New York's updated Excelsior vaccine passport drops Apple Wallet support
New York's new Excelsior Pass, which documents vaccination status and will soon be required to enter many businesses in New York City, has dropped support for Apple Wallet.
Credit: New York State
The state-issued Excelsior passport allows users to prove that they have received a COVID-19 vaccination. The original Excelsior Pass, however, expired six months after a user's vaccination date. Because of that, New Yorkers will need to update to the Excelsior Pass Plus.
As noticed by AppleInsider staffers, the new Excelsior Pass Plus is not compatible with Apple Wallet. Unlike the original Excelsior Pass which had explicit Apple Wallet support, users will need to head to the NYS Wallet app every time they want to prove vaccination status.
In a user's guide to the vaccine passports, New York State said that Excelsior Pass Plus Passes are not supported by Apple Wallet at this time. The guide also states that notification support is also not available.
It isn't clear why the new pass doesn't work with the Wallet app, but it does appear to be a conscious choice by the state to omit support. AppleInsider has reached out to New York Department of Health.
Compared to Apple Wallet support, heading into the NYS Wallet app isn't as convenient or fast. Instead of being able to bring up passes through a double-click on an iPhone or Apple Watch, users will need to open the NYS Wallet app.
Many businesses are requiring proof of vaccination for entry in New York City already, but the city government will soon mandate proof of vaccination.
Read on AppleInsider
Credit: New York State
The state-issued Excelsior passport allows users to prove that they have received a COVID-19 vaccination. The original Excelsior Pass, however, expired six months after a user's vaccination date. Because of that, New Yorkers will need to update to the Excelsior Pass Plus.
As noticed by AppleInsider staffers, the new Excelsior Pass Plus is not compatible with Apple Wallet. Unlike the original Excelsior Pass which had explicit Apple Wallet support, users will need to head to the NYS Wallet app every time they want to prove vaccination status.
In a user's guide to the vaccine passports, New York State said that Excelsior Pass Plus Passes are not supported by Apple Wallet at this time. The guide also states that notification support is also not available.
It isn't clear why the new pass doesn't work with the Wallet app, but it does appear to be a conscious choice by the state to omit support. AppleInsider has reached out to New York Department of Health.
Compared to Apple Wallet support, heading into the NYS Wallet app isn't as convenient or fast. Instead of being able to bring up passes through a double-click on an iPhone or Apple Watch, users will need to open the NYS Wallet app.
Many businesses are requiring proof of vaccination for entry in New York City already, but the city government will soon mandate proof of vaccination.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/facts.html
And you’ll be very interested when vaccine mandates are finally implemented. The Supreme Court, in a 1905 case regarding mandatory vaccination during a small pox epidemic, ruled 7-2 that the government does have the right to mandate vaccinations when the public health is endangered. The precedent is already established, ready to go.
The state-issued Excelsior passport allows users to prove that they have received a COVID-19 vaccination. The original Excelsior Pass, however, expired six months after a user's vaccination date. Because of that, New Yorkers will need to update to the Excelsior Pass Plus.
As for the 0-17's being sources of transmissions, the responsibility should lie with the adults around them to ensure they are vaccinated (and masked themselves if they choose)
Firstly, As some one have already pointed out - the vaccination does not modify your genes, contrary to what you are thinking. It’s a fact. And you got your facts WRONG.
Secondly, the society needs to function, what other measures than ‘passports’ do you suggest for mitigating the risk of spreading COVID-19, when the society tries to get to new normal? Or you just criticize the solution without offering any alternatives? Sounds like a grumpy asshole.
Thirdly, the provided to you link https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/why-covid-19-vaccines-offer-better-protection-than-infection.html Is an interview with Virologist Sabra Klein, PhD ‘98, MS, MA, who says an immense amount of data collected in a short time have made clear the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and the limited immunity that comes from being infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
It is funny how easily you dismiss the information coming from a virologist.
Fourthly, you have provide in a later comment 3 links, basically claiming that it is the prove (for you) that natural immunity is better than vaccine. But your claim is wrong. Let’s look into the links you have provided.
In the 1st link: there is no such information about what is better
In the 2nd link: there is no control group / initial testing. It doesn’t consider that all vaccinated people are documented, but only a part of the infected people are making the test and are diagnosed being sick with COVID-19. Thus the number of people who were newly infected and were already sick with COVID-19 some time in the past isn’t known. This means that the statistics in the article and the conclusion that vacinated people 6 times are more likely to get sick than people with the natural immunity is NOT CORECT AND MISLEADING.
In the 3d link: there is finally a control group initial testing done. And the numbers tell us that 4,85% percent of people get reinfected (=62/1278), and only 3,85% vacinated people got infected (=5449/141480). So even in the link you have provided, you proved your own statement is WRONG. You got your facts wrong AGAIN.
You are not simply getting the facts wrong. You are spreading LIES or your own ASSUMPTIONS.
PLEASE STOP IT!!!
Would I be wasting my breath by saying -
“we all don’t know”
Assuming none of us are doing any actual research.
patchythepirate is an appropriate name for a troll. Here are two examples:
We do not know how to detect superior natural immunity. Some of us may indeed be naturally immune, but we won't know about that for years. If patchytheprirate means innate immunity, the first line of defense, that is clearly not superior, or none of us would get sick. If the writer means acquired immunity from having had an infection, that's still not quite right. In infection provides some immunity, vaccination is better, and the combination of having had an infection and then been vaccinated appears to be the best. There are multiple sources for this, but I recommend the podcast, "This Week in Virology". Chances are there are many relevant links in the notes for some of the episodes. I'd rather listen to experts; they are available there. "Natural immunity" in this context is sleight-of-hand; meaningless as used.
The vaccines are different, but we know that the ones authorized (not yet licensed) in the USA do not modify the DNA of a vaccinated person. That is, they do not insert, delete, or change the DNA base pairs. We may someday discover that changes in gene expression occur, but those are still the genes the cell started with, given that mutations in cell reproduction do occur, some of which lead to cancer. How gene expression changes is another topic, but it's somewhat like changes in the state of a computer program, and expected and desirable in many contexts. Without it, there would not be different types of cells in our bodies.
----
But then we have their response, quoted above. It's sort of impressive in a "dropping technical terms suggests you know what you are talking about" kind of way. So to falsify a few of the claims:
The reinfection rate for vaccinated persons is lower than for unvaccinated persons. That's the case for vaccination. The reinfection rate for persons who had the disease versus the reinfection rate for vaccinated persons is less analyzed, but we know there are reinfections and "breakthrough" infections among the vaccinated. We know that the post-vaccine infections are milder and hospitalization and/or death is very unlikely; we have no such observation for post-infection reinfection. I regard the statement that post-vaccination infections are have a much higher rate than post-infection reinfection as misleading and probably false.
Post-vaccination reinfection is really a red herring; being vaccinated is not being infected, the writer refers to people vaccinated and infected twice, which is a very small group indeed, and unlikely to be able to produce a statistically significant high rate. These are people whose immune systems are not working well enough to protect them; they are not typical.
This is a serious disease. You don't want to have an infection at all. Having an infection followed by vaccination produces far more antibodies than either alone; this has been measured. We don't know whether antibodies or T-cells are more important, but both are stimulated by vaccination. An immunoassay can distinguish people infected from people merely vaccinated because only people previously infected have antibodies for the non-spike parts of the virus, which is useful, but may not be relevant to effective immune response.
Also, some symptoms of long covid have been reported to be reduced by post-infection vaccination, especially two shots. Those reports are anecdotes, not data, but interesting and will likely result in data collection later as part of understanding long covid better. It's too soon for that now, but better understanding could be good news for sufferers from other diseases with long post-infection sequelae.
Your University of Missouri link confirms the original J Hopkins link in that severe C-19 infections give greater immunity. So hence the need for vaccinations for less severely infected C-19, which is the case for most people that got invected!
The Israel link says people that with prior confirmed C-19 infections were less likely to get infected with the new strain than someone that got the vaccine. This could just be another confirmation of the severity of the infection. Most people that got infected with original strains of C-19 were asymptotic and did not know they had the virus and thus would not have been counted as prior confirmed infections.
Your last Oxford link was early testing of the effectiveness of the antibodies produced after a C-19 infection and the possibilities of virus shedding causing a false positive test result for "re-infection". It's conclusion was that the immunity could last past 90 days! It was used to help prioritize which should be people vaccinated first.
Your disinformation and improper use of medical citations does not make your conclusions any more correct. The only way that we can get back to a more normal world is for as many people as possible to be vaccinated. Higher rates of vaccinations and social distancing precautions are the reasons why some areas have been able to reopen. All unvaccinated people are incubation vessels for the virus to mutate into more effective strains. If the vaccines would have been more readily available sooner, the Delta variant may never have occurred.