I get mine tomorrow as does my wife, 5minutes later.
gallois wrote:
I get mine tomorrow as does my wife, 5minutes later.
Does she make you go first, to check it’s safe?
;-)
Ha ha, I don’t think so but she did make the appointments :)
Mooney_Driver wrote:
One question in regard of the AZ effect is, if there was no ill effect on the first shot, what is the likeliness to get effects on the 2nd. If the blood problems really are limited to pre-existing conditions, it should be safe for a 2nd shot, but is there anything known about that?
There is little to no data that would prove a general correlation between brand of vaccine and 1st vs. 2nd shot side effects. There is a clear correlation, however between the strength of your immune system and the 1st/2nd shot reaction: The stronger your immune system the stronger is the 1st shot reaction and the weaker the 2nd shot.
But still: Significant side effects are rare events in all cases.
Plus: Everybody should take potential side effects seriously even if 1st shot has done nothing. Esp. with respect to SVT, there is no evidence at all that the 2nd shot is “safer” if nothing happened after the 1st shot (also due to small numbers overall).
Graham’s post above is pretty well spot on. There has been a lot of cynicism. Airports could have reduced staff, offered reduced hours (even a few hours a day would have been great for the based owners stuck there), etc. But they wouldn’t have got the furlough money.
Re the landing fees / cafe income, this is just more crazy GA stuff. Here in the UK we have the “boycott every airport over £10” which has been supported on all the UK GA chat sites and the countless groups on FB (it would never be supported here because it is so destructive to GA) which has put many places on the financial edge. It results in places like Sandown which charges the magic £10 and heavily promotes itself all over (all over) FB for its “greasy stodge”, and on a sunny day it is really busy (with Bembridge next door charging £18, no cafe, no promotion, and almost no traffic, but has a hard runway and is a nice walk into the “town”) but it is in the middle of nowhere and you would pay £60 to visit the nearest larger place (Cowes) by taxi.
The result is: can’t sell the stodge → must close. This is because a £10 landing fee might just about pay for cutting the grass but doesn’t cover buying some disinfectant for the toilet 
And Shoreham, £25 or so, gets slagged off constantly on the UK GA social media, but it is a really good place, clean, good condition, and a 15 min walk into a nice (pleasantly decrepit) old town.
Then you get the island mentality specifically on islands, which happen to have some of the nicest destinations. Such a contrast to Croatia where the islands are just the best and most friendly places…
This virus crisis has really showed up what is going on in so many places. I reckon a lot of people will vote with their feet and those who can will take measures to avoid a repeat.
Peter wrote:
It results in places like Sandown which charges the magic £10 and heavily promotes itself all over (all over) FB for its “greasy stodge”, and on a sunny day it is really busy
Sandown might be a greasy stodge-fest, but it is an example of a place with a can-do attitude. They may have closed during the toughest part of lockdown 1 – as pretty much everywhere had to – but have stayed open other than that and indeed risked the wrath of island-mentality locals on the Isle of Wight to keep going.
They charge £15 now :-)
Malibuflyer wrote:
There is a clear correlation, however between the strength of your immune system and the 1st/2nd shot reaction: The stronger your immune system the stronger is the 1st shot reaction and the weaker the 2nd shot.
Well, so far I have not seen any after yesterday so I might need to brace for the 2nd shot…
Malibuflyer wrote:
Plus: Everybody should take potential side effects seriously even if 1st shot has done nothing. Esp. with respect to SVT, there is no evidence at all that the 2nd shot is “safer” if nothing happened after the 1st shot (also due to small numbers overall).
So basically it is not a bad decision if they decide to use a different vaccine for AZ if they think it is too dangerous? That was my original question, as I have someone with a first AZ shot waiting for the 2nd, albeit in June, so there should be some time for them to sort that out
In general news, Switzerland has decided to open up outside hospitality as well as some theaters, cinemas and venues with reduced occupancy.
This as opposed to Germany who appears to go in a direction of a total lockdown.
the reaction of the population is very mixed: So far a majority bemoans that they have “given in” to the loud mouths and basically risk a 3rd wave despite vaccinations now coming online in mass and would have preferred to delay this for a month or so, the rest bemoans that not everything opens right bloody now.
The comments in the newspapers (editors) are similarily ambiguous, after shouting for opening, some now go the opposite way.
We shall see how the situation develops. It will be interesting as well to see how those with stricter lockdowns fare.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
So basically it is not a bad decision if they decide to use a different vaccine for AZ if they think it is too dangerous? That was my original question, as I have someone with a first AZ shot waiting for the 2nd, albeit in June, so there should be some time for them to sort that out
“Too dangerous” is not a binary question though.
There are all sorts of issues at play, such as the relative risk vs Covid, whether alternative vaccines for sufficient people can be obtained in a sensible time-frame, etc.
Those planning vaccination distribution and use in Europe have just run into another snag. Just at the point when they thought they could afford to reduce dependency on AZ, they find the J&J vaccine may be in question and they are back where they started. France appears to have said “whatever” to the J&J news and will just crack on with it.
The UK clearly makes a different decision about AZ because of dependency on it in achieving a rapid roll-out, the advantages of which it believes outweigh the risks.
All countries must make their own decisions, and the factors are not purely based on the properties of a single vaccine.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
So basically it is not a bad decision if they decide to use a different vaccine for AZ if they think it is too dangerous?
This question is not really relating to side effects. Even with AZ these side effects are extremely rare. But if the risk is evaluated to be too high, it is indeed the case that there is no data whatsoever that if you survived the first shot already the second shot is more or less safe.
The core question is, however, if a mixed vaccine protocol is as effective as a second shot with AZ. There is only very preliminary data on that yet …
