New research from two small pre-print studies suggests delaying second doses of COVID-19 vaccines by up to four months may not be the best approach for some older Canadians.
The research comes as some experts are also questioning whether Canada’s vaccination advisers, who recommended the delay, can keep up with rapidly evolving science during the pandemic.
Prior to the pandemic, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI), which has provided guidance to the federal government on vaccinations since 1964, met just three times a year to discuss issues related to vaccines for influenza, mumps, measles and other viruses.
But a year after the pandemic was declared, with new data emerging daily, NACI has been thrust into the spotlight and forced to evaluate new vaccines for a novel virus faster than ever before.
“NACI’s committees are basically made up of volunteers, many with heavy daily responsibilities during the pandemic,” said Dr. David Naylor, co-chair of Canada’s COVID-19 Immunity Task Force.
“There’s no precedent for NACI to operate at this pace, and everyone is adapting on the fly.”
NACI has met nine times since Canada approved its first COVID-19 vaccine on Dec. 10, but it has plans to ramp up in the coming months with another 13 meetings scheduled between now and the end of June.
Guido Armellin, 86, receives the COVID-19 vaccine during a clinic at a church in Toronto on March 17. A team was on-site administering the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine to parishioners as part of a community outreach program to get seniors vaccinated at their place of worship. (Evan Mitsui/CBC)
Delay could leave cancer patients less protected, U.K. study suggests
Perhaps one of NACI’s most impactful recommendations on Canada’s vaccine rollout was the decision to delay second doses beyond manufacturing guidelines by up to four months, but emerging research signals it may not be the best approach for vulnerable Canadians.
A new pre-print study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, analyzed 151 older cancer patients and compared their immune response with 54 healthy adults after receiving the first and second doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in the U.K.
The researchers concluded that delaying second doses to between eight and 12 weeks for most cancer patients left them “wholly or partially unprotected” and had implications on their health and the potential emergence of coronavirus variants.
WATCH | Delaying some 2nd COVID-19 vaccine doses challenged by new data:
New early data suggests that Canada’s recommendation of delaying the second dose of COVID-19 vaccines to up to four months may not be effective in some older, more vulnerable patients, causing the vaccine advisory committee to re-examine its guidance. 2:36
“Our data advocates that bringing forward the second dose of the vaccine for patients who have cancer may benefit them,” said Leticia Monin-Aldama, lead author of the study and a researcher at the Francis Crick Institute in London.
“And that perhaps a sort of one-size-fits-all approach may not be ideal when delivering these vaccines to the population.”
NACI advocated for that universal approach to delay second doses by up to four months for all Canadians — the longest interval recommended by a country so far — based on limited real-world evidence and the reality of Canada’s vaccine supply.
The decision was also informed by findings from Dr. Danuta Skowronski, epidemiology lead at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC), who determined that one dose of the vaccine was actually more effective than clinical trials had initially shown.
NACI said if second doses were stretched to four months across the country, close to 80 per cent of Canadians over the age of 16 could get at least one shot by the end of June.
But Canada’s chief science adviser, Mona Nemer, has said the decision to delay second doses amounted to a “population level experiment” and advised against the delay in older Canadians on CTV’s Power Play this week, citing a lack of data to back up the decision.
Darryl Falzarano, a research scientist with the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization (VIDO) lab in Saskatoon, is also against the decision to increase the time between doses and said there is a growing body of research that suggests it’s not the safest approach for immunocompromised and older adults.
“The initial data look like delaying the dose of the mRNA vaccines would still provide reasonable protection to the population from severe or moderate disease, and so vaccinating more people was looked at as the greater good,” he said.
“Now, in certain populations — older people, people with comorbidities and cancers — likely delayed boosting for them is sub-optimal and possibly will lead to revised recommendations for those groups.”
Darryl Falzarano, a research scientist with the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization lab in Saskatoon, is opposed to increasing the time between doses and says there is a growing body of research that suggests it’s not the safest approach for immunocompromised and older adults. (Debra Marshall)
B.C. study analyzed long-term care residents
A second pre-print study released this week from researchers in British Columbia, which has also not been peer reviewed, cast further doubt on the dose delay for seniors and found that their immune response may not be as strong as in younger, healthier people.
The study analyzed antibody levels in a dozen long-term care residents in Vancouver a month after receiving their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, compared with 22 younger health-care workers — 18 of whom had not previously been infected by COVID-19 and four who had.
“The level of antibodies in older residents was fourfold lower, so significantly decreased,” said Dr. Marc Romney, a clinical associate professor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and one of the authors of the study. “The function of those antibodies in older people was also compromised.”
Romney said antibodies are just part of the picture, and he also plans to look at the immune system’s full response in future research. But he said the fact that antibodies in the elderly didn’t neutralize the virus as well as in the younger health-care workers suggests the dose delay may need to be revised for them.
“There is emerging evidence that demonstrates that there are some populations that will probably not fare as well and have the same degree of protection following single doses of a vaccine,” said Dr. Isaac Bogoch, an infectious diseases physician and member of Ontario’s COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution Task Force.
“These are groups you would want to shorten the time between dose one and two.”
WATCH | The science behind delaying the 2nd dose of COVID-19 vaccines:
Federal government scientists have put their support behind delayed second doses of COVID-19 vaccines — which several provinces were already doing — and ongoing research shows some of the benefits of the adapted strategy. 2:04
‘This isn’t a regular vaccine’
The speed with which NACI members are able to make these decisions has come under fire.
Falzarano said NACI is typically used to working under a “slow-moving” vaccine regulatory process where vaccines can take up to a decade to go from research to rollout.
“Their job is to review vaccines, but their experience is reviewing them under a much different scenario,” he said.
“They are normally looking at a full data set when they have to make decisions. They would normally make very conservative decisions, and now, they find themselves in a much different scenario than what they’re used to — and I think that’s highly challenging for them.”
Visitors to a mass vaccination clinic in Toronto on Tuesday fill in paperwork as they wait in line. The National Advisory Committee on Immunization initially recommended against giving the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine to seniors, but that guidance changed on March 16 after it reviewed data. (Frank Gunn/The Canadian Press)
NACI’s decision to recommend against the AstraZeneca-Oxford shot for seniors on March 1 came despite emerging evidence from around the world demonstrating its ability to prevent severe COVID-19 in older adults.
But that guidance changed on March 16 after more real-world data on the vaccine’s effectiveness was reviewed by NACI, and CBC News broke the story revealing documents on the federal government’s plans to allow those 65 and older to receive it.
Alyson Kelvin, an assistant professor at Dalhousie University and a virologist at the IWK Health Centre and the Canadian Centre for Vaccinology, all in Halifax, said NACI should include more experts in emerging viruses and vaccine development to help navigate the research in the pandemic.
“This isn’t a regular vaccine that’s gone through the typical workflow for vaccine approval and vaccine development because it’s an emerging virus,” said Kelvin, who is also evaluating Canadian vaccines at the VIDO lab in Saskatoon.
“You need somebody who understands that dynamic, instead of what we would normally depend on for our medicines or vaccines.”
Dr. Caroline Quach-Thanh, who chairs NACI, responded to criticism during a news conference on March 16, saying that as new evidence emerged on the efficacy of the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine in older adults, NACI was “busy with other files” that delayed its guidance.
“The committee is very busy, obviously, meeting weekly to discuss the emerging data on these important topics,” said Matthew Tunis, executive secretary to the committee.
“So there’s always inevitably going to be a bit of a lag between when a committee deliberates and when the advice is made public.”
Decisions take time, NACI chair says
Quach-Thanh responded to further questions about the delay in revising recommendations on CBC’s Power and Politics on Wednesday, noting that NACI isn’t equipped to review new evidence one day and make recommendations the next.
“It’s not possible, we can’t be that reactive,” she said. “I don’t think any advisory committee can be that reactive because it would mean that every time something changes, you move the needle one way or the next.
Dr. Caroline Quach-Thanh, who chairs the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, says NACI is currently re-examining its guidance based on new research, and new guidelines on the timing of second doses for seniors and the immunocompromised could come as early as next week. (Skype)
“Then it just means that you’re changing your recommendation every other day. So you need to gather that base of evidence before you change something.”
But even after NACI has finalized its recommendations, Quach-Thanh said, it takes an entire week to translate and upload them to the Public Health Agency of Canada’s website — precious time in a pandemic where new data emerges daily.
Quach-Thanh said the committee is currently re-examining its guidance based on new research, and new guidelines on the timing of second doses for seniors and the immunocompromised could come as early as next week. But Skowronski, with the BCCDC, said it’s too early to make that call definitively.
“This is a kind of a signal that we might want to follow, it’s of interest, but we cannot change or make policy on the basis of this sort of small study,” she said.
“It may come to pass that we will want to adjust depending upon how far we have come in achieving that goal of getting at least one dose into these individuals at highest risk.”
Skowronski defended the decision to delay second doses by up to four months in Canada and stressed that the benefits of vaccinating more vulnerable groups with an initial shot outweigh the risks of delaying a second.
“My preoccupation is in at least getting a first dose into those at high risk of severe complications, and we’ve not achieved that yet,” she said, adding that age was by far the biggest risk factor for severe outcomes from COVID-19.
“That’s job one. Let’s get that job one done, and then let’s debate the timing of the second dose.”
Speaking from personal experience, a bad hire isn’t a good look. The last thing you want is to hear, “Who the hell hired Bob?” and have your hiring judgment questioned.
The job seeker who’s empathetic to the employer’s side of the hiring desk, which controls the hiring process, is rare.
One of the best things you can do to enhance your job search is to practice perspective-taking, which involves seeing things from a different perspective.
It’s natural for employers to find candidates who have empathy and an understanding of their challenges and pain points more attractive. Candidates like these are seen as potential allies rather than individuals only looking out for themselves. Since most job seekers approach employers with a ‘what’s in it for me’ mindset, practicing perspective-taking sets you apart.
“If there is any one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get the other person’s point of view and see things from that person’s angle as well as from your own.” – Henry Ford.
Perspective-taking makes you realize that from an employer’s POV hiring is fraught with risks employers want to avoid; thus, you consider what most job seekers don’t: How can I present myself as the least risky hiring option?
Here’s an exercise that’ll help you visualize the employer’s side of the hiring process.
Candidate A or B?
Imagine you’re the Director of Customer Service for a regional bank with 85 branches. You’re hiring a call centre manager who’ll work onsite at the bank’s head office, overseeing the bank’s 50-seat call centre. In addition to working with the call centre agents, the successful candidate will also interact with other departments, your boss, and members of the C-suite leadership team; in other words, they’ll be visible throughout the bank.
The job posting resulted in over 400 applications. The bank’s ATS and HR (phone interview vetting, skill assessment testing) selected five candidates, plus an employee referral, for you to interview. You aim to shortlist the six candidates to three, whom you’ll interview a second time, and then make a hiring decision. Before scheduling the interviews, which’ll take place between all your other ongoing responsibilities, you spend 5 – 10 minutes with each candidate’s resume and review their respective digital footprint and LinkedIn activity.
In your opinion, which candidate deserves a second interview?
Candidate A: Their resume provides quantitative numbers—evidence—of the results they’ve achieved. (Through enhanced agent training, reduced average handle time from 4:32 mins. to 2:43 minutes, which decreased the abandon rate from 4.6% to 2.2%.)
Candidate B: Their resume offers only opinions. (“I’m detail-oriented,” “I learn fast.”)
Candidate A: Looks you in the eye, has a firm handshake, smiles, and exudes confidence.
Candidate B: Doesn’t look you in the eye, has a weak handshake.
Candidate A: Referred by Ariya, who’s been with the bank for over 15 years and has a stellar record, having moved up from teller to credit analyst and is tracking to become a Managing Director.
Candidate B: Applied online. Based on your knowledge, they did nothing else to make their application more visible. (e.g., reached out to you or other bank employees)
Candidate A: Well educated, grew up as a digital native, eager and energetic. Currently manages a 35-seat call center for a mid-size credit union. They mention they called the bank’s call centre several times and suggest ways to improve the caller experience.
Candidate B: Has been working in banking for over 25 years, managing the call center at their last bank for 17 years before being laid off eight months ago. They definitely have the experience to run a call centre. However, you have a nagging gut feeling that they’re just looking for a place to park themselves until they can afford to retire.
Candidate A: Has a fully completed LinkedIn profile (picture, eye-catching banner) packed with quantifying numbers. It’s evident how they were of value to their employers. Recently, they engaged constructively with posts and comments and published a LinkedIn article on managing Generations Y and Z call centre agents. Their Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter/X accounts aren’t controversial, sharing between ‘Happy Birthday’ and ‘Congratulations’ messages, their love of fine dining, baseball, and gardening.
Candidate B: Their LinkedIn profile is incomplete. The last time they posted on LinkedIn was seven months ago, ranting about how the government’s latest interest rate hike will plunge the country into a deep recession. Conspiracy theories abound on their Facebook page.
Candidate A: Notices the golf calendar on your desk, the putter and golf balls in the corner, and a photograph of Phil Mickelson putting on the green jacket at the 2010 Masters hanging on your wall. While nodding towards the picture, they say, “Evidently, you golf. Not being a golfer myself, what made you take up golf, which I understand is a frustrating sport?”
Candidate B: Doesn’t proactively engage in small talk. Waits for you to start the interview.
Which of the above candidates presents the least hiring risk? Will likely succeed (read: achieve the results the employer needs)? Will show your boss, upper management, and employees you know how to hire for competence and fit?
Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers “unsweetened” job search advice. You can send Nick your questions to artoffindingwork@gmail.com.
Though I have no empirical evidence to support my claim, I believe job search success can be achieved faster by using what I call “The Job Seekers’ Trinity” as your framework, the trinity being:
The power of focus
Managing your anger
Presenting evidence
Each component plays a critical role in sustaining motivation and strategically positioning yourself for job search success. Harnessing your focus, managing your anger, and presenting compelling evidence (read: quantitative numbers of achieved results) will transform your job search from a daunting endeavour into a structured, persuasive job search campaign that employers will notice.
The Power of Focus
Your job search success is mainly determined by what you’re focused on, namely:
What you focus on.
Your life is controlled by what you focus on; thus, focusing on the positives shapes your mindset for positive outcomes. Yes, layoffs, which the media loves to report to keep us addicted to the news, are a daily occurrence, but so is hiring. Don’t let all the doom and gloom talk overshadow this fact. Focus on where you want to go, not on what others and the media want you to fear.
Bonus of not focusing on negatives: You’ll be happier.
Focus on how you can provide measurable value to employers.
If you’re struggling with your job search, the likely reason is that you’re not showing, along with providing evidence, employers how you can add tangible value to an employer’s bottom line. Business is a numbers game, yet few job seekers speak about their numbers. If you don’t focus on and talk about your numbers, how do you expect employers to see the value in hiring you?
Managing Your Anger
Displaying anger in public is never a good look. Professionals are expected to control their emotions, so public displays of anger are viewed as unprofessional.
LinkedIn has become a platform heavily populated with job seekers posting angry rants—fueled mainly by a sense of entitlement—bashing and criticizing employers, recruiters, and the government, proving many job seekers think the public display of their anger won’t negatively affect their job search.
When you’re unemployed, it’s natural to be angry when your family, friends, and neighbours are employed. “Why me?” is a constant question in your head. Additionally, job searching is fraught with frustrations, such as not getting responses to your applications and being ghosted after interviews.
The key is acknowledging your anger and not letting it dictate your actions, such as adding to the angry rants on LinkedIn and other social media platforms, which employers will see.
Undoubtedly, rejection, which is inevitable when job hunting, causes the most anger. What works for me is to reframe rejections, be it through being ghosted, email, a call or text, as “Every ‘No’ brings me one step closer to a ‘Yes.'”
Additionally, I’ve significantly reduced triggering my anger by eliminating any sense of entitlement and keeping my expectations in check. Neither you nor I are owed anything, including a job, respect, empathy, understanding, agreement, or even love. A sense of entitlement and anger are intrinsically linked. The more rights you perceive you have, the more anger you need to defend them. Losing any sense of entitlement you may have will make you less angry, which has no place in a job search.
Presenting Evidence
As I stated earlier, business is a numbers game. Since all business decisions, including hiring, are based on numbers, presenting evidence in the form of quantitative numbers is crucial.
Which candidate would you contact to set up an interview if you were hiring a social media manager:
“Managed Fabian Publishing’s social media accounts, posting content daily.”
“Designed and executed Fabian Publishing’s global social media strategy across 8.7 million LinkedIn, X/Twitter, Instagram and Facebook followers. Through consistent engagement with customers, followers, and influencers, increased social media lead generation by 46% year-over-year, generating in 2023 $7.6 million in revenue.”
Numerical evidence, not generic statements or opinions, is how you prove your value to employers. Stating you’re a “team player” or “results-driven,” as opposed to “I’m part of an inside sales team that generated in 2023 $8.5 million in sales,” or “In 2023 I managed three company-wide software implementations, all of which came under budget,” is meaningless to an employer.
Despite all the job search advice offered, I still see resumes and LinkedIn profiles listing generic responsibilities rather than accomplishments backed by numbers. A statement such as “managed a team” doesn’t convey your management responsibilities or your team’s achievements under your leadership. “Led a team of five to increase sales by 20%, from $3.7 million to $4.44 million, within six months” shows the value of your management skills.
Throughout your job search, constantly think of all the numbers you can provide—revenue generated, number of new clients, cost savings, reduced workload, waste reduction—as evidence to employers why you’d be a great value-add to their business.
The Job Seekers’ Trinity—focusing on the positive, managing your anger and providing evidence—is a framework that’ll increase the effectiveness of your job search activities and make you stand out in today’s hyper-competitive job market, thus expediting your job search to a successful conclusion.
Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers “unsweetened” job search advice. You can send Nick your questions to artoffindingwork@gmail.com.
TOKYO (AP) — Japanese technology group SoftBank swung back to profitability in the July-September quarter, boosted by positive results in its Vision Fund investments.
Tokyo-based SoftBank Group Corp. reported Tuesday a fiscal second quarter profit of nearly 1.18 trillion yen ($7.7 billion), compared with a 931 billion yen loss in the year-earlier period.
Quarterly sales edged up about 6% to nearly 1.77 trillion yen ($11.5 billion).
SoftBank credited income from royalties and licensing related to its holdings in Arm, a computer chip-designing company, whose business spans smartphones, data centers, networking equipment, automotive, consumer electronic devices, and AI applications.
The results were also helped by the absence of losses related to SoftBank’s investment in office-space sharing venture WeWork, which hit the previous fiscal year.
WeWork, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2023, emerged from Chapter 11 in June.
SoftBank has benefitted in recent months from rising share prices in some investment, such as U.S.-based e-commerce company Coupang, Chinese mobility provider DiDi Global and Bytedance, the Chinese developer of TikTok.
SoftBank’s financial results tend to swing wildly, partly because of its sprawling investment portfolio that includes search engine Yahoo, Chinese retailer Alibaba, and artificial intelligence company Nvidia.
SoftBank makes investments in a variety of companies that it groups together in a series of Vision Funds.
The company’s founder, Masayoshi Son, is a pioneer in technology investment in Japan. SoftBank Group does not give earnings forecasts.
