I read one post that thought one should get vaccinated by both Pficer and Moderna vaciines. That is if you were vaciinated with two shots of Pficer , then you should get a booster of Maderna. And I read several posts that said if
you were vaccinated with Pficer , then the booster should be Pficer.

But no posts that explained the reasoning behind the choice.

My gut feeling is to mix rather than match. But my gut also says find some rational from a reliable source.

Dan

On 19/08/2021 20:24, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
> I read one post that thought one should get vaccinated by both Pficer and Moderna vaciines. That is if you were vaciinated with two shots of Pficer , then you should get a booster of Maderna. And I read several posts that said if
> you were vaccinated with Pficer , then the booster should be Pficer.
>
> But no posts that explained the reasoning behind the choice.
>
> My gut feeling is to mix rather than match. But my gut also says find some rational from a reliable source.

Provided that you are not a woman under 40 then the AZ vaccine seems to
be holding its ground rather better than most. Oxford study has shown
that the impressively high initial efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine of 93%
wanes to 70% after about 5 months and may drop even further to 40% if
Israel is indicative of how this plays out against the Delta variant.

AZ was never that good - around 70% at best after two shots but it
appears to hold steady at that level of efficacy over the timescales
studied so far. Any deterioration of efficacy is within the noise margins.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-28-mixed-oxfordpfizer-vaccine-schedules-generate-robust-immune-response-against-covid

UK has done various mix and match tests to prepare for its Autumn
booster jabs for the most vulnerable. They have been reported.

There is another out today that says basically that against Delta it can
stop you becoming seriously ill and decreases your chances of catching
it from a a given exposure level by a factor of three (revised to 3.3).

But onward transmission is unaffected with Delta. Vaccinated people have
just as much virus shedding as unvaccinated ones. There is a conjecture
that vaccinated people may shed it for a shorter time but this is
counteracted by the fact that they don't feel ill so are out and about!

They didn't observe anything conclusive about onward transmission rates
being different for vaccinated vs unvaccinated individuals.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article <c189a448-3246-4283-ab34-bf48e10a3a95n@googlegroups.com>,
dcaster@krl.org <dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

>I read one post that thought one should get vaccinated by both Pficer and Moderna vaciines. That is if you were
>vaciinated with two shots of Pficer , then you should get a booster of Maderna. And I read several posts that said if
>you were vaccinated with Pficer , then the booster should be Pficer.
>
>But no posts that explained the reasoning behind the choice.
>
>My gut feeling is to mix rather than match. But my gut also says find some rational from a reliable source.

As far as I've seen (from out here in the cheap seats), there's no
solid study data yet about either the relative efficacy, or the
relative safety, of a mix-and-match strategy with the two mRNA
vaccines. The "booster" studies that have been done, have focused on
a third shot of the same... perhaps as a fairly inevitable consequence
of most of those studies being done by the vaccine manufacturers
themselves.

That's why (I believe) the new "get an mRNA booster 8 months after
your second mRNA dose" recommendation is sticking with a same-vaccine
strategy... there's simply more data to use to predict its effects.

The "pro" of mixing _might_ be a broader-spectrum coverage against
different virus strains, if the two mRNA vaccines tend to result in
the creation of slightly different spike proteins. As far as I know
both mRNA vaccines were based on the original (Wuhan) strain's spike
sequence, so I wouldn't really expect this to be a big factor. So far,
it seems as if the mutations affecting the spike protein haven't changed
its shape enough to significantly evade the antibodies from the mRNA
vaccines... so, the differences between third-shot-of-same and
third-shot of different might be a lot smaller than the benefit of simply
getting a third shot of either type.

I'd think that a mix-and-match strategy would be more beneficial for
the other vaccine types (viral-vector such as A-Z and J&J,
killed-virus, harvested-spike-protein, bioengineered-spike-protein)
since these are likely to vary more in their antigen makeup. I gather
that some countries have already started using a "one shot of X, a
second of Y" and are seeing better efficacy as a result.

On 19/08/2021 20:24, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
> I read one post that thought one should get vaccinated by both Pficer and Moderna vaciines. That is if you were vaciinated with two shots of Pficer , then you should get a booster of Maderna. And I read several posts that said if
> you were vaccinated with Pficer , then the booster should be Pficer.
>
> But no posts that explained the reasoning behind the choice.
>
> My gut feeling is to mix rather than match. But my gut also says find some rational from a reliable source.
>
> Dan

See Table 1 here:
<https://pmj.bmj.com/content/early/2021/07/22/postgradmedj-2021-140648>

Also see <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01463-x>

These tend to suggest that a mixed approach is better than a double dose
of the same vaccine. However, I haven't seen any published data on two
doses of the same vaccine followed by a third dose (booster) of a
different vaccine.

--

Jeff

On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 12:24:19 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
<dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

>I read one post that thought one should get vaccinated by both Pficer and Moderna vaciines. That is if you were vaciinated with two shots of Pficer , then you should get a booster of Maderna. And I read several posts that said if
>you were vaccinated with Pficer , then the booster should be Pficer.
>
>But no posts that explained the reasoning behind the choice.
>
>My gut feeling is to mix rather than match. But my gut also says find some rational from a reliable source.

From the theory of such things, mixing is batter than matching because
each vaccine has what I'll call a "footprint", and the mixed vaccines
will together cover a wider footprint, especially if they are from
different technologies.

Nor is there expected to be any added risk in mixing versus matching.

Answering such a question well exceeds the knowledge of the usual
punditry and bloggers, causing much random noise.

But the double-blind studies to prove this have not yet been done for
COVID vaccines, and the US FDA is famously, painfully risk averse.

If the FDA were left to their own devices, it would have taken ten
years to get any effective COVID vaccine versus the present eight
months to have at least ten credible candidates, allowing us the
luxury of arguing over which is best, et al.

Joe Gwinn

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 3:24:22 PM UTC-4, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
> I read one post that thought one should get vaccinated by both Pficer and Moderna vaciines. That is if you were vaciinated with two shots of Pficer , then you should get a booster of Maderna. And I read several posts that said if
> you were vaccinated with Pficer , then the booster should be Pficer.
>
> But no posts that explained the reasoning behind the choice.
>
> My gut feeling is to mix rather than match. But my gut also says find some rational from a reliable source.
>
> Dan

CDC is recommending the booster be the same vaccine as the primary series of vaccine.

On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 5:45:05 AM UTC+10, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 19/08/2021 20:24, dca...@krl.org wrote:

> But onward transmission is unaffected with Delta. Vaccinated people have
> just as much virus shedding as unvaccinated ones. There is a conjecture
> that vaccinated people may shed it for a shorter time but this is
> counteracted by the fact that they don't feel ill so are out and about!

Nobody seems to have measured onward transmission by counting the number of people infected. Contact tracing data should let you do that, but I've not seen any reports on the number of people infected by vaccinated individuals, probably because it is a vanishing small number.

If I remember rightly, the number of people infected by an unvaccinated infected person rises as the infection progresses, peaking at the point when the infected person feels sick enough to go to bed and seek medical help. People who never got sick enough to exhibit symptoms showed the same rise in infectivity as the infection progressed, but their peak infectivity was lower (because their viral population never got as big), and they didn't infect as many other people as those who went on to develop symptoms.

> They didn't observe anything conclusive about onward transmission rates being different for vaccinated vs unvaccinated individuals.

None of the reports seem to have studied actual onward transmission rates. What they report are virus counts on nose and throat swabs.

They don't even report how the virus counts change with time. They seem to be opportunistic publications of data collected during routine testing, rather than any kind of investigation of how and where people get infected.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 7:24:25 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 12:24:19 -0700 (PDT), "dca...@krl.org"
> <dca...@krl.org> wrote:
>
> >I read one post that thought one should get vaccinated by both Pficer and Moderna vaciines. That is if you were vaccinated with two shots of Pficer , then you should get a booster of Maderna. And I read several posts that said if you were vaccinated with Pficer , then the booster should be Pficer..
> >
> >But no posts that explained the reasoning behind the choice.
> >
> >My gut feeling is to mix rather than match. But my gut also says find some rational from a reliable source.
> From the theory of such things, mixing is batter than matching because
> each vaccine has what I'll call a "footprint", and the mixed vaccines
> will together cover a wider footprint, especially if they are from
> different technologies.

Sadly, the technologies differ only in the way the antigen gets generate. Both Pfizer and Moderna gets your cells to produce exactly the same version of the Covid-19 protein (which isn't quite the same as the ones the various trains of Covid-19 produce).

Joe's grasp of the theory doesn't seem to be all that sound.
> Nor is there expected to be any added risk in mixing versus matching.
>
> Answering such a question well exceeds the knowledge of the usual punditry and bloggers, causing much random noise.
>
> But the double-blind studies to prove this have not yet been done for COVID vaccines, and the US FDA is famously, painfully risk averse.
>
> If the FDA were left to their own devices, it would have taken ten years to get any effective COVID vaccine versus the present eight months to have at least ten credible candidates, allowing us the luxury of arguing over which is best, et al.

The FDA had nothing to do with the creation of candidate vaccines. Their role is strictly confined to looking at the results of the clinical trials and working out whether the results demonstrate that the vaccine is safe and effective. They were under pressure to provide a preliminary approval as fast as possible, but there's no evidence that anybody inside the organisation resented this - they were just as interested in stopping the pandemic as the rest of the population, and - by the nature of their work - a whole lot better educated about what was likely to work than politicians like Donald Trump.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 20/08/2021 05:06, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 5:45:05 AM UTC+10, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 19/08/2021 20:24, dca...@krl.org wrote:
>
>> But onward transmission is unaffected with Delta. Vaccinated people
>> have just as much virus shedding as unvaccinated ones. There is a
>> conjecture that vaccinated people may shed it for a shorter time
>> but this is counteracted by the fact that they don't feel ill so
>> are out and about!
>
> Nobody seems to have measured onward transmission by counting the
> number of people infected. Contact tracing data should let you do
> that, but I've not seen any reports on the number of people infected
> by vaccinated individuals, probably because it is a vanishing small
> number.

That hypothesis doesn't pass a basic sanity check. UK is seeing plenty
of infections of fully vaccinated people by other fully vaccinated
people. If you were right then as the number of unvaccinated people is
halved then the daily infection rate will rapidly tail off. That doesn't
seem to have happened so far and I doubt very much if it ever will.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/has-the-delta-variant-of-sars-cov-2-made-herd-immunity-impossible

They haven't published anything on this yet but I expect they will do.

REACT survey results may get some sort of handle on it.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/227713/coronavirus-infections-three-times-lower-double/

> If I remember rightly, the number of people infected by an
> unvaccinated infected person rises as the infection progresses,
> peaking at the point when the infected person feels sick enough to go
> to bed and seek medical help. People who never got sick enough to
> exhibit symptoms showed the same rise in infectivity as the infection
> progressed, but their peak infectivity was lower (because their viral
> population never got as big), and they didn't infect as many other
> people as those who went on to develop symptoms.

That was true of the earlier strains but isn't true for Delta. Peak
viral load for both vaccinated and unvaccinated people are similar.

>> They didn't observe anything conclusive about onward transmission
>> rates being different for vaccinated vs unvaccinated individuals.
>
> None of the reports seem to have studied actual onward transmission
> rates. What they report are virus counts on nose and throat swabs.

Equal chance of spreading it then AOTBE.

> They don't even report how the virus counts change with time. They
> seem to be opportunistic publications of data collected during
> routine testing, rather than any kind of investigation of how and
> where people get infected.

I am a bit surprised that they haven't reported any infectivity data on
the original strain from the volunteer challenge tests. Even though it
has been overtaken by events it would be nice to know what the minimum
number of virus particles for a 50% infective dose was.
(clearly it is a fair bit lower than that for Delta)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 6:17:46 PM UTC+10, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 20/08/2021 05:06, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 5:45:05 AM UTC+10, Martin Brown wrote:
> >> On 19/08/2021 20:24, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> >
> >> But onward transmission is unaffected with Delta. Vaccinated people
> >> have just as much virus shedding as unvaccinated ones. There is a
> >> conjecture that vaccinated people may shed it for a shorter time
> >> but this is counteracted by the fact that they don't feel ill so
> >> are out and about!
> >
> > Nobody seems to have measured onward transmission by counting the
> > number of people infected. Contact tracing data should let you do
> > that, but I've not seen any reports on the number of people infected
> > by vaccinated individuals, probably because it is a vanishing small
> > number.
>
> That hypothesis doesn't pass a basic sanity check.

Your idea of what constitutes a sanity check doesn't look all that sane.

> UK is seeing plenty of infections of fully vaccinated people by other fully vaccinated
> people.

What makes you think that?

> If you were right then as the number of unvaccinated people is halved then the daily infection rate will rapidly tail off.

If the people doing the infecting and getting infected - the unvaccinated young - aren't as well vaccinated as the rest of the population, that proposition isn't all that persuasive. When you've got a situation where Boris Johnson tells everybody that enough of the population has been vaccinated to let everybody go out and socialise, you are likely to see more infections, even when vaccination is protecting some people.

> That doesn't seem to have happened so far and I doubt very much if it ever will.

You do seem to be attached to the idea that we can't get to herd immunity against the delta variant.
>
> https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/has-the-delta-variant-of-sars-cov-2-made-herd-immunity-impossible

Lots of expressions of anxiety. Not all that many facts. Alex Comfort published a book about the medical profession

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3274188-the-anxiety-makers

which did emphasis the enthusiasm doctors have for frightening their patients, and how unscrupulous they were in finding ways to do it.
> They haven't published anything on this yet but I expect they will do.

The medical profession does publish a lot of unscientific nonsense. The Cochrane Collaboration

https://www.cochrane.org/

was created to deal with this, but there a plenty old-style medical authorities in positions of power. Being a medical professor at Oxford is just the kind of job that that sort of character lusts after.
>
> REACT survey results may get some sort of handle on it.
> https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/227713/coronavirus-infections-three-times-lower-double/

and seems to say what I was saying.

> > If I remember rightly, the number of people infected by an
> > unvaccinated infected person rises as the infection progresses,
> > peaking at the point when the infected person feels sick enough to go
> > to bed and seek medical help. People who never got sick enough to
> > exhibit symptoms showed the same rise in infectivity as the infection
> > progressed, but their peak infectivity was lower (because their viral
> > population never got as big), and they didn't infect as many other
> > people as those who went on to develop symptoms.
>
> That was true of the earlier strains but isn't true for Delta. Peak
> viral load for both vaccinated and unvaccinated people are similar.

As measured by nose and throat swab tests, which is to say, before you exhibit clinical symptoms.

> >> They didn't observe anything conclusive about onward transmission rates being different for vaccinated vs unvaccinated individuals.
> >
> > None of the reports seem to have studied actual onward transmission rates. What they report are virus counts on nose and throat swabs.
>
> Equal chance of spreading it then AOTBE.

Except that they aren't remotely equal. Breathing doesn't spread much in the way of virus loaded droplets. Speaking is more effective, and singing even more efective, but neither comes close coughing and sneezing is a whole more effective. The last two might count as symptoms.

> > They don't even report how the virus counts change with time. They seem to be opportunistic publications of data collected during routine testing, rather than any kind of investigation of how and where people get infected.
>
> I am a bit surprised that they haven't reported any infectivity data on the original strain from the volunteer challenge tests. Even though it has been overtaken by events it would be nice to know what the minimum number of virus particles for a 50% infective dose was (clearly it is a fair bit lower than that for Delta) .

Delta seems to be more infective than the original strains. This could mean that you churn out more virus particles when you first get infected - but it isn't obvious how the virus might get that to happen - or that it's more effective at getting into the victims cells in the first place. The spike protein in the early strains spent most their time in the folded state - which buries the receptor bonding domain, and might have let the virus particle get deeper into the lungs before they latched onto a host cell, but might have exposed them to other defenses while they were getting further down the airways.

I'm less surprised about the absence of any reports on that. You'd have to have planned to collect that kind of data before you started the study. Talking about virus counts in throat and nose swabs is exploiting data from routine tests, which takes a lot less effort.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 3:24:22 PM UTC-4, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
> I read one post that thought one should get vaccinated by both Pficer and Moderna vaciines. That is if you were vaciinated with two shots of Pficer , then you should get a booster of Maderna. And I read several posts that said if
> you were vaccinated with Pficer , then the booster should be Pficer.
>
> But no posts that explained the reasoning behind the choice.
>
> My gut feeling is to mix rather than match. But my gut also says find some rational from a reliable source.
>
> Dan

As long as CDC recommendation is to use same vaccine, you probably won't have a choice in the matter because the vaccination center will use your vaccine record to determine which vaccine you receive. CDC has a record of your individual vaccinations btw. And why is this the CDC recommendation? The answer is simply because they have the most data for that choice and it shows the booster does well enough.

On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 10:36:23 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 3:24:22 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> > I read one post that thought one should get vaccinated by both Pficer and Moderna vaciines. That is if you were vaciinated with two shots of Pficer , then you should get a booster of Maderna. And I read several posts that said if
> > you were vaccinated with Pficer , then the booster should be Pficer.
> >
> > But no posts that explained the reasoning behind the choice.
> >
> > My gut feeling is to mix rather than match. But my gut also says find some rational from a reliable source.
> >
> > Dan
> As long as CDC recommendation is to use same vaccine, you probably won't have a choice in the matter because the vaccination center will use your vaccine record to determine which vaccine you receive. CDC has a record of your individual vaccinations btw. And why is this the CDC recommendation? The answer is simply because they have the most data for that choice and it shows the booster does well enough.

I think the answer is even simpler. I suspect it was that whoever made that recommendation thought no one could criticize that choice. I doubt that they looked at any data.

Dan

On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 11:07:35 AM UTC-4, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 10:36:23 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 3:24:22 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> > > I read one post that thought one should get vaccinated by both Pficer and Moderna vaciines. That is if you were vaciinated with two shots of Pficer , then you should get a booster of Maderna. And I read several posts that said if
> > > you were vaccinated with Pficer , then the booster should be Pficer.
> > >
> > > But no posts that explained the reasoning behind the choice.
> > >
> > > My gut feeling is to mix rather than match. But my gut also says find some rational from a reliable source.
> > >
> > > Dan
> > As long as CDC recommendation is to use same vaccine, you probably won't have a choice in the matter because the vaccination center will use your vaccine record to determine which vaccine you receive. CDC has a record of your individual vaccinations btw. And why is this the CDC recommendation? The answer is simply because they have the most data for that choice and it shows the booster does well enough.
> I think the answer is even simpler. I suspect it was that whoever made that recommendation thought no one could criticize that choice. I doubt that they looked at any data.

It's even simpler than that. Pfizer and Moderna have been developing this program for months now, and CDC is using their data and their recommendation.

>
> Dan

On 8/20/2021 9:18 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 11:07:35 AM UTC-4, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
>> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 10:36:23 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 3:24:22 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
>>>> I read one post that thought one should get vaccinated by both Pficer
>>>> and Moderna vaciines. That is if you were vaciinated with two shots of
>>>> Pficer , then you should get a booster of Maderna. And I read several
>>>> posts that said if you were vaccinated with Pficer , then the booster
>>>> should be Pficer.
>>>>
>>>> But no posts that explained the reasoning behind the choice.
>>>>
>>>> My gut feeling is to mix rather than match. But my gut also says find
>>>> some rational from a reliable source.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>> As long as CDC recommendation is to use same vaccine, you probably won't
>>> have a choice in the matter because the vaccination center will use your
>>> vaccine record to determine which vaccine you receive. CDC has a record
>>> of your individual vaccinations btw. And why is this the CDC
>>> recommendation? The answer is simply because they have the most data for
>>> that choice and it shows the booster does well enough.
>> I think the answer is even simpler. I suspect it was that whoever made
>> that recommendation thought no one could criticize that choice. I doubt
>> that they looked at any data.
>
> It's even simpler than that. Pfizer and Moderna have been developing this
> program for months now, and CDC is using their data and their
> recommendation.

+1

And, from the public's point of view (cuz you have to convince *them* that
your strategy is safe/rational/effective), it's easier to pitch this as
"if two shots was good, three shots will be BETTER".

Otherwise, you get folks thinking "was 2 pfizer + 1 moderna a better
choice than 2 moderna + 1 pfizer?" etc.

On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 2:53:28 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
> On 8/20/2021 9:18 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 11:07:35 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> >> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 10:36:23 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 3:24:22 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> >>>> I read one post that thought one should get vaccinated by both Pficer
> >>>> and Moderna vaciines. That is if you were vaciinated with two shots of
> >>>> Pficer , then you should get a booster of Maderna. And I read several
> >>>> posts that said if you were vaccinated with Pficer , then the booster
> >>>> should be Pficer.
> >>>>
> >>>> But no posts that explained the reasoning behind the choice.
> >>>>
> >>>> My gut feeling is to mix rather than match. But my gut also says find
> >>>> some rational from a reliable source.
> >>>>
> >>>> Dan
> >>> As long as CDC recommendation is to use same vaccine, you probably won't
> >>> have a choice in the matter because the vaccination center will use your
> >>> vaccine record to determine which vaccine you receive. CDC has a record
> >>> of your individual vaccinations btw. And why is this the CDC
> >>> recommendation? The answer is simply because they have the most data for
> >>> that choice and it shows the booster does well enough.
> >> I think the answer is even simpler. I suspect it was that whoever made
> >> that recommendation thought no one could criticize that choice. I doubt
> >> that they looked at any data.
> >
> > It's even simpler than that. Pfizer and Moderna have been developing this
> > program for months now, and CDC is using their data and their
> > recommendation.
> +1
>
> And, from the public's point of view (cuz you have to convince *them* that
> your strategy is safe/rational/effective), it's easier to pitch this as
> "if two shots was good, three shots will be BETTER".
>
> Otherwise, you get folks thinking "was 2 pfizer + 1 moderna a better
> choice than 2 moderna + 1 pfizer?" etc.
A booster for J&J is also in the works. The CDC is waiting for J&J to complete its work on the matter, and the booster will be the J&J vaccine. The booster program is a really big deal, and the FDA is in on the act, they have to approve it. There will be no boosters until FDA approves their use. Right now it looks unlikely people will be given the choice to mix vaccines, they will have to stick with primary series vaccine.

On 8/23/2021 1:39 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 2:53:28 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
>> On 8/20/2021 9:18 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 11:07:35 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
>>>> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 10:36:23 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 3:24:22 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I read one post that thought one should get vaccinated by both
>>>>>> Pficer and Moderna vaciines. That is if you were vaciinated with
>>>>>> two shots of Pficer , then you should get a booster of Maderna.
>>>>>> And I read several posts that said if you were vaccinated with
>>>>>> Pficer , then the booster should be Pficer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But no posts that explained the reasoning behind the choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My gut feeling is to mix rather than match. But my gut also says
>>>>>> find some rational from a reliable source.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan
>>>>> As long as CDC recommendation is to use same vaccine, you probably
>>>>> won't have a choice in the matter because the vaccination center
>>>>> will use your vaccine record to determine which vaccine you receive.
>>>>> CDC has a record of your individual vaccinations btw. And why is
>>>>> this the CDC recommendation? The answer is simply because they have
>>>>> the most data for that choice and it shows the booster does well
>>>>> enough.
>>>> I think the answer is even simpler. I suspect it was that whoever
>>>> made that recommendation thought no one could criticize that choice. I
>>>> doubt that they looked at any data.
>>>
>>> It's even simpler than that. Pfizer and Moderna have been developing
>>> this program for months now, and CDC is using their data and their
>>> recommendation.
>> +1
>>
>> And, from the public's point of view (cuz you have to convince *them*
>> that your strategy is safe/rational/effective), it's easier to pitch this
>> as "if two shots was good, three shots will be BETTER".
>>
>> Otherwise, you get folks thinking "was 2 pfizer + 1 moderna a better
>> choice than 2 moderna + 1 pfizer?" etc.
>
> A booster for J&J is also in the works. The CDC is waiting for J&J to
> complete its work on the matter, and the booster will be the J&J vaccine.
> The booster program is a really big deal, and the FDA is in on the act, they
> have to approve it. There will be no boosters until FDA approves their use.
> Right now it looks unlikely people will be given the choice to mix vaccines,
> they will have to stick with primary series vaccine.

That, of course, relying on the integrity of any "database" of past
vaccinations. If that existed and was authoritative, there'd be no
value to counterfeit vaccination cards.

Or, they will simply walk into a drugstore and ask for one.
Apparently, recordkeeping isn't anywhere near as good as
it should be as I've heard from two friends who've done
exactly this (having already *been* vaccinated). <frown>

But, then again, there's nothing (practical) to stop one from purchasing
medicines "on-line" (or, "across-the-border") and "self-prescribing"!

On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 6:39:03 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
> On 8/23/2021 1:39 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 2:53:28 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
> >> On 8/20/2021 9:18 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >>> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 11:07:35 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 10:36:23 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 3:24:22 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> I read one post that thought one should get vaccinated by both
> >>>>>> Pficer and Moderna vaciines. That is if you were vaciinated with
> >>>>>> two shots of Pficer , then you should get a booster of Maderna.
> >>>>>> And I read several posts that said if you were vaccinated with
> >>>>>> Pficer , then the booster should be Pficer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But no posts that explained the reasoning behind the choice.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My gut feeling is to mix rather than match. But my gut also says
> >>>>>> find some rational from a reliable source.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dan
> >>>>> As long as CDC recommendation is to use same vaccine, you probably
> >>>>> won't have a choice in the matter because the vaccination center
> >>>>> will use your vaccine record to determine which vaccine you receive..
> >>>>> CDC has a record of your individual vaccinations btw. And why is
> >>>>> this the CDC recommendation? The answer is simply because they have
> >>>>> the most data for that choice and it shows the booster does well
> >>>>> enough.
> >>>> I think the answer is even simpler. I suspect it was that whoever
> >>>> made that recommendation thought no one could criticize that choice. I
> >>>> doubt that they looked at any data.
> >>>
> >>> It's even simpler than that. Pfizer and Moderna have been developing
> >>> this program for months now, and CDC is using their data and their
> >>> recommendation.
> >> +1
> >>
> >> And, from the public's point of view (cuz you have to convince *them*
> >> that your strategy is safe/rational/effective), it's easier to pitch this
> >> as "if two shots was good, three shots will be BETTER".
> >>
> >> Otherwise, you get folks thinking "was 2 pfizer + 1 moderna a better
> >> choice than 2 moderna + 1 pfizer?" etc.
> >
> > A booster for J&J is also in the works. The CDC is waiting for J&J to
> > complete its work on the matter, and the booster will be the J&J vaccine.
> > The booster program is a really big deal, and the FDA is in on the act, they
> > have to approve it. There will be no boosters until FDA approves their use.
> > Right now it looks unlikely people will be given the choice to mix vaccines,
> > they will have to stick with primary series vaccine.
> That, of course, relying on the integrity of any "database" of past
> vaccinations. If that existed and was authoritative, there'd be no
> value to counterfeit vaccination cards.
>
> Or, they will simply walk into a drugstore and ask for one.
> Apparently, recordkeeping isn't anywhere near as good as
> it should be as I've heard from two friends who've done
> exactly this (having already *been* vaccinated). <frown>
>
> But, then again, there's nothing (practical) to stop one from purchasing
> medicines "on-line" (or, "across-the-border") and "self-prescribing"!

CDC has VAMS
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/reporting/vams/faqs/index.html
If you're primary series was registered there, and most were, then they'll tell you which booster you can receive. All the various health departments, county, city, state, used VAMS in addition to all the pharmacies. Anyone who administers vaccines uses VAMS in real time. If there's a problem with your VAMS record, there's going to be a problem paying for the vaccine, and that's all they really care about..
Right now they have the booster program going for immunocompromised people. They don't verify anything. Anyone can go into a participating pharmacy or government health clinic and claim to be immunocompromised, and you can get any vaccine you want. The window on that is going to close in September.

On 8/23/2021 4:20 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:

>> Or, they will simply walk into a drugstore and ask for one. Apparently,
>> recordkeeping isn't anywhere near as good as it should be as I've heard
>> from two friends who've done exactly this (having already *been*
>> vaccinated). <frown>
>>
>> But, then again, there's nothing (practical) to stop one from purchasing
>> medicines "on-line" (or, "across-the-border") and "self-prescribing"!
>
> CDC has VAMS
> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/reporting/vams/faqs/index.html If
> you're primary series was registered there, and most were, then they'll tell
> you which booster you can receive. All the various health departments,
> county, city, state, used VAMS in addition to all the pharmacies. Anyone who
> administers vaccines uses VAMS in real time. If there's a problem with your
> VAMS record, there's going to be a problem paying for the vaccine, and
> that's all they really care about..

My first shot, all I had to do was wave my ID under their nose to
"prove" I was the person registered for that appointment. There
was no validation of my credential nor (as far a I could tell)
record of *me* (and not just my name -- how many "John Smiths"
are there?)

My second dose they took the ID from me and someone recorded information
off of it into a laptop. Obviously, more than just "checking to make
sure I *appeared* to be me".

The existence of a real database should worry the antivaxers as
it's something they can't work-around with a counterfeit
vaccination card. E.g., if insurers could deny covid coverage to
folks who *chose* not to be vaccinated (barring religious/health
exemptions), they'd have to find someone to falsify their
entries *in* such a database as the vaccination card wouldn't
be considered authoritative.

[And, insurers would have a big financial incentive to exclude
coverage from those sorts of folks]

> Right now they have the booster program
> going for immunocompromised people. They don't verify anything. Anyone can
> go into a participating pharmacy or government health clinic and claim to be
> immunocompromised, and you can get any vaccine you want. The window on that
> is going to close in September.

Yes, I was told they had to "fill out a form" and no questions asked.

While the booster roll-out will likely be too late to be maximally
effective, I still think it wiser (and morally more just) to "wait
my turn" than to try to "game the system" for some dubious advantage.

On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 8:13:04 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
> On 8/23/2021 4:20 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>
> >> Or, they will simply walk into a drugstore and ask for one. Apparently,
> >> recordkeeping isn't anywhere near as good as it should be as I've heard
> >> from two friends who've done exactly this (having already *been*
> >> vaccinated). <frown>
> >>
> >> But, then again, there's nothing (practical) to stop one from purchasing
> >> medicines "on-line" (or, "across-the-border") and "self-prescribing"!
> >
> > CDC has VAMS
> > https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/reporting/vams/faqs/index.html If
> > you're primary series was registered there, and most were, then they'll tell
> > you which booster you can receive. All the various health departments,
> > county, city, state, used VAMS in addition to all the pharmacies. Anyone who
> > administers vaccines uses VAMS in real time. If there's a problem with your
> > VAMS record, there's going to be a problem paying for the vaccine, and
> > that's all they really care about..
> My first shot, all I had to do was wave my ID under their nose to
> "prove" I was the person registered for that appointment. There
> was no validation of my credential nor (as far a I could tell)
> record of *me* (and not just my name -- how many "John Smiths"
> are there?)

How much information did you give them to get that first appointment?

>
> My second dose they took the ID from me and someone recorded information
> off of it into a laptop. Obviously, more than just "checking to make
> sure I *appeared* to be me".
>
> The existence of a real database should worry the antivaxers as
> it's something they can't work-around with a counterfeit
> vaccination card. E.g., if insurers could deny covid coverage to
> folks who *chose* not to be vaccinated (barring religious/health
> exemptions), they'd have to find someone to falsify their
> entries *in* such a database as the vaccination card wouldn't
> be considered authoritative.

Insurers are already denying waiving coinsurance and copayments for the unvaccinated like they do for the vaccinated. The jackasses are looking at paying up to their full annual deductible and then even more for the coinsurance. For a lot of people that's going to be a lot of money.

>
> [And, insurers would have a big financial incentive to exclude
> coverage from those sorts of folks]
> > Right now they have the booster program
> > going for immunocompromised people. They don't verify anything. Anyone can
> > go into a participating pharmacy or government health clinic and claim to be
> > immunocompromised, and you can get any vaccine you want. The window on that
> > is going to close in September.
> Yes, I was told they had to "fill out a form" and no questions asked.
>
> While the booster roll-out will likely be too late to be maximally
> effective, I still think it wiser (and morally more just) to "wait
> my turn" than to try to "game the system" for some dubious advantage.

On 8/23/2021 6:39 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 8:13:04 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
>> On 8/23/2021 4:20 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>>
>>>> Or, they will simply walk into a drugstore and ask for one.
>>>> Apparently, recordkeeping isn't anywhere near as good as it should be
>>>> as I've heard from two friends who've done exactly this (having
>>>> already *been* vaccinated). <frown>
>>>>
>>>> But, then again, there's nothing (practical) to stop one from
>>>> purchasing medicines "on-line" (or, "across-the-border") and
>>>> "self-prescribing"!
>>>
>>> CDC has VAMS
>>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/reporting/vams/faqs/index.html If
>>> you're primary series was registered there, and most were, then they'll
>>> tell you which booster you can receive. All the various health
>>> departments, county, city, state, used VAMS in addition to all the
>>> pharmacies. Anyone who administers vaccines uses VAMS in real time. If
>>> there's a problem with your VAMS record, there's going to be a problem
>>> paying for the vaccine, and that's all they really care about..
>> My first shot, all I had to do was wave my ID under their nose to "prove"
>> I was the person registered for that appointment. There was no validation
>> of my credential nor (as far a I could tell) record of *me* (and not just
>> my name -- how many "John Smiths" are there?)
>
> How much information did you give them to get that first appointment?

My name and email address. They *assumed* I was "of the right age"
to get the shot at that time. The email address that I gave them
was retired as soon as the second dose was administered.

[If they have a problem, they can resort to a general announcement
as it's likely other people have changed their email addresses, as well]

>> My second dose they took the ID from me and someone recorded information
>> off of it into a laptop. Obviously, more than just "checking to make sure
>> I *appeared* to be me".
>>
>> The existence of a real database should worry the antivaxers as it's
>> something they can't work-around with a counterfeit vaccination card.
>> E.g., if insurers could deny covid coverage to folks who *chose* not to be
>> vaccinated (barring religious/health exemptions), they'd have to find
>> someone to falsify their entries *in* such a database as the vaccination
>> card wouldn't be considered authoritative.
>
> Insurers are already denying waiving coinsurance and copayments for the
> unvaccinated like they do for the vaccinated. The jackasses are looking at
> paying up to their full annual deductible and then even more for the
> coinsurance. For a lot of people that's going to be a lot of money.

Ah, well. Consider it a "side effect" of the UN-vaccine! :>

Wait until they start allocating health resources based on
vaccination status ("Sorry, the data suggests that your outcome
as an unvaccinated pt is likely not good enough to allocate
our scarce resources to you, over Joe Vaccinated.")

Hey, but that's just a consequence of exercising your freedom, right?

"No shirt, no shoes, no service"

But, there's a guy in the parking lot selling counterfeit vaccination
cards! If you punch holes in each end of the card, thread an elastic
cord through those holes, you can wear it as a *mask*!!! (that's about
all the good it will do for you!)

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

As ironically stated by the John Doe <always.look@message.header> troll
in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me> who has posted yet another
incorectly formatted USENET posting on Mon, 23 Aug 2021 06:42:28 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <sfvg0k$q4k$3@dont-email.me>.

On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 10:27:05 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
> On 8/23/2021 6:39 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 8:13:04 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
> >> On 8/23/2021 4:20 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Or, they will simply walk into a drugstore and ask for one.
> >>>> Apparently, recordkeeping isn't anywhere near as good as it should be
> >>>> as I've heard from two friends who've done exactly this (having
> >>>> already *been* vaccinated). <frown>
> >>>>
> >>>> But, then again, there's nothing (practical) to stop one from
> >>>> purchasing medicines "on-line" (or, "across-the-border") and
> >>>> "self-prescribing"!
> >>>
> >>> CDC has VAMS
> >>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/reporting/vams/faqs/index.html If
> >>> you're primary series was registered there, and most were, then they'll
> >>> tell you which booster you can receive. All the various health
> >>> departments, county, city, state, used VAMS in addition to all the
> >>> pharmacies. Anyone who administers vaccines uses VAMS in real time. If
> >>> there's a problem with your VAMS record, there's going to be a problem
> >>> paying for the vaccine, and that's all they really care about..
> >> My first shot, all I had to do was wave my ID under their nose to "prove"
> >> I was the person registered for that appointment. There was no validation
> >> of my credential nor (as far a I could tell) record of *me* (and not just
> >> my name -- how many "John Smiths" are there?)
> >
> > How much information did you give them to get that first appointment?
> My name and email address. They *assumed* I was "of the right age"
> to get the shot at that time. The email address that I gave them
> was retired as soon as the second dose was administered.
>
> [If they have a problem, they can resort to a general announcement
> as it's likely other people have changed their email addresses, as well]

That seems pretty silly. They can have issues with specific lots. If the only way they have of reaching you is that email address, you may, for example, not be protected at all due to a handling issue that was not discovered until now.

Being afraid of being tracked or contacted is nearly as silly as being afraid of the vaccine.

> >> My second dose they took the ID from me and someone recorded information
> >> off of it into a laptop. Obviously, more than just "checking to make sure
> >> I *appeared* to be me".
> >>
> >> The existence of a real database should worry the antivaxers as it's
> >> something they can't work-around with a counterfeit vaccination card.
> >> E.g., if insurers could deny covid coverage to folks who *chose* not to be
> >> vaccinated (barring religious/health exemptions), they'd have to find
> >> someone to falsify their entries *in* such a database as the vaccination
> >> card wouldn't be considered authoritative.
> >
> > Insurers are already denying waiving coinsurance and copayments for the
> > unvaccinated like they do for the vaccinated. The jackasses are looking at
> > paying up to their full annual deductible and then even more for the
> > coinsurance. For a lot of people that's going to be a lot of money.
> Ah, well. Consider it a "side effect" of the UN-vaccine! :>
>
> Wait until they start allocating health resources based on
> vaccination status ("Sorry, the data suggests that your outcome
> as an unvaccinated pt is likely not good enough to allocate
> our scarce resources to you, over Joe Vaccinated.")

Not likely. They would not be inclined to use secondary indicators of expected outcome when they have plenty of primary indicators by examining your condition.

Why create fantasy situations when we have plenty of real ones to deal with?

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 8/23/2021 7:12 AM, Don Y wrote:
> On 8/23/2021 4:20 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>
>>> Or, they will simply walk into a drugstore and ask for one. Apparently,
>>> recordkeeping isn't anywhere near as good as it should be as I've heard
>>> from two friends who've done exactly this (having already *been*
>>> vaccinated). <frown>
>>>
>>> But, then again, there's nothing (practical) to stop one from
>>> purchasing medicines "on-line" (or, "across-the-border") and
>>> "self-prescribing"!
>>
>> CDC has VAMS
>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/reporting/vams/faqs/index.html If
>> you're primary series was registered there, and most were, then
>> they'll tell
>> you which booster you can receive. All the various health departments,
>> county, city, state, used VAMS in addition to all the pharmacies.
>> Anyone who
>> administers vaccines uses VAMS in real time. If there's a problem with
>> your
>> VAMS record, there's going to be a problem paying for the vaccine, and
>> that's all they really care about..
>
> My first shot, all I had to do was wave my ID under their nose to
> "prove" I was the person registered for that appointment.  There
> was no validation of my credential nor (as far a I could tell)
> record of *me* (and not just my name -- how many "John Smiths"
> are there?

In the US: 44,935
How many in your area?

> My second dose they took the ID from me and someone recorded information
> off of it into a laptop.  Obviously, more than just "checking to make
> sure I *appeared* to be me".
>
> The existence of a real database should worry the antivaxers as
> it's something they can't work-around with a counterfeit
> vaccination card.  E.g., if insurers could deny covid coverage to
> folks who *chose* not to be vaccinated (barring religious/health
> exemptions), they'd have to find someone to falsify their
> entries *in* such a database as the vaccination card wouldn't
> be considered authoritative.
>
> [And, insurers would have a big financial incentive to exclude
> coverage from those sorts of folks]
>
>> Right now they have the booster program
>> going for immunocompromised people. They don't verify anything. Anyone
>> can
>> go into a participating pharmacy or government health clinic and claim
>> to be
>> immunocompromised, and you can get any vaccine you want. The window on
>> that
>> is going to close in September.
>
> Yes, I was told they had to "fill out a form" and no questions asked.
>
> While the booster roll-out will likely be too late to be maximally
> effective, I still think it wiser (and morally more just) to "wait
> my turn" than to try to "game the system" for some dubious advantage.
>

On 8/24/2021 2:26 PM, John S wrote:
> On 8/23/2021 7:12 AM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 8/23/2021 4:20 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>>
>>>> Or, they will simply walk into a drugstore and ask for one. Apparently,
>>>> recordkeeping isn't anywhere near as good as it should be as I've heard
>>>> from two friends who've done exactly this (having already *been*
>>>> vaccinated). <frown>
>>>>
>>>> But, then again, there's nothing (practical) to stop one from purchasing
>>>> medicines "on-line" (or, "across-the-border") and "self-prescribing"!
>>>
>>> CDC has VAMS
>>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/reporting/vams/faqs/index.html If
>>> you're primary series was registered there, and most were, then they'll tell
>>> you which booster you can receive. All the various health departments,
>>> county, city, state, used VAMS in addition to all the pharmacies. Anyone who
>>> administers vaccines uses VAMS in real time. If there's a problem with your
>>> VAMS record, there's going to be a problem paying for the vaccine, and
>>> that's all they really care about..
>>
>> My first shot, all I had to do was wave my ID under their nose to
>> "prove" I was the person registered for that appointment. There
>> was no validation of my credential nor (as far a I could tell)
>> record of *me* (and not just my name -- how many "John Smiths"
>> are there?
>
> In the US: 44,935
> How many in your area?

Hard to say -- given that our winter population increases as
many of the John Smith's from other parts of the country opt to
winter, here.