Being allergic doesn’t negate the lack of the second shot and what it means for viral spread and risk to others. These things aren’t being done for individuals as much as the collective. In such a group, a tiny percentage of people will lose out who want the vaccine but are unable to get it. Her inability to see the larger picture doesn’t make this “unfair” as she suggests, but rather, unlucky.
At least we can call it what it is: utilitarianism. Now we don’t need to rehash every debate on the subject, but instead recognize the arguments for and against it.
I think you're the one missing the larger picture. One of the main selling points of mass vaccination is herd immunity to protect those that are unvaccinated - including babies
and cancer patients.
When (or if) herd immunity is reached (measured by rate of community spread), they can drop the need for vaccine passports. The passports are just there in the meantime while infection rates are high.
When a third of the population is refusing to get the vaccine because they "self-educated" on Youtube and there's no mandate at all for kids to get it, then you can't ever have herd immunity.
We’re seeing that people can get reinfected, so it’s unlikely natural immunity will protect you from Covid any more than the flu or a cold. I personally know of someone who got it last year, then got vaccinated, and then got it again and almost was hospitalized.
> We’re seeing that people can get reinfected, so it’s unlikely natural immunity will protect you from Covid any more than the flu or a cold.
If COVID immunity ends up working like cold immunity that would be fine. About 20% of colds are caused by coronaviruses that caused deadly pandemics when they first appeared in humans. As with COVID these tended to cause much more serious illness in non-immune adults than in non-immune children.
Now we all get them as non-immune children, and although that does not confer upon us immunity from reinfection it does confer protection against serious illness.
I've had it twice, which is why I KNOW that the "natural immunity" argument from people who are too cowardly to spend 10 minutes in a drug store is nonsense.
There's tons on science talking about the immune system response from a covid infection. From what I've seen the protection conferred from the immune system response to the virus is at least as good as vaccine immunity and perhaps better, given that it is a more broad based immune system response not targeting just the spike protein like the vaccines.
I don't understand your comment. We were talking about herd immunity at the moment, and that natural immunity and not just vaccine immunity counts towards that.
Why did you bring up cowardly? Is that in reference to the woman who had to be hospitalized for anaphylactic shock after her first vaccination?
Perhaps immunity wasn't the right word. Protection may have been a better term. People's second cases aren't as bad as their first, in general, because their body's immune system is better able to respond after a first infection.
Covid-19 will not going away. It can be expected to be transmitted like other endemic coronaviruses, and not be a big deal for most people. Children in the future will catch it, like they do other common cold coronaviruses, and they will grow into protected adults.
Interestingly, the one person I know that I gave the example over was almost hospitalized on his 2nd post-vaccine case of covid. It was worst than his first. But it also was likely a different variant than his 2020 case.
If that is possible and happens, why bother with whole passport thing is first place? Seems kinda pointless if there isn't surefire solution either way.
Comparisons to the flu and colds aren't scientifically valid. Influenza mutates much faster than SARS-CoV-2, which is why the flu vaccine is reformulated every year. Common colds are caused by dozens of different viruses (including at least 4 other coronaviruses) and gaining immunity to one of them won't protect you from the others. SARS-CoV-2 also mutates but at a much slower rate than influenza.
Reinfection by SARS-CoV-2 is possible but rare. There may be some benefit to vaccination even for those who have recovered from infection, although the duration of additional protection is unclear.
It was a good selling point, only now it seems that vaccinations don’t prevent the spread as much as previously thought, especially the variants such as Delta variant. So it seem there won’t be any herd immunity anytime soon.
Unfortunately the Delta variant is sufficiently contagious that there will be no significant herd immunity effect to protect the unvaccinated. I encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can, but vaccinated people can still spread the virus. Eventually almost everyone will be exposed.
I am fully vaccinated and will not use any pass and forego business that demands it. I think the request for such a pass is unscientific and political hogwash to stay polite.
Wait. Here in Italy, if a guy can’t have the vaccine due to his health status, he/she can just go to his personal doctor and ask for an exemption. Then he will have a paper that is the same as the EU green pass but without have done the vaccine.
What’s wrong with Canada? Why they don’t make something similar?
I assume Canada has the same, but she's (it is she, the article makes that clear as well as answering your question) eligible for the second dose just as she was for the first, so she wouldn't get the exemption.
Just has a reasonable reason not to want it, and not to be treated poorly for making that decision.
They have something similar, but in her province the list of allowed exemptions is much stricter[1]. If you have an allergic reaction to one vaccine, they require a second dose using a difference vaccine. The author is unwilling to attempt that.
The problem the government is trying to avoid is doctors who will give out exemptions too broadly. There is a balance to be struck and BC took a harder line.
> If you have an allergic reaction to one vaccine, they require a second dose using a difference vaccine.
Can the second dose be one of the non-mRNA vaccines? If so, and she’s never had an allergic reaction to any other vaccination, that doesn’t strike me as entirely unreasonable. Especially if the alternative is just that she can’t go to a restaurant or the gym (e.g., she won’t loose her job).
It makes her... an anti-second-vax-after-first-could've-killed-her-er.
Not all places are keeping people for 15mins or whatever for observation afterwards, she's lucky they did. (And obviously also unlucky there was a reason for that to be lucky.)
That you're allergic to one does not make you allergic to all. That's what the evidence shows. If you're denying the scientific consensus, either you're a researcher who just ran a well-designed experiment showing opposite conclusions, or you're an anti-vaxxer.
Anaphylaxis is dangerous. The vaccination sites in the US require 1 hour waits if you've had a reaction to a previous different vaccine. They're prepared. You don't get to "opt out" because you think you know better than the professionals.
> You don't get to "opt out" because you think you know better than the professionals.
You get to opt-in or not for whatever reason (good or not) you want.
Most people have bad reasons. I (had both doses myself fwiw, not that it's any of your business) think this is a decent reason, and doesn't deserve to be painted with the same brush.
What’s wrong? The federal Liberal Party. That is what is wrong. Provinces didn’t want to divide their populace with this no exceptions papers please nonsense. So the feds went ahead and threatened billion dollar level withholdings until such divisions are put in place.
They had an allergic reaction to a vaccine and declined to get a single one for their second dose. They’re not unable to get vaccinated, they don’t want to.
A family member in BC has been trying to get an exemption from 3 doctors already. 2/3 said they are incredibly shocked that they're not allowed to give them due to threats of having their license taken away. They said they really want to and that if my family member finds a way around it, they will write it.
Simple fix would be to only require a single dose for a passport?
I can't think of an 'illegitimate' reason that somebody would be willing to take one dose but refuse another; so we could just charitably assume anyone with at one dose either had another too or a good reason not to?
Sure. Isn't that just even more reason to give passports (if you must at all) for ≥1 dose (that don't detail how many)? Just keep it simple, they don't need to care which vaccine, the guidelines on it (at the time it was given / now!) etc.
Perhaps the title of this article should be "I had an allergic reaction to my 1st shot and am unwilling to have a 2nd shot of any COVID-19 vaccine".
In BC, you don't need to use the same vaccine for each shot to be considered fully vaccinated. This person is expected to switch to a different COVID-19 vaccine for her second shot.
In the article if you look at the Twitter post shown, it shows a "Valid contraindications and deferrals to COVID-19 vaccination" which states the following:
"The following are NOT contraindications to COVID-19 vaccination:
History of an anaphylactic reaction to a previous dose of mRNA or adenovirus vector vaccine. Such individuals may receive their 2nd dose using vaccine of the different type.
History of an anaphylactic reaction to any component of one type of vaccine. Such individuals may receive vaccine of the different type."
AFAIK the availability of AZ has been winding down in BC.
There's another solution. Given the anaphylaxis, she could just be medically exempt.
It's the same thing as why the nurse asks if one's allergic to eggs for the flu shot.
Those who can take the shot, should, not only for themselves, but for those who might not be able to (e.g. allergic reaction), or those whose body did not take full effect from the shot.
45 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 115 ms ] threadThis is a tricky one.
If COVID immunity ends up working like cold immunity that would be fine. About 20% of colds are caused by coronaviruses that caused deadly pandemics when they first appeared in humans. As with COVID these tended to cause much more serious illness in non-immune adults than in non-immune children.
Now we all get them as non-immune children, and although that does not confer upon us immunity from reinfection it does confer protection against serious illness.
I don't understand your comment. We were talking about herd immunity at the moment, and that natural immunity and not just vaccine immunity counts towards that.
Why did you bring up cowardly? Is that in reference to the woman who had to be hospitalized for anaphylactic shock after her first vaccination?
Covid-19 will not going away. It can be expected to be transmitted like other endemic coronaviruses, and not be a big deal for most people. Children in the future will catch it, like they do other common cold coronaviruses, and they will grow into protected adults.
Reinfection by SARS-CoV-2 is possible but rare. There may be some benefit to vaccination even for those who have recovered from infection, although the duration of additional protection is unclear.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-diseas...
https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
What’s wrong with Canada? Why they don’t make something similar?
Just has a reasonable reason not to want it, and not to be treated poorly for making that decision.
The problem the government is trying to avoid is doctors who will give out exemptions too broadly. There is a balance to be struck and BC took a harder line.
1. https://twitter.com/DrBirinderSingh/status/14383191651740180...
Can the second dose be one of the non-mRNA vaccines? If so, and she’s never had an allergic reaction to any other vaccination, that doesn’t strike me as entirely unreasonable. Especially if the alternative is just that she can’t go to a restaurant or the gym (e.g., she won’t loose her job).
That makes her... an anti-vaxxer.
Not all places are keeping people for 15mins or whatever for observation afterwards, she's lucky they did. (And obviously also unlucky there was a reason for that to be lucky.)
Anaphylaxis is dangerous. The vaccination sites in the US require 1 hour waits if you've had a reaction to a previous different vaccine. They're prepared. You don't get to "opt out" because you think you know better than the professionals.
You get to opt-in or not for whatever reason (good or not) you want.
Most people have bad reasons. I (had both doses myself fwiw, not that it's any of your business) think this is a decent reason, and doesn't deserve to be painted with the same brush.
I can't think of an 'illegitimate' reason that somebody would be willing to take one dose but refuse another; so we could just charitably assume anyone with at one dose either had another too or a good reason not to?
In BC, you don't need to use the same vaccine for each shot to be considered fully vaccinated. This person is expected to switch to a different COVID-19 vaccine for her second shot.
In the article if you look at the Twitter post shown, it shows a "Valid contraindications and deferrals to COVID-19 vaccination" which states the following:
"The following are NOT contraindications to COVID-19 vaccination: History of an anaphylactic reaction to a previous dose of mRNA or adenovirus vector vaccine. Such individuals may receive their 2nd dose using vaccine of the different type. History of an anaphylactic reaction to any component of one type of vaccine. Such individuals may receive vaccine of the different type."
There's another solution. Given the anaphylaxis, she could just be medically exempt.
It's the same thing as why the nurse asks if one's allergic to eggs for the flu shot.
Those who can take the shot, should, not only for themselves, but for those who might not be able to (e.g. allergic reaction), or those whose body did not take full effect from the shot.