do that and I'm sure some find it's a useful way to filter out whack jobs.

As for focusing solely on at-risk people, about 1 in 250 unvaccinated 30-49 year olds in Alberta were hospitalized with COVID in the first few months of 2022. By comparison, about 1 in 4,000 30-49 year olds with 3 doses were hospitalized. If the unvaccinated group had the same outcomes as the vaccinated, that would have been probably 3-400 fewer hospital beds (after accounting for with COVID vs. due to COVID) taken up in a relatively short period of time. Why wouldn't health authorities try to convince everyone to get vaccinated in light of that? Particularly given that probably half the population meets the threshold of having a single condition in that study above (obesity, hypertension, etc.). Not to mention, that study looks only at ICU and stepdown units, so it's not capturing regular hospitalizations.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Azure

End of the day there was a demographic of the population that was way more at risk. This was the demographic that we needed to be concerned about, as a high percentage of them getting COVID at once OBVIOUSLY would lead to hospitals being overwhelmed.



https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2021/21_0123.htm

The study CONCLUDED in March of 2021.
So if we were really concerned about preventing the breakdown of the health care system and preventing excessive deaths & sickness, public messaging should have strongly focused on this.

But instead, public health and the general public was dogmatic about needing 80%+ overall vaccination rates, because we were tricked and lied into believing that if you got vaccinated, you reduced the risk of spread, when reducing the spread should have been less important than getting at risk people vaccinated.

To this day that lie still exists in many scenarios.
Like unvaccinated people not being able to travel to the US.

Unfortunately the people who have an underlying health condition make up a massive percentage of the population.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Unfortunately the people who have an underlying health condition make up a massive percentage of the population.

But if you're healthy, wouldn't natural immunity be just fine? I didn't realize we did not have hundreds of years of evidence that shows that natural immunity works. Especially in the context of mandates where a significant population already has had COVID. It's why we saw many countries recognize a positive COVID test OR vaccination.

I just think it's insane that this wasn't properly discussed during the pandemic and was tossed aside when rational people brought this up.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by opendoor

As for focusing solely on at-risk people, about 1 in 250 unvaccinated 30-49 year olds in Alberta were hospitalized with COVID in the first few months of 2022. By comparison, about 1 in 4,000 30-49 year olds with 3 doses were hospitalized. If the unvaccinated group had the same outcomes as the vaccinated, that would have been probably 3-400 fewer hospital beds (after accounting for with COVID vs. due to COVID) taken up in a relatively short period of time. Why wouldn't health authorities try to convince everyone to get vaccinated in light of that? Particularly given that probably half the population meets the threshold of having a single condition in that study above (obesity, hypertension, etc.). Not to mention, that study looks only at ICU and stepdown units, so it's not capturing regular hospitalizations.

We've gone through this before, but how many of the 1 of 250 that you referred to had a comorbidity? And the statistics quoted do not consider previous infection which is also a critical factor as we already know so far.

As a healthy person, the value of receiving the vaccine is highly debatable, now more than ever. Especially if you've been infected before. Boosters/vaccines are essentially useless at that stage.

[PepsiFree]

Weird that the people convinced vaccines are were pointless and COVID is whatever are the ones still obsessively going on about it.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Azure

But instead, public health and the general public was dogmatic about needing 80%+ overall vaccination rates, because we were tricked and lied into believing that if you got vaccinated, you reduced the risk of spread

This wasn't really a trick. The vaccines were initially insanely effective. If COVID had stopped mutating and we got 90% of people vaccinated, it would have certainly been eradicated entirely.

It wasn't like this suddenly stopped being true, the vaccine got less and less effective against stopping infection outright, and thus less impactful at stopping spread.

Maybe you disagree about the spot on that gradient that was the right time to change the messaging, but it wouldn't be the first time in human history where the messaging and thinking lagged the current facts on an issue.

[Knut]

I feel that people are applying the current variants characteristics to the when the Vaccine initially came out.

The Delta Variant was very dangerous. The vaccines did prevent some transmission of that variant and also was highly effective at preventing bad outcomes. If the variant at the time of the first two vaccines was Omicron then I highly doubt we would have had the mandates and vaccine passports as it is a completely different virus now vs then.

Remember when 90% in ICU were unvaccinated people eventhough we had 70% of the population vaccinated. Unvaccinated patients exposed to delta were 50x more likely to end up in hospital or the ICU. Even people 20-40 that were unvaccinated had a much higher risk of hospitalization with the Delta variant.

I certainly think there was very bogus stuff in the mandates (eg. 12 - 18 year olds could not enter sporting areas without testing 72 hrs before). The travel mandates went on way too long as well.

Stop applying Covid of Today to the conditions in 2021.

[Fuzz]

It's funny(depressing) watching all these people that were wrong before suddenly pop back up and pretend they were right, ignoring all the facts along the way, then coming to the most brain dead incorrect conclusions they can muster. The sad part is they manage to convince people who aren't really paying attention that their revisionist summary of the past is reality, and we made massive mistakes along the way. This is going to make managing future pandemics incredibly difficult, and these moons will have real deaths on their hands. So keep it up, dummies. Maybe it'll be someone you love next time.

[Matata]

Next time there are lock-downs, can we just keep it to old people, fatties and the chronically unhealthy instead of lumping everyone in together as being the same? This way we can protect the people who are actually in danger and minimize pesky side effects like tripling the national debt, the sky-rocketing cost of living, massive global inflation, forcing experimental vaccines onto people who don't need them, accelerating the opiod epidemic, handing the reigns of our society to big pharma sycophants, etc.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Matata

Next time there are lock-downs, can we just keep it to old people, fatties and the chronically unhealthy instead of lumping everyone in together as being the same? This way we can protect the people who are actually in danger and minimize pesky side effects like tripling the national debt, the sky-rocketing cost of living, massive global inflation, forcing experimental vaccines onto people who don't need them, accelerating the opiod epidemic, handing the reigns of our society to big pharma sycophants, etc.

No, becuase the hospitals were full of more than just the vulnerable. Does no one remember the September after the Best Summer Ever? You really think Jason Kenney would have done all the things he did had their been another choice? Really? You might be able to get away with that with a properly funded and functioning healthcare system, understanding you are accepting needless deaths and ruining lives with long covid. Is that really the choice to make?