You should make your provider aware if you've had anaphylactic reactions (to anything) in the past before getting vaccine. Also now providers will have epinephrine on hand knowing this is a possibility (which I'm sure they did anyways).
That will, however, further complicate distribution efforts because it is likely that those at higher risk of a reaction won't be able to be vaccinated at pharmacies, which then creates a new cost issue with needing an office visit and potentially expensive treatment for an allergic reaction. So it is likely to be a deterrent to many of those who have severe allergies, at least until they narrow down what allergen(s) the vaccine is cross-reacting with.
True. Wonder if the requirement would be 18 and over w/ under 18 wearing a mask?
I still don't think we're likely to see domestic requirements, especially not if a liability shield is part of the next stimulus. Americans have short memories. Once the virus isn't spreading like wildfire and grabbing headlines, I think it is very likely that complacency will set in quickly and the feeling will become "if you're worried about catching it, get vaccinated" just like how we think of flu, measles, etc. Actually, I suspect it will be taken even less seriously than those - a lot of people avoid theme parks and planes and other high-density settings with pre-vaccinated babies because of how serious measles, flu, whooping cough can be in young children, but this is so rarely serious in young children that once most adults are vaccinated, I think it will mostly fade from our collective priorities completely.
But I'm not so sure about international requirements. I can't see countries that are trying to keep new cases from being introduced via travel making age-based exceptions. Maybe with a negative test? Even that is a huge drag on tourism, though, because it means gambling all your non-refundable airfare, hotel, ticket costs on the test being negative and the results coming back in a timely fashion.
There's a difference between being allergic and having a *severe* allergic reaction (ie needing to use an epipen), not people who just get rashes or some other reaction.
True, but there are millions of people who have severe reactions to one allergen or another. And the rate is higher in the US than in most other countries, so this is another hurdle that is likely to be higher here than elsewhere.
Regarding the "allergies." My dd3 has an anaphylactic allergy to nuts - has used her epipens twice this year. I'm active on a large food allergy forum and the prevailing question is people should avoid the vaccine if they have allergies to what? There are a LOT of people that carry epis for ana food allergies, insect stings, etc. A blanket avoidance really won't be good as that will eliminate a lot of people who would otherwise be happy to get the vaccine. I hope they fine tune that recommendation.
I hope so too... or that the other vaccine candidates don't pose the same problem. My husband has an anaphylactic allergy to fish and there's no way he'll get the vaccine if it comes with a risk of a reaction. His last reaction was 30-odd years ago and got him a trip to the ER, an overnight stay in the hospital, and a bill for a couple grand. It is not an experience he's in any hurry to repeat.
I assume they're working to figure out what caused the reaction, but I'm sure it'll take time to pin down for sure. Hopefully it'll end up being something like the flu/egg connection and a work-around can be found fairly quickly.
