at least here, in California, you can not chose which one you get when making the appointment or when arriving at the vaccination site.
Also CSU and UC will require vaccinations for return to on-campus. (Though I'm not sure that they will be able to do so until vaccines are under "emergency use" authorization, not a regular one)
Here in Western Washington, I've not seen any site mixing vaccines. One Walgreens might have Moderna and another Pfizer, but any given day any particular store will only have one of them.
Most places say when you sign up which they will have for your appointment, but if they do not you can often tell by looking at the eligibility. If they are offering appointments to people age 16+, they are using Pfizer. If 18+, Moderna.
Most places here also tell you on the signup form that your second appointment will be the same time and place exactly N weeks after the first. If N = 3, they are using Pfizer. If N = 4, Moderna.
It's true that you can't choose, but lots of places are listing what vaccines they're doing on specific days. You can "choose" by booking an appointment at a location that has the one you want, or by avoiding locations that have ones you don't want.
As an example, I booked my appointment specifically at a location that only carried Pfizer.
That seems like a really weird decision because both Moderna and Pfizer are using very similar technologies and haven't had much negative press coverage.
It seems it would be harder for the government to insert a "biological backdoor" into a viral vector vaccine than something that runs any RNA code as long as it's encoded in a special lipid delivery system (according to my limited understanding). 1 in 250k chance of blood clots is nothing... at least compared to the anxiety of the government having a switch in my biology that could melt my brain at anytime.
That's one take. Mine was more about efficacy. J&J IIRC was around 60%, while mRNA vaccines are around 90%. Big brain vaccine scientists tell me that 60% is fine but all I see is 30% less efficacy. I wouldn't be able to feel confident/safe even after getting J&J.
Domestically that's the case but if you have(had) to travel abroad often for work or family reasons that won't be the case. I regularly(used to) visit and have family ties to a country that allows vaccine records in lieu of negative tests for entry. I'd say that's reasonable.
None of this has made sense for months I'm just going with the flow. We get x-ray scanned through our clothes every time we fly what's dignity? It's just another airport document as far as Im concerned.
I'm sorry, I can't really tell how your comment is related to my comment? What does verifying that you took precaution to prevent the spread of covid have to do with dignity?
My mistake. I misread your response as requiring one or the other being the same as forcing. Some people find having to show a negative test or vaccination record for international travel as invasive, and to them I'd say that the real violation of privacy happens at the TSA line.