Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Zippee

Absolutely true. But perhaps this is a distinction without a practical difference, not to mention that it would now be both legal and appropriate to mandate vaccinations. . . .

Jacobson v. Massachusetts (I used to teach that case in Con Law classes), which is valid law, allows the States to force people to be vaccinated. Not as a condition to employment, but as a condition to not going to jail.


Is it a good idea? I honestly don't know. Several doctors I know and respect tell me, contrary to my own beliefs, that there are valid reasons to not want to be vaccinated. It's complicated.


I think maybe the Europeans are doing it right. Vaccination is a condition to leading a normal, free life, to be allowed into publlic spaces. It falls rather short of forcing people to be vaccinated, which means that people retain the option of refusing the vax, but it keeps those people who make that choice, away from the rest of us. I am personally happy to know, that sitting in the theatre or going to a shop, that all the people around me are vaxxed.

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by Wotname

A simple question to the CF covid experts from the peanut gallery.



Is the following basically true - having Delta does not natural immunity to Omicron but having Omicron gives natural immunity to Delta?



If the above statement is not true, then I see no reason why Delta and Omicron can't co-exist. If it true, then a vaccine targeted at Omicron should suffice(?).

Having delta gives up to 75% immunity. If omicron takes over, what looks likely, delta will be gone.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

Having delta gives up to 75% immunity. If omicron takes over, what looks likely, delta will be gone.

Omicron could only displace delta if having omicron confers a natural immunity to delta in a similar way that delta conferred a natural immunity to alpha etc.

Is there any early evidence that omicron protects against a delta infection or is this just supposition from past viral mutations?

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Omicron could only displace delta if having omicron confers a natural immunity to delta in a similar way that delta conferred a natural immunity to alpha etc.

Is there any early evidence that omicron protects against a delta infection or is this just supposition from past viral mutations?

Can't be. The first cases of omicron are hardly covered yet..

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Jacobson v. Massachusetts (I used to teach that case in Con Law classes), which is valid law, allows the States to force people to be vaccinated. Not as a condition to employment, but as a condition to not going to jail ...
... I think maybe the Europeans are doing it right. Vaccination is a condition to leading a normal, free life, to be allowed into publlic spaces. It falls rather short of forcing people to be vaccinated, which means that people retain the option of refusing the vax ...

Until he paid the imposed fine of $5 (± $100 today).

Are [how many] US States currently imposing statutory penalties, for refusal to vaccinate?
What are current statutory penalties averaging?

In JACOBSON V MASSACHUSETTS [1905], there was no provision for actually forcing vaccination on any person.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Until he paid the imposed fine of $5 (± $100 today).

Are [how many] US States currently imposing statutory penalties, for refusal to vaccinate?
What are current statutory penalties averaging?

In JACOBSON V MASSACHUSETTS [1905], there was no provision for actually forcing vaccination on any person.

Not correct. Jacobson confirms that the Constitution does not forbid the states (not the federal government by the way) from requiring people to be vaccinated. It's up to the states how they enforce that. A fine is only one kind of enforcement. Nothing in Jacobson suggests that the states couldn't forcibly vaccinate people, or throw them in jail, or impose large fines.


Edit: I hasten to add, that I am not necessarily in favor of any of this. I'm just saying that Americans don't have any constitutional right, to not be forcibly vaccinated. This is different from some other countries. In the Nordic countries, you can't be required to be vaccinated, you cannot be restricted in peace time from leaving the country or coming back (if you are a citizen or resident), you cannot in peace time be confined to your home, probably even a curfew in peace time is unconstitutional. We Yanks think of the U.S. as the "land of the free", but our freedoms are highly qualified compared to some other countries.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Not correct. Jacobson confirms that the Constitution does not forbid the states (not the federal government by the way) from requiring people to be vaccinated. It's up to the states how they enforce that. A fine is only one kind of enforcement. Nothing in Jacobson suggests that the states couldn't forcibly vaccinate people, or throw them in jail, or impose large fines...

Please point out any wording, in Jocobson, that affirms States’ rights to forcibly vaccinate anyone.
Or does the ruling, merely, not specifically prohibit such?
What does subsequent case law say, on the subject?

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
➥ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/

In 1902, the Cambridge, Mass. local Board of Health mandated that all residents who had not been vaccinated, within the preceding five years, either receive a vaccination, or a booster shot, or pay a $5 fine.

According to Josh Blackman [1], the 1905 “Jacobson” precedent [a 7-2 decision]: “... upheld the state’s power to impose a nominal fine on an unvaccinated person. No more, no less ...
... The Cambridge law did not involve forcible vaccination ...”

[1] “The Irrepressible Myth of Jacobson v. Massachusetts” ~ by Josh Blackman
➥ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3906452

I apologise, for taking advantage of [imposing upon] your expertise.

FWIW:
Q: What do barristers always keep with themselves, to smell nice?
A: A judge-mint.

[laird]

I'm no expert on US law so I shall avoid that discussion and leave it to , hopefully friendly debate ��

However it looks like some countries within the EU are going over to a vaccine passport system , not wanting to invade an individual s rights ,they are going to try and prohibit entry into public places to the unvaccinated

Here in the UK ,it looks like they are doing their upmost to have everyone recieve a third shot ,some people whom I know declined the third shot , omricon has led them to revaluate and accept a third jab , the deaths in the UK continue to fall ,I'd like to see the stats on the numbers of unvaccinated compared to the vaccinated who die of covid

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Please point out any wording, in Jocobson, that affirms States’ rights to forcibly vaccinate anyone.
Or does the ruling, merely, not specifically prohibit such?
What does subsequent case law say, on the subject?

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
➥ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/

In 1902, the Cambridge, Mass. local Board of Health mandated that all residents who had not been vaccinated, within the preceding five years, either receive a vaccination, or a booster shot, or pay a $5 fine.

According to Josh Blackman [1], the 1905 “Jacobson” precedent [a 7-2 decision]: “... upheld the state’s power to impose a nominal fine on an unvaccinated person. No more, no less ...
... The Cambridge law did not involve forcible vaccination ...”

[1] “The Irrepressible Myth of Jacobson v. Massachusetts” ~ by Josh Blackman
➥ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3906452

I apologise, for taking advantage of your expertise.

Josh Blackman, of South Texas College of Law, in the article you cited, is NOT arguing that the case law does not forbid forced vaccination. He is arguing that the case law, which uncontroversially does allow forced vaccination, should be overruled. He is arguing that Jacobson was too broadly interpreted.

I would be in favor of overruling that case law! But I think Blackman is grasping at straws. Actually Blackman's ridiculously narrow view of Jacobson, which goes against basic principles of interpretation of case law, is untenable. More straightforward would be overruling Jacobson altogether, which I would be in favor of. But we shouldn't hold our breaths.



That would be a major Supreme Court decision, and the Supremes don't like overruling longstanding precedents. Not that they never do it -- they might be in the processing of overruling Roe v. Wade as we speak. But it's pretty rare.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by laird

I'm no expert on US law so I shall avoid that discussion and leave it to , hopefully friendly debate ��

However it looks like some countries within the EU are going over to a vaccine passport system , not wanting to invade an individual s rights ,they are going to try and prohibit entry into public places to the unvaccinated
. . .

Indeed. In my opinion, what's being done in Europe is a good balanced approach.


That's just my opinion, though, which will not be shared by people who are less sanguine about vaccination in general than I am. I think wise men may disagree about this.



But at least we're not forcing people, except in Greece and Austria so far, and perhaps soon in Germany.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Indeed. In my opinion, what's being done in Europe is a good balanced approach.


That's just my opinion, though, which will not be shared by people who are less sanguine about vaccination in general than I am. I think wise men may disagree about this.



But at least we're not forcing people, except in Greece and Austria so far, and perhaps soon in Germany.

The real problem with all this is, I mean with the entire Covid pandemic, if we as humankind have learned anything incase and when the next more deadly virus outbreak happens. Must say I'm not very optimistic..

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

The real problem with all this is, I mean with the entire Covid pandemic, if we as humankind have learned anything incase and when the next more deadly virus outbreak happens. Must say I'm not very optimistic..

Well, I think actually we've learned a whole lot. And furthermore we now have a ton of data which will help advance the science on the various scientific questions involved. And we'll have a lot of information on what policies work and which work less well.



Whether we actually DO anything useful with all this knowledge is another question, but I'm not so pessimistic. I doubt if the world's response to the next pandemic will be ideal, either, but I bet it will be a ton better than this one.

[GordMay]

Mix & Match Boosters

In general, boosters improve the immune response, no matter what booster you get.

But people who receive an adenovector vaccine, such as Johnson & Johnson [in the United States], or AstraZeneca elsewhere, get the most substantial response, when they receive an mRNA vaccine, like Pfizer or Moderna, as their booster.

A small NIH study [1] discovered that people who first received an mRNA vaccine had similar antibody production with any booster, while people who first received Johnson & Johnson produced more antibodies with mRNA boosters, than a second round of Johnson & Johnson.

Other studies from the United Kingdom [2], and Spain [3] have reported similar results.

[1] “Heterologous SARS-CoV-2 Booster Vaccinations – Preliminary Report” ~ by Robert L. Atmar, M.D. Et al
➥ https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...827v1.full.pdf

[2] “Safety and Immunogenicity Report from the Com-COV Study – a Single-Blind Randomised Non-Inferiority Trial Comparing Heterologous And Homologous Prime-Boost Schedules with An Adenoviral Vectored and mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine” ~ by Robert H. Shaw et al
They report that both ‘mixed’ schedules (Pfizer-BioNTech followed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, and Oxford-AstraZeneca followed by Pfizer-BioNTech) induced high concentrations of antibodies against the SARS-CoV2 spike IgG protein when doses were administered four weeks apart.
➥ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3874014

[3] “Mix-and-match COVID vaccines trigger potent immune response”
Preliminary results from a trial of more than 600 people are the first to show the benefits of combining different vaccines.
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d415...ntent=deeplink

[Zippee]

Like many here, and with Covid giving us the time and interest, I do my very best to stay informed in the hope that we can make better personal decisions. This morning I ran across this interview, and let me say this:

I learned more from this interview, and realized how little even the most informed really know - that I have in two years and hundreds of hours on the net. I'll post this link again, but if there ever was a single interview that must be watched (more than once), this is it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJHINoHFzbY

It is not short, but I guarantee every minute of it is worth your time.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Mix & Match Boosters

In general, boosters improve the immune response, no matter what booster you get.

But people who receive an adenovector vaccine, such as Johnson & Johnson [in the United States], or AstraZeneca elsewhere, get the most substantial response, when they receive an mRNA vaccine, like Pfizer or Moderna, as their booster.

A small NIH study [1] discovered that people who first received an mRNA vaccine had similar antibody production with any booster, while people who first received Johnson & Johnson produced more antibodies with mRNA boosters, than a second round of Johnson & Johnson.

Other studies from the United Kingdom [2], and Spain [3] have reported similar results.

[1] “Heterologous SARS-CoV-2 Booster Vaccinations – Preliminary Report” ~ by Robert L. Atmar, M.D. Et al
➥ https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...827v1.full.pdf

[2] “Safety and Immunogenicity Report from the Com-COV Study – a Single-Blind Randomised Non-Inferiority Trial Comparing Heterologous And Homologous Prime-Boost Schedules with An Adenoviral Vectored and mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine” ~ by Robert H. Shaw et al
They report that both ‘mixed’ schedules (Pfizer-BioNTech followed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, and Oxford-AstraZeneca followed by Pfizer-BioNTech) induced high concentrations of antibodies against the SARS-CoV2 spike IgG protein when doses were administered four weeks apart.
➥ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3874014

[3] “Mix-and-match COVID vaccines trigger potent immune response”
Preliminary results from a trial of more than 600 people are the first to show the benefits of combining different vaccines.

It's kind of intuitive, isn't it? That a different booster will give better response, because your body is getting exposed to different perspective, as it were.


I had read all of this, and when I went to get my booster, asked for Moderna instead of Pfizer. The doctor said that Finnish health authority advice is NOT to mix and match. But he allowed me to take Moderna instead of Pfizer.


I had quite a strong reaction from the Moderna, stronger than from my first Pfizer dose, and didn't feel very good for one day. I take that to mean that it really worked.