Mrs.Anteater
Just keep going....
It would have been 1945/46.Could be. Per Wiki, there was a live attenuated vaccine available in some countries (not the US) as early as 1950. The Salk vaccine, an inactivated virus, didn't come along until 1955.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It would have been 1945/46.Could be. Per Wiki, there was a live attenuated vaccine available in some countries (not the US) as early as 1950. The Salk vaccine, an inactivated virus, didn't come along until 1955.
Probably not polio then. Not sure what vaccines were in common use then.It would have been 1945/46.
I am guessing small pocks?Probably not polio then. Not sure what vaccines were in common use then.
They weren't immediately after the war though.I wonder if she was remembering the polio vaccines.
What segment of the population is being given priority for this experimental procedure in Alberta?Wow, I just looked up at the updated vaccinations.
Yes - that's what I read this morning - in Ontario they are beginning with LTC facilities that are NOT currently in outbreak status - because it should not be administered to anyone who is already ill.Although how do you give vaccines to facilities in outbreak? Can vaccines be given when you test positive for Covid? Will they test this before they give it? Or just give it anyway?
Right now Ontario has over 250 facilities with a Covid outbreak out of 626 long term care facilities in Ontario....so i guess they should start with the unaffected.
That's what I sort of assumed because other vaccines are the same, but with the Covid vaccines having a different "makeup" with the mRNA, I wasn't sure. Still, hope everyone is tested before getting it.Yes - that's what I read this morning - in Ontario they are beginning with LTC facilities that are NOT currently in outbreak status - because it should not be administered to anyone who is already ill.
I wonder if Canada should have just sent the second doses with the first doses so they would be assured they'd have it? Rather than treat the first shipments like they were all first doses.BC seems to be gambling on being able go get a steady supply. They don't want to hold back the second doses because they'd like to immunize as many people as possible, and they expect to be able to have the supplies in time to give the second shots. Dr Henry and the BCCDC seem to be very research based. I'd be surprised if they deviated off what research supports.
They are deviating. I understand using new shipments for the 2nd dose and not holding back. The 35 day scheduling does not have the studies to back that up.BC seems to be gambling on being able go get a steady supply. They don't want to hold back the second doses because they'd like to immunize as many people as possible, and they expect to be able to have the supplies in time to give the second shots. Dr Henry and the BCCDC seem to be very research based. I'd be surprised if they deviated off what research supports.