21–30 of 210 posts
This seems very Canada specific, is any other country doing it like this? I'm fairly sure neither the US nor most european countries are doing this (I mean, Canada seems to be the only place that are reserving the second doses) Edit: This article is clearly being upvoted based on title alone
Agreed, we need to incapacitate... Um, I mean inoculate the peasants as swiftly as possible so that they don't start to become suspicious... Um, I mean paranoid. Damn it, where is Bill Gates when you need him? He knows how to reassure the peasants. Anyway, I think we should start with young fit adults first, then do old people and children last...
All things being equal, perhaps. But first doses are medical professionals and other critical workers. Guaranteeing they will be here for the long haul is another worthy goal. I'm not sure 'spray and pray' is a well-thought-out approach. Its perhaps another internet pundit who can take one number and divide by another number and become an instant expert.
The issue is not who gets the vaccine, but whether to hold the second doses in reserve or distribute them as first doses and use later-arriving doses as second doses. The former has the obvious advantage of vaccinating more people quickly, but runs the risk that if the second doses don’t arrive on time the effects of the first dose will wear off. Edit: I originally used the phrase “back to square one” but I agree wit…
All things being equal, perhaps. But first doses are medical professionals and other critical workers. Guaranteeing they will be here for the long haul is another worthy goal. I'm not sure 'spray and pray' is a well-thought-out approach. Its perhaps another internet pundit who can take one number and divide by another number and become an instant expert.
This is not what the article is about at all. It is saying we should not reserve the second dose in the freezer for that patient and should instead immediately distribute it to at-risk populations. Then we should trust the supply chain will come through for the second dose and that a 1-2 week delay in case it did not would not overly harm immunity. It is perhaps a very sensible suggestion that would depend on the sup…
Again, if there should be some issue with the supply chain, then the first dose could be 'wasted'. For hospital personnel etc that would be a bad scenario.
We're not talking millions/billions of doses. We're talking about what are really very small numbers. It may be worth taking some very small hit in herd immunity, for an assured continuity of care.
All things being equal, perhaps. But first doses are medical professionals and other critical workers. Guaranteeing they will be here for the long haul is another worthy goal. I'm not sure 'spray and pray' is a well-thought-out approach. Its perhaps another internet pundit who can take one number and divide by another number and become an instant expert.
The issue is not who gets the vaccine, but whether to hold the second doses in reserve or distribute them as first doses and use later-arriving doses as second doses. The former has the obvious advantage of vaccinating more people quickly, but runs the risk that if the second doses don’t arrive on time the effects of the first dose will wear off. Edit: I originally used the phrase “back to square one” but I agree wit…
This seems very Canada specific, is any other country doing it like this? I'm fairly sure neither the US nor most european countries are doing this (I mean, Canada seems to be the only place that are reserving the second doses) Edit: This article is clearly being upvoted based on title alone
Somewhat off topic but in theory, would it be possible to have jab #1 be Moderna's and jab #2 be Pfizer? Would it be ethical to test this? Is there anything inherent in either's approach that would make this dangerous?
That would probably not work the same way.
The point of a booster shot is to make the immune system "think" it's been infected by the same intruder twice, so it steps up permanent defences to a more serious level.
Both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine produces replicas of the virus "spike protein", but with (presumably) different mRNA formulas.
So if their different versions are similar enough that the immune system sees them as "this shit again!", which would work as a booster shot, or as an unrelated infection, is impossible to say. At least for me, who is (again) unqualified to talk about this stuff.
That said, two vaccines would at minimum be better than one.
This seems very Canada specific, is any other country doing it like this? I'm fairly sure neither the US nor most european countries are doing this (I mean, Canada seems to be the only place that are reserving the second doses) Edit: This article is clearly being upvoted based on title alone
I had read that the USA is/was initially ensuring there were two doses onsite for each person vaccinated, until they felt the supply chain had proven to be consistent. I'm having trouble sourcing that though.
This seems very Canada specific, is any other country doing it like this? I'm fairly sure neither the US nor most european countries are doing this (I mean, Canada seems to be the only place that are reserving the second doses) Edit: This article is clearly being upvoted based on title alone
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not what the article is about at all. It is saying we should not reserve the second dose in the freezer for that patient and should instead immediately distribute it to at-risk populations. Then we should trust the supply chain will come through for the second dose and that a 1-2 week delay in case it did not would not overly harm immunity. It is perhaps a very sensible suggestion that would depend on the sup…
Sure it is. Again, if there should be some issue with the supply chain, then the first dose could be 'wasted'. For hospital personnel etc that would be a bad scenario. We're not talking millions/billions of doses. We're talking about what are really very small numbers. It may be worth taking some very small hit in herd immunity, for an assured continuity of care.
It's not "wasted". As noted in the article, the first dose alone is ~50% effective; the second dose is required to boost that to ~93%. So, it's a tradeoff between vaccinating n people at 93% effectiveness versus 2n people at 50% effectiveness.