COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 2 [Mod Warning - Post #1]

titan18

El Sueño wrote: »

Maybe this seems harsh but I couldn't give a ****e about Africa or anywhere else at the moment. We need to look after our own house and protect our own people. Once that's done we can start being charitable.

Ya, whilst it might be fairer, if any politician goes to someone you're not going back to work cos we need to vaccinate people in Africa, there'd be murder.

Russman

El Sueño wrote: »

Maybe this seems harsh but I couldn't give a ****e about Africa or anywhere else at the moment. We need to look after our own house and protect our own people. Once that's done we can start being charitable.

I'd guess everybody is thinking that, few will admit it though.

irishgeo

we will probably have more vaccines than we need come September, we can donate those.

People need a stick to beat the HSE with. The rollout is going pretty well judging by the numbers but the moaners don't have anything to moan about so jump on the vaccine giving to family members etc.

Firstly it wasn't going fast enough now it's flying they need more to moan about.

Social media is the worst for it.

Stark

Deleted User wrote: »

I see the WHO are warning about the uneven distribution of vaccines

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0118/1190411-coronavirus-vaccine/

It is preferable that those most in need are prioritised. Given Africa has had 79,000 deaths from 1.2BN people, while Europe has 630,000 deaths from 700 million, priority for Europe would seem to be appropriate (and South Africa). There are more pressing issues that we can help Africa with at the moment than vaccine access. Food security and clean water top of the list.

I suspect the number of deaths in Africa are underreported to a huge degree.

(I'm still not giving them my vaccine though).

wes

El Sueño wrote: »

Maybe this seems harsh but I couldn't give a ****e about Africa or anywhere else at the moment. We need to look after our own house and protect our own people. Once that's done we can start being charitable.

From a purely selfish POV, we should care. Allowing the virus to run rampant elsewhere could produce new variants resistant to the vaccine. It is in our interest to make sure everyone gets vaccinated asap. IMO, not worth the risk, if we can vaccinate everyone, then we should do so.

Hitchens

If we think things are bad now, wait until the Ebola virus gets here!

CrabRevolution

wes wrote: »

From a purely selfish POV, we should care. Allowing the virus to run rampant elsewhere could produce new variants resistant to the vaccine. It is in our interest to make sure everyone gets vaccinated asap. IMO, not worth the risk, if we can vaccinate everyone, then we should do so.

I don't think anyone is saying that we should just pull the ladder up once we're done vaccinating ourselves and let poor countries fend for themselves. It's the notion that the worst hit countries should be sacrificing their currently extremely limited vaccine supply in order to give some to countries who haven't been hit nearly as hard by Covid.

titan18

wes wrote: »

From a purely selfish POV, we should care. Allowing the virus to run rampant elsewhere could produce new variants resistant to the vaccine. It is in our interest to make sure everyone gets vaccinated asap. IMO, not worth the risk, if we can vaccinate everyone, then we should do so.

That exact same risk is there if we vaccinate all of ourselves first or split it with poorer countries, it's the same amount getting vaccinated. Vaccinating them after we're sorted is fine, I'd imagine a lot will have issue if our taxes are paying for vaccines for poorer countries when we've hundreds of thousands out of work here.

timsey tiger

wes wrote: »

From a purely selfish POV, we should care. Allowing the virus to run rampant elsewhere could produce new variants resistant to the vaccine. It is in our interest to make sure everyone gets vaccinated asap. IMO, not worth the risk, if we can vaccinate everyone, then we should do so.

True, but as in an airplane emergency, you got to put on your own oxygen mask first before helping others.

timsey tiger

Hitchens wrote: »

If we think things are bad now, wait until the Ebola virus gets here!

Not going to happen. There has to be a "goldilocks" area for viruses, if they are properly terrifying then we'll have proper lockdowns and all of a sudden no problems with sealing borders. It is no surprise that ebola never got outside Africa.

seamus

Russman wrote: »

I'd guess everybody is thinking that, few will admit it though.

It's not so much wanting to look after ourselves, it's recognising where the burden is.

If Africa was being ravaged with this virus while we were carrying on our normal day-to-day with relatively little impact, I'd be saying fvck yeah, give Africa the vaccines, we can wait.

But it's not. The roles are reversed. It just so happens the wealthiest countries are the worst affected.

One also has to recognise the level of support; direct and indirect; that otherwise flows from Europe to Africa. So long as Europe is paralysed, so too is that support. Getting Europe open for business as soon as possible is in both continents' interests.

Polar101

A professor at a vaccine research centre of a Finnish university suggests it would be possible to halve the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and still get the same level of protection. That would allow 33% more vaccinations. According to him, it would be easy to test - give a few dozen HCWs the smaller dose and then test them for antibodies and immunity response. The idea has been presented to the CMO who says it sounds good, but needs some more research first.

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/vaccine_professor_covid_booster_doses_could_be_halved/11744284

VonLuck

muddypuppy wrote: »

Where have you seen that 0.19? On twitter (https://twitter.com/OurWorldInData/status/1350368905102061568)? That's new vaccinations per day, not total amount of vaccinations.
On the website the cumulative per 100 is 1.6, since they haven't updated it yet.

I knew I was misreading something. I think I just saw the 0.19 figure and by coincidence it had the same numbers as the the total of 1.9%.

poppers

Polar101 wrote: »

A professor at a vaccine research centre of a Finnish university suggests it would be possible to halve the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and still get the same level of protection. That would allow 33% more vaccinations. According to him, it would be easy to test - give a few dozen HCWs the smaller dose and then test them for antibodies and immunity response. The idea has been presented to the CMO who says it sounds good, but needs some more research first.

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/vaccine_professor_covid_booster_doses_could_be_halved/11744284

one of the vaccines is half dose full dose. The FDA/EMA sent it back for retrial as some issues were raised about the modeling, im sure the EMA would require a full scale trial by Pfizer before they would approve this.

GreeBo

hotmail.com wrote: »

Donnelly still hasn't got his act together. He should be replaced.

You post similar nonsense every day on every covid thread. You should be replaced.

VillageIdiot71

Deleted User wrote: »

I see the WHO are warning about the uneven distribution of vaccines

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0118/1190411-coronavirus-vaccine/

It is preferable that those most in need are prioritised. Given Africa has had 79,000 deaths from 1.2BN people, while Europe has 630,000 deaths from 700 million, priority for Europe would seem to be appropriate (and South Africa). There are more pressing issues that we can help Africa with at the moment than vaccine access. Food security and clean water top of the list.

Given that it's hard to conduct a moral debate via statements to the media, I'd suspect the point of the statement is to stoke up demand for the vaccine in the general public in Europe. "Geddit quick before they have to give it all to Africa" is the line of thought that it seems to provoke.

seamus

poppers wrote: »

one of the vaccines is half dose full dose. The FDA/EMA sent it back for retrial as some issues were raised about the modeling, im sure the EMA would require a full scale trial by Pfizer before they would approve this.

A full-scale trial wouldn't be required, as a lot of the stuff can be skipped, such as safety and quality control.

Only issue here is that by the time you had sufficient data to yea or nay the idea of half-doses, many countries will be well advanced in their rollout and vaccine supply far less constrained. So why would Pfizer voluntarily run a trial to see if they can sell 33% less vaccine?

Deenie78

I hope @Greebo always stays on the right side of the mods - I need that little bit of balanced comic relief in this thread at times!

titan18

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Given that it's hard to conduct a moral debate via statements to the media, I'd suspect the point of the statement is to stoke up demand for the vaccine in the general public in Europe. "Geddit quick before they have to give it all to Africa" is the line of thought that it seems to provoke.

Well, he's from Ethiopia himself, and previously a politician there, so I'd imagine it's more he's getting local pressure for vaccines

is_that_so

titan18 wrote: »

Well, he's from Ethiopia himself, and previously a politician there, so I'd imagine it's more he's getting local pressure for vaccines

A lot of it is also geopolitics. As a potential issue it is what you would expect them to comment on. In principle they are right but vaccination is a needs must and we are only a few weeks into this.

ryanch09

Disclaimer: I don't know how reliable this account is, but they seem to know what they're talking about

https://mobile.twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1351522001035407363

And a more reliable source (posted on the 11th): https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/covid-biontech-ceo-says-vaccine-is-effective-against-new-strains.html

Maxpfizer

Stark wrote: »

I suspect the number of deaths in Africa are underreported to a huge degree.

(I'm still not giving them my vaccine though).

Maybe. It could also be that a lot of countries there have a life expectancy lower than the age of those most likely to die from the virus. So unfortunately most people don't actually live to an age where Covid could be a major risk to them anyway.

dan786

Hoping to get my first dose in next two weeks as the Mater have agreed a deal with my employer to vaccinate all staff. Was planning to travel somewhere early February but might hold on now till I get both the doses.

ixoy

dan786 wrote: »

Hoping to get my first dose in next two weeks as the Mater have agreed a deal with my employer to vaccinate all staff. Was planning to travel somewhere early February but might hold on now till I get both the doses.

How did that happen? Are you in one of the early groupings - health care worker or some sort of golden-years office?

titan18

dan786 wrote: »

Hoping to get my first dose in next two weeks as the Mater have agreed a deal with my employer to vaccinate all staff. Was planning to travel somewhere early February but might hold on now till I get both the doses.

That doesn't sound right? How did your company swing that?

Are ye catering within a hospital or contractors in there or something?

dan786

ixoy wrote: »

How did that happen? Are you in one of the early groupings - health care worker or some sort of golden-years office?

We provide a certain set of healthcare services to the Mater and other hospitals inc Connolly and St Vincent's.

Our biggest contract is with Mater so they included all our staff in their numbers to get doses.

They are only providing vaccine to one of our Dublin branches as the contract is only with said branch. Our other branches are not expecting them till April/May.

Gael23

dan786 wrote: »

Hoping to get my first dose in next two weeks as the Mater have agreed a deal with my employer to vaccinate all staff. Was planning to travel somewhere early February but might hold on now till I get both the doses.

These deals should not be happening

dan786

Gael23 wrote: »

These deals should not be happening

Its been approved by the HSE

Without our services said hospitals would be struggling at this time as the amount of workload being outsourced to us in extremely high. It is a healthcare service we provide, the only reason my branch is getting is earlier is due to our contract with Mater. Other branches are in the early group also so will be getting them before the general public anyway. They have been given estimate date of April while Mater gave out branch an estimate in Feb.

seamus

Gael23 wrote: »

These deals should not be happening

Sounds above board to me.

Group 4 is all other healthcare workers not in direct patient contact.

It would make no sense for a hospital group to be using unvaccinated contractors within the hospital. So if these contractors are necessary for the functioning of the hospital, then vaccinating them as if they are staff, makes sense.

titan18

seamus wrote: »

Sounds above board to me.

Group 4 is all other healthcare workers not in direct patient contact.

It would make no sense for a hospital group to be using unvaccinated contractors within the hospital. So if these contractors are necessary for the functioning of the hospital, then vaccinating them as if they are staff, makes sense.

Depends on the job really. If its contractors working within the hospital, I'd go fair enough, but if they're never on-site I'd probably be maybe too early