Who is getting the COVID-19 Vaccine?

[FraserB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

PHAC has updated their timeline

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/corona...hows-1.5314048

On the low end of the timeline with just the two vaccines, that would represent ~1.6M Albertans vaccinated by the end of June which means pretty much everybody over the age of 45 and the at risk groups would have it. Even if only two thirds of the low-end estimate were done, it would still be over a million Albertans and the over 55 and other high risk groups being covered heading into Q3. So something to be optimistic about for reopening plans and schedules.

I doubt we'll see any sort of widespread lifting of restrictions exceeding what has already been laid out with only 30% of people vaccinated. Certainly not at the federal level with regards to travel and I'm sure the city will cling to their mask bylaw until after the election in October.

And the 24.5 million number is bullishit, including vaccines that haven't been approved or that we have no delivery timeline for makes no sense.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I doubt we'll see any sort of widespread lifting of restrictions exceeding what has already been laid out with only 30% of people vaccinated. Certainly not at the federal level with regards to travel and I'm sure the city will cling to their mask bylaw until after the election in October.

And the 24.5 million number is bullishit, including vaccines that haven't been approved or that we have no delivery timeline for makes no sense.

The 30% number would help us get to what's laid out, which is encouraging as it is much more open than even last summer. Since hospitalizations are tied to the reopening schedule, and the higher risk of hospitalizations are in the over 50 group, getting those groups vaccinated by the end of Q2 accelerates the opening schedule.

Mask bylaws will stick around, but they're the least burdensome anyway and should be the least concern if it means other things are opening.

I wouldn't worry at all about the high number, it's the low one that matters as a target and and anything above is a bonus whether it's 20 doses or 20M doses.

[ZenOps]

Due to the US winter blast, many states are paring down their shipments until they can get the basic infrastructure going again (people can't get shot, if they can't get to where they are giving shots because the roads are impassable)

We might actually get our full allotments in Canada, plus a little bit.

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I doubt we'll see any sort of widespread lifting of restrictions exceeding what has already been laid out with only 30% of people vaccinated. Certainly not at the federal level with regards to travel and I'm sure the city will cling to their mask bylaw until after the election in October.

And the 24.5 million number is bullishit, including vaccines that haven't been approved or that we have no delivery timeline for makes no sense.

I don't think we plan for anything to change until July earliest anyway.

As for mask by law, if we do hit 80-90% vaccination by Sep and there isn't a new one that render the vaccine pointless, I hope it will go away. This risk come this October election is that it becomes the wedge issue. To me the water fluoride plebiscites is almost designed as a distraction away from other election issues.

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The data don't really support this at all.

Why?
Don't ~5% of people experience vaccine reactions that mimic flu-like symptoms? Stick vaccines in people >80yo for a virus they have never experienced and I'd certainly think some of them are going to die. I believe age>80 already technically counts as a comorbidity, so add one more simple one like diabeetus or low O2 Sat's and I think we can expect some higher death rates.

What is "the data" saying to contradict this?

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why?
Don't ~5% of people experience vaccine reactions that mimic flu-like symptoms? Stick vaccines in people >80yo for a virus they have never experienced and I'd certainly think some of them are going to die. I believe age>80 already technically counts as a comorbidity, so add one more simple one like diabeetus or low O2 Sat's and I think we can expect some higher death rates.

What is "the data" saying to contradict this?

The clinical trials. That's why we do clinical trials. You need to collect actual data on outcomes, and then compare to a placebo.

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The clinical trials. That's why we do clinical trials. You need to collect actual data on outcomes, and then compare to a placebo.

And those trials showed 0% deaths in giving the vaccine to very elderly people?
That would be astonishing, but I sure doubt that number is zero.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And those trials showed 0% deaths in giving the vaccine to very elderly people?
That would be astonishing, but I sure doubt that number is zero.

https://www.fda.gov/media/144246/download

Fill your boots.

Deaths were comparable between placebo and treatment group. Adverse reactions were less significant in the elderly because of their less robust immune systems.

[TurboMedic]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The data don't really support this at all.

I'm sorry, which part? Are you disagreeing with the fact that triggering systemic inflammatory responses in co-morbid elderly is not a complication free endeavor? Fevers, antibodies, inflammatory free radicals, etc all have the potential to tip a possibly delicate balance into one that can cause acute exacerbations of existing conditions. The trial data on it was not very focused on that particular group and was limited.

To be clear, I'm not saying its a death shot. The statement was made that a certain percentage of deaths are possibly attributed to receiving the vaccine, this was found to be a possible correlation in a couple of countries that were administering vaccines and having deaths within days of this. Not a significant number by any means, but we were talking anecdotally, and really in no significant number.

In the trial (I can't recall which one off hand) there was 6 deaths in 43,000 individuals. 0.0013%. And the trials did not focus on the group in question despite them being the priority. Some degree of death is to be expected.

Having had the vaccination, and knowing the response that I had (and countless colleagues, being knocked to their asses for a day or two) to the vaccine, being a healthy and fit individual, you better believe that a response including a high fever, tachycardia, etc would have a possible negative effect on someone who is elderly and unhealthy. I'm unsure how its even an argument. I've seen the most trivial infections compromise people to near death

edit: I just saw your reply above, and I'll just reiterate that the groups experiencing death were not in large numbers in the trials. You are taking a very black and white approach to this, and disregarding the vast variance of state of health, body, organ condition on a group that wasn't largely studied in the trials.

[ExtraSlow]

No way to prioritize different groups without leaving out groups.

[FraserB]

I’d challenge any teacher or bus driver to explain which people included in Phase 2 they are more important than and should receive the vaccine ahead of. Put their name to it and stand behind their statement. I bet you’ll get crickets then

[killramos]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I’d challenge any teacher or bus driver to explain which people included in Phase 2 they are more important than and should receive the vaccine ahead of. Put their name to it and stand behind their statement. I bet you’ll get crickets then

Oh I think you vastly underestimated how important teachers think they are

[ExtraSlow]

Hey @Buster , is there data to suggest the efficacy of the two available Canadian vaccines against the variant strains of covid? Do we suspect it will be much different than the main strain?

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Oh I think you vastly underestimated how important teachers think they are

I think you're both right, but he's saying they're letting their union do all the talking for them. I agree.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hey @Buster , is there data to suggest the efficacy of the two available Canadian vaccines against the variant strains of covid? Do we suspect it will be much different than the main strain?

I don't think there is good data. That is, there isn't good data on outcomes - just theoretical stuff. (There also isn't good data to show that they are "more contagious" or whatever the media constantly spout.)

I do know that both Moderna and Pfizer have the ability to literally print off a different vaccine using whatever sequence they want. Both of them have ready, and can simply start making them if needed.

Don't forget there is a big difference between "ineffective" and "less effective". The current versions of the vaccines are so effective that a modest reduction in effectiveness would still be fine.

[Darell_n]

Can we just edit the poll results to 100% yes? It will not be a choice in the next few years.

[TurboMedic]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't think there is good data. That is, there isn't good data on outcomes - just theoretical stuff. (There also isn't good data to show that they are "more contagious" or whatever the media constantly spout.)

I do know that both Moderna and Pfizer have the ability to literally print off a different vaccine using whatever sequence they want. Both of them have ready, and can simply start making them if needed.

Don't forget there is a big difference between "ineffective" and "less effective". The current versions of the vaccines are so effective that a modest reduction in effectiveness would still be fine.

So its ok to talk grey when you're supporting your point .........

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://www.fda.gov/media/144246/download

Fill your boots.

Deaths were comparable between placebo and treatment group. Adverse reactions were less significant in the elderly because of their less robust immune systems.

Ok. This was the important statement I wasn't seeing, before. That's really surprising to me.
Thanks for the link. I'll hopefully comb through that eventually.

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Can we just edit the poll results to 100% yes? It will not be a choice in the next few years.

LoL!!! You don't honestly think that the govt will force vaccinations in Canada, do you?

"My __________ and my feelings make it so I am not taking your vaccine" said tens of thousands of "people".

[jutes]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

LoL!!! You don't honestly think that the govt will force vaccinations in Canada, do you?

"My __________ and my feelings make it so I am not taking your vaccine" said tens of thousands of "people".

They will never make it mandatory but they sure as hell will impose restrictions on you if you don’t. Show me your papers! Mandatory self-isolation in hotels if you don’t have the vaccination tattooed numbers. Ironically Israel is already implementing these regulations vs people who aren’t vaccinated.