Covid vaccination status?

[bwana39]

In Northeast Texas, the availability has gotten much better.  In Texarkana (Texas) and Longview, there are appointments available in virtually every session.  As of yesterday, there were appointments available for this weekend. The 1A's and a MODIFIED 1B class can easily get it if they just sign up.

1B includes those over 65 years of age, anyone with a wide range of medical conditions including BMI over 30. (For a 6' tall man that would equate to 225 pounds more or less and for a 5'3" woman 170#.) Diabetes, cancer, heart disease, respiratory problems (including some chronic allergy diagnoses). autoimmune diseases, and other chronic or severe illnesses or diseases. Things not on the list can be approved on a case by case basis. They have modified the 1b criteria to include teachers, day-care workers, and select other professions even those who are healthy and under 65.

1A is first responders, medical professionals, employees of medical providers, and certain other priority groups.

[kphoger]

Also ... being vaccinated ... almost certainly will be for international travel.

I see vaccination (or lack thereof) as a potential road block to travel that I want to partake in.  To that end I'll take what I can get to remove the potential barrier before it has a chance to become an issue.

And this is a big deal for me.  Y'all know already that I travel with some regularity to Mexico.  I need to renew my passport, and I always go for the book instead of the card, just in case I need to travel outside of North America because of my role in church missions.

Our friends who are living as missionaries in Mexico were scheduled to drive north this past Saturday, drop the kids off with relatives in Wichita, and spend a week of "couple" time in a Colorado cabin before returning to Wichita for the birth of their third baby (due in late April).  The day before, a week ago today, the two kids and the mom got rapid COVID tests just in case the results came in handy while crossing the border.  And they all three came back positive.  It was a shocker, as they all had zero symptoms.  So now they've been stuck for a week, under home quarantine, waiting the seven to ten days and praying they don't develop symptoms, which would delay their return even further.  And this is all WITHOUT any actual legal requirements for crossing the border!  If they had never gotten tested, they would have been none the wiser and we probably would have had dinner with them in our house already.

As it is, no vaccinations are required for us to travel to Mexico.  Tetanus is a good idea, hepatitis and cholera might be a good idea for time spent away from treated water, but none of it's actually required.  It would be strange if we would have to have vaccination papers in the future.

[Max Rockatansky]

Also ... being vaccinated ... almost certainly will be for international travel.

I see vaccination (or lack thereof) as a potential road block to travel that I want to partake in.  To that end I'll take what I can get to remove the potential barrier before it has a chance to become an issue.

And this is a big deal for me.  Y'all know already that I travel with some regularity to Mexico.  I need to renew my passport, and I always go for the book instead of the card, just in case I need to travel outside of North America because of my role in church missions.

Our friends who are living as missionaries in Mexico were scheduled to drive north this past Saturday, drop the kids off with relatives in Wichita, and spend a week of "couple" time in a Colorado cabin before returning to Wichita for the birth of their third baby (due in late April).  The day before, a week ago today, the two kids and the mom got rapid COVID tests just in case the results came in handy while crossing the border.  And they all three came back positive.  It was a shocker, as they all had zero symptoms.  So now they've been stuck for a week, under home quarantine, waiting the seven to ten days and praying they don't develop symptoms, which would delay their return even further.  And this is all WITHOUT any actual legal requirements for crossing the border!  If they had never gotten tested, they would have been none the wiser and we probably would have had dinner with them in our house already.

As it is, no vaccinations are required for us to travel to Mexico.  Tetanus is a good idea, hepatitis and cholera might be a good idea for time spent away from treated water, but none of it's actually required.  It would be strange if we would have to have vaccination papers in the future.

Considering my Wife has about half of her family members in Mexico this would be the primary concern for me regarding the so called "vaccination passport."   Not being able to see family I know isn't acceptable for her just as much as it is/has been for me.  I rather just eliminate the possibility of a potential problem regarding a vaccination requirement even it never becomes reality. 

To that end she does plan to travel to Jalisco during the summer.  I'm to understand her game plan is to get COVID tested sometime prior to going out and flying back.  Considering how much grief I got for going to Jalisco before the first COVID shut down in California I'll probably won't be poking that bear myself until 2022. 

[webny99]

Also ... being vaccinated ... almost certainly will be for international travel.

I see vaccination (or lack thereof) as a potential road block to travel that I want to partake in.  To that end I'll take what I can get to remove the potential barrier before it has a chance to become an issue.

And this is a big deal for me.  Y'all know already that I travel with some regularity to Mexico.

Yup, that's exactly why I figured it was worth mentioning. With the rate things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a requirement as early as May or June. We all remember this time last year when things started to change dramatically... I have a feeling this year could have a similar phase, but in the opposite direction as stuff starts to open and travel picks up again.

[bandit957]

Question for those here.  I see a lot are very interested in the J&J vaccine (the one-shot dose).  Is that just because you only want to take one shot?  Or some other reason?

I just thought one shot would be easier, and wouldn't take as long.

[Max Rockatansky]

Also ... being vaccinated ... almost certainly will be for international travel.

I see vaccination (or lack thereof) as a potential road block to travel that I want to partake in.  To that end I'll take what I can get to remove the potential barrier before it has a chance to become an issue.

And this is a big deal for me.  Y'all know already that I travel with some regularity to Mexico.

Yup, that's exactly why I figured it was worth mentioning. With the rate things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a requirement as early as May or June. We all remember this time last year when things started to change dramatically... I have a feeling this year could have a similar phase, but in the opposite direction as stuff starts to open and travel picks up again.

I think it might be more likely on the State level than Federal.  There was some serious resistance on the Federal side to mandating COVID tests as a nation wide flight requirement.  With Mexico specifically I don't see either tests or vaccinations ever being a requirement on their end for international travel. 

[SectorZ]

Question for those here.  I see a lot are very interested in the J&J vaccine (the one-shot dose).  Is that just because you only want to take one shot?  Or some other reason?

I only ask as its efficacy is a little lower than the Pfizer and Moderna versions.  I'll happily take whatever they'll give me, but if I had my choice, I'd pick the one that works the best (Pfizer based on both trial and real-world data).

Chris

I fear that with the upcoming discrimination against those without a vaccine, we're going to have a sub-layer of discrimination against those that have the J&J one because it's "not as good".

[webny99]

Yup, that's exactly why I figured it was worth mentioning. With the rate things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a requirement as early as May or June. We all remember this time last year when things started to change dramatically... I have a feeling this year could have a similar phase, but in the opposite direction as stuff starts to open and travel picks up again.

I think it might be more likely on the State level than Federal.  There was some serious resistance on the Federal side to mandating COVID tests as a nation wide flight requirement.  With Mexico specifically I don't see either tests or vaccinations ever being a requirement on their end for international travel.

Testing is a bit different because it's recurring and is something you'd have to get done before every flight, while the vaccine is one-and-done (or two-and-done if you want to get technical) for the most part. Even if not for Mexico, I could see it as a requirement for countries in Europe, the UK, Australia, etc.

[kphoger]

To that end she does plan to travel to Jalisco during the summer.  I'm to understand her game plan is to get COVID tested sometime prior to going out and flying back.  Considering how much grief I got for going to Jalisco before the first COVID shut down in California I'll probably won't be poking that bear myself until 2022. 

The lady who runs the business that cleans our office building was stuck in Jalisco recently, because her US visa had elapsed but she couldn't get a new one yet.  I became involved because we needed tax information from her, she was in a remote village with no cell reception or fax machine, and her business partner doesn't speak English.

As it stands now, a negative COVID result within four (?) days of travel is required to enter the US by air–whether you're a US citizen or not.  Land crossings are not restricted in that way.  Southbound, I'm not aware of any restrictions at all.

[Max Rockatansky]

To that end she does plan to travel to Jalisco during the summer.  I'm to understand her game plan is to get COVID tested sometime prior to going out and flying back.  Considering how much grief I got for going to Jalisco before the first COVID shut down in California I'll probably won't be poking that bear myself until 2022. 

The lady who runs the business that cleans our office building was stuck in Jalisco recently, because her US visa had elapsed but she couldn't get a new one yet.  I became involved because we needed tax information from her, she was in a remote village with no cell reception or fax machine, and her business partner doesn't speak English.

As it stands now, a negative COVID result within four (?) days of travel is required to enter the US by air–whether you're a US citizen or not.  Land crossings are not restricted in that way.  Southbound, I'm not aware of any restrictions at all.

To that end I have been trying to convince her to drive because her Dad is already kind of weird about flying and wants to go.  Sounds like that might be a better bet anyways given driving over isn't as restrictive.  Usually they cross the border in Nogales by car. 

Also, I should note I was referring to domestic flights up thread. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Yup, that's exactly why I figured it was worth mentioning. With the rate things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a requirement as early as May or June. We all remember this time last year when things started to change dramatically... I have a feeling this year could have a similar phase, but in the opposite direction as stuff starts to open and travel picks up again.

I think it might be more likely on the State level than Federal.  There was some serious resistance on the Federal side to mandating COVID tests as a nation wide flight requirement.  With Mexico specifically I don't see either tests or vaccinations ever being a requirement on their end for international travel.

Testing is a bit different because it's recurring and is something you'd have to get done before every flight, while the vaccine is one-and-done (or two-and-done if you want to get technical) for the most part. Even if not for Mexico, I could see it as a requirement for countries in Europe, the UK, Australia, etc.

Hell I wouldn't put it past Canada to make vaccination a requirement.

[JayhawkCO]

Question for those here.  I see a lot are very interested in the J&J vaccine (the one-shot dose).  Is that just because you only want to take one shot?  Or some other reason?

I only ask as its efficacy is a little lower than the Pfizer and Moderna versions.  I'll happily take whatever they'll give me, but if I had my choice, I'd pick the one that works the best (Pfizer based on both trial and real-world data).

Chris

I fear that with the upcoming discrimination against those without a vaccine, we're going to have a sub-layer of discrimination against those that have the J&J one because it's "not as good".

It's still plenty good.  77% or whatever it is is not only better than flu shots, but it was also done with less than a year of time going by.  It really is amazing what they were able to do.  And if everyone got the J&J, we'd we well past the benchmark for herd immunity.  I'd happily get it if I could get it before the others.  Just if I had a choice, I might as well get the best.  Either way, the first day I'm eligible, I'll be scouring for appointments.  I'm also signed up for some of those text alerts where they let you know if they have extra vaccines at the end of a day.  Obviously haven't been reached out to yet with one of those.

Chris

[Big John]

One new factor is the Catholic Church is telling its members not to take the J&J shot because stem cells were used to make the vaccine.

[WillWeaverRVA]

One new factor is the Catholic Church is telling its members not to take the J&J shot because stem cells were used to make the vaccine.

Which makes no sense since other vaccines (including flu vaccine) are developed using fetal stem cells and the Catholic Church isn't telling people not to take those vaccines.

[oscar]

One new factor is the Catholic Church is telling its members not to take the J&J shot because stem cells were used to make the vaccine.

It's just the New Orleans archdiocese, not the Church as a whole. AIUI, others in the Catholic hierarchy disagree.

[US 89]

One new factor is the Catholic Church is telling its members not to take the J&J shot because stem cells were used to make the vaccine.

This is a misleading headline - I read their actual statement and it looked like their main point was that Catholics should choose Pfizer or Moderna over J&J if they have a choice. They said the public hazard of COVID was high enough that taking the J&J shot would be justified if there weren't other alternatives - similar to the existing MMR vaccine.

[Rothman]

One new factor is the Catholic Church is telling its members not to take the J&J shot because stem cells were used to make the vaccine.

This is a misleading headline - I read their actual statement and it looked like their main point was that Catholics should choose Pfizer or Moderna over J&J if they have a choice. They said the public hazard of COVID was high enough that taking the J&J shot would be justified if there weren't other alternatives - similar to the existing MMR vaccine.

So...discouraging, then.

[MikeTheActuary]

I'm in Connecticut, which has gotten national headlines recently for abandoning plans to prioritieze "essential workers" and "high risk health conditions" and just go by age.   It's obviously frustrating for essential workers and those at risk, but I had been wondering how they were going to verify those statuses, or if there were going to be issues with people untruthfully claiming those statuses.

My age group and my probable position in "high risk" have me pretty much in the same place in line....but annoyingly, my wife (also high risk) is in the group behind me.  We have a long list of things queued up to do after we've been vaccinated and had enough time to build immunity...so I'm thinking this change delays those plans by a few weeks.   As one of those things is driving down to Memphis to see my father (he had to be moved to memory care last year; we got on site to visit him and deal with various formalities two hours after that facility had to start refusing visitors)...this is annoying.

That retirement community recently revised its visitors policy: folks coming to visit folks in the independent living section have to show proof of vaccination or be subjected to a rapid test.  They're still obliged by CMS to be COVID-free before allowing visitors into the assisted living or nursing wings...even though all the residents have been vaccinated.

Count me in the camp of folks who believes that vaccinations will likely be required for getting into Canada.  Since pre-pandemic, I worked "in" Montréal in addition to shuttling back and forth between Memphis and CT.....

[vdeane]

Yup, that's exactly why I figured it was worth mentioning. With the rate things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a requirement as early as May or June. We all remember this time last year when things started to change dramatically... I have a feeling this year could have a similar phase, but in the opposite direction as stuff starts to open and travel picks up again.

Probably for domestic travel too.  NY just exempted people who had their second shot more than two weeks but not more than three months ago from quarantine requirements.  It makes me wonder if we might never go back to the "shit list" system (much less full normal) and just leave the current requirements for non-vaccinated people (perhaps extending the vaccine exemption as we learn more about how long immunity lasts) in place indefinitely.  Vermont may well do the same.  And a vaccine will almost certainly be required to cross the US/Canada border in the future.

Heck, I could see Canada fragmenting into travel zones over this.  I could see checkpoints put up on the NB/QC, QC/NL, ON/MB, MB/SK, AB/BC, BC/YT (to the extent this is possible on the Alaska Highway), BC/NT, and AB/NT borders to restrict travel to those not vaccinated (if you've been keeping up, this would make out for travel zones consisting of BC, AB/SK, MB, ON/QC*, NB/NS/PEI/NL, YT/NT, and NU) on a semi-permanent basis.

*I would think there would be a couple areas of Québec that would instead bubble with the Atlantic provinces: Blanc-Sablon (as it's isolated from the rest of the province and is one end of the ferry connecting the island of Newfoundland to Labrador) and Les ÃŽles-de-la-Madeleine (only accessible via a ferry from Prince Edward Island).

[hbelkins]

It seems to me that the priorities are all over the place. I'm even seeing different age cutoffs for what's called Priority 1C. In Kentucky, that is for people 60 and older, or people younger than 60 if they have certain health conditions. Priority 2 is everyone below 60 not in one of the higher priority groups. Priority 3 is those below the age cutoff for whom the vaccine hasn't been approved/isn't recommended yet. Looks like in some states, you have to be 65 to make it in 1C. And I've seen different ages for that cutoff limit, 18 in some places and 16 in others.

Smokers were originally included in 1C, but now smoking is not considered a factor in prioritizing shot recipients.

[hbelkins]

Yup, that's exactly why I figured it was worth mentioning. With the rate things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a requirement as early as May or June. We all remember this time last year when things started to change dramatically... I have a feeling this year could have a similar phase, but in the opposite direction as stuff starts to open and travel picks up again.

Probably for domestic travel too.  NY just exempted people who had their second shot more than two weeks but not more than three months ago from quarantine requirements.  It makes me wonder if we might never go back to the "shit list" system (much less full normal) and just leave the current requirements for non-vaccinated people (perhaps extending the vaccine exemption as we learn more about how long immunity lasts) in place indefinitely.  Vermont may well do the same.  And a vaccine will almost certainly be required to cross the US/Canada border in the future.

If they try to make domestic travel restrictions permanent, I foresee a court battle over that. There's already precedent in federal court that the so-called "travel ban" Kentucky enacted by executive order requiring a 14-day quarantine was ruled unconstitutional.

[interstatefan990]

I don't really agree with the states classifying teachers as "frontline essential workers" for vaccination eligibility. Yes, they are important to society and if we want to send children back for in-person learning, but they aren't up there with the nurses, doctors, and ER staff toughing it out and dealing with the pandemic up-front in and day out. They can still do their jobs from home. Give a vaccine to all or at least most of 65+ people, healthcare workers, grocery store workers, and nursing home staff before you give one to young/middle-aged, healthy teachers.

[webny99]

NY just exempted people who had their second shot more than two weeks but not more than three months ago from quarantine requirements.

Out of curiosity, what's the point of specifying no more than three months ago? As I recall, vaccines weren't even being administered three months ago.

It makes me wonder if we might never go back to the "shit list" system (much less full normal) and just leave the current requirements for non-vaccinated people (perhaps extending the vaccine exemption as we learn more about how long immunity lasts) in place indefinitely.  Vermont may well do the same.  And a vaccine will almost certainly be required to cross the US/Canada border in the future.

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if the current requirements remain in place, but they should also be irrelevant once you get the vaccine, so you'd think it should start to feel more or less like normal once we get past the next few months of vaccinating people.

I don't really agree with the states classifying teachers as "frontline essential workers" for vaccination eligibility. Yes, they are important to society and if we want to send children back for in-person learning, but they aren't up there with the nurses, doctors, and ER staff toughing it out and dealing with the pandemic up-front in and day out. They can still do their jobs from home.

I agree that they're not quite up there with doctors, nurses and ER staff, but re-opening schools is definitely a big priority and for good reason. But it doesn't make sense for the teachers to get vaccinated and then continue to teach from home, so the key is to get the schools opened.

[vdeane]

Out of curiosity, what's the point of specifying no more than three months ago? As I recall, vaccines weren't even being administered three months ago.

No more than three months between when you got the second shot and when you travel.  Nobody's sure how long immunity lasts with the vaccine, so that's all they were comfortable with relaxing restrictions for.  It's not applicable yet, but it will be soon, unless they decide to lengthen the amount of time since the second shot they're comfortable relaxing restrictions for.

[ozarkman417]

As a teenager, I do not foresee myself getting the vaccine for at least some months. The good news is that come the end of the month, both of my parents will have had both of their doses administered.