Covid 19 Vaccine

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
In a COVID-19 briefing on Tuesday, Health Minister Adrian Dix and provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry said the supply of the J&J vaccines will be limited.

“It will be available first for any health-care worker who wants to use this as their way of getting back to work.”
Click to expand...
 
“It will be available first for any health-care worker who wants to use this as their way of getting back to work.”

This sounds very much like the other vaccines were not an option for these people. Having as much healthcare workers as possible at work sounds like a reasonable goal. I think with the thread of loosing your job if not vaccinated, the ones that are left unvaccinated will be the die hard anti vaxxers. There is a certain obligation to offer J+J to the ones that can’t have the others.
 
Mrs.Anteater said:
“It will be available first for any health-care worker who wants to use this as their way of getting back to work.”

This sounds very much like the other vaccines were not an option for these people. Having as much healthcare workers as possible at work sounds like a reasonable goal. I think with the thread of loosing your job if not vaccinated, the ones that are left unvaccinated will be the die hard anti vaxxers. There is a certain obligation to offer J+J to the ones that can’t have the others.
Click to expand...
Listening to what provinces are saying as well as unvaccinated people, I suspect there are more against getting an mRNA virus due to various thoughts about them rather than medical reasons.
If it was made available to those with medical restrictions first that would also catch the few health care workers where it's not just a choice.
 
ChemGal said:
Listening to what provinces are saying as well as unvaccinated people, I suspect there are more against getting an mRNA virus due to various thoughts about them rather than medical reasons.
Click to expand...
This isn't really about what you've been talking about, but this statement caught my eye.
Right now we are also being encouraged to get our flu shot. I'm betting if I asked most people what this years flu shot is targeting, not many people would know, as they line up to receive it.
Also prior to the internet, the polio and measles vaccine didnt receive half the scrutiny by the public as the Covid vaccines do today. Despite some major glitches with each, (eg. polio vaccine had a major catastrophe in one vaccine manufacturing plant that actually killed some children and the measles vaccine was realized later to need boosters to be effective)
My question is, was it a mistake to explain the mRna technology so extensively to the general public during this age of the internet? Do we always know or look up with such scrutiny what the doctor prescribes unless there's a problem? Eg. Does the average person know where tylenol comes from or how many drugs meant to cure one problem can actually create another one?
 
Waterfall said:
My question is, was it a mistake to explain the mRna technology so extensively to the general public during this age of the internet? Do we always know or look up with such scrutiny what the doctor prescribes unless there's a problem? Eg. Does the average person know where tylenol comes from or how many drugs meant to cure one problem can actually create another one?
Click to expand...
Depends on the people. Mrs. M and I are pretty diligent about researching our Rx drugs and other health matters. Also, we have Scientific American and Discover coming into the house, both of which cover the science of things like mRNA well. And I watch a lot of (reputable) science content on Youtube (what can I say, I'm a science junkie whose math skills just aren't up to actually being a scientist).

But we likely don't fit your notion of average. We are both fairly concerned about our health. We are both well-educated, even if not specifically in medicine. I am fascinated by science so do a lot of reading and viewing of science content. We both have pretty good research skills and knowledge to evaluate what we read (she taught research methods to masters and Ph.D. students, in fact).

So if it hadn't been widely available, we would have found it in any case. I don't think health research should be some kind of black box and the information needs to be out there. We need to be educating the public, not expecting them to just trust the pros. In this case, not putting the information out there would have played to the conspiracy whackos notion of the whole thing being a scheme and might have sold more people on that idea. "What are they hiding?" type of stuff.
 
Mendalla said:
Depends on the people. Mrs. M and I are pretty diligent about researching our Rx drugs and other health matters. Also, we have Scientific American and Discover coming into the house, both of which cover the science of things like mRNA well. And I watch a lot of (reputable) science content on Youtube (what can I say, I'm a science junkie whose math skills just aren't up to actually being a scientist).

But we likely don't fit your notion of average. We are both fairly concerned about our health. We are both well-educated, even if not specifically in medicine. I am fascinated by science so do a lot of reading and viewing of science content. We both have pretty good research skills and knowledge to evaluate what we read (she taught research methods to masters and Ph.D. students, in fact).

So if it hadn't been widely available, we would have found it in any case. I don't think health research should be some kind of black box and the information needs to be out there. We need to be educating the public, not expecting them to just trust the pros. In this case, not putting the information out there would have played to the conspiracy whackos notion of the whole thing being a scheme and might have sold more people on that idea. "What are they hiding?" type of stuff.
Click to expand...
Good points, but as you say, you understand what you're reading without creating an additional narrative that's not there.
 
jimkenney12 said:
The knowledge that seems most lacking is understanding probabilities.
Click to expand...
Which I find is a problem in general. Even in my day, I don't recall that it was covered well in high school maths and I probably learned more about it from my gaming than in school. Little M took a data management course in high school and he understood the stuff better than the teacher (thanks to his mum) so I don't have much confidence in today's system. And that was an upper year elective so really only kids planning on university took it. Really needs some good coverage in the general maths course in lower grades.
 
@Mendalla
Just out of curiosity, when you got your flu shot, were you aware of the strains of flu virus that the vaccine is fighting this year? Do you know now if not. Are you googling it now?
 
I would like very basic probability taught early in school along with basic information how our brains calculate risk. It does not need exotic vocabulary. I do not know if the concept of standard deviation should be included.

Our brains do funny stuff with information. When volunteers held their hands in ice cold water for a specific length of time, it felt like longer than when they held their hand in ice cold water for the same length of time, then held their hand in cool water for an additional two minutes. The subject is not told the time.

The risk attached to familiar tasks is feared less than a smaller risk attached to an unfamiliar task.

If a teacher had easy access to the right data banks, they could have students doing very interesting investigations into the truthfulness of this information.

As a math science teacher, I am bothered by an excess of information to be memorized and not enough on core concepts and laws.
 
About the flu shot I believe one strain that is included is the newish strain that has been the focus for a few years. (?N1N7?)
 
Waterfall said:
@Mendalla
Just out of curiosity, when you got your flu shot, were you aware of the strains of flu virus that the vaccine is fighting this year? Do you know now if not. Are you googling it now?
Click to expand...
We haven't looked into the flu shot in a long time. It has worked well for me since I started getting it annually and there have never been any health issues. So it kind of gets a "by" now. Same with my diabetes and hypertension drugs. We look into them periodically when new information comes to light, but otherwise they work and aren't causing problems so we don't really spend time on them anymore.
 
Mendalla said:
We haven't looked into the flu shot in a long time. It has worked well for me since I started getting it annually and there have never been any health issues. So it kind of gets a "by" now. Same with my diabetes and hypertension drugs. We look into them periodically when new information comes to light, but otherwise they work and aren't causing problems so we don't really spend time on them anymore.
Click to expand...
So I wonder why some people have become so obsessed with the Covid vaccine? Is it the new technology, when in fact we have been inundated with new technology over the last 100 years? Mass vaccinations have been around for years.
 
I don't get the flu vaccine anymore, I did used to give it a quick check with what it was. I also knew the flumist wasn't appropriate for me and why.
I would also watch flu watch a bit. While flu was typically circulating before the vaccine was available we don't know how well it matches up for the season until Nov, Dec. I do listen to that.

When I need a tetanus shot I did debate whether or not to get the pertussis component or not and spoke to someone about my concerns. I do know what it's called dTap, although the US seems to put it in a different order and it throws me off if it's a big d or t even though I know the why.
I also asked others with HAE how they reacted but I do find it's hard to get a reasonable idea of how many are ok with it vs. not, especially when it's not something most people get around the same time.

Even with COVID it's difficult and it's certainly not statistical but I can confirm there are others who do think vaccinations are generally a good idea who also have them as triggers. The HAE aspect is hard as it's not just something of well who gets the most attacks. Some people can get into an argument with their spouse and boom, swell, but can be incredibly sick without a swell. I suspect those of us who have something like a minor cold as a pretty consistent trigger also tend to be more likely to have a vaccine to be a trigger. I think another factor that comes in is response as well, I know that my sister and I tend to produce high levels of antibodies to the point where we had to skip/go on a different schedule for boosters because we were getting so sick from them. With me HAE was a factor, for my sister she gets weird seizures. They have been confirmed to be real, not pseudo ones, but they are not epileptic ones. When she was little they slated them as febrile seizures but after a certain age they won't call them that. I suspect my Mom is the same with antibodies but she hasn't had testing to confirm, she gets quite sick with vaccines. She also keeps complaining of blot clot like symptoms after the COVID one but won't go see a doctor about it :rolleyes: She's gotten weird about health stuff as she has gotten older, but she also has had issues like me with doctors misdiagnosing things and she has had life long issues like severe GI issues with bleeding that has been diagnosed as IBS which doesn't seem right but shehas seen multiple specialists and had testing done many times.

A big part of my complaint is how do we get the data for probabilities for people like me who do have vaccines as triggers when they won't even report a reaction. This is now the 3rd time I have run into the issue despite them legally mandating it after my complaints earlier.
Between my history and my meds I also think I should have been able to get serology testing. Blah blah blah not knowing what is considered protective yet. We have an idea, we also have data on what antibody levels most people meet vs what's seen with some immunosuppression. Would have been useful to see where I fit within that IMO. My GP said before I got any of the doses she would do that for me and then nope, she can't.

With other drugs? For me some things I am very cautious about. A lot of it goes down to personal experience. I was put on a drug at one point that is supposed to be HAE safe but I had some of my worst attacks while on it and for a few days after stopping. With antibiotics? I don't worry although will give a preferences in some cases to avoid annoying symptoms. NSAIDs most doctors seem more worried than I am, as long it's it's not aspirin I respond great. Liver and kidney issues are typically fine with anything like that as long as I'm not on them long term.

When totally healthy people who have had no problems get worried about stuff I do find it a little frustrating. Questions and minor worries they want more information for? Understandable. Refusing mRNA because it's 'new tech' or whatever I don't have a lot of patience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top