vaccine required?

[Daniel A]

16 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

We had the Moderna, and I hope the AT LEAST 6 months also applies to that vaccine.

 

I wish NY state would realize the at least 6 months. We are looking at river boat cruises in the USA this summer that require vaccines for all passengers and crew starting July 1. Then DW looked at NY restrictions for reentering the state except for  contiguous states. They are for all who are past THREE MONTHS from their second shots. Ours were on March 1st so we would be beyond the 3 months for the summer.

I don't believe you will have any problem.  As the CDC expands their guidance beyond 3 month efficacy the state will probably follow.

 

If you think about it, vaccinations started in earnest in early January.  That would mean starting in early April (now) everybody who had been vaccinated starting in January will need to be revaccinated starting now if they really thought the vaccines were only effective for 3 months.

[wowzz]

3 hours ago, dog said:

manufacturers recommendations of 3-4 weeks.

It's not a recommendation.  It is what the "gap" was on the research findings that were submitted for approval. For obvious reasons the research did not look at, 12, 16, 20 weeks between vaccinations. 

Throughout the world, various experts have decided that the 4 week gap is not written in stone, and that a longer gap, allowing for more of the population to receive an initial vaccine, wouid be more effective.

If in doubt, look at the UK death rates from CV19,  which are now virtually nil, thanks to vaccinating as many people as possible with one dose, rather than trying to administer two doses within a four week window.

[Steelers36]

7 hours ago, PescadoAmarillo said:

I would be very happy if every store and restaurant I hope to once again frequent would require a vaccine passport to enter.

It would go a long way to getting buy-in and participation from the public.  Far more so than political leaders urging us to do so.  I can say that the waffling on AstraZeneca here in Canada has people designated for that vaccine both anxious and refusing it.

 

[Steelers36]

5 hours ago, dog said:

 

 

hopeully people will see I made a correction here by adding Atleast. 
my apologies 

 

don’t sweat the small stuff 

be safe. Be kind. 

And in a month they will say effective for at least 7 months, and so on.  This was all just an update on the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine since the time past from trials. 

 

It will be useful to track this over the months as one year approaches so we find out how the efficacy hold up and if there is likely to be a need for annual boosters like the flu vaccine.

 

[Steelers36]

4 hours ago, dog said:

Yes, this is what I thought too. It is Pfizer that I got yesterday. With 16 weeks between doses my next one is July. 

I urge you to write your MPP and your local Health Unit and ask them where is the medical evidence that such a gap maintains the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine and doesn't render the first dose somewhat useless.  The NACI recommendation was not adopted by PHAC - at least for some time.  The whole thing is under review now - at least for "at risk" groups.  NACI was jumping the gun on this one - and we will never know how much politics played into it.  The full wording indicates it was driven by vaccine shortage and with sufficient supplies (any day now), the dosage gap should be kept as much as possible to the guidelines (max 6 weeks). 

 

More Canadians should be questioning this decision as NACI is a complete outlier in their position.  PHAC, CDC, EMA all had a max 6-week guideline.  If they told me 8, I wouldn't sweat it too much, but 16 is beyond the pale, IMO.  MSM is not questioning this an simply taking the pols statement that based on "evidence".  Almost no one asks "What evidence?".  I say, "Show me the evidence".

 

Edited April 1, 2021 by Steelers36

[Steelers36]

55 minutes ago, wowzz said:

It's not a recommendation.  It is what the "gap" was on the research findings that were submitted for approval. For obvious reasons the research did not look at, 12, 16, 20 weeks between vaccinations. 

Throughout the world, various experts have decided that the 4 week gap is not written in stone, and that a longer gap, allowing for more of the population to receive an initial vaccine, wouid be more effective.

If in doubt, look at the UK death rates from CV19,  which are now virtually nil, thanks to vaccinating as many people as possible with one dose, rather than trying to administer two doses within a four week window.

I hear that, but what if using a large delay such as 16 weeks reduces the efficacy of the total vaccination?  The second shot is a wake-up call to the first shot (you can read about this).  What if after 16 weeks, the first shot situation is such that the second shot doesn't do it's intended job?  Perhaps a third dose is needed? 

 

If that, then what is better?  IDK for sure, but why fly by seat of pants?  In our Province, they should be doing more to get to at risk groups now that the elderly are largely taken care of who live in group settings and those at home.  Workers in congregate settings, for example, are not being prioritized enough, IMO.  Instead, the Province is shutting down and restricting businesses that are not contributing much at all to the numbers.

 

[nocl]

2 hours ago, wowzz said:

It's not a recommendation.  It is what the "gap" was on the research findings that were submitted for approval. For obvious reasons the research did not look at, 12, 16, 20 weeks between vaccinations. 

Throughout the world, various experts have decided that the 4 week gap is not written in stone, and that a longer gap, allowing for more of the population to receive an initial vaccine, wouid be more effective.

If in doubt, look at the UK death rates from CV19,  which are now virtually nil, thanks to vaccinating as many people as possible with one dose, rather than trying to administer two doses within a four week window.

How ever it is very unusual to modify administration instructions that have not been tested first. The term hope and a prayer comes to mind.

[D C]

18 minutes ago, nocl said:

How ever it is very unusual to modify administration instructions that have not been tested first. The term hope and a prayer comes to mind.

Given the effectiveness after 1 dose, I do wonder how they established 1) the necessity for two doses, and 2) the duration between. 

 

Surely there was some science behind it and they made a best guess in the short time they had, but I can't help but imagine a stereotypical corporate-America meeting where people without direct knowledge are throwing around baseless suggestions until the loud voice in the room wins. 

[nocl]

2 minutes ago, D C said:

Given the effectiveness after 1 dose, I do wonder how they established 1) the necessity for two doses, and 2) the duration between. 

 

Surely there was some science behind it and they made a best guess in the short time they had, but I can't help but imagine a stereotypical corporate-America meeting where people without direct knowledge are throwing around baseless suggestions until the loud voice in the room wins. 

Because of the costs involved in clinical trials a company will use the information from preclinical, phase 1  and phase 2 (safety and dose ranging trials) and experience with other similar products to determine the parameters for the phase 3 trials. They will often have discussions with the appropriate regulatory authority about what would be needed for approval.

 

The parameters set up and tested in phase 3 trials is generally what is used for initial product labeling, because that represents the administration approach that has actually been tested.  Deviating  from those instructions without appropriate testing is a guess that it will work. It might be an educated guess, but still an unproven guess. or hypothesis, if you like that term better. That is why in the US the FDA has not deviated from the tested dosing regimen.

[K.T.B.]

I decided to put this in this thread, so we may find out what the deal is about vaccines being required or not:   CDC cruise guidelines coming soon, Miami-Dade mayor says after call with CDC director

[caribill]

13 hours ago, PescadoAmarillo said:

 The most egregious offender of this, IMO, are phone companies that sell my phone number, opening me up to the constant pestering from people wanting to sell me solar panels and extended car warranties (why is it when I tell them I’d love an extended warranty on my 21 year old SUV, they hang up on ME? 😆).

 

The phone companies are not selling your phone number.

 

Computers just dial every number sooner or later. The people behind that do not care if many of their calls are to non-existent numbers.

[caribill]

[wowzz]

6 hours ago, nocl said:

How ever it is very unusual to modify administration instructions that have not been tested first. The term hope and a prayer comes to mind.

The decision in the UK to increase the gap from 4 weeks to 12 weeks was based on the advice of medical specialists.

As can be seen from all the data, the decision was obviously the correct one,  with hundreds of lives saved as a result. Lockdown in the UK is being relaxed, whereas in much of Europe the reverse is the case.

 

[ontheweb]

9 hours ago, nocl said:

Because of the costs involved in clinical trials a company will use the information from preclinical, phase 1  and phase 2 (safety and dose ranging trials) and experience with other similar products to determine the parameters for the phase 3 trials. They will often have discussions with the appropriate regulatory authority about what would be needed for approval.

 

The parameters set up and tested in phase 3 trials is generally what is used for initial product labeling, because that represents the administration approach that has actually been tested.  Deviating  from those instructions without appropriate testing is a guess that it will work. It might be an educated guess, but still an unproven guess. or hypothesis, if you like that term better. That is why in the US the FDA has not deviated from the tested dosing regimen.

Thank you for sharing your expertise in this field.

[beg3yrs]

11 hours ago, K.T.B. said:

I decided to put this in this thread, so we may find out what the deal is about vaccines being required or not:   CDC cruise guidelines coming soon, Miami-Dade mayor says after call with CDC director

Thanks for sharing that. I find it interesting that the director told the mayor the guidelines would be released "soon". She was questioned by a congressional committee about a week ago and said the same thing. She dodged multiple questions regarding a more specific time period as soon could mean just about anything as it's a relative term.

 

Also, during that hearing she demonstrated a relative lack of knowledge about the process of getting the guidelines (technical instructions) released as she said they were in an "inter-agency review" process. When pressed she demonstrated she really had no idea which agencies were involved.

 

This tells me she wasn't properly prepared by her staff for the hearing. In my experience when that happens things don't go well for the staff afterwards. However, a week later still saying "soon" without providing a more specific time-frame doesn't bode well to me. Somewhere out there should be a schedule for getting the document reviewed, approved and issued.

[ontheweb]

13 hours ago, nocl said:

Because of the costs involved in clinical trials a company will use the information from preclinical, phase 1  and phase 2 (safety and dose ranging trials) and experience with other similar products to determine the parameters for the phase 3 trials. They will often have discussions with the appropriate regulatory authority about what would be needed for approval.

 

The parameters set up and tested in phase 3 trials is generally what is used for initial product labeling, because that represents the administration approach that has actually been tested.  Deviating  from those instructions without appropriate testing is a guess that it will work. It might be an educated guess, but still an unproven guess. or hypothesis, if you like that term better. That is why in the US the FDA has not deviated from the tested dosing regimen.

If I could impose on your expertise. It seems to me the Pfizer and Moderna (which we have had) are similar (as opposed to the Johnson & Johnson) vaccines. Yet one recommends 3 weeks and the other 4 weeks. Is this because those are the only parameters they tested in their trials, or would they normally test different ones to see which made more sense?

 

We actually had our second vaccinations 38 days later instead of the 28 we were originally scheduled due to the transportation problem that caused our site not to have the vaccine in mid February. Can we assume that this 10 day difference really should not make a difference in our protection despite the Moderna 4 week recommendation?

[Daniel A]

I think cruise lines just like people have the right to reject full vaccination.  But just like people, those cruise lines leave themselves vulnerable to the consequences of such refusal for full vaccination.

 

Seems pretty simple to me.

[D C]

14 hours ago, nocl said:

Because of the costs involved in clinical trials a company will use the information from preclinical, phase 1  and phase 2 (safety and dose ranging trials) and experience with other similar products to determine the parameters for the phase 3 trials. They will often have discussions with the appropriate regulatory authority about what would be needed for approval.

 

The parameters set up and tested in phase 3 trials is generally what is used for initial product labeling, because that represents the administration approach that has actually been tested.  Deviating  from those instructions without appropriate testing is a guess that it will work. It might be an educated guess, but still an unproven guess. or hypothesis, if you like that term better. That is why in the US the FDA has not deviated from the tested dosing regimen.

 

So you're saying they made a best guess, but we have no idea how the decision was actually made internal to those organisations, correct?

 

[capriccio]

DeSantis' issues order banning "vaccine passports (Sun-Sentinel this afternoon)

 

Gov. Ron DeSantis issued an order Friday prohibiting Florida businesses from requiring customers show proof that they have been vaccinated against COVID-19, following through with his promise to ban controversial immunization credentials that have emerged as a hot-button issue.

 

The order also prohibits Florida’s governmental agencies from issuing vaccine passports.

 

Some Florida businesses, including universities, have already announced that vaccinations are required.  According to the article, those entities that do so will not be eligible for state contracts or grants.

 

Not clear (to me at least) what, if any, impact the order would have on cruise ships requiring vaccinations.

 

Edited April 2, 2021 by capriccio

[Roberto256]

13 hours ago, caribill said:

 

 

While I appreciate the humorous dichotomy offered...

 

There are a suprising number of people who will not (or at least say they will not) ever get a vaccine.

 

I have heard "I will not put that POISON in my body".

 

Once the majority of a population is vaccinated, it would seem to be unnecessary to worry about

the remainder infecting each other.

 

With the exception, of course, that the people who CAN NOT (as opposed to WILL NOT) be vaccinated

are put at risk...

 

 

 

 

 

[victoriaj]

On 3/11/2021 at 4:37 PM, jangor said:

I, like many other cruisers, are sorry that you cannot get one of the COVID-19 vaccines.  But to be totally honest, until herd immunity has been firmly established, I hope that you will not be allowed on a cruise.  Please do not misunderstand.  I do want you to cruise again and enjoy everything that cruising has to offer, but not at the expense fo my own health.  Are any of the three vaccine strains less susceptible to allergic reactions?  The reality is that lots of people cannot travel for various health issues unrelated to Covid.  I sincerely hope that future research will enable you to join us,

You might want to check into the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, I too have in the past had terrible allergic reactions to vaccinations and various medications and was very dubious as to whether I would get a vaccination. After determining that there is no preservative in either of these vaccines and I knew that that is what normally caused my previous reactions I decided to go ahead when it was my turn . Fortunately I had no reaction what so ever to the Pfizer and in discussion with the nurse giving me the shot she assured me I would not. Good Luck.

[Cruising89143]

Glad to see this from the CDC. If you want to cruise, get vaccinated. 

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/24699-cdc-says-fully-vaccinated-people-can-travel.html

[Daniel A]

[oskidunker]

4 hours ago, capriccio said:

DeSantis' issues order banning "vaccine passports (Sun-Sentinel this afternoon)

 

Gov. Ron DeSantis issued an order Friday prohibiting Florida businesses from requiring customers show proof that they have been vaccinated against COVID-19, following through with his promise to ban controversial immunization credentials that have emerged as a hot-button issue.

 

The order also prohibits Florida’s governmental agencies from issuing vaccine passports.

 

Some Florida businesses, including universities, have already announced that vaccinations are required.  According to the article, those entities that do so will not be eligible for state contracts or grants.

 

Not clear (to me at least) what, if any, impact the order would have on cruise ships requiring vaccinations.

 

Glad I dont live in Florida. 

[Ombud]

Getting vaccinated Wednesday!! Its my turn. Talked with 2 sisters: 1 just made her (& DH) appointment / the other insists the vaccine gives you bells palsy (😅🤣😂) and it's illegal to require vaccine or negative test to fly to Hawaii. I hope she gets stopped by TSA instead of getting there & being turned back

Edited April 2, 2021 by Ombud