The qcqs lemma (in Ravi Vakil's notes) says that if $X$ is a quasi-compact (qc) and quasi-separated (qs) scheme, for any global section $f$, the natural map from $\Gamma(X, O_X)_f \to \Gamma(X_f, O_X)$ is an isomorphism. (We are defining $X_f$ to be the complement of the set where $f(p) = 0$, i.e. where $f = 0$ in $O_{X,x} / m_x$. So the natural map is the one guaranteed by the universal property of localization as $f$ becomes a unit over $X_f$.)
The proof of this lemma uses in a crucial way these finiteness assumptions in order to take advantage of the willingness of localization to commute with finite products. (One builds the exact sequence describing the global sections via the sheaf axioms, plugs a finite affine cover with a finite affine cover of the overlaps into it. Then localizing this sequence expresses $\Gamma(X, O_X)_s$ as the kernel of the exact sequence describing $\Gamma(X_s, O_X)$, bootstrapping off of the case of this theorem in the affine case.)
I want counter examples in the situation when this hypothesis has been dropped.
Here is what I have been thinking so far:
I tried the example of the only qc but not qs scheme that I know: the infinite affine space with a doubled origin. The functions on this space and on any open subscheme are the same as functions on the corresponding open $\mathbb{A}^{\infty}$, since the gluing identifies the variables on a dense open set. So I don't think this will provide an example (but I am not sure - now after thinking about this I am more convinced that this example would provide a counter example, but I don't see how). Here one would (obviously) need to use that infinitely many affines are required to cover the intersection of the two $\mathbb{A}^n$ in order to produce something...
I think I found an example of a quasi-seperated non-quasi compact scheme that provides a counter example. Essentially the point is that localization doesn't commute with infinite products in general, so one can take the infinite disjoint union of $Spec Z / (2^i)$, for all $i \geq 0$, and try to invert the element $2$. $X_2 = \emptyset$, but $(\Pi Z / 2^i)[2^{-1}] \not = 0$, since for instance $(1,1,1,1, \ldots)$ is not 2-torsion.