|
|
|
should I mix?
- Thread starter SunnY S
- Start date
Gov is pushing their agenda without proper research.
They don't care about you. They just want to keep hospital numbers down.
Not saying they are wrong. Just not fully convinced (yet)
Could be short sighted but nobody has ever accused the government of playing the long game. Not over loading hospitals makes sense. Using risky, untested treatments to try to keep them at 10% capacity instead of 20% capacity is idiotic. Especially when the long-term consequences could be dramatic and very expensive.
Isn't that the point of all this?
Not overloaded makes a lot of sense. Aiming for zero at all costs is idiotic.
I said my wife refused and I agreed with her but when she made that call I also told her I would have taken the mix.
I don't tell anyone what to do with their life. If someone asks me if they should take up motorcycling I tell them I enjoy it. The feeling of being one with the vehicle, the camaraderie, the things I've seen. I also tell them of the close calls. THEY decide.
I resent anyone that deludes another by downplaying risks to crank "Sales". In Liberal politics, "Sales" is the lowering of safety standards to make the boss look good. Somewhere I read that the latest trade agreement with the USA meant lowering some standards with regards to dairy products. The dead fly isn't toxic because it was sterilized with the prepping, enjoy your ice cream cone. Pretend it's a raisin.
The mix and match is to get numbers up. If they had done proper procurement there would have been far less need for M&M's. It has more to do with the Liberal cover up than the risks IN MY OPINION. Our risk, his reward.
The numbers involve border crossings, economics and trade consequences. Those numbers also count. Gotta help the budget balance itself.
If Trulydumb had come out and admitted the goofs at least there would be some credibility.
Relax
Well-known member
When in doubt, ask the pharmaceutical company that made your first dose. Sure, they might be trying to "sell" you the second dose, but then again, they're also the ones who did all the testing to determine efficacy. That said, if you didn't get the second dose within the prescribed period (21 or 28 days), then who knows how effectively you'll be immunized in the first place. The Government says they want to immunize as many people as quickly as possible, but you can't just go about it however you want - science doesn't work a certain way just because you think it should or want it to.
Wife mixed Astra and then Moderna. She'd wanted Pfizer, but was only offered Astra, because of the supply shortage then. Wanted Pfizer again, and was only offered Moderna, because of the supply shortage now. Pfizer seems to have more studies. I ended up with two Moderna, for the same reason, plus being older than her.
They should just remove the brands from all the vaccines.
Here you go…it’s fine. Don’t worry about brands…
Team AZ x 2 here.
Here you go…it’s fine. Don’t worry about brands…
Team AZ x 2 here.
Malks
Well-known member
Both my wife and I had Phizer first and then Moderna second. All available information tells us they are just different brands of the same type of vaccine (mRNA). We want to travel once the border opens up a little more and being fully vaccinated looks to be one of the requirements for the foreseeable future.
They don't live long enough to catch covid?
They have a different RNA sequence though. I believe that mixing two vaccines will actually give you better protection, but I'm not willing to test it on myself - I will be getting the same brand for the second dose as the first one.
Last edited:
Are they outrunning COVID?
J_F
Guest
this is my understanding
the slight variation between the two vaccs could theoretically offer more varied protection
#1 was Pfizer, #2 today will be Moderna
|
|
|
|
|