I'm not an anti-vaxxer but vaccine passports treat me like I am (anaphylactic) | Hacker News Reader

I'm not an anti-vaxxer but vaccine passports treat me like I am (anaphylactic)

cbc.ca

32 pointsgentleman1141 comments

Perhaps the title of this article should be "I had an allergic reaction to my 1st shot and am unwilling to have a 2nd shot of any COVID-19 vaccine".

In BC, you don't need to use the same vaccine for each shot to be considered fully vaccinated. This person is expected to switch to a different COVID-19 vaccine for her second shot.

In the article if you look at the Twitter post shown, it shows a "Valid contraindications and deferrals to COVID-19 vaccination" which states the following:

"The following are NOT contraindications to COVID-19 vaccination: History of an anaphylactic reaction to a previous dose of mRNA or adenovirus vector vaccine. Such individuals may receive their 2nd dose using vaccine of the different type. History of an anaphylactic reaction to any component of one type of vaccine. Such individuals may receive vaccine of the different type."

AFAIK the availability of AZ has been winding down in BC.

There's another solution. Given the anaphylaxis, she could just be medically exempt.

It's the same thing as why the nurse asks if one's allergic to eggs for the flu shot.

Those who can take the shot, should, not only for themselves, but for those who might not be able to (e.g. allergic reaction), or those whose body did not take full effect from the shot.

Being allergic doesn’t negate the lack of the second shot and what it means for viral spread and risk to others. These things aren’t being done for individuals as much as the collective. In such a group, a tiny percentage of people will lose out who want the vaccine but are unable to get it. Her inability to see the larger picture doesn’t make this “unfair” as she suggests, but rather, unlucky.

At least we can call it what it is: utilitarianism. Now we don’t need to rehash every debate on the subject, but instead recognize the arguments for and against it.

I think you're the one missing the larger picture. One of the main selling points of mass vaccination is herd immunity to protect those that are unvaccinated - including babies and cancer patients.

When (or if) herd immunity is reached (measured by rate of community spread), they can drop the need for vaccine passports. The passports are just there in the meantime while infection rates are high.

It was a good selling point, only now it seems that vaccinations don’t prevent the spread as much as previously thought, especially the variants such as Delta variant. So it seem there won’t be any herd immunity anytime soon.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-diseas...

Unfortunately the Delta variant is sufficiently contagious that there will be no significant herd immunity effect to protect the unvaccinated. I encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can, but vaccinated people can still spread the virus. Eventually almost everyone will be exposed.

https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...

This argument would make a lot more sense if the vaccinated weren’t spreading the virus.

But if you’re spreading it only to other vaccinated people, then they’re less likely to get it in the first place. So it still does slow the spread.

I am fully vaccinated and will not use any pass and forego business that demands it. I think the request for such a pass is unscientific and political hogwash to stay polite.

Wait. Here in Italy, if a guy can’t have the vaccine due to his health status, he/she can just go to his personal doctor and ask for an exemption. Then he will have a paper that is the same as the EU green pass but without have done the vaccine.

What’s wrong with Canada? Why they don’t make something similar?

I assume Canada has the same, but she's (it is she, the article makes that clear as well as answering your question) eligible for the second dose just as she was for the first, so she wouldn't get the exemption.

Just has a reasonable reason not to want it, and not to be treated poorly for making that decision.

It's not a reasonable reason.

They have something similar, but in her province the list of allowed exemptions is much stricter[1]. If you have an allergic reaction to one vaccine, they require a second dose using a difference vaccine. The author is unwilling to attempt that.

The problem the government is trying to avoid is doctors who will give out exemptions too broadly. There is a balance to be struck and BC took a harder line.

1. https://twitter.com/DrBirinderSingh/status/14383191651740180...

> If you have an allergic reaction to one vaccine, they require a second dose using a difference vaccine.

Can the second dose be one of the non-mRNA vaccines? If so, and she’s never had an allergic reaction to any other vaccination, that doesn’t strike me as entirely unreasonable. Especially if the alternative is just that she can’t go to a restaurant or the gym (e.g., she won’t loose her job).

> The author is unwilling to attempt that.

That makes her... an anti-vaxxer.

It makes her... an anti-second-vax-after-first-could've-killed-her-er.

Not all places are keeping people for 15mins or whatever for observation afterwards, she's lucky they did. (And obviously also unlucky there was a reason for that to be lucky.)

That you're allergic to one does not make you allergic to all. That's what the evidence shows. If you're denying the scientific consensus, either you're a researcher who just ran a well-designed experiment showing opposite conclusions, or you're an anti-vaxxer.

Anaphylaxis is dangerous. The vaccination sites in the US require 1 hour waits if you've had a reaction to a previous different vaccine. They're prepared. You don't get to "opt out" because you think you know better than the professionals.

> You don't get to "opt out" because you think you know better than the professionals.

You get to opt-in or not for whatever reason (good or not) you want.

Most people have bad reasons. I (had both doses myself fwiw, not that it's any of your business) think this is a decent reason, and doesn't deserve to be painted with the same brush.

Luckily, not for long with the US mandates. Hopefully they are good at blocking scam exemptions.

Neither I nor the submission have anything to do with the US.

They had an allergic reaction to a vaccine and declined to get a single one for their second dose. They’re not unable to get vaccinated, they don’t want to.

Perfectly find decision, even if that makes you angry.

A family member in BC has been trying to get an exemption from 3 doctors already. 2/3 said they are incredibly shocked that they're not allowed to give them due to threats of having their license taken away. They said they really want to and that if my family member finds a way around it, they will write it.

Simple fix would be to only require a single dose for a passport?

I can't think of an 'illegitimate' reason that somebody would be willing to take one dose but refuse another; so we could just charitably assume anyone with at one dose either had another too or a good reason not to?

Some of the vaccines, like the Johnson & Johnson, are single dose. It's possible that the mRNA vaccines at a single dose are better.

Sure. Isn't that just even more reason to give passports (if you must at all) for ≥1 dose (that don't detail how many)? Just keep it simple, they don't need to care which vaccine, the guidelines on it (at the time it was given / now!) etc.

Yeah, this definitely deserved to be flagged. All those people who are basically on house arrest because of sloppy rules aren’t worth talking about /s

Reply on news.ycombinator.com