Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 111
  1. #21
    klwa is offline Ruby level (4000+ posts)
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    NC.
    Posts
    4,772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pinkmomagain View Post
    Interesting. It seems they can't get vaccines to people in my state fast enough. Everyone's up in arms about not having quick enough access to the vaccine. I haven't come across anyone yet who has said they're waiting or not going to get it when they're eligible.
    I've got a SIL in health care (hospital setting with direct patient contact) that we're pretty sure is going to refuse, along with my brother/her husband. My other brother & his wife who are also both in healthcare got their first doses about 2 weeks ago now.
    -Kris
    DS (9/05)
    DD (8/08)
    DD (9/12)

  2. #22
    hwin708 is offline Platinum level (1000+ posts)
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    .
    Posts
    1,412

    Default

    J&J is saying that they are hopeful their final results will put them at the same rough efficacy as Pfizer and Moderna, so above the 80% expected.

    If that turns out to be the case, then I would want J&J, as you would achieve that full level of protection of the one shot. Versus the only partial protection of the first Pfizer/Modern shot, while waiting weeks for the full protection with the second shot.

    Regardless, I would, of course, take any shot available.

    I have multiple family members in healthcare (doctors and administrative), and all have received the vaccine. All but one of my 70+ relatives have received the vaccine, and most of the 65+. 70 was the age requirement here, 65 the age requirement in the next state, which is like 30 minutes away. They have mainly gotten the Pfizer.

    The only elderly relative who has not received the shot is totally housebound, with full-time home caregivers. There is no infrastructure for delivering shots at home (and her doctor does make housecalls, and would do so to deliver the shot, if allowed), and no plans have been made for the infirm outside of facilities. Definitely a large oversight, but I have hopes some of these oversights will be addressed with a new administration who actually plans to (gasp!) do something.
    #BidenHarris2020 ďItís easier to be a parent this morning. Itís easier to be a dad. Itís easier to tell your kids character matters. It matters. Telling the truth matters. Being a good person matters.Ē

  3. #23
    PZMommy is offline Diamond level (5000+ posts)
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    5,016

    Default

    There was an article in the LA Times today that it is going to take until June to vaccinate every one 65 and over, thus pushing all of the other categories back. Their hope is vaccine production speeds up, but almost all of the next shipment that the city is receiving is allotted to give the health care workers their second dose. It’s a huge mess here!

  4. #24
    Kestrel is offline Platinum level (1000+ posts)
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,617

    Default

    The logistics are part of the reason I'm looking at the J&J. If the same amount of production would protect twice as many people (only one dose needed), that would seem to be the way to go.

    I'm the first to admit I'd like to learn more... but the new tech of these vaccines scare me. I just don't think we have enough time under them to show long-term effects. And, of course, that the government has shielded the manufactures for lawsuit over side effects only makes me more frightened. Why would that be needed if the vaccine was tested well enough? The country is planning to vaccinate millions and millions of people with a vaccine that did not exist a year ago. Who knows what will happen in ten years? Twenty? Cancers, immune issues, fertility problems? Not to mention putting it into developing bodies of children.

    My understanding is that the J&J vaccine, while still new, has a similar approach as the Ebola vaccine that has been out for several years (in limited use, but longer timeline). Mostly, I think, it is the lack of time at concerns me.

    I welcome links to information from reliable sources - please help talk me down!

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    .
    Posts
    5,851

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PZMommy View Post
    There was an article in the LA Times today that it is going to take until June to vaccinate every one 65 and over, thus pushing all of the other categories back. Their hope is vaccine production speeds up, but almost all of the next shipment that the city is receiving is allotted to give the health care workers their second dose. It’s a huge mess here!
    Teachers are already being vaccinated here, they are in same priority group as 65-85.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    .
    Posts
    5,851

    Default

    Isn’t J&J currently looking at two shots to match the protection of Moderna and Pfizer?

  7. #27
    PZMommy is offline Diamond level (5000+ posts)
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    5,016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by westwoodmom04 View Post
    Teachers are already being vaccinated here, they are in same priority group as 65-85.
    Here they moved them ahead of teachers. 75 and over were in the same tier as teachers, but then switched to 65 and put them ahead of essential workers. LA county has a huge shortage of vaccines. Hopefully production will be ramped up soon.

  8. #28
    robinsmommy is offline Sapphire level (2000+ posts)
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
    The logistics are part of the reason I'm looking at the J&J. If the same amount of production would protect twice as many people (only one dose needed), that would seem to be the way to go.

    I'm the first to admit I'd like to learn more... but the new tech of these vaccines scare me. I just don't think we have enough time under them to show long-term effects. And, of course, that the government has shielded the manufactures for lawsuit over side effects only makes me more frightened. Why would that be needed if the vaccine was tested well enough? The country is planning to vaccinate millions and millions of people with a vaccine that did not exist a year ago. Who knows what will happen in ten years? Twenty? Cancers, immune issues, fertility problems? Not to mention putting it into developing bodies of children.

    My understanding is that the J&J vaccine, while still new, has a similar approach as the Ebola vaccine that has been out for several years (in limited use, but longer timeline). Mostly, I think, it is the lack of time at concerns me.

    I welcome links to information from reliable sources - please help talk me down!
    Weigh your long term concerns against the known info they have *now* on the damage even mild Covid can do to major organs like lungs, heart, brain. I think we are going to see folks with long term disabilities from this, physical and mental both. Lungs scarred from Covid inflammation- what could that do to cancer risk? Or risk of heart attack in someone previously healthy? Iíll take vaccine risks over those.

  9. #29
    hwin708 is offline Platinum level (1000+ posts)
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    .
    Posts
    1,412

    Default

    With Johnson and Johnson's results now out, and their vaccine having significantly lower efficacy than the other two, I would prefer one of the others (though, as mentioned, would still take any).

    I also recently read that Moderna's efficacy goes down to 86% for people over 65, while Pfizer's is 94%. So I am VERY happy that most of my older relatives have gotten Pfizer.
    #BidenHarris2020 ďItís easier to be a parent this morning. Itís easier to be a dad. Itís easier to tell your kids character matters. It matters. Telling the truth matters. Being a good person matters.Ē

  10. #30
    klwa is offline Ruby level (4000+ posts)
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    NC.
    Posts
    4,772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hwin708 View Post

    I also recently read that Moderna's efficacy goes down to 86% for people over 65, while Pfizer's is 94%. So I am VERY happy that most of my older relatives have gotten Pfizer.
    Ooh. I hadn't seen that one. My dad and MIL got Moderna, but FIL got Pfizer.
    -Kris
    DS (9/05)
    DD (8/08)
    DD (9/12)

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •