COVID-19: Vaccine/antidote and testing procedures Megathread [Mod Warning - Post #1]

Sheep2020

is_that_so wrote: »

Any numbers on a lot?

150,000 or so died in the EU last month

Christmas is the biggest social gathering of the year

You can imagine

is_that_so

Sheep2020 wrote: »

150,000 or so died in the EU last month

Christmas is the biggest social gathering of the year

You can imagine

The EMA have their process and I am happy for them to stick to it. They cannot be held responsible for people being unable to follow guidelines. We'll still have deaths as vaccinations progress. I think the release of Christmas is vitally important for societal mental wellbeing and the public accept that more cases will come from it.

Marhay70

conor_mc wrote: »

You could’ve argued the same about the FAA until 737-Max aircraft started falling out of the sky.

Turns out the FAA were not up to scratch, so do your own diligence!

It’s hard not to suspect the UK approval has had some political interference, i.e. good news to distract from the political cliff edge that is Brexit. I’d hope not, but....

That would assume the EU will reject the vaccine. If the EU reject the vaccine the argument then a completely different question arises.

Cordell

UK had to approve it because they are not EU anymore and the EU approval is worth nothing to them, right? If this is the case, Boris had seized an opportunity to score some points and prove that they were right to leave and so on, while doing something good for a change.

BrianD3

Marhay70 wrote: »

What the UK has approved is exactly the same product as the EU is being asked to approve. If it takes the EU another month to come to the same conclusion as the UK, and in the meantime tens of thousands more people die, that's going to take a lot of explaining. We have been encouraged all along to trust the science, and by and large we have, so why all of a sudden are we so reticent?
What will be the excuse? They can't really say the UK regulators are not up to scratch because that is patently untrue so what else is there to say?

George Lee mentioned something on the RTE new last night about some questionnaire that was sent to the EU member states re: vaccine rollout preparation. All but 2 member states responded to it. Ireland was one of the two.

That is just an aside but it did make me think that if some countries are more ready than others, that there is a face saving going on i.e. make the approval date the limiting factor. Then if the British approve before then, criticise them for jumping the gun, imply that they are being reckless.

My own feeling on this is that the British have outmanoeuvred the EU here. I know people here can't bear to give them any credit for anything but perhaps they are ahead of the pack when it comes to preparing for a vaccine rollout., The additional risk associated with the British early approval of the vaccine is likely very small. Rolling reviews have been happening so it's not a case of (as some here are implying) that the EU only received the data with this week's application.

There is of course political stuff happening and Brexit is a factor. the British are political, the EU is political and many Irish people will automatically take the position of "EU good, Britain bad" for various historical reasons that have nothing to do with vaccines.

Ashbourne hoop

BrianD3 wrote: »

George Lee mentioned something on the RTE new last night about some questionnaire that was sent to the EU member states re: vaccine rollout preparation. All but 2 member states responded to it. Ireland was one of the two.

That is just an aside but it did make me think that if some countries are more ready than others, that there is a face saving going on i.e. make the approval date the limiting factor. Then if the British approve before then, criticise them for jumping the gun, imply that they are being reckless.

My own feeling on this is that the British have outmanoeuvred the EU here. I know people here can't bear to give them any credit for anything but perhaps they are ahead of the pack when it comes to preparing for a vaccine rollout., The additional risk associated with the British early approval of the vaccine is likely very small. Rolling reviews have been happening so it's not a case of (as some here are implying) that the EU only received the data with this week's application.

There is of course political stuff happening and Brexit is a factor. the British are political, the EU is political and many Irish people will automatically take the position of "EU good, Britain bad" for various historical reasons that have nothing to do with vaccines.

They really aren't ahead. There is still data been analysed by the EMA, but the Uk have gone ahead for purely political/Brexit reasons, possibly preparing for a no deal Brexit. It's a bit of a gamble by the UK, it'll most likely be fine, but a gamble none the less.

iguana

iguana wrote: »

Why does it feel like the same handful of posters are constantly asking the same questions every few days and ignoring the answers?

If it was a deliberate organised misinformation campaign it would take this format, as not every reader would have read the thread and be familiar with how thoroughly these statements have been debunked. Te goal is to slowly spread misinformation and catch a few uninformed people day by day to sow doubt.

If it was an organised campaign however, the message would at least be coherent which makes me think its just the ramblings of misinformed individuals who enjoy thinking of themselves as being above the "sheeple", but in reality are just chronically misinformed and lacking in the basic critical thinking skills to be able to distinguish between fact and deliberate misinformation

leahyl

BrianD3 wrote: »

George Lee mentioned something on the RTE new last night about some questionnaire that was sent to the EU member states re: vaccine rollout preparation. All but 2 member states responded to it. Ireland was one of the two.

Well, that doesn't sound encouraging!

is_that_so

leahyl wrote: »

Well, that doesn't sound encouraging!

Ours is still in planning, report on it to be given to government by tomorrow week.

leahyl

is_that_so wrote: »

Ours is still in planning, report on it to be given to government by tomorrow week.

yes, but we're only one of two in Europe that isn't ready? Every other country is? Wouldn't you think that we'd be well prepared by now? Anyway....I'm keeping positive!

Ashbourne hoop

Sheep2020 wrote: »

Let's be real here the EU are not going to reject the Pfizer vaccine, it's 100% going to be approved, they will find nothing to reject it or delay it, Pfizer will have tripled checked everything.

EU are just wasting valuable time right now

Many many vulnerable are going to meet people over Christmas holiday's, alot are going to get infected, alot are going to die over this time wasting excercise

This whole process is being rushed, usually takes 10 years....Also, why are they taking so long ????

funnydoggy

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

This whole process is being rushed, usually takes 10 years....Also, why are they taking so long ????

Got me in the first half, not gonna lie :pac:

is_that_so

leahyl wrote: »

yes, but we're only one of two in Europe that isn't ready? Every other country is? Wouldn't you think that we'd be well prepared by now? Anyway....I'm keeping positive!

We've been planning it since September apparently, well the HSE/DoH have, but the task force has only been up and running for about a month.

ixoy

is_that_so wrote: »

We've been planning it since September apparently, well the HSE/DoH have, but the task force has only been up an running for about a month.

Hopefully the task force didn't go in and have to say, "You've barely started your work". Them not responding, as above, is not encouraging as, whatever way you cut it, we're not as prepared as other EU countries.

I also saw this statement by on RTE Gloom's site:

Dr Favier said it will be important not to rush things and to get this right.

She said the involvement of GPs in vaccine provision has yet to be decided, but GPs are very good at rolling out vaccinations and know their patients, so they are nimble and can respond to challenges.

However, she said that GPs are overworked but will "potentially stand up to the plate" and respond if needed.

It's the "potentially stand up to the plate" that'd be concerning and the fact it appears GPs haven't been consulted yet.
The article mentions a target of 60% for herd immunity but it just seems to be an opinion, rather than anything definite.

odyssey06

Not sure if it's the right thread to mention it, but what would certainly ease rollout is ensuring staff can take paid time off to get the vaccine. At the moment, my understanding is that paid leave for a scheduled medical appointment isn't statutory - as opposed to an unexpected illness or accident or emergency type situation.
So clarity, something unequivocal from the government on that would be good across the private and public sector.

AdamD

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

They really aren't ahead. There is still data been analysed by the EMA, but the Uk have gone ahead for purely political/Brexit reasons, possibly preparing for a no deal Brexit. It's a bit of a gamble by the UK, it'll most likely be fine, but a gamble none the less.

The UK could also be doing it for medical reasons, the earlier they get this out the fewer deaths they'll have.

BrianD3

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

They really aren't ahead. There is still data been analysed by the EMA, but the Uk have gone ahead for purely political/Brexit reasons, possibly preparing for a no deal Brexit. It's a bit of a gamble by the UK, it'll most likely be fine, but a gamble none the less.

We don't know that they are or aren't ahead. We don't know what assessments of what data have been or remain to be carried out

As complete speculation, it could be that the British have analysed safety data but been less thorough on analysing efficacy data, deciding, following a risk assessment that it is preferable to get needles in arms next week rather than wait a month for the inevitable "x number of projected deaths caused by vaccine approval delay" headlines.

Yes the British action is a gamble, inaction is also a gamble. The EU could spend as long as it wants analysing the Pfizer submission and it still wouldn't guarantee that nothing bad would ever happen and it still wouldn't satisfy the militant anti vaxxers.

is_that_so

AdamD wrote: »

The UK could also be doing it for medical reasons, the earlier they get this out the fewer deaths they'll have.

It's more to make them look like they finally have a plan. They have screwed up all the way through the pandemic. This is for a political win and of course for medical reasons.

Ashbourne hoop

AdamD wrote: »

The UK could also be doing it for medical reasons, the earlier they get this out the fewer deaths they'll have.

Everything they've done thus far would suggest otherwise.

Marhay70

Cordell wrote: »

UK had to approve it because they are not EU anymore and the EU approval is worth nothing to them, right? If this is the case, Boris had seized an opportunity to score some points and prove that they were right to leave and so on, while doing something good for a change.

I hope I'm not sounding naive but I'm curious as to why the UK regulator would bow to political pressure. I would presume there is more to be lost than gained from this in the long term.
I did hear some blatant jingoism from a Tory politician this morning claiming a first for Britain along with the usual bluster but the interviewer took the wind out of his sails by pointing out it was developed by Turkish doctors, using German money in a US facility in Belgium. What a put down, I had to laugh

Ashbourne hoop

BrianD3 wrote: »

We don't know that they are or aren't ahead. We don't know what assessments of what data have been or remain to be carried out

As complete speculation, it could be that the British have analysed safety data but been less thorough on analysing efficacy data, deciding, following a risk assessment that it is preferable to get needles in arms next week rather than wait a month for the inevitable "x number of projected deaths caused by vaccine approval delay" headlines.

Nothing they've done so far would suggest they've made such a calculated decision, it's possible I guess, but unlikely imo.

Yes the British action is a gamble, inaction is also a gamble. The EU could spend as long as it wants analysing the Pfizer submission and it still wouldn't guarantee that nothing bad would ever happen and it still wouldn't satisfy the militant anti vaxxers.

There is still 100% data been analysed by the EMA. It's very likely that the EMA will follow the UK in approving the vaccine but it's still a gamble by the UK.

A presentation by BioNTech on their vaccine. They go into a lot of detail regarding the science and distribution. It's over an hour but well worth a watch.
https://player.admiralcloud.com/?v=5c1fecc2-f902-4886-b87b-5bcac76b7c2d


Also a link to the slides seen in the video.
https://investors.biontech.de/static-files/53f0968a-279b-4f82-a2fc-d67dcb6e4e91

Sky King

is_that_so wrote: »

It's more to make them look like they finally have a plan. They have screwed up all the way through the pandemic. This is for a political win and of course for medical reasons.

Yes and also 'get one over on the EU'.

afatbollix

EMA used to be based in London, London has all the experts already.

How many people of the EMA wanted to stay in London instead of Amsterdam when it moved last year?

The UK has also been doing a rolling review of the data. They didn't get the data all on day 1 like the EMA.

But they will be seen as wrong in the EU or Irish eyes no matter what they do.

I expect the Vaccine to be approved by the EMA it will just take longer, We should be asking the experts why it is taking longer?

brisan

ixoy wrote: »

A little bit of more concrete detail here on RTE, including:

* nine ultra-low temperature containers have been obtained for storage
(not sure how many doses each container can old) and that " this equipment will be commissioned by the middle of next week."

MM claims it's their top priority but, even so, gives us a moment of humour when he says:

"He said he was sure the Department of Health and HSE had a lot of experience and expertise."

.. Assuming they're allowed exert that expertise and not stifled by red tape.

MM is one of the few who are sure of that so

brisan

Talk of them using hospitals to give the vaccinations
Well my mother and a few of her neighbours will not be going near a hospital
3 people in the estate went into hospital Covid free with other ailments , caught Covid in the hospital and died with / from Covid
They are petrified of going near a hospital

Ashbourne hoop

afatbollix wrote: »

EMA used to be based in London, London has all the experts already.

How many people of the EMA wanted to stay in London instead of Amsterdam when it moved last year?

The UK has also been doing a rolling review of the data. They didn't get the data all on day 1 like the EMA.

But they will be seen as wrong in the EU or Irish eyes no matter what they do.

I expect the Vaccine to be approved by the EMA it will just take longer, We should be asking the experts why it is taking longer?

I fully expect them to do so too, but they are still reviewing data so it'll take a little longer.

stephenjmcd

brisan wrote: »

Talk of them using hospitals to give the vaccinations
Well my mother and a few of her neighbours will not be going near a hospital
3 people in the estate went into hospital Covid free with other ailments , caught Covid in the hospital and died with / from Covid
They are petrified of going near a hospital

Except they won't actually be going into a hospital. Vaccination centres would be outside on hospital grounds.

Bit of a difference between going into hospital and turning up to a tent outside

Caraibh

Caraibh wrote: »

Is that the same Lancet that was forced to retract a bogus study on hydroxychloroquine?

The data wasn't clear in June. It is now


https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/hydroxychloroquine-does-not-benefit-adults-hospitalized-covid-19

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2772921

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2022926

https://pink.pharmaintelligence.informa.com/PS143379/Labeling-Changes-In-Store-For-Hydroxychloroquine-In-EU-After-COVID-19-Experience

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/11/studies-find-no-covid-benefit-preventive-hydroxychloroquine-or-convalescent

brisan

speckle wrote: »

What about the motorbikers in the gardai medical corp army and those who deliever bloods first responders etc. Have staff in place and they do the transport. Or refrigerated truckers.. just throwing ideas out for you all.

If you think the HSE is going to hand over any form of control or god forbid praise to an outside agency , think again
I have said this before and I’ll say it again
If the HSE can find an unique way to fcuk up the roll out of the vaccinations
rest assured they will find it and use it
People saying they have experience in vaccinations
When have they been asked to vaccinate 3 million people in 6 months
They do not have the mindset to think outside the box and they will not hand over power to an outside committee

Gael23

Wouldn’t go near a hospital either but I expect these will be simply on hospital grounds in clinics mobile or otherwise

brisan

Pasteur. wrote: »

How is the cartoon relevant?

Seems to be the goto for smartypants

Exactly
The poster asks a simple question and they get a condescending sneering reply
If you’ve nothing g better to do , don’t answer
From what I have read injection is the only way to deliver the vaccine

Away With The Fairies

leahyl wrote: »

Just reading an article on RTE this morning and Dr Margaret Harris from WHO says this "She said the vaccine will be an immune barrier, but it will not stop the transmission for a long time unless we continue with the public health guidelines."

Eh what? How long do we have to continue with masks and social distancing even after we get the vaccine and are protected?? It sounds like it's indefinite from that statement?

Heard a bloke on an English channel yesterday say they don't know if it will stop transmission. So I'm guessing, they are starting slowly in telling us that things won't be normal anytime soon.

brisan

ShineOn7 wrote: »

It's a bit of craic on a great day

To be fair, you asked if a vaccine should be injected in us on a vaccine thread

It's the most direct way to get anything into the human body

But it’s not the only way as you well know
The poster asked a simple question and should have got a decent answer
The poster could have a severe phobia of needles

Irish Stones

chrisbonnie wrote: »

Do you mind me asking, have you had any other vaccines in your life, and if so, genuinely, how much of a background check did you do on them, ie, checking their efficiency, checking how many people where in the trials, numbers of people with side effects etc..... And please be honest.

I'm not the poster you asked the question to, but I would like to give my point of view, if you don't bother.
I only had the vaccines that were absolutely mandatory when I was a young child, say between 4 and 8 yo?
Since then, I haven't taken any vaccine anymore, and I'm in my 50's.

To be honest, when I was 25 I asked my GP to prescribe a shot for the mumps vaccine, and I still remember his reply.
He said "Please, explain it to me. You want to get the mumps or want to avoid it", I replied "I would like to avoid it". Then he said "Well, so you'd better skip the vaccine, because the vaccine is the best way to get the disease".

I'm not saying that all vaccines are giving us the diseases, just wanted to share with you this episode of my life.

brisan

Deleted User wrote: »

I heard they were considering fusing it with the sugar coating of Fruit Pastilles

Another condescending smart ass

timsey tiger

Pasteur. wrote: »

Why does everyone have to be injected?

Is there no simpler method?

I'd imagine, that it is the simplest and surest method of delivering a consistent dose.

brisan

Goldengirl wrote: »

Cannot be done like that .
What if someone faints or has a reaction to the jab ?
True reactions are rare but they do occur, most reactions are fainting.

The testing centres could be used but not drive thru .

Monitored waiting areas post vaccine
As I said the HSE will have to think outside the box for this and that is something they have shown themselves to be incapable of time and time again
Britain is using racecourses
Italy has major centres already identified as has Germany

VillageIdiot71

afatbollix wrote: »

I expect the Vaccine to be approved by the EMA it will just take longer, We should be asking the experts why it is taking longer?

I don't expect it will lead to a significantly different position.

Both the EU and UK are indemnifying companies again claims for any unexpected problems, as the EU and UK processes are both rushed to the extent that they create significantly more risk than would normally be tolerated.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html

The UK government has granted pharmaceutical giant Pfizer a legal indemnity protecting it from being sued, enabling its coronavirus vaccine to be rolled out across the country as early as next week.

The Department of Health and Social Care has confirmed the company has been given an indemnity protecting it from legal action as a result of any problems with the vaccine.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-eu-vaccine/covid-19-vaccine-makers-see-eu-shield-against-side-effect-claims-idUKKCN26D0UG

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Vaccine makers will be indemnified in Europe if their COVID-19 shots cause unexpected side-effects, an industry official said on Tuesday, urging European regulators to set up more predictable schemes to compensate possible victims.

It's like that line about haggling over the price.

It's like they're saying the UK is irresponsible by rushing in approval in less than a year, and we'll show how responsible we are by doing it after a couple more months.

Irish Stones

leahyl wrote: »

Just reading an article on RTE this morning and Dr Margaret Harris from WHO says this "She said the vaccine will be an immune barrier, but it will not stop the transmission for a long time unless we continue with the public health guidelines."

Eh what? How long do we have to continue with masks and social distancing even after we get the vaccine and are protected?? It sounds like it's indefinite from that statement?

This is what I was saying a few days ago, and I was criticized for.

brisan

JDD wrote: »

I do understand lawrencesummers feelings on this.

Put aside the fact that we need herd immunity to protect individuals who cannot take the vaccine for whatever health reason.

Say we get to June, and there has been an 80% uptake from over 70's, HCW and under-70's with serious underlying conditions.

The letter comes to you in the post offering you an appointment time to get your vaccine. You are in your twenties, or thirties, healthy, no underlying conditions. Your parents and those close to you in the vulnerable categories have already been immunized.

You know that the vaccine being offered to you is safe in the short term, because lots and lots of people worldwide took the vaccine in January or February. You do not know how safe the vaccine is in the medium term or the long term. You understand that for the vast majority of vaccines if issues come up they tend to come up immediately, but it is still at the back of your mind that the vaccine is only 12 months old, at best. So there is a sense of the unknown.

In addition, you don't know whether you will need to get a top up vaccination every year. What are the health implications of having to get a top up every year? Nobody knows, at least not yet.

Whereas you do have some certainty is over what effects Covid would have on you should you become infected. If you are young, healthy, and do not work in a health care or factory environment, the chances of being hospitalised are miniscule. You may consider the possibility that you will be effected by long covid, as a result of a mild infection. However, again, it appears that long covid is rare, and even rarer in those not hospitalised as a result of their infection. Still, you consider the possibility.

And then you weigh it against the unknown medium or long term effects of the vaccine, or indeed the unknown short, medium or long term effects of having to take the vaccine on an annual basis.

If you are at the middle point, perhaps taking the vaccine because it is the "right thing to do for society" might tip you into the "alright then, I'll take it" category. But if you are some percentage points away from the middle point, the "good for society" aspect isn't going to get you there.

Just to say, I will take the vaccine when it is offered to me. I am young and healthy. But I would be more concerned about catching a bad dose of covid or indeed suffering from lingering symptoms, then I would be about the miniscule chance that these frontrunner vaccines have some unknown long term side effects. The way I see it, I took a few illegal substances in my time without genuinely thinking what the long term effects might be. And they were just to have a good time at a party. This will actually prevent me from getting sick.

But I can see why someone might tip the other way.

Just on your first few lines
I would hope that by June we would have the vast majority of over 18s vaccinated and not just the vulnerable
We are simply giving out mass vaccinations, not sending men to mars
Most other countries are planning on having the bulk of the vaccinations done by mid summer

Irish Stones

Marhay70 wrote: »

What the UK has approved is exactly the same product as the EU is being asked to approve. If it takes the EU another month to come to the same conclusion as the UK, and in the meantime tens of thousands more people die, that's going to take a lot of explaining

I have understood that UK is following their own rules outside EU's rules, and that's fine.
But a question comes to my mind. If EU is still waiting for the approval from EMA because they want to be absolutely cautious and play safe, would this mean that they could even not approve the vaccine?

timsey tiger

lawrencesummers wrote: »

You can exaggerate the possible effects Of the disease in people and minimise your opinion of the possibilities of the vaccine, but the truth is you don’t know either.

Except, we do know. Only those, who don't want to know, don't know.

Ireland - 73,000 covid cases - 2074 deaths, how many hospitalisations.

Vaccines - 60,000 vaccines - 0 deaths - 0 hospitalisations.

You don't need a post graduate degree in statistics to understand this. If you want to.

Sheep2020

timsey tiger wrote: »

Except, we do know. Only those, who don't want to know, don't know.

Ireland - 73,000 covid cases - 2074 deaths, how many hospitalisations.

Vaccines - 60,000 vaccines - 0 deaths - 0 hospitalisations.

You don't need a post graduate degree in statistics to understand this. If you want to.

Ridiculous post, not a like for like comparison at all

Only a few hundred or so of those in the trial actually got Covid or came anywhere near it

Of those few hundred, a few were sick even with the vaccine and 1 severly sick with the vaccine

Only a challenge trial could draw your conclusions.

Irish Stones

brisan wrote: »

Italy has major centres already identified as has Germany

Italy has identified only 300 centres across the whole country, this will have lots of people move, even very long distances, when rules are "not leave your town/city" when in red and orange alert.

Caraibh

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

Heard a bloke on an English channel yesterday say they don't know if it will stop transmission. So I'm guessing, they are starting slowly in telling us that things won't be normal anytime soon.

Or ever.

Irish Stones

Latest news from what most of you consider it as the least reliable source of news on earth, but anyway, here it is:

https://www.lastampa.it/cronaca/2020/12/03/news/ippolito-chi-ha-avuto-il-covid-non-deve-vaccinarsi-1.39614023
ROMA. «Chi ha avuto il Covid non deve vaccinarsi contro la malattia perché ha sviluppato anticorpi naturali, semmai dovrà controllare il livello di questi anticorpi. E quando questi dovessero scendere, si può riconsiderare una vaccinazione».

"Those who had Covid won't need the vaccine because they had developed natural antibodies, if any, they should check their antibodies titer. Should the titer go down, a vaccination course might be take into consideration."

He also says that a different type of vaccine could be given to those who had Covid already.

drunkmonkey

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Not everyone else that wants it can get it. By hitting 70% threshold, it becomes very difficult and far less likely to run into someone who is infectious.

I understand that but is 70% not a very high threshold when the vaccine is 100% effective for the people that need it.
We're applying a threshold we'd like for the flu when that's only between 30 & 60% effective.
I'm just not seeing why the need for 70% if the at risk are supposedly 100% protected.

I'm getting that 70% figure from Luke O'Neill and that was before we knew how effective it was, I don't think he was expecting 95%+

Water John

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I understand that but is 70% not a very high threshold when the vaccine is 100% effective for the people that need it.
We're applying a threshold we'd like for the flu when that's only between 30 & 60% effective.
I'm just not seeing why the need for 70% if the at risk are supposedly 100% protected.

I'm getting that 70% figure from Luke O'Neill and that was before we knew how effective it was, I don't think he was expecting 95%+

70% X 95% = 66%. Once two out of three have immunity, the virus is unlikely to transmit further. It's that simple. Now don't ask again.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I understand that but is 70% not a very high threshold when the vaccine is 100% effective for the people that need it.
We're applying a threshold we'd like for the flu when that's only between 30 & 60% effective.
I'm just not seeing why the need for 70% if the at risk are supposedly 100% protected.

I'm getting that 70% figure from Luke O'Neill and that was before we knew how effective it was, I don't think he was expecting 95%+

The 70% figure is because of the high reproductive number of the virus, estimated to be somewhere around 3, combined with the likelihood of severe disease.

The reproductive number of flu is only around 1.5, and IFR and rate of hospitalisation for flu is much less than Covid.