2025-11-01 COVID-19 vaccination
===============================

Yesterday, at the pharmacy here in Zürich, when we asked for a Covid
shot, we were told that it was only available for people 65 and older
or people at-risk. I asked whether this is a matter of who pays or
whether this is a matter of the state making it illegal? And what if
we want to visit our parents who are around 80? The person at the desk
decided to check in with the head pharmacist and came back to say that
the federal department of health changed its position this week. It’s
now OK to give us the shots. We still have to pay for it.

How strange. Was it really forbidden to vaccinate us just a week
earlier?

Reading the official position of the Swiss department of health (
Richtlinien und Empfehlungen zu Impfungen und Prophylaxe), the plan
says that it's not "recommended" unless you're 65 or older, or
at-risk. I checked the Covid-19 site and found a sentence saying that
it helped reduce the risk of post-acute sequelae. Hm, strange.

I checked the BAG-Bulletin 38/2024 and it seems that if you're not
at-risk, then the vaccination doesn't seem to affect the outcome they
are looking for, namely: preventing a difficult course or a deadly
outcome. That makes me think they're not taking into account all the
non-dramatic but still consequential post-acute sequelae.

I still wonder: Does vaccination help reduce the risk of post-acute
sequelae if you have a light COVID-19 infection?

Then again, when I skim an article such as Long‐Term Sequelae of
COVID‐19: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Symptoms 3 Years
Post‐SARS‐CoV‐2 Infection (Rahmati, 2025), I see that they describe
the work as follows:

> We provide an overview of the manifestations of post-COVID-19
> condition after critical illness in adults. We explore the effects
> on various organ systems, describe potential pathophysiological
> mechanisms, and consider the challenges of providing clinical care
> and support for survivors of critical illness with multisystem
> manifestations.

So I wonder: If the only known sequelae are based on studies of
critical illness and if the vaccination doesn't help prevent critical
illness if you're not at-risk, does it make sense not to vaccinate if
you're not at-risk?

Essentially, people like me are acting on the precautionary principle:
We can't be sure that the non-critical illness doesn't do subtle
damage over the long term, specially on a recurring basis, so we try
to do our best.

But I guess the best options are still:

* On an individual level, avoid crowds and to wear a mask if you
  cannot.

* On a societal level, everybody should wear a fucking mask.

Every time I see pictures of street life in Japan, I'm surprised to
see so many people masking and I remember seeing a lot of people
masking before the pandemic when I visited Japan and Hong Kong.

#Corona

2025-11-01. @Steveg58@aus.social quoted the following:

> Among adults between the ages of 18 and 64 years, two case–control
> studies showed an effectiveness of 57 to 58% against hospitalization
> with the mRNA XBB.1.5-adapted vaccine.10,12 A third study showed
> similar effectiveness against hospitalization or death.21 Six
> studies estimated a Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness of 22 to 48%
> against symptomatic or medically attended infection. – Updated
> Evidence for Covid-19, RSV, and Influenza Vaccines for 2025–2026,
> by Jake Scott et al., in New England Journal of Medicine