Add basic immunisation and booster vaccines to glossary

[brianebeling]

Fixes #3165

Texts are taken from: https://impfdashboard.de/en/

en

de

---

Internal Tracking ID: EXPOSUREAPP-14220

[GisoSchroederSAP]

Guys, this needs to be carefully reviewed to avoid we put something in the glossary, that is not in sync with the official definition of the legislative body. All input is welcome, but please don't merge before we have a "go" from the experts.
Thx in advance!

[GisoSchroederSAP]

The "Basic Immunization" (correct term: Primary Immunization) needs to be adjusted please, because the current description does not cover the acceptable cases. Please use this explanation instead:

Als grundimmunisiert zählen alle Menschen, die die initiale Impfserie durchlaufen haben. Bei SARS-CoV-2 umfasst diese im Allgemeinen zwei Impfdosen, bei nachweislich Genesenen aber nur eine einzelne Impfdosis. Auch Personen, die bereits weitere Impfdosen erhalten haben, werden hier mitgezählt. Eine vollständige Grundimmunisierung ist nicht gleichbedeutend mit einem vollständigen Impfschutz.

(Source: Fachwörterbuch Infektionsschutz und Infektionsepidemiologie)

As a result, also the term "Auffrischimpfung" can be simplified:

Als Geimpfte mit einer Auffrischimpfung zählen alle Menschen, die grundimmunisiert [hier ggf. Querverlinkung?] sind und danach mindestens eine weitere Impfdosis erhalten haben.

Thank you.

[MikeMcC399]

@GisoSchroederSAP

If the term "Basic Immunization" is incorrect then it would need to be changed in the app. See https://www.coronawarn.app/en/screenshots/#android_stats.

[GisoSchroederSAP]

For consistency, let's stay with "basic communication", otherwise we generate new irritation and (in worst case) need to go through all screens with UI and translation again. ItÄs not worth this effort. I just wanted to mention the source where the definition for "Grundimmunisierung" comes from.

[MikeMcC399]

Please use US immunization spelling (with "z") as used in the app.
See for instance screenshots:

• https://www.coronawarn.app/en/screenshots/#android_stats and
• https://www.coronawarn.app/en/screenshots/#ios_stats

[MikeMcC399]

@GisoSchroederSAP

For consistency, let's stay with "basic communication", otherwise we generate new irritation and (in worst case) need to go through all screens with UI and translation again. ItÄs not worth this effort. I just wanted to mention the source where the definition for "Grundimmunisierung" comes from.

I guess you meant to write "basic immunization" not "basic communication"!

I found that the UK National Health Service (NHS) uses the term "primary immunization" in agreement with your dictionary, however I agree that it is probably too much effort to request and get approval to use the term "primary immunization" everywhere instead.

"basic immunization" is not only used on the statistics tiles in the app it is also used in the booster notification rule BNR-DE-0400 "The German Standing Committee on Vaccinations (STIKO) recommends a second booster vaccination for everyone age 60 and older who had their first booster vaccination more than 6 months ago. This recommendation is also valid for persons who were diagnosed with coronavirus after their basic immunization, if the infection occurred more than 6 months ago.".

In addition the Federal Ministry of Health uses "basic immunisation" (UK spelling!) on their English-language website https://impfdashboard.de/en/:

[GisoSchroederSAP]

You're right, it should have been "basic immunization" (instead of communication ). Let's see if we can gradually introduce the "primary immunization" term by just using it in the communication as often as possible.

[brianebeling]

In addition the Federal Ministry of Health uses "basic immunisation" (UK spelling!) on their English-language website https://impfdashboard.de/en/:

That is also what I oriented myself at. That said, I will implement the requested changes and report back. Thanks!

[brianebeling]

What do you think about linking to the new glossary items from everywhere?

Like this for example:

(Auffrischimpfung is not linked yet)

It improves navigation, but readability or aesthetics may suffer a bit from a lot of links.

So far I found around 20-25 places where we can link to the Grundimmunisierung entry.

[MikeMcC399]

@brianebeling

This PR is still in draft status, so not inviting reviews at this time, however I wanted to mention that there are multiple malformed links with <a/> which should be </a>.

Cypress will check these for you and fail, especially the faq_link_attr test.

Edit: For some reason if you run the Cypress test faq_link_attr in headed mode with these errors it takes several minutes to run. In headless mode
npx cypress run -s cypress/e2e/faq_link_attr.cy.js --headless --browser chrome
it takes only 7 seconds to run and it shows many
AssertionError: in /de/faq/results/: expected '<a>' to have attribute 'target'
errors, which unfortunately are not very specific due to the anchors not having an end to them.

• At least it did show up an error which I fixed in Correct Cypress message formatting for softAssert in headless mode #3201 though!

[MikeMcC399]

@brianebeling

What do you think about linking to the new glossary items from everywhere?

Good idea. This needs to be done also for the English FAQ, not just the German one though.

[MikeMcC399]

@brianebeling

For easier reading please mark the appropriate conversations above as resolved.

[MikeMcC399]

In English I suggest not to split the link when a plural is involved:
i.e. make it vaccinations</a>

I marked up several places, but not all of them.

[MikeMcC399]

Same comment for Auffrischimpfung</a>en
Put the "en" inside the link.

[GisoSchroederSAP]

Agreed, put the plural form for booster vaccination inside the link to the glossary, even if the glossary entry is the singular. Whoever has a problem to distinguish, I will answer, that the explanation for a single booster event does not differs at all for multiple booster vaccinations.

On the "basic immunization", IMHO there is no plural 's' required, 'cause, each person can only reach the basic immunization once. afterwards it will never be a "basic" but always be an "booster" immunization, right?

[MikeMcC399]

@GisoSchroederSAP

On the "basic immunization", IMHO there is no plural 's' required, 'cause, each person can only reach the basic immunization once. afterwards it will never be a "basic" but always be an "booster" immunization, right?

There is no occurrence of "immunizations" (in the plural) on the website, so this isn't an issue.

I am puzzled why you approved this PR. Normally approval is only given when the contents are 100% correct and ready to be merged. Was that the signal you intended to give?

[MohamedZaghdoudi]

hey @MikeMcC399 and @GisoSchroederSAP, thanks for the feedback.
I have already corrected it and uploaded again .

[MikeMcC399]

Please remove or replace the screen-shots in the original post as they are outdated.

[MikeMcC399]

There are still illegal nested links in this PR. They need to be removed.

[MikeMcC399]

Please mark resolved conversations as resolved, so it is clearer which items still need to be addressed.

[larswmh]

Thanks @MikeMcC399 for your extensive review. I believe my latest commit should've sorted out all remaining issues on this PR. Conversations have been closed as suggested. (seems like it didn't go through for some of them, sorry!)

[MikeMcC399]

@larswmh

It's very difficult to check the HTML by hand and spot all the issues. In the end I used https://validator.w3.org/ and looked for the error message:

Start tag a seen but an element of the same type was already open.

[larswmh]

@MikeMcC399

That is a very useful tool, thanks for sharing. After checking with the changes made in the latest commit, I could not find any more issues regarding nested links. Can you confirm?

[MikeMcC399]

@larswmh

After checking with the changes made in the latest commit, I could not find any more issues regarding nested links. Can you confirm?

• I can't see any more link issues from this PR, so I suggest to go ahead and merge.

• I did notice a link issue using the same tool, so I submitted a separate PR Properly close link in #vac_cert_invalid (EN) #3207 to fix that one