WHO warns against people mixing and matching COVID vaccines

They later said it was OK to mix.

gr8dlr wrote: ↑
The Cdn Drs and Health experts were in defense mode after this snippet hit the news headlines quoting a WHO expert. I saw a interview from another Cdn Dr. and they said the WHO chief scientist was misquoted or not fully quoted and that the snippet came from a 9 min long discussion and this was not what was meant. Since no one is party to the 9 min discussion we're to assume that media is spreading 'misinformation'...again?

And ppl wonder why we don't necessarily just blind trust the experts.

Absolutely and people like you who are the exact target for spreading sensational click bait titles.

Have you actually clicked on the news article you linked? If you even read the FIRST PARAGRAPH:

GENEVA, July 13 (Reuters) - The World Health Organization's chief scientist has advised individuals against mixing and matching COVID-19 vaccines from different manufacturers, saying such decisions should be left to public health authorities.

It says right there the decision should be left to the health authorities.

The article has a click bait title. This article even states that WHO has already approve mixing for AZ last month.

The WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on vaccines said in June the Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) vaccine could be used as a second dose after an initial dose of AstraZeneca (AZN.L), if the latter is not available.

hahaty wrote: ↑ Absolutely and people like you who are the exact target for spreading sensational click bait titles.

Have you actually clicked on the news article you linked? If you even read the FIRST PARAGRAPH:

GENEVA, July 13 (Reuters) - The World Health Organization's chief scientist has advised individuals against mixing and matching COVID-19 vaccines from different manufacturers, saying such decisions should be left to public health authorities.

It says right there the decision should be left to the health authorities.

That was updated one. She did say but after received huge backlash she changed that.

"Swaminathan had called mixing a "data-free zone" but later clarified her remarks in an overnight tweet."

It is RIGHT there.

""Individuals should not decide for themselves, public health agencies can, based on available data," she said in the tweet. "Data from mix and match studies of different vaccines are awaited - immunogenicity and safety both need to be evaluated.""

How does an individual decide?

cardle wrote: ↑ How does an individual decide?

we are not sure how vaccines are given in Third world countries so may be its more about that/them.
May be they have to pay for vaccine and the availability is so scarce.

That Reuters article has changed. Yesterday, it was a short three-paragraph article that offered little context. You can read yesterday's version here:
WHO warns against mixing and matching COVID vaccines

Most people and other media outlets were interpreting that article as the WHO advising against mixing and matching, period. For example, CP24 posted yesterday that same Reuters article but retitled it:
WHO urges countries to stop 'dangerous trend' of mixing and matching COVID-19 vaccines

Today, that Reuters article has been updated, including a new title:
WHO warns individuals against mixing and matching COVID vaccines

As can be guessed from the new title, this is the most notable change:



As for CP24, today you can no longer access their retitled Reuters article, but will be redirected to this article instead:
Canadian health officials defend mix and match COVID-19 vaccine strategy after WHO comments

Some might think that the WHO has backpedalled, but this is really just a case of Reuters and other media outlets taking the WHO doctor's original comments out of context and presenting it without the intended nuance.

I posted this before in another thread, but check out this Twitter thread by Dr. Menaka Pai that explains why the original Reuters article was misleading. The WHO doctor actually thanked Dr. Pai for her explanation.



If you don't quite believe the explanation, then check out for yourself what the WHO doctor originally said and make up your own mind. The question that was asked was concerning the necessity of booster shots and the WHO doctor was adding her thoughts after another WHO official had provided an answer. I timestamped it right where she begins her comments, but you can jump back to see the full context.

hahaty wrote: ↑ Absolutely and people like you who are the exact target for spreading sensational click bait titles.

Have you actually clicked on the news article you linked? If you even read the FIRST PARAGRAPH:

GENEVA, July 13 (Reuters) - The World Health Organization's chief scientist has advised individuals against mixing and matching COVID-19 vaccines from different manufacturers, saying such decisions should be left to public health authorities.

It says right there the decision should be left to the health authorities.

The orginal story did not say "left to public health authorities". If the WHO chief scientist felt this way why did she say anything.

I did not write the original story in any way shape or form, so I'm not the one spreading misinformation. These are reputable media outlets [ie Reuters]. If the original media outlets posted information PROPERLY then we wouldn't have so much controversy. The fact is every country is doing their own thing to protect their own asses.

Think about this...
Canada approved Astra because we had a lot of it coming in and the Feds needed to show to the public that they were doing a great job getting us vaccinated so they pushed it out even though the US did not approve it and to date the US still has not approved it. [Perhaps Astra was not approved by US for political reasons - I'll come back to this]. So which local public health authority [Canada or the US] should we believe...the US who perhaps has more ability to assess the vaccine for what it is [risky] or the local public health authority in Canada who had a vested interest to approve it quickly.

FYI Cda has now actually backpedalled on Astra and are now basically saying don't take Astra for first dose or second dose. Maybe the US non approval was not just political?
Should we still blindly only listen to local public health authorities? Taking the cue from the way they assessed Astra, perhaps don't be so quick to assume they know best.

Well this is great... Got my first shot of Pfizer in early May and was able to get my second shot today. Doctor that administered it said that they had not received any Pfizer today but were offering Moderna. Guess my left arm is gonna fall off....

classicrock wrote: ↑
If you don't quite believe the explanation, then check out for yourself what the WHO doctor originally said and make up your own mind. The question that was asked was concerning the necessity of booster shots and the WHO doctor was adding her thoughts after another WHO official had provided an answer. I timestamped it right where she begins her comments, but you can jump back to see the full context.

Thanks for highlighting and timestamping the video.

Basically she is stating that only AZ + Pfizer 2nd dose is the only mixing that has good data.

"it's a little bit of a dangerous trend here where people are, they are in a data free, evidence free zone, insofar on mix and match. There are studies going and we have to wait for that, maybe it will be a good approach, but at the moment we only have data on the Oxford AztraZeneca followed by Pfizer."

Thus, until more data comes out, no country including Canada should be mixing other combinations other than AZ followed by Pfizer, until WHO has enough data to recommend it.

As per WHO's current guidelines on mixing:

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detai ... )-vaccines

Can I have the second dose with a different vaccine than the first dose?
Clinical trials in some countries are looking at whether you can have a first dose from one vaccine and a second dose from a different vaccine. There isn't enough data yet to recommend this type of combination.

kr0zet wrote: ↑ Well this is great... Got my first shot of Pfizer in early May and was able to get my second shot today. Doctor that administered it said that they had not received any Pfizer today but were offering Moderna. Guess my left arm is gonna fall off....

Well if it does, silver lining is that you'll get an answer to your question from another thread:

difference-between-vaccine-locations-ho ... #p34720148

kr0zet wrote: ↑Why are you shopping for a vaccine? The best one for you is the first one offered to you.

trisan-centre-schomberg-pfizer-moderna- ... #p34727990

kr0zet wrote: ↑More vaccine shopping. SMH

repost:

who-cautions-against-mixing-covid-19-va ... e-2477007/

I think the revised wording …
CLARIFIED THE STATEMENT

I think it was always the intent that Mixing should be a decision left up to the Health Officials / Professionals (Researchers & Doctors) … and NOT Something that the Average Joe should take upon themselves

Just like any other vaccine

Health Pros make the decision

This SHOPPING AROUND by individuals for whichever vaccine they want

I think is quite dangerous

In Canada we have approved Mixing & Matching

But even then there is a distinct list of what ones should go together in what order
And our Provincial Public Health Units thru their Vax Booking Sites are monitoring this

But the world over … it wouldn’t be smart IMO with what close to 10 vaccines around for an individual on their own to make such a call … Willy Nilly matching for themselves

I truly believe that’s what the WHO Meant
And hence WHY there was later a CLARIFICATION to the Announcements Wording

For people without the medical knowledge to process all the information from the internet, yes they should just blindly listen to public health authorities. If they have doubt, they can consult with their family doctor. It may look like government has backpedaling or flip-flopping on their vaccine policy but in reality, it is normal for policy to change based on the dynamic of different factors. For example, a few months ago, delay the 1st and 2nd dose interval so we can vaccinate more people quicker is a reasonable and good option, assuming Health Canada would sample antibody level constantly and reduce the interval if needed. Now with Delta variant and expanded supply and injection capacity, I don't think this is a good idea anymore. In fact, I think some provinces are taking a risk to remove the restriction too soon. Hopefully we won't see a huge rebound in severe cases. There are speculations that Delta has lower death rate but we really don't know at the moment.

Yes. there was political influence about AZ in my opinion. I accept US's explanation not to accept EUA application because they have more vaccines then they need but they should at least treat AZ the same as Johnson vaccine as qualification for the purpose of vaccine passport.

gr8dlr wrote: ↑ The orginal story did not say "left to public health authorities". If the WHO chief scientist felt this way why did she say anything.

I did not write the original story in any way shape or form, so I'm not the one spreading misinformation. These are reputable media outlets [ie Reuters]. If the original media outlets posted information PROPERLY then we wouldn't have so much controversy. The fact is every country is doing their own thing to protect their own asses.

Think about this...
Canada approved Astra because we had a lot of it coming in and the Feds needed to show to the public that they were doing a great job getting us vaccinated so they pushed it out even though the US did not approve it and to date the US still has not approved it. [Perhaps Astra was not approved by US for political reasons - I'll come back to this]. So which local public health authority [Canada or the US] should we believe...the US who perhaps has more ability to assess the vaccine for what it is [risky] or the local public health authority in Canada who had a vested interest to approve it quickly.

FYI Cda has now actually backpedalled on Astra and are now basically saying don't take Astra for first dose or second dose. Maybe the US non approval was not just political?
Should we still blindly only listen to local public health authorities? Taking the cue from the way they assessed Astra, perhaps don't be so quick to assume they know best.

gr8dlr wrote: ↑ The orginal story did not say "left to public health authorities". If the WHO chief scientist felt this way why did she say anything.

I did not write the original story in any way shape or form, so I'm not the one spreading misinformation. These are reputable media outlets [ie Reuters]. If the original media outlets posted information PROPERLY then we wouldn't have so much controversy. The fact is every country is doing their own thing to protect their own asses.

Think about this...
Canada approved Astra because we had a lot of it coming in and the Feds needed to show to the public that they were doing a great job getting us vaccinated so they pushed it out even though the US did not approve it and to date the US still has not approved it. [Perhaps Astra was not approved by US for political reasons - I'll come back to this]. So which local public health authority [Canada or the US] should we believe...the US who perhaps has more ability to assess the vaccine for what it is [risky] or the local public health authority in Canada who had a vested interest to approve it quickly.

FYI Cda has now actually backpedalled on Astra and are now basically saying don't take Astra for first dose or second dose. Maybe the US non approval was not just political?
Should we still blindly only listen to local public health authorities? Taking the cue from the way they assessed Astra, perhaps don't be so quick to assume they know best.

I agree. I am for vaccine without any questions. If they say it the take it.
But the mask on Mask off. NO ban flights and ban. Quarantine but let people skirt the rules.
Get AZ. Then not as first and now let the AZ go to waste we have so much money.
Take vaccines from poor people/countries and of all the countries get fro India.

I have never seen public official being political mouthpiece for government.
Remind same people who went batsht crazy when Hiller said may be second dose to be delayed.

So yes I have lost respect for health officials. Provincial and federal.
People wonder why so many are afraid of taking vaccine. Especially minorities.

Yes all have become political pawns. Many things like approval and vaccine supply has and had become political. The good thing is government can spend money as they want. No limit.

Vaccines are not going to end pandemic. Because we don't know what will happen when everyone one here is vaccinated and visit countries like china/India, Asian one or Latin Amerian ones.

kr0zet wrote: ↑ Well this is great... Got my first shot of Pfizer in early May and was able to get my second shot today. Doctor that administered it said that they had not received any Pfizer today but were offering Moderna. Guess my left arm is gonna fall off....

My wife's first was Pfizer and her second was Moderna.

3 weeks later, she's more emotional, crankier, hungrier, and has a ton of hip pain.

Definitely has nothing to do with her being in her 3rd trimester, though.

82 wrote: ↑ Yes. there was political influence about AZ in my opinion. I accept US's explanation not to accept EUA application because they have more vaccines then they need but they should at least treat AZ the same as Johnson vaccine as qualification for the purpose of vaccine passport.

Actually, AZ, for whatever reasons, has not submitted their vaccine for EUA.

PointsHubby wrote: ↑
I truly believe that’s what the WHO Meant
And hence WHY there was later a CLARIFICATION to the Announcements Wording

WHO did clarify further in the video above and stated the following:

"it's a little bit of a dangerous trend here where people are, they are in a data free, evidence free zone, insofar on mix and match. There are studies going and we have to wait for that, maybe it will be a good approach, but at the moment we only have data on the Oxford AztraZeneca followed by Pfizer."

As mentioned, until more data comes out, no country including Canada should be mixing other combinations other than AZ followed by Pfizer, until WHO has enough data to recommend it.

This means Health Canada needs to administer only:

AZ + Pfizer

Pfizer + Pfizer

Moderna + Moderna

Let other countries be the guinea pigs for mixing mRNA against WHO recommendation, since our mixing data is not feeding into WHO anyways to review for side effects, safety and efficacy.

DealsinThe6ix wrote: ↑ As mentioned, until more data comes out, no country including Canada should be mixing other combinations other than AZ followed by Pfizer, until WHO has enough data to recommend it.

It doesn't really matter what WHO recommends.
We can make our own decisions as WHO has different priorities than that of Canada.
WHO didn't recommend delayed second dose; nor do they think vaccinations should be given to children as priority over vulnerable adults in the rest of the world.