I usually get my flu shot every year at my employer’s flu clinic at work. One year, we were in Disney during the clinic and I never got it - I ended up with the flu. Learned my lesson after 2 trips to the ER and now I get it every year.
This is the first year that the flu vaccine is a requirement for school aged children in the state. They pushed back the deadline to the end of February - I will be interested to see what happens and if they really will not allow kids in the school after the deadline. @PrincipalTinker, does your school district have a plan yet? (Thankfully DS got his during his annual physical)
Yes, the flu shot is really safe & (usually) effective. There are not many medical interventions that are actually recommended for pregnant women, but it is one of them.
When they required it (now the law for every year) the 85% rate dropped .
By law we should exclude students, even from remote classes, if they do not get the flu shot. We have talked about it but I don’t know if any of us are really prepared to do that?
A local NYS school district missed the normal state vaccination requirements in opening during the pandemic. The district was forced to exclude all students who did not have the required shots even if 100% remote.
Here in the rural interior of Missouri we are apparently to get our vaccinations through the Health Departments.
I had seen that the whole state will move through the groups together. So group 2 will get vaccinated after everyone in group 1 is vaccinated. I’m interested to see if this will hold up through all the groups.
Here’s the groups. Phase 1 headline didn’t make it into the screenshot.
She got the infusion Dec 10. I had asked her to check with her PCP, and he said it shouldn’t be a problem. But I’m not sure how she worded the question, if he’s aware it’s actually against guidance.
This article is about the Quebec decision to give all it’s citizens their first dose and then going back, much later to give the second. They inferred to the public that Pfizer had indicated this was fine. Pfizer did not and is pushing back.
The article notes:
“Research has shown that the Pfizer vaccine achieves 90% effectiveness two weeks after the first dose has been administered,” he wrote.
“The second dose is a ‘booster’ shot that enhances the already high level of protection.”
Pfizer took issue with that number, saying in a statement that the phase three trial showed that the immunity began to take effect 12 days after the first dose, but that only “52.4% vaccine efficacy was observed between dose 1 and dose 2.”
After getting the second dose, effectiveness rises to 95 per cent.
That seems to indicate that the second dose is quite important and delaying it could have consequences.
The check-in person went and found a nurse who told her to wait the 90 days. They figure her PCP hadn’t seen the detailed guidance since it’s still a pretty uncommon treatment.
Pfizer has to say that, because that’s how it was tested. They don’t want people coming back at them and saying “your vaccine doesn’t work,” because someone didn’t give the vaccine in a timely manner.
This happens all the time with off-label uses of many drugs and treatments. But if the clinical judgment support it, it’s all right to do:
Some immunologists, however, have advocated for delaying second doses, especially in light of the virus’s mutations—wider coverage is better than perfect coverage, they’ve said, and the booster shot will likely still work if given a bit late.
Another example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. It’s just the way medicine works in the real world. Pfizer is shifting the responsibility for the decision to put off the second dose to the authorities who made that decision, which I think is appropriate.
You can bet Pfizer is still going to sell vaccines to Quebec.
How can they tell the difference between (a) antibodies due to the vaccine and (b) antibodies due to an asymptomatic case? Seems to me the only way to check for asymptomatic infection after getting the vaccine is to do a PCR test for the virus every few days in each individual in the study. That probably is not practical.
@BoilerMomPharmD@davej
While what you’re saying seems sensical to me, how does that relate to this statement?
Pfizer/BioNTech, however, said that their Phase 3 data did “not address whether vaccination prevents asymptomatic infection” and that “a serologic end point that can detect a history of infection regardless of whether symptoms were present … will be reported later.”
Their studies were statistically powered to demonstrate if the vaccine would prevent symptomatic COVID infection.
The endpoints they are measuring as reference in the article you linked are post-marketing surveillance. So they will be monitoring people for asymptomatic infections now as part of their mandatory follow up.
I also wonder how much the test/testing supply shortage played into this. Back in May when trials started, tests were still hard to come by.
Well, this just happened in NJ:
“BREAKING: Beginning TOMORROW, the following New Jersey residents are eligible for the #COVID19 vaccination: Ages 65 years and older Between the ages of 16-64 with medical conditions, as defined by CDC, that increase the risk of severe illness from the virus”
Governor Phil Murphy
Hopefully this means I can get vaccinated this week, but the teachers that are now being bumped are RAGING. I understand, but I think they are trying to do the right thing and vaccinate those at risk of dying if infected.
Yeah we may have to visit too if DW’s employer is still requiring it to return to PA without quarantining.
Ages 65 years and older