Booster vaccination should be shown as such, not 2/2 for Janssen.

[SoftwareApe]

Current Implementation

With Janssen, Booster is shown as 2/2. In some states (e.g. BW) 2G+ means no need to have a test certificate.

With Janssen the Booster gets easily confused with the final normal vaccination. This makes it necessary to explain everywhere that the first vaccination was Janssen, thus showing 1/1, and therefore 2/2 is the booster.

Suggested Enhancement

Since we don't know how many boosters there are going to be it doesn't make sense to show x/y.

Instead it should be 1st booster, 2nd Booster, ...

Expected Benefits

Less hassle explaining things. Less confusion. Less interaction with people.

---

Internal Tracking ID: EXPOSUREAPP-11143

[Ein-Tim]

The EU DCC system requires this x/y style of showing. If we change this, we break compatibility with other EU countries.

Still, I understand your situation pretty well and think this should be brought to the attention of the stakeholders (RKI/BMG) so that they can discuss what the best solution is.

[SoftwareApe]

Could you then say 2/2 (booster)? Or something to make it clear that this is the booster?

[SoftwareApe]

That wouldn't remove the required style of x/y

[Ein-Tim]

@SoftwareApe

Not sure but AFAIK it's not possible to add other text to this field without breaking compatibility with other EU countries.

However, I'm no expert in regard to DCCs and I'm sure @vaubaehn could comment better on this (-:

[SoftwareApe]

Thank you, Tim!

[vaubaehn]

@SoftwareApe Yes, @Ein-Tim is correct: the fields for the dose number and the total number of doses in a series are defined to be integer (positive numbers) solely: https://github.com/ehn-dcc-development/ehn-dcc-schema/blob/a603410d760fefc9073931c8c807759d9714c136/DCC.combined-schema.json#L88-L93

[dsarkar]

@SoftwareApe See also https://www.coronawarn.app/de/faq/#vac_booster_jj

[SoftwareApe]

@dsarkar that's not really related to this discussion. I just want the booster vaccination to be marked as such. I don't care about the 14 day windoow which is of course incorrect, but could be recognized by the app from the available information.

It's just bad that those vaccinated with J&J are forgotten all the time even though it's not even what I would call an edge case.

You could e.g. show 2/2 (booster) and comply with the guidelines from RKI and make it clear that this was the booster shot.

[Ein-Tim]

It's just bad that those vaccinated with J&J are forgotten all the time even though it's not even what I would call an edge case.

It's also everybody who received a booster after their vaccination after they recovered.

You could e.g. show 2/2 (booster) and comply with the guidelines from RKI and make it clear that this was the booster shot.

As @vaubaehn explained, this is not possible.

Within the EU DCC schema, I guess, the only thing we could do is add the information to the app.

But when should it be shown? If a J&J certificate and a 2/2 certificate is added to the app?

Okay, this is possible. But if somebody recovered, was vaccinated one time (1/1) and then another time (2/2), we would have to check for one recovery, one 1/1 and one 2/2 certificate in the app. If one of the certificates is missing (which is most likely because recovery certificate get invalid 6 months after the recovery), there is no way for the app to tell that this is a booster vaccination on a vaccination after recovery.

We could only show a general note if we detect a "2/2" certificate is added on top of a "1/1" certificate.

But one good thing: In all these cases, users have a valid certificate, so nobody will have to stay outdoors (-:

[SoftwareApe]

We could only show a general note if we detect a "2/2" certificate is added on top of a "1/1" certificate.

Yes, I think this should do it. :)

[Cybso]

We could only show a general note if we detect a "2/2" certificate is added on top of a "1/1" certificate.

Yes, I think this should do it. :)

This would show a hint in CWA, but other apps like CovPassCheck will still fail to verify the certificate, because they do not now about the first one.

I think the only workaround that would not require a change in the European standard would be to issue booster vaccines as 3/3 in principle, regardless of the number of vaccinations in the first series. But that would probably require an official directive from the Ministry of Health so that issuers would not be liable to prosecution for falsification.

[vaubaehn]

@Cybso

We could only show a general note if we detect a "2/2" certificate is added on top of a "1/1" certificate.

Yes, I think this should do it. :)

This would show a hint in CWA, but other apps like CovPassCheck will still fail to verify the certificate, because they do not now about the first one.

Seems true, this is why I proposed https://github.com/Digitaler-Impfnachweis/covpass-android/issues/107

I think the only workaround that would not require a change in the European standard would be to issue booster vaccines as 3/3 in principle, regardless of the number of vaccinations in the first series. But that would probably require an official directive from the Ministry of Health so that issuers would not be liable to prosecution for falsification.

In my understanding, issuing booster vaccines as 3/3 would actually require a change in the European standard on how to count vaccination series... In all the EU that would need to be common agreement, not only in Germany.

[SoftwareApe]

This would show a hint in CWA, but other apps like CovPassCheck will still fail to verify the certificate, because they do not now about the first one.

I mean the two weeks time slot is a separate issue. I would like the user to instantly see that it's a booster shot. That would only need some extra text to clarify.

[SoftwareApe]

BTW at least CovPass is working on the 14 day issue it seems.

Da es sich bei diesem Umstand offensichtlich um einen technischen Fehler handelt, muss in absehbarer Zeit eine Lösung nachgereicht werden. Eine Servicemitarbeiterin der CovPass-App bestätigte uns am Telefon, dass die Entwickler bereits an einer Lösung arbeiten, sodass die App zwischen Zweitimpfung und Auffrischungsimpfung unterscheiden kann.

https://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/inhalt.booster-nach-johnson-ungueltig-mhsd.9c9a27cc-2866-4d1f-b93d-f5a622ab47b0.html

[Ein-Tim]

@SoftwareApe

Not too sure how they will fix this. Maybe you could open an issue in the CovPass repo and ask?

[bigboipete]

Couldn't this be solved by sticking to the x/y scheme regarding the required data set, but additionally add a "booster" label (or whatever suits there technically) on app UI level. Given that it could be reliably evaluated within the context of the underlying data, whether it's a booster or not.

Nobody said the booster info has to be added to the fixed and defined data set. Or did I miss something?

[SoftwareApe]

@bigboipete exactly

[chrisv2]

FWIW, this issue seems to gain more public attention recently. What's interesting is that the info seems to be there, it's just not shown properly:

Wenn der Apotheker das Impfzertifikat ausstellt, klickt er in diesen Fällen in einem Pull-Down-Menü „2/2 Booster“ an. Im Ergebnis jedoch verstehen die Apps seine 2/2-Eingabe nicht als Boosterung, sondern als normale zweite Impfung.

https://bnn.de/karlsruhe/karlsruhe-stadt/fehler-apps-digitales-impfzertifikat-booster-johnson-impfungen-genesene-corona-warnapp-covass-apotheken

Das Sozialministerium in Stuttgart hat am Donnerstag auf die berichteten Schilderungen von technischen Problemen von Geboosterten nach der Genesung oder einer Erstimpfung mit Johnson & Johnson reagiert: Das Problem sei bekannt, das Ministerium erwarte vom Bund, die technischen Voraussetzungen für eine Kontrolle der Impfzertifikate zu schaffen.

https://bnn.de/nachrichten/politik/corona-impfung-fehlermeldungen-booster-zertifikat-johnson-johnson-genesene-2g-plus-kontrollen-sozialministerium-bund

[dsarkar]

Dear @chrisv2 @SoftwareApe @bigboipete, dear community,

we are aware of this issue. We will update the FAQ explaining the reasons. In short, the way the JSON scheme was definded on EU level, does not allow to map correctly these above mentioned cases. One could imagine to show it correctly in the CWA, since the app can see all certificates in the "wallet". However, since only one certificate is verified with a CheckApp, this would not be an entirely satisfying solution: With the current scheme a CheckApp still will not show the correct status.

A proper solution would be to adapt the definition of the JSON on EU level, or find a national solution.

[bigboipete]

To sum this up for my understanding: A "Booster" label to display within the app wouldn't be a problem, but there wouldn't be any benefit in case of an "external" status check, because a correct booster identification from "outside" is not possible yet due to the given data set, right?

[jfhaecker]

Looking at the json schema v1.3.0 this looks interesting. Just scanned my own Moderna-Booster-certficate after Johnson vaccination with vacdec: dn=2 and sd=2. Seems pretty hard for an app to see that this should be a booster. Semantics of dn/sd seems weird. Maybe we should set sd=3, it's a booster, baby.

[Panda-vid]

Sorry that I am late to the party but I think the issue with checking on top of previous certificates is that the validation via QR would still not work since the QR code of neither the original dcc and the booster dcc contain information regarding the other vaccination as mentioned before.

Looking at the json schema v1.3.0 this looks interesting. Just scanned my own Moderna-Booster-certficate after Johnson vaccination with vacdec: dn=2 and sd=2. Seems pretty hard for an app to see that this should be a booster. Semantics of dn/sd seems weird. Maybe we should set sd=3, it's a booster, baby.

This might be the only solution even though it is kind of a hack.

A proper solution would be to adapt the definition of the JSON on EU level, or find a national solution.

I would change the data of the certificate such that it contains the date at which the certificate is valid.

I feel like the app should not be able to decide when a certificate is valid anyways. It should only be able to verify a dcc is genuine and then just read the information in it. Obviously, I understand this is not possible anymore or at least it would be hard to implement.

Another help would be if the issuer would use data from the last certificate by requireing the doctor etc. to scan the last dcc. At this stage the issuer could automatically mark the new cert as 3/3 (or the correct combination).

[Ein-Tim]

FYI: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_6837 says:

"Boosters will be recorded as follows:

3/3 for a booster dose following a primary 2-dose vaccination series. 2/1 for a booster dose following a single-dose vaccination or a one dose of a 2-dose vaccine administered to a recovered person."

[jfhaecker]

thx, thats fun as some federal states(BY) seem to announce that a dose after a single-dose vaccination (Janssen in very most cases) is not a "booster" but an optimization of the basic immunization. This seems to be based on the current STIKO recommendation. If that's true the setting 2/2 for a dose after single-dose vaccination seems to be correct. After 3 month those people can get a real booster and are back in the game with 3/3. In BW they announced the rule that you are 2G+ without a daily test if you have a booster (3/3) or your last dose was within the last 3 month. Sadly, with this mixture of EU, member state and federal state rules there seems no easy way to have an algorithm which correctly detects the "boostered"-state in all cases.

[ElpadoCan]

The Bavaria Ministry for Health actually announced that JJ + mRNA doesn't count as 2G+, but the law didn't change. The law still states that with one dose of JJ one is fully vaccinated and the second dose is an additional dose to the fully vaccinated status. Am I missing something here? Are they announcing new rules before even having the regulation written down?

[DerVogel2020]

@ElpadoCan I read the same yesterday in an article, we below. If you read the Stiko recommendation, the mRNA vaccination after a JJ is not called "Auffrischungsimpfung" so you could interpret it that way.

https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/themen/coronavirus/booster-dritte-impfung-johnson-100.html https://www.fitbook.de/news/wann-gelten-johnson-johnson-geimpfte-als-geboostert

Interesting will be, what numbers will be in the DCC...

[ElpadoCan]

@DerVogel2020 yes, I know the STIKO recommendation, but it's just a recommendation as long as the law isn't updated. The law that you can find here still says:

"geimpfte Personen im Sinne des § 2 Nr. 2 SchAusnahmV die zusätzlich eine weitere Impfstoffdosis als Auffrischungsimpfung erhalten haben nach Ablauf von 14 Tagen nach dieser Impfung, soweit nicht bundesrechtlich anderes geregelt ist."

and if you go to check the definition of fully vaccinated as stated in § 2 Nr. 2 SchAusnahmV (here) you can read:

"entweder aus einer vom Paul-Ehrlich-Institut im Internet unter der Adresse www.pei.de/impfstoffe/covid-19 veröffentlichten Anzahl von Impfstoffdosen, die für eine vollständige Schutzimpfung erforderlich ist, besteht und seit der letzten erforderlichen Einzelimpfung mindestens 14 Tage vergangen sind oder"

and of course, when you go to check which vaccine and how many doses count as fully vaccinated according to the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (link here) you find the JJ vaccine with 1 dose.

So my question is, what am I missing? Every media and even the FAQ on the bavarian government website clearly states that JJ+1 dose doesn't count but the law is not updated yet? How is that possible?

If this was true, they need to find a way to get people with JJ to catch up with the others. Because by the time I am eligible for my third dose after my last booster, they will change the rules and the "boostered" definition will state that you need a 4th dose and so forth. This way JJ people will never catch up, which is total nonsense.

[haskamp-1]

Liebe Entwickler,

Ab morgen gilt in Hamburg 2G+. Heute habe ich eine Kellnerin gefragt, ob sie meinen Impfstatus (J&J mit BioNTech ein paar Monate später) anerkennt, weil dies ja als geboostert gilt: https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/hamburg/coronavirus/Corona-Diese-Regeln-gelten-momentan-in-Hamburg,coronavirus2248.html

Sie verneinte das, weil dort nicht 3/3 steht.

Ich zweifle ja gar nichts an, aber hier zu lesen, dass es nicht irgendwelchen EU Regeln entspricht ist lächerlich. Hier geht es um ganz praktische Probleme im Leben und man sollte sich mal als ITler überlegen, warum er überhaupt den Auftrag zur Programmierung von CovPass bekommen hat - garantiert war es nicht der Auftrag den Geimpften und Genesenen das Leben schwer zu machen. Entweder in CovPass steht bei J&J geboostert dahinter oder es muss dort 3/3 stehen. Alles andere verstehen die Leute da draußen nicht, die haben nicht alle einen Doktortitel! Ich empfinde die anlehnenden Antworten als Frechheit.

Viele Grüße Heinrich Haskamp

[DerVogel2020]

Die anzeigten Zahlen stammen aus dem Zertifikat, das die Apotheke (oder der Arzt) erstellt hat. Da können die Entwickler nichts dran ändern.

[haskamp-1]

Die App kann nicht erkennen, dass die erste Impfung J&J und die zweite ein RNA Impfstoff ist, um dann stumpft „geboostert“ hinzuschreiben, damit ein Türsteher es auf Anhieb erkennt? Wenn das wirklich so ist, dann haben wir wirklich Fachkräftemangel… das wäre peinlich!

Viele Grüße Heinrich Haskamp

[ElpadoCan]

@haskamp-1 Sie hätten darum bitten sollen, mit einem Manager zu sprechen. Dann hättest du ihnen den Link zum Gesetz und den Link des Paul-Einrich-Instituts zeigen sollen, das JJ als vollständig geimpft betrachtet. Wenn man Ihnen dann immer noch nicht zuhört, hätten Sie damit drohen sollen, die Polizei zu rufen. Ich habe das gestern in einem Schwimmbad gemacht und es hat funktioniert. Sie gaben schließlich auf und erlaubten mir den Eintritt.

Um ehrlich zu sein, ist das wirklich lächerlich, und ich bin sicher, dass ein Anwalt oder Journalist viel Spaß dabei haben wird, darüber zu berichten.

Aber im Allgemeinen stimme ich zu. So wie es aussieht, ist das Zertifikat mit 2/2 in der App völlig nutzlos. Ich bringe eine Kopie des Gesetzes mit und alle meine Zeugnisse, was im Grunde ein totales Versagen des App-Projekts ist (obwohl es nicht die Schuld der Entwickler ist).

[dsarkar]

Hi @haskamp-1,

Die Entwickler setzen um, was Ihnen in Auftrag geben wird. Das Problem liegt nicht an der App, sondern an der Definition der Nummerierung. Siehe https://www.coronawarn.app/de/faq/#vac_booster_jj

Viele Grüsse, DS

---

Corona-Warn-App Open Source Team

[dsarkar]

Transferred to documentation repository. Internal Tracking ID: EXPOSUREAPP-11143

[haskamp-1]

Willkommen im Leben!

Was passiert, wenn Sie abends vor einem Lokal dem Türsteher drohen, die Polizei zu rufen? Richtig! Sie werden ausgelacht. Aber reinkommen werden Sie niemals im Leben. Vielleicht klappt es tagsüber im Schwimmbad, aber das nimmt doch abstruse Züge an!

@dsarkar Und was spricht dagegen "geboostert in HH, NS, SL usw." hinzuschreiben? Kann ja in den Zertifikatdetails stehen. Da muss mir niemand mit "spricht gegen EU-Regeln" kommen. Aktuell ist es ganz einfach: Türsteher gucken auf "3/3" und sonst nichts. Basta.

Und Auftrag hin oder her. Es muss doch lebensnah sein! Und als IT-Berater (was ich bin), kann man den Kunden auch mal einen Vorschlag machen. Oder wird sowas pauschal immer abgelehnt? Wenn ja, dann würde ich gerne die konkrete Person genannt bekommen, so dass ich als dies dem Vorgesetzten direkt melden kann. Oder verdient man mehr Geld, wenn man erst auf die Anforderung wartet anstatt mal selbst was zu sagen?!

Was ich sicher sagen kann: Als Entwickler der App würde ich mir Mühe geben die User-Akzeptanz zu erhöhen. So sind doch alle Seiten unzufrieden. Und mich mit einem Türsteher oder Kellner oder sonstigen Kassenmitarbeiter anzulegen ist doch unnötig und ärgerlich. Und das kann doch mal ganz easy durch die App-Entwickler vermieden werden.

Viele Grüße Heinrich Haskamp

[dsarkar]

@haskamp-1

I hope you don't mind switching to English here on GitHub.

Rest assured that the development team is in very close contact with all the stakeholders. The issue described here is indeed, let's say, quite annoying in real life, as you and many others expressed already. We forward all these concerns, and the importance to find practical solutions to the stakeholders.

In a first step, as you can read in the above mentioned FAQ, only recently on an EU level the scheme of the DCC has been adopted because of the issue described here.

[ElpadoCan]

@haskamp-1 you are right, messing with the bouncer is definitely not ideal. Anyway, make sure to check that JJ+booster is really considered 2G+, because here in Bavaria the Ministry of Health goes around saying that it is not 2G+ even though the law says the opposite. A total mess.

[SoftwareApe]

Luckily the omicron wave is going to be over next month and then we can maybe go back to our normal lives, because waiting for the UX to improve seems to really be less likely.

[ElpadoCan]

Luckily the omicron wave is going to be over next month and then we can maybe go back to our normal lives, because waiting for the UX to improve seems to really be less likely.

To be honest, it doesn't matter much, at least in Bavaria they now changed the rules and JJ + 1 dose doesn't count as boostered. To me, it is still against the law and I hope that some lawyers will have a really good time soon with this mess of the pandemic.

[SoftwareApe]

@ElpadoCan Bavaria isn't the world. We could have the proper UX showing boostered, maybe with a * linking to the Paul Ehrlich Institute, and at least most of Germany would have a solution. that's satisfactory.

My point was rather facetious that the pandemic is now faster with Omicron than the CWA development. So we can hope that by end of February this whole thing is unnecessary because it's finally declared as endemic.

Switzerland and Spain are a bit ahead of us here in recognizing that the whole effort is pointless with Omicron's infection rates.

[ElpadoCan]

@SoftwareApe not considering JJ + 1 dose as "boostered" is a STIKO recommendation, it will soon be applied to all Germany, as haskamp-1 pointed out it is already applied in Hamburg. I agree the app could be better in this case and I hope it will be. Even if it will be finally declared as endemic, vaccine passports will still be required. Probably forever.

[jfhaecker]

Unfortunately the vision of having a digital and cryptographically secured check-in process with flexible rulesets seems to be wishful thinking. I hope there will be a learning curve on stakeholders site. Thx for the transparency. Good job.

[Ein-Tim]

@ElpadoCan

I suggest you take a look at https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/service/gesetze-und-verordnungen/vo-aend-covid-19-schausnahmv-und-coronavirus-einreisev

[ElpadoCan]

@ElpadoCan

I suggest you take a look at https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/service/gesetze-und-verordnungen/vo-aend-covid-19-schausnahmv-und-coronavirus-einreisev

Thanks, but I knew it was just a question of time, having a law doesn't make me feel better. What annoys me is that as a JJ vaccinated person I didn't do anything wrong and as soon as I could I got a second dose of mRNA vaccine as recommended. However now it turns out that following recommendation is not enough because I have to wait March to get a third dose and be considered boostered. Will any institution tell me what I did wrong? Or what should I have done instead? Maybe I should have predicted the future a get a second shot earlier than I did? But then, they have to tell me how? I took the first opportunity I got, I went to one of those "open day" for vaccination. If I had waited the official appointment I would still be waiting. This is total nonsense and I don't understand how people can be fine with it.

[DerVogel2020]

Yes that's very annoying. Until Thursday you were "boostered" now, You're not🤨 (and me too). But that's not part of the app development but political😲

[Ein-Tim]

With the change I informed about via https://github.com/corona-warn-app/cwa-documentation/issues/801#issuecomment-1000950410 this issue is fixed and should be closed @SoftwareApe.