+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

Any new information on the latest announced travel restrictions please post here

armoured

VIP Member
Feb 1, 2015
17,324
8,920
France is not a good example in termes of vaccination, but I pointed the fact how it's easy to get your second dose in France, regardless of how the campaign is efficient or not. Let's forget France, and let's compare US with Canada. You might argue that Pfizer is produced in States, fair enough, let's compare Canada with Mongolia/Israel/ UAE.

Being fully vaccinated is, obvisouly, a better strategy, especially for elderly. Canada didn't start its vaccination campaign earlier. Why ?

"subsequent studies have mostly shown it was the right decision" : it's not about the numbers, but about the reproducibility and if it's peer reviewed -even though it has been criticized for many reasons; there's a long discussion in the epistemology books.
I give up, you're moving the goalposts - and you clearly did not read fully the articles, which do discuss that there is peer-reviewed research, informed by experience with previous vaccines. It was not a perfect decision - it was a somewhat risky one, which subsequently seems to have proven out, but was definitely targetted at maximizing public health benefits.

My point was: you asked why Canada is not prioritizing second shots. A child with an ipad could find the answer to that. It was a deliberate decision. (And the right one). Not to mention - you brought up France, not me - and then throwing in more countries, my claim was not "rah Canada", nor that Canada has outperformed all other countries, but "your specific criticism here is dumb."

As I noted - lots of things to criticise; Canada did start late; etc. Some strategic decisions - like buying a lot of all the potential vaccines, as opposed to buying very large orders of the Pfizer vaccine (like USA), were arguably better strategies ex ante - but the USA 'bet' on Pfizer paid off (for reasons like manufacturing that probably couldn't have been foreseen). Lots of other factors that I'd criticise, too - just some examples; Canada's performance in covid (all levels of government together) may be better than some other countries, but overall far too many failings.

But if you have to change the terms of your criticism (because, hint, uninformed and unaware), that points to just bad faith. I'm sure there's a parking-lot preacher happy to argue theology with you - not interested.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cjr

Idrissrafd

Hero Member
Aug 12, 2020
299
65
I give up, you're moving the goalposts - and you clearly did not read fully the articles, which do discuss that there is peer-reviewed research, informed by experience with previous vaccines. It was not a perfect decision - it was a somewhat risky one, which subsequently seems to have proven out, but was definitely targetted at maximizing public health benefits.

My point was: you asked why Canada is not prioritizing second shots. A child with an ipad could find the answer to that. It was a deliberate decision. (And the right one). Not to mention - you brought up France, not me - and then throwing in more countries, my claim was not "rah Canada", nor that Canada has outperformed all other countries, but "your specific criticism here is dumb."

As I noted - lots of things to criticise; Canada did start late; etc. Some strategic decisions - like buying a lot of all the potential vaccines, as opposed to buying very large orders of the Pfizer vaccine (like USA), were arguably better strategies ex ante - but the USA 'bet' on Pfizer paid off (for reasons like manufacturing that probably couldn't have been foreseen). Lots of other factors that I'd criticise, too - just some examples; Canada's performance in covid (all levels of government together) may be better than some other countries, but overall far too many failings.

But if you have to change the terms of your criticism (because, hint, uninformed and unaware), that points to just bad faith. I'm sure there's a parking-lot preacher happy to argue theology with you - not interested.
I read the article and another one, and it says what I, actually, was trying to imply. It says :

Time to revise the strategy
But now she believes it's time to revise the strategy.

"The second dose is needed and one of the reasons is to increase the cross-coverage against other circulating variants," she said.

"Now that we have the vaccine supply and now that we have first-dose coverage across especially those high risk priority groups, I think that providing the second dose now is a good idea."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-covid-19-vaccine-second-dose-delay-variants-1.6045226

So, even for the sake of argument, the first strategy came to be a good one, now, is it not the time to change the strategy like many experts and scientists are saying ?
Especially if we're talking about the new variants and the concern of scientists. In other words, variants will be another factor in the equation, and the second dose will be a main asset.
 

armoured

VIP Member
Feb 1, 2015
17,324
8,920
I read the article and another one, and it says what I, actually, was trying to imply. It says :

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-covid-19-vaccine-second-dose-delay-variants-1.6045226
No, your original post had absolutely zero of the vast majority of the context of this article - that it was undoubtedly exactly the right strategy at the time.

So, even for the sake of argument, the first strategy came to be a good one, now, is it not the time to change the strategy like many experts and scientists are saying ?
Especially if we're talking about the new variants and the concern of scientists. In other words, variants will be another factor in the equation, and the second dose will be a main asset.
Of course this discussion is going on; it should. But saying 'now might be the right time to adapt the strategy' (as this article's primary quoted expert opines) is an entirely different point from asking "why can't I get a second dose as early as I'd like."

The more important part of that article is here:
Provinces initially followed NACI's guidance, but have recently shortened the time between shots to as low as two months as supply has increased.

NACI released new recommendations Friday that said second doses should now be offered "as soon as possible," with priority given to Canadians "at highest risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19" either before or in tandem with other eligible populations.
So no, they don't say that priority should be given to giving the second dose as fast as possible to the general public (the context in which your whinge about "why can't I reserve before September" makes sense, and to which the answer is "because it's not about you") - but now that they are getting close to the original target for first doses (which I recall was set at 75%) AND the supply has gotten much better, the second shot schedule should be pushed up esp to cover vulnerable populations.

Which - although one can quibble about timing and supply and whatnot - was basically part of the original strategy: prioritise first doses to general public to close to maximum coverage, second doses to eg medical workers and vulnerable, and then shift the ongoing vaccine plan to more second doses.

At about 58% first-dose coverage (including expanding first dose to over-12 year olds) and a pace of ~1% a day, a simplistic version of this is "shift to more second dose priority in mid-July." Well ahead of original schedule.

(Worth noting of course that although the national recommendations are widely followed, the actual distribution and prioritisation is done in the provinces and territories, and so - again, as the article notes - provinces are adjusting, as they should)

So yeah - you found a source that 100% supports exactly what I said - this was a deliberate strategy - and rather tendentiously are claiming it supports your point (which it does only in the sense of pushing for it to be a bit sooner).

It does ONLY in the sense that some doctors are putting a bit more emphasis on the switch to the second-dose phase, which again - is EXACTLY what is happening, allowing for the current supply and roll-out speed, and ALREADY covered in the recommendations issued last Friday (if I have the dates right, actually might have been ten days ago).
 
Last edited:

Idrissrafd

Hero Member
Aug 12, 2020
299
65
Still, they're not giving priority to elderly, at least in practice. Many elderly and vulnerable individuals -who are at risk of more severe disease or outcomes from covid-19-, are still getting their second dose in August/Septembre, exactly like us.
 

armoured

VIP Member
Feb 1, 2015
17,324
8,920
Still, they're not giving priority to elderly, at least in practice. Many elderly and vulnerable individuals -who are at risk of more severe disease or outcomes from covid-19-, are still getting their second dose in August/Septembre, exactly like us.
I refer you to my very first post in response - "Although criticisms possible too - for some sub-groups like elderly may be better to priortize second shot."

The recommendations referred to by NACI above said "second doses should now be offered "as soon as possible," with priority given to Canadians "at highest risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19". This recommendation is about a week old - I think we can give 13 different provinces administering 300k+ doses a day just a wee bit more time to plan and adjust.

Particularly because some provinces have already announced what you're suggesting (but they also need, ahem, systems in place to do so) - that they will be moving to and accelerating the second doses to be sooner than August / September. But yes, for the most part they can't make a reservation for sooner - not just yet, anyway.

My claim was not that it was perfect - but that your point that you can't schedule a shot for yourself before September missed the point that this was deliberate strategy. They can and should tweak as they go along.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Idrissrafd

armoured

VIP Member
Feb 1, 2015
17,324
8,920
By the way, quick back-of-the-envelope math based on keeping the same pace of vaccinations (~300k per day) is that Canada could get to 75% of population fully vaccinated in ~120 days (end-September). (Not adjusted for those that can't get vaccinated - yet - young children, certain immune disorders, etc).

That's roughly what I've heard as a 'good' target, 75%. Of course it won't happen exactly that way and they should target more. And deliveries of vaccine doses is accelerating at least in June.

But mathematically it's a certainty that they can't keep up the current pace by doing mostly first doses - 100% of pop would have got the first dose in about 50 days if they just continue on.

So the roll-out / switch to second doses is inevitable; arguments about how quickly they shift are now mostly tactics (and health professionals aboslutely should be debating and figuring out how to do this with the governments and public health authorities).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Idrissrafd

Naheulbeuck

Hero Member
Aug 14, 2015
315
191
Still, they're not giving priority to elderly, at least in practice. Many elderly and vulnerable individuals -who are at risk of more severe disease or outcomes from covid-19-, are still getting their second dose in August/Septembre, exactly like us.

I'll join in on that as my family is in France, Switzerland, Spain and Italy. None of them are doing better than Canada.

Canada per capita is actually doing extremely well but used a different strategy compared to the rest of the world, with the clear target of vaccinating as many people as possible with one dose. In France 55 doses per 100 people have been administered, Germany 62, Spain 58, Italy 59, Switzerland 56 while Canada has 64 per 100.

Also this strategy means that much fewer people have two doses, it also means much more people have one: 60% vs less than 40% for France for example.

I personally welcome this strategy as studies have shown significant protection afforded from one dose of the vaccine already, I'd much rather have everyone with one instead of a few with two.

When talking about Elders, in many provinces they start to be able to advance their second shot and that will continue (with expanded eligibility) as vaccine supplies continue to be received.

Also it was slow to start, Canada is actually doing really well on the rollout of the vaccine. It is quite pointless to compare it with the US or the UK who made sure to get their dose first as producers of the vaccines, but comparing with all the other countries, there are very few who administer more doses per 100 people than Canada.

Regarding the Ontario Quebec restrictions, they are still in place (extended till June 16th for now) but that is only on non essential so it will depend on how essential they consider you getting your PCC. Hopefully the ban is lifted on June 16th (or 17th) and that solves your issue.
 
Last edited:

armoured

VIP Member
Feb 1, 2015
17,324
8,920
Canada per capita is actually doing extremely well but used a different strategy compared to the rest of the world, with the clear target of vaccinated as many people as possible with one dose.
...
I personally welcome this strategy as studies have shown significant protection afforded from one dose of the vaccine already, I'd much rather have everyone with one instead of a few with two.
I really think that this decision to focus on maximizing first-dose vaccination is completely under-rated and under-appreciated, including by Canadians.

It was a somewhat risky decision at the time they made it (but well-founded in theory and practice with other vaccines). It probably was the clearest 'right' decision made - and under-rated in part because it was made on the basis of uncertain information, and basically against what the big pharma companies were recommending.

It was a courageous decision.

And they don't get enough credit for it - nor for sticking to it when it was first criticized; and (as in this thread) still not widely understood how good a decision it was.

That said - of course it's not perfect and there were mistakes made, and I try to avoid the "but what about [insert country here]?". Right now though - there is only one country with a population more than 10 million that's hit a higher percentage of first-dose recipients, the UK (and good for them, at least on that one metric).

(I'm still wondering if Israel's vaccine numbers include the entire population ... I'm guessing no but too lazy to research)
 
  • Like
Reactions: cjr

Naheulbeuck

Hero Member
Aug 14, 2015
315
191
That said - of course it's not perfect and there were mistakes made, and I try to avoid the "but what about [insert country here]?". Right now though - there is only one country with a population more than 10 million that's hit a higher percentage of first-dose recipients, the UK (and good for them, at least on that one metric).
Actually I believe we have now more people vaccinated with one dose (as a % of the population) than the UK (as of this week), also barely and they have a significant portion of fully vaccinated, with Israel the sole leader on that statistic with 62% of the population with one dose (and 59% with two doses). Just a titbit of information.

There is plenty to criticize about the rollout (the pharmacy vs provincial has been quite a bit of a fiasco) but we are doing better than the vast majority of the world, we also have less vaccine hesitancy (the US has plateaued for a while despite massive efforts to convince people, even the UK has plateaued...

I would expect that we will plateau as well at some point regarding 1st doses, after all 16% of the population is below 12 (rough estimate), some people can't get the vaccine and some just won't so reaching 70% of total population seems like a maximum we can reach but we'll see. As less people want 1st doses and more vaccines are received, the 2nd dose will start to accelerate, with approximately 20m doses to be received in June and July, I believe a reasonable timeline is some time in August for those who want a second dose to get one.
 

scylla

VIP Member
Jun 8, 2010
95,934
22,176
Toronto
Category........
Visa Office......
Buffalo
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
App. Filed.......
28-05-2010
AOR Received.
19-08-2010
File Transfer...
28-06-2010
Passport Req..
01-10-2010
VISA ISSUED...
05-10-2010
LANDED..........
05-10-2010
Still, they're not giving priority to elderly, at least in practice. Many elderly and vulnerable individuals -who are at risk of more severe disease or outcomes from covid-19-, are still getting their second dose in August/Septembre, exactly like us.
This isn't accurate for Ontario.
 

Canada2020eh

Champion Member
Aug 2, 2019
2,194
887
Still, they're not giving priority to elderly, at least in practice. Many elderly and vulnerable individuals -who are at risk of more severe disease or outcomes from covid-19-, are still getting their second dose in August/Septembre, exactly like us.
I guess it depends on how you define elderly and where in the country you are, where I am in ON my 80 yr old mother gets hers in 2 weeks. My 2nd is projected for mid July by my age group.
 
  • Like
Reactions: armoured

armoured

VIP Member
Feb 1, 2015
17,324
8,920
I guess it depends on how you define elderly and where in the country you are, where I am in ON my 80 yr old mother gets hers in 2 weeks. My 2nd is projected for mid July by my age group.
I think we can now say that provincial governments are moving pretty quickly to shift vaccine prioritization to include second doses for the vulnerable/elderly (which will likely expand to other age groups before long):
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/covid-19-sask-update-wednesday-1.6050549

"Saskatchewan administered more than double the number of second COVID-19 vaccine doses than first doses."

The figures for SK are that ~66% of over-18s have received the first dose, and 77% of over-40s. That's getting pretty close to running out of those who can and will get the first dose of the vaccine.

So as above: it's inevitable that second-dose vaccinations will ramp up quickly elsewhere, too.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Idrissrafd