micky wrote

Well, this is sort of obvious, once you think about
it, but who has time to think about it in advance:

Me. We have only had 3 cases of covid in my town,
2 came off the Ruby Princess and one flew in from
Sydney and went back by car when he got his test
result back after being tested in Sydney before flying.

None of those infected anyone and all recovered fine.

So while I can have the AstraZeneca any time I like,
I would prefer to have the Pfizer because it works
better and much quicker and has no CVT or PVT risk.
But currently only those under 50 can have that because
we don't have anything like as much of the Pfizer. We
make a million dozes a week of the AstraZeneca and
will be making one of the mRNA vaccines sometime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...dae302596 ac3

The country's declining covid-19 case rates present
an unrealistically optimistic perspective for half of the
nation - the half that is still not vaccinated.

As more people receive vaccines, covid-19 cases are occurring mostly
in the increasingly narrow slice of the unprotected population.

We have almost no community transmission at all, just
a very occasional escape from hotel quarantine from
an infected new arrival in the country, almost exclusively
returning citizens. Those involved in moving them from
the airport to quarantine and running the quarantine
hotels etc are getting the Pfizer and will soon not be
able to work in those unvaccinated.

So The Washington Post adjusted its case, death
and hospitalization rates to account for that - and
found that in some places, the virus continues to
rage among those who haven't received a shot.

"Things are getting safer for those who are vaccinated," the state's
secretary of health, Umair A. Shah, told The Post. "For those who
are unvaccinated, they remain at risk. We have to make sure that
nuanced message is getting to our community." He's being
generous when he calls that nuance. If the rate of pregnancy were
higher among women then men, would understanding that be a nuance?