The Vaccine Thread

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Starr said:

Did you just say you are immune suppressed? I'd like to get mine today or tomorrow for various reasons. The online info says they aren't updated with new rules yet. But I'm of age so maybe if I just go in.

You mean, did I check a box saying that I was and therefore did I lie to the pharmacy? Yeah, I did. I didn't feel immoral doing so, but again, I'm sure some people will think that it's immoral regardless. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

You mean, did I check a box saying that I was and therefore did I lie to the pharmacy? Yeah, I did. I didn't feel immoral doing so, but again, I'm sure some people will think that it's immoral regardless. 

I would have far preferred to wait my turn. I just had no clue when it was going to be and I'm sick of the politically-motivated wrangling. 

[KSera]

34 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

Is anyone but me frantically refreshing the various pharmacy sites in the hopes that they'll update the eligibility for a Pfizer 3rd dose info? I am really hoping to be able to get a 3rd shot on board either Friday night after work or Saturday morning. 

I had Moderna, so I know I won’t be eligible yet and am not looking. I will however be seeing if I can help my parents get in for one. They clearly qualify, so hopefully it won’t be any problem. 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

I had Moderna, so I know I won’t be eligible yet and am not looking. I will however be seeing if I can help my parents get in for one. They clearly qualify, so hopefully it won’t be any problem. 

I hope they can get one soon!! 

[Starr]

11 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I would have far preferred to wait my turn. I just had no clue when it was going to be and I'm sick of the politically-motivated wrangling. 

I understand and with all the vaccine just sitting there. I have friends in other states that just walked in and got them no questions asked. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Starr said:

I understand and with all the vaccine just sitting there. I have friends in other states that just walked in and got them no questions asked. 

I would guess there are places that'd do that. I knew that if someone asked me a question in person, I'd wilt, though, so I made an appointment, and this did requiring checking a box that wasn't true. 

[KSera]

9 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I would guess there are places that'd do that. I knew that if someone asked me a question in person, I'd wilt, though, so I made an appointment, and this did requiring checking a box that wasn't true. 

Yeah, I couldn’t do this. I was eligible for my initial shot quite late in the game compared to many states, and when we reached the point where vaccinations had dropped way off in my area and I knew there were plenty of doses left over, I started to look to see if there was somewhere I could make an appointment where I wouldn’t have to lie, but everywhere I looked there would be some checkbox I would have had to lie on to make it look like I was eligible when I wasn’t. So I waited. I can’t check a box and then sign my name to something attesting that everything is true if it’s not. It’s not in my nature.

[Not_a_Number]

11 minutes ago, KSera said:

Yeah, I couldn’t do this. I was eligible for my initial shot quite late in the game compared to many states, and when we reached the point where vaccinations had dropped way off in my area and I knew there were plenty of doses left over, I started to look to see if there was somewhere I could make an appointment where I wouldn’t have to lie, but everywhere I looked there would be some checkbox I would have had to lie on to make it look like I was eligible when I wasn’t. So I waited. I can’t check a box and then sign my name to something attesting that everything is true if it’s not. It’s not in my nature.

I'm a terrible, awful liar. I don't lie almost ever. I hate doing it and I hated checking the box. (I didn't have to sign my name, though, lol.)  

But I just couldn't stomach the thought that I'd wait and wait my turn and feel unsafe going to the dentist and cower while people discuss reasons that don't make any sense to me at all. Plus I'd potentially expose the kids 😕 . 

Edited September 23, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[SKL]

22 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm a terrible, awful liar. I don't lie almost ever. I hate doing it and I hated checking the box. (I didn't have to sign my name, though, lol.)  

But I just couldn't stomach the thought that I'd wait and wait my turn and feel unsafe going to the dentist and cower while people discuss reasons that don't make any sense to me at all. Plus I'd potentially expose the kids 😕 . 

Weren't you on the later side getting vaccinated in the first place?  What is now making you feel so intensely unsafe?

[Dmmetler]

19 minutes ago, SKL said:

Weren't you on the later side getting vaccinated in the first place?  What is now making you feel so intensely unsafe?

For me, it is seeing the difference between last year, where my attendance was better than in most years, despite a pandemic, because masking and handwashing and social distancing kept other stuff from spreading too, and this year, where every day I'm getting those little notes in my inbox that a parent has called and their child or a family member is sick. Even if it's NOT all COVID (and for some it has turned out not to be), it has made it clear that I want a third COVID shot and a flu shot and maybe a pneumonia shot if my immunologist will approve one (I'm not old enough to be automatically recommended) before we get to winter illness peak season. 

 

 

 

 

[Not_a_Number]

6 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

For me, it is seeing the difference between last year, where my attendance was better than in most years, despite a pandemic, because masking and handwashing and social distancing kept other stuff from spreading too, and this year, where every day I'm getting those little notes in my inbox that a parent has called and their child or a family member is sick. Even if it's NOT all COVID (and for some it has turned out not to be), it has made it clear that I want a third COVID shot and a flu shot and maybe a pneumonia shot if my immunologist will approve one (I'm not old enough to be automatically recommended) before we get to winter illness peak season. 

And I assume the transmissibility of Delta doesn't help. 

[Dmmetler]

12 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

And I assume the transmissibility of Delta doesn't help. 

I'm assuming a big part of the difference is the transmissibility of Delta. Realistically, there were a lot of anti-mask folks here last year, too. 

[BeachGal]

@Corraleno and others: have any of you read about using griffithsin as a broad spectrum anti-viral? It sounds too good to be true. (I realize this is not vaccine related but since you’re all on this thread, thought I’d ask here.)

[ktgrok]

3 hours ago, SKL said:

Is 11 a typo?  If you know an 11yo who had the vax, how did they manage that?

You know, you are right, he might be 12 now, or he might have gotten one off label from his specialist due his severe immune suppression. 

[Spy Car]

15 hours ago, Mom_to3 said:

Is anyone concerned that if we get a booster now, it will work again pretty well against infection for about 4 months, and then we are back to square one, needing another booster in the middle of winter (and potentially another horrific wave)? Might it be preferable to wait with boosters until just prior to the holiday season? Transmission to my unvaxxed kids is of course a concern that would make me lean towards an earlier booster...(we are not in one of the worst areas of the country right now in terms of Delta)

Also, does anybody know if the states have actually planned for the many, many thousands of people who will all of a sudden be eligible in terms of vaccine supply and administration? My state is giving out hardly any vaccines right now...

This is a reasonable question and I think the calculus depends on one's risk factors to getting infected via exposure and/or the risk factors to others if one becomes a disease vector.

I think many parents of underaged children wish to have something to get them over the hump until their children are eligible. Others reckon that were are in a surge now and that their work/school situation (or that of a household member) puts them at risk of infection in the near term.

If neither of these things apply, waiting may be prudent should see see another holiday spike.

Bill

 

Edited September 23, 2021 by Spy Car

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, BeachGal said:

@Corraleno and others: have any of you read about using griffithsin as a broad spectrum anti-viral? It sounds too good to be true. (I realize this is not vaccine related but since you’re all on this thread, thought I’d ask here.)

I haven't heard of it before, but in googling around, it seems both promising and very difficult to manufacture at scale. As far as I can tell, the only method they have so far is genetically modifying tobacco plants, but they only get like 10-12 doses per plant. I found this article, published last year by three researchers at Duke, suggesting a different method that could potentially produce larger volumes at lower cost by using modified e. coli bacteria. But that seems to be just a suggestion based on lab experiments, not something any manufacturers are actually doing. If you come across anything about griffithsin going into commercial production, I'd love to see it.

[Corraleno]

15 hours ago, Mom_to3 said:

Is anyone concerned that if we get a booster now, it will work again pretty well against infection for about 4 months, and then we are back to square one, needing another booster in the middle of winter (and potentially another horrific wave)? Might it be preferable to wait with boosters until just prior to the holiday season? Transmission to my unvaxxed kids is of course a concern that would make me lean towards an earlier booster...(we are not in one of the worst areas of the country right now in terms of Delta)

Keep in mind that Moderna seems to last longer than Pfizer; I think protection against symptomatic disease was still as high as 84% at 5 months, and protection against severe disease was much higher than that. So you could wait until, say, mid-November to get a Moderna booster, to ensure maximum protection through the holidays.

OTOH, if you want to go ahead and get Pfizer sooner, it's also worth noting that the Pfizer booster raised antibody levels MUCH higher than the original shots did. So Pfizer isn't just getting people back to where they were after the 2nd shot, it's boosting antibodies 5-11x higher than even the post-2nd-dose peak. Hopefully starting off with much higher levels leads to longer lasting protection as well.

Personally, I am planning to get a Pfizer booster in mid- to late October, when I'll be 5.5-6 months past the second shot. So full protection from the booster should kick in in early November and at the very least keep me well protected through the holidays and any post-holiday spike in January & February.

[Spy Car]

I'm having a mental lapse.

What is the best term for the "memory" response (when, say, antibodies may be low as a vaccine wanes, but the immune response is primed to respond over some days to an infection, like 5 days with Covid)?

What's that called?

Bill

[Melissa Louise]

Has anyone else been PMed vaccine misinformation by members here? Q aligned talking points. 

[Mom_to3]

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Keep in mind that Moderna seems to last longer than Pfizer; I think protection against symptomatic disease was still as high as 84% at 5 months, and protection against severe disease was much higher than that. So you could wait until, say, mid-November to get a Moderna booster, to ensure maximum protection through the holidays.

OTOH, if you want to go ahead and get Pfizer sooner, it's also worth noting that the Pfizer booster raised antibody levels MUCH higher than the original shots did. So Pfizer isn't just getting people back to where they were after the 2nd shot, it's boosting antibodies 5-11x higher than even the post-2nd-dose peak. Hopefully starting off with much higher levels leads to longer lasting protection as well.

Personally, I am planning to get a Pfizer booster in mid- to late October, when I'll be 5.5-6 months past the second shot. So full protection from the booster should kick in in early November and at the very least keep me well protected through the holidays and any post-holiday spike in January & February.

Yes, I have considered this. Has anybody seen an argument why the Pfizer booster (after Pfizer) appears to work so much better than the Moderna booster (after Moderna)? Is it because it's simply still too early for a Moderna booster because the initial protection lasts longer and dampens the immune response to the booster?

I know there are studies that suggest that the body responds better to the flu shot (in terms of protecting from the flu) if the prior year the flu shot was skipped (which is not the same as saying that one should skip the flu shot, of course, as their would be one year with very little protection).

On a different note, has anybody seen information about a 100mg Moderna booster? I am somewhat suspicious that the main reason they are proceeding with a half dose is to have twice the number of shots to sell...(and of course the potential for lower side effects - which I have heard nothing about, even for the 50mg Moderna booster; anyone?).

 

 

[KSera]

20 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Has anyone else been PMed vaccine misinformation by members here? Q aligned talking points. 

I have not, but that’s disturbing. I always wonder about how such people feel seeing such large numbers of unvaccinated people needlessly dying right now. They never seem to want to answer that question.

On the booster decision today, in reading about it, I was struck by this particular quote:

The advisers also wrestled with the practicalities of endorsing a booster shot of Pfizer’s vaccine, but not of Moderna or Johnson & Johnson’s. Recipients of those vaccines may rightly feel resentful of being asked to wait if the evidence suggests they need boosters, they noted. 

“I just don’t understand how, later this afternoon, we can say to people 65 and older, ‘You’re at risk for severe disease and death, but only half of you can protect yourselves right now,’” said Dr. Sarah Long, a pediatrician and infectious diseases expert at Drexel University College of Medicine in Pennsylvania.

“It might be the right thing to do,” she said. “It just doesn’t sounds like a good public health policy.” 

Some experts seemed to suggest on Wednesday that it might be better to hold off on recommending any booster shots until recipients of all three vaccines could qualify for them.

This seems to encapsulate the issues with talking about a public health policy decision and the things that go into that, versus a decision based on an individual level. 

[Not_a_Number]

28 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Has anyone else been PMed vaccine misinformation by members here? Q aligned talking points. 

Whoa. No, I have not, but that sounds super disturbing 😞 . 

[Spy Car]

6 minutes ago, KSera said:

I have not, but that’s disturbing. I always wonder about how such people feel seeing such large numbers of unvaccinated people needlessly dying right now. They never seem to want to answer that question.

On the booster decision today, in reading about it, I was struck by this particular quote:

The advisers also wrestled with the practicalities of endorsing a booster shot of Pfizer’s vaccine, but not of Moderna or Johnson & Johnson’s. Recipients of those vaccines may rightly feel resentful of being asked to wait if the evidence suggests they need boosters, they noted. 

“I just don’t understand how, later this afternoon, we can say to people 65 and older, ‘You’re at risk for severe disease and death, but only half of you can protect yourselves right now,’” said Dr. Sarah Long, a pediatrician and infectious diseases expert at Drexel University College of Medicine in Pennsylvania.

“It might be the right thing to do,” she said. “It just doesn’t sounds like a good public health policy.” 

Some experts seemed to suggest on Wednesday that it might be better to hold off on recommending any booster shots until recipients of all three vaccines could qualify for them.

This seems to encapsulate the issues with talking about a public health policy decision and the things that go into that, versus a decision based on an individual level. 

The answer is they favor a cull. Deaths are a positive feature of the pandemic, not a "bug" (no pun intended).

They hope to clear out the old, the infirm, the disabled, members of minority groups, and others they see as drags on society.

They believe in their magical thinking that god will protect them while cleansing the earth of the undesirables.

That is a very ugly truth. But is it accurate.

Bill

 

[ktgrok]

19 minutes ago, KSera said:

 

“I just don’t understand how, later this afternoon, we can say to people 65 and older, ‘You’re at risk for severe disease and death, but only half of you can protect yourselves right now,’” said Dr. Sarah Long, a pediatrician and infectious diseases expert at Drexel University College of Medicine in Pennsylvania.

“It might be the right thing to do,” she said. “It just doesn’t sounds like a good public health policy.” 

Some experts seemed to suggest on Wednesday that it might be better to hold off on recommending any booster shots until recipients of all three vaccines could qualify for them.

 

This is ridiculous. Acknowledging that people are at risk, but deciding that all of them should continue to be at risk becuase it "looks bad" if you can only booster half of them is insane. 

[Mom_to3]

11 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

This is ridiculous. Acknowledging that people are at risk, but deciding that all of them should continue to be at risk becuase it "looks bad" if you can only booster half of them is insane. 

Waiting for perfect data when people are severely at risk is also cruel and inhumane. Can you imagine being a 90 year old vaccinated with Moderna back in January? Or someone at high risk vaccinated with one shot of JJ? Is it really better to wait until we have better data, while these people get very sick and possibly die, rather than go with the strong suspicion that a booster (whether with Pfizer or the original vaccine). A lot of countries have moved ahead with imperfect decisions regarding vaccinations (including a lot of mix and match, such as in Canada and Germany etc) to save lives immediately. Or where would we be if Israel had not decided to move ahead with a booster without any clear evidence?

Of course, after all their flawed decisions these past 18 months, I have decided I no longer trust the CDC and FDA...

[Melissa Louise]

33 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Whoa. No, I have not, but that sounds super disturbing 😞 . 

It was. 

I won't name and shame unless it happens again. 

[catz]

12 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

It was. 

I won't name and shame unless it happens again. 

Well, it hardly stretches the imagination to come up with a short list.  Sorry you were subject to that sort of spam!

[bookbard]

Vaccination rates are looking really good in Sydney. Some areas 90% double dose (that is for people above 16 I believe, as 12-15 program has just opened). Our area finally cracked 80% first dose which is great - it's not an area that's had big vaccine hubs or campaigns, it's been word of mouth mostly on how to get a vaccine. I feel like it shows that most people are ok with the vaccine (or ok enough to get it done for work purposes, even if they're not enthusiastic). I do know a few locals who will never get done, but they tend to be hermits anyway so hopefully won't coming in contact with covid easily. 

[Corraleno]

CDC votes to approve shots for 65+ as well as 18-64 with underlying medical conditions — but NOT people like teachers or HCW who are at higher risk of exposure but not higher medical risk:

"Advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended a third dose of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine for people 65 and older as well as others at a high risk of severe illness. The committee's unanimous vote to allow older adults and long-term care residents to receive an extra dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was announced after two days of presentations reviewing scientific evidence on the safety and effectiveness of a third vaccine dose.

The committee, in a 13-2 vote, also recommended that people 50 to 64 years old with underlying medical conditions get a third shot.

It also endorsed people ages 18 to 49 who have an underlying medical risk access to another dose. The panel split 9-6 on this point but settled on advising that these people consider their individual benefit and risk, possibly in consultation with a medical provider, before they get a Pfizer booster shot.

In what might've been the most contentious deliberation, the committee said people 18 to 65 who work in a job or other setting where they are at high risk of exposure to COVID-19 should not yet be allowed to receive an extra Pfizer dose. 

Committee member Dr. Matthew Zahn, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist, expressed concern about the difficulty of implementing such an action. Another member, Institute for Health Research investigator Dr. Matthew Daley, said he was worried that the potential guidance would be "broad enough that it could limit access to other groups."

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/09/23/1040078971/cdc-covid-19-pfizer-boosters-adults-guidance

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Corraleno said:

CDC votes to approve shots for 65+ as well as 18-64 with underlying medical conditions — but NOT people like teachers or HCW who are at higher risk of exposure but not higher medical risk:

"Advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended a third dose of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine for people 65 and older as well as others at a high risk of severe illness. The committee's unanimous vote to allow older adults and long-term care residents to receive an extra dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was announced after two days of presentations reviewing scientific evidence on the safety and effectiveness of a third vaccine dose.

The committee, in a 13-2 vote, also recommended that people 50 to 64 years old with underlying medical conditions get a third shot.

It also endorsed people ages 18 to 49 who have an underlying medical risk access to another dose. The panel split 9-6 on this point but settled on advising that these people consider their individual benefit and risk, possibly in consultation with a medical provider, before they get a Pfizer booster shot.

In what might've been the most contentious deliberation, the committee said people 18 to 65 who work in a job or other setting where they are at high risk of exposure to COVID-19 should not yet be allowed to receive an extra Pfizer dose. 

Committee member Dr. Matthew Zahn, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist, expressed concern about the difficulty of implementing such an action. Another member, Institute for Health Research investigator Dr. Matthew Daley, said he was worried that the potential guidance would be "broad enough that it could limit access to other groups."

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/09/23/1040078971/cdc-covid-19-pfizer-boosters-adults-guidance

You know what this does not do? It does not communicate to people that it's an unambiguously good idea to get a booster, provided that there's no reason to fear a bad reaction! 

That's the biggest thing I worry about with boosters -- that all this mixed messaging will result in people saying "Meh. I already got vaccinated." 

I'm glad they voted to approve it for a wide range of people. I just wonder how many people will actually get the boosters. 

[Melissa Louise]

4 minutes ago, bookbard said:

Vaccination rates are looking really good in Sydney. Some areas 90% double dose (that is for people above 16 I believe, as 12-15 program has just opened). Our area finally cracked 80% first dose which is great - it's not an area that's had big vaccine hubs or campaigns, it's been word of mouth mostly on how to get a vaccine. I feel like it shows that most people are ok with the vaccine (or ok enough to get it done for work purposes, even if they're not enthusiastic). I do know a few locals who will never get done, but they tend to be hermits anyway so hopefully won't coming in contact with covid easily. 

Woah, where has double vax 90%?!! I want to move there!

I thought we were doing good here - 90% single vax, 60% double vax, with most single vax likely to convert to double in the next month. 

[Corraleno]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

You know what this does not do? It does not communicate to people that it's an unambiguously good idea to get a booster, provided that there's no reason to fear a bad reaction! 

They may consider that a feature not a bug — make the requirements as loose as possible so basically anyone who wants one can get it, while presenting it internationally as "we're only boosting the elderly and most vulnerable." It was just announced that the US will be ordering an additional 500 million Pfizer doses — bringing the total we have pledged to donate to 1.1 billion, more than every other country combined. I think the timing of that announcement in conjunction with the booster recommendations is not coincidental.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Corraleno said:

They may consider that a feature not a bug — make the requirements as loose as possible so basically anyone who wants one can get it, while presenting it internationally as "we're only boosting the elderly and most vulnerable." It was just announced that the US will be ordering an additional 500 million Pfizer doses — bringing the total we have pledged to donate to 1.1 billion, more than every other country combined. I think the timing of that announcement in conjunction with the booster recommendations is not coincidental.

I believe that, but I worry about what that'll DO to people's attitudes. 

[bookbard]

2762 (Schofields) and 2174 (Edmontsen Park) - both would have fairly small populations, I'd say. We have one postcode near us coming up close to that -population of 700 or so. But obviously, postcodes aren't isolated from one another. 

[Melissa Louise]

5 minutes ago, bookbard said:

2762 (Schofields) and 2174 (Edmontsen Park) - both would have fairly small populations, I'd say. We have one postcode near us coming up close to that -population of 700 or so. But obviously, postcodes aren't isolated from one another. 

Wow! That's incredible. Well done 2762 and 2174. 

[BeachGal]

4 hours ago, Corraleno said:

I haven't heard of it before, but in googling around, it seems both promising and very difficult to manufacture at scale. As far as I can tell, the only method they have so far is genetically modifying tobacco plants, but they only get like 10-12 doses per plant. I found this article, published last year by three researchers at Duke, suggesting a different method that could potentially produce larger volumes at lower cost by using modified e. coli bacteria. But that seems to be just a suggestion based on lab experiments, not something any manufacturers are actually doing. If you come across anything about griffithsin going into commercial production, I'd love to see it.

It was discussed fairly recently on Reddit’s COVID19 forum. This is the thread: “UCSD Researchers Discover Hidden SARS-Cov-2 ‘Gate’ That Opens to Allow COVID Infection.” (Interesting paper, too.)

Considering how difficult it is to create an effective anti-viral, I would think attempting to find ways to mass produce griffithsin would be worthwhile. Someone on that thread mentioned it’s being used in phase 3 HIV trials.

I’m going to try to find out why we’re not pursuing it more aggressively. Maybe someone is or will be soon.

[KSera]

2 hours ago, Spy Car said:

The answer is they favor a cull. Deaths are a positive feature of the pandemic, not a "bug" (no pun intended).

They hope to clear out the old, the infirm, the disabled, members of minority groups, and others they see as drags on society.

They believe in their magical thinking that god will protect them while cleansing the earth of the undesirables.

That is a very ugly truth. But is it accurate.

Bill

 

I believe they do think it will only affect "others," but it's so clear from the outside that it's affecting so many people just like them that I don't understand how so many don't (or refuse to) see it.

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

This is ridiculous. Acknowledging that people are at risk, but deciding that all of them should continue to be at risk becuase it "looks bad" if you can only booster half of them is insane. 

Agree. Such is the nature of public health.

[Spy Car]

5 minutes ago, KSera said:

I believe they do think it will only affect "others," but it's so clear from the outside that it's affecting so many people just like them that I don't understand how so many don't (or refuse to) see it.

Not a subgroup that has a high affinity with reason.

Bill

[TravelingChris]

On 8/25/2021 at 1:29 PM, BaseballandHockey said:

Yes, but you wrote that children aren't susceptible.  Children as a whole are far more susceptible to HepB than they are to many of the childhood illnesses they are vaccinated for.  Hepatitis B also spreads in congregate care settings, such as daycare, where an employee might go from child to child, changing diapers, without proper hand hygiene.  It is a hardier virus than HIV.

I'm not saying that an individual parent, who knows that they are negative because of a recent test, and plans to get the vaccine soon after at the pediatrician, can't delay the vaccine, but I can't let the statement that children aren't susceptible to HBV be out there on the internet unqualified.

I also think it's weird that people reject the HBV, HPV, flu and covid vaccines, all of them illnesses that regularly kill people in our country, and then say they aren't antivax because their kid gets shots for polio and diptheria. Not saying those vaccines aren't also important, but it is an interesting risk assessment.

DD1 didn't get the HPV because it can cause blood clots and she is high risk for blood clots.  DD2 isn't high risk for blood clots so she did get it.

[Longtime Lurker]

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

 

In what might've been the most contentious deliberation, the committee said people 18 to 65 who work in a job or other setting where they are at high risk of exposure to COVID-19 should not yet be allowed to receive an extra Pfizer dose. 

Ugh. I was so hopeful when the FDA recommended it for teachers.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Longtime Lurker
spelling

[YaelAldrich]

I was hoping they would open it up to those people in essential jobs, health care, and education. Because my DH and I got vaccinated in January (him) and February-March (me). And we're trying to be patient. But we're almost at our limit.

[Spy Car]

57 minutes ago, YaelAldrich said:

I was hoping they would open it up to those people in essential jobs, health care, and education. Because my DH and I got vaccinated in January (him) and February-March (me). And we're trying to be patient. But we're almost at our limit.

My "read" is that no one who shows up to get a shot after 6 months and say they feel at risk is going to be turned away. Just do it!

1 hour ago, Longtime Lurker said:

Ugh. I was so hopeful when the FDA recommended it for teachers.

You too.

Bill

[Pawz4me]

Looks like Walensky overruled the panel and is allowing boosters for those at risk due to their jobs.

Reuters --

Quote

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Friday backed a booster shot of the Pfizer (PFE.N) and BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for Americans aged 65 and older, some adults with underlying medical conditions and some adults in high-risk working and institutional settings.

The move comes after an advisory panel to the agency on Thursday did not recommend that people in high-risk jobs, such as teachers, and risky living conditions should get boosters. The panel had recommended boosters for elderly and some people with underlying medical conditions.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said her agency had to make recommendations based on complex, often imperfect data.

"In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good," she said in a statement.

"I believe we can best serve the nation’s public health needs by providing booster doses for the elderly, those in long-term care facilities, people with underlying medical conditions, and for adults at high risk of disease from occupational and institutional exposures to COVID-19. This aligns with the FDA’s booster authorization and makes these groups eligible for a booster shot," she said.

I can't find a link to Walensky's statement on the CDC site (yet), but WaPo and NYT are reporting the same thing as Reuters.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Pawz4me

[kokotg]

2 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

Looks like Walensky overruled the panel and is allowing boosters for those at risk due to their jobs.

Reuters --

I can't find a link to Walensky's statement on the CDC site (yet), but WaPo and NYT are reporting the same thing as Reuters.

Yes, it sounds like it’s essentially boosters for anyone who wants them. No verification of risk required.

[Faith-manor]

5 minutes ago, kokotg said:

Yes, it sounds like it’s essentially boosters for anyone who wants them. No verification of risk required.

That would be good. I will see if anyone has started boosters around here. Are they going to allow those of us with Moderna, the Pfizer booster? 

I have my medically fragile mother in law to deal with so though not paid, if asked, elder.care is my high risk job. Her doctor doesn't think she formed any immunity from her JnJ jab, so it would be pretty darn risky if one of us got covid and took it to her.

[Longtime Lurker]

2 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

Looks like Walensky overruled the panel and is allowing boosters for those at risk due to their jobs.

Reuters --

I can't find a link to Walensky's statement on the CDC site (yet), but WaPo and NYT are reporting the same thing as Reuters.

Hurray!

[ktgrok]

9 hours ago, Spy Car said:

My "read" is that no one who shows up to get a shot after 6 months and say they feel at risk is going to be turned away. Just do it!

You too.

Bill

In my area when they did the initial shots and said anyone "high risk" could get them they required a form filled out by a doctor. I got around it by saying I was working in education...made myself a teacher ID on a lanyard for my homeschool, but yeah, it wasn't easy. 

Hopefully better this go round. 

Edited September 24, 2021 by ktgrok

[mommyoffive]

…Booster update - by Katelyn Jetelina - Your Local Epidemiologist (substack.com)

After midnight last night, Walensky (CDC Director) overturned the ACIP (external scientific advisory committee to the CDC) recommendation and approved the booster for high exposure occupations, like healthcare workers and teachers. The FDA and the CDC are now in agreeance that those that should get boosters are:

65+ years

Long term care residents

50-64 years with underlying condition

18-49 years with underlying conditions are recommended to weigh their individual benefits with risks

High exposure occupations

[mommyoffive]

Biden Urges Those Eligible for a Pfizer Booster to Get One Soon (msn.com)

[Spy Car]

This is very good news. Sanity has prevailed.

Could have done without the drama and unnecessarily mixed messages.

Bill