I signed up online for the appointment, but when I got there the head pharmacist on duty said I was too healthy to be immunized. 
I was so mad I walked out and didn’t even get my flu shot. I’ll go somewhere else for that I guess.
Go to hell, RFK Jr.
It’s funny because the online questionnaire said I would be ineligible for the COVID vaccine if I had any health conditions. Then when I show up for the appointment they tell me the exact opposite. Never mind, I misread the questionnaire; it says patients who do not have any of the listed conditions are ineligible.
I misread it because my understanding is that, typically, chronic conditions disqualify you for a vaccine, because healthy people are least likely to have a negative reaction to a vaccine and most likely to have a positive immune response. AFAIK the only reason for a healthy person not to be vaccinated is if they’re not at risk for contracting the disease (e.g. smallpox).
If I had read it correctly, I would have been prepared to do the dance and lie.
The pharmacist said their new COVID vaccine had just come in, so I’m assuming it was up-to-date.
It is up to date but its the MRNA version either Moderna or Pfizer (I don’t know what Walgreens carries specifically.) Novavax is protein based, seems to have a longer lasing effect in the body, and shows fewer side effects. Trouble is it won’t be out for a few more weeks it seems. @miz@hexbear.net @cricbuzz@hexbear.net sorry I merged all of your answers in one post.
https://hexbear.net/comment/6470248
Pinging @miz@hexbear.net @cricbuzz@hexbear.net as well in this response, but see my longer comment to someone else in the link.
Unless we get proper independent studies that prove Novavax’s more optimistic claims, I think it’s bad advice to tell people to stress even more about which vaccine to get. Get Novavax if the mRNA ones’ side effects are really harsh, because it’ll be a less miserable time. Otherwise, get whatever you can. Either way, you’re still going to have to keep wearing a respirator in perpetuity to actually stay safer from Covid.
I certainly didn’t do that. I did say not to stress and to shoot for Novavax. Anecdotal evidence from social media tells us the MNRA vaccines tend to have harsher side effects vs. the protein based vaccines. Since this isn’t studied, its really all we have to go on. What they did study was the lasting effects of the previous vaccine. The Novavax was shown to last longer in the body (IIRC 6 months or so) vs. the MNRA (IIRC 4 months or so). Covid Twitter is awash in info about this. I have no idea why you think I’m trying fearmonger about this.
Wear a mask, get vaccinated, try to get Novavax, if you can’t get it get whichever one you can.
Covid Twitter is awash with a bunch of people who not only don’t understand how to read a study, but don’t understand how to do a proper literature search. You know what else I’ve seen Covid Twitter recommend for covid? Colloidal silver.
I’ll admit I jump the gun when Novavax specifically comes up because back when I used corporate social media, I got sick of people on Reddit and Facebook saying “get novavax because mRNA vaccines will damage your immune system” and then linking to twitter threads as their citations. And I mean twitter threads where people with the title of “Dr” in their name were discussing recent studies or even preprints and saying “now we don’t know for sure but this could be cause for concern” instead of doing what everyone with a basic training in science is taught to do and read critically. And then laypeople saw “Dr, must know what they’re talking about” even though many Drs are incredibly inept.
Upon further review, many of these were badly constructed studies. One, that people were linking to directly for the most alarmist claims, was even by an antivaxxer in a sketchy journal that will take and publish anything. Or with preprints, the problem is they haven’t been peer reviewed. A lot of preprints don’t get published because they aren’t legitimate, or will only get published in unethical pay to publish journals that have no standards. Yet the geniuses over at Covid Twitter are taking every new preprint or low quality study as gospel.
It’s not their fault. They don’t have the training. But it’s infuriating to try to rely on people for information and then find out their citations go all the way back to shitty papers in shitty journals by shitty antivaxxers.
Even when it comes to a well designed paper in a competent journal, people are approaching it the wrong way. Saying “according to this study, we KNOW Claim X therefore we can extrapolate to Y” and then I go read the study, find it is done well, but not even the authors are going that far. Instead it’s more like, Claim X seems supported by the data, but here are all the ways we need followup studies (hint hint, keep funding our research) to disentangle variables and confirm. Potential ramifications may include Y and Z, but we would need to design some more complicated experiments to investigate that."
Covid Twitter, or at least those who cited it, also didn’t seem to do a good job of understanding that a single study is just a single study and science works by having a lot of studies replicating findings and building on each other’s work. You generally cannot just cite studies like they’re the unaltered word of God.
There’s more to say but I have better things to do.
Where are you getting this shit from? I’m literally referencing anecdotal vaccine reactions not peer reviewed papers. If you want to air your grievances on any of these issues then that’s fine, just please do it with someone else.
thanks, comrade