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

seamus

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.

It's a bit strange when we've yet to start Group 3 and there are significant numbers of Group 2 that are still waiting. Lots of Dublin paramedics for example still waiting for a date.

ixoy

dan786 wrote: »

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

So you're in the healthcare workspace. That makes sense.
Nonetheless, prepare to see people wielding pitchforks outside your offices shortly :pac:

seamus

titan18 wrote: »

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

I imagine some are on-site and some are not. This comes back to the "risk of being too picky" issue that has bitten other countries.

I have no doubt that of this branch, you will have a load of admin staff, I.T. people, etc. who basically never go into the hospital, but will get included in this deal on a nod, wink, "just in case" basis.
And that's OK. It ensures that the vaccination programme keeps on moving rather than getting held up for the entire hospital because someone has to audit whether all of the people in this branch are "entitled" to the vaccine.

The pragmatic approach is to just get it done and move on. Being overly picky might save you some doses, but at the cost of time. And ultimately time is what we're trying to save here, not doses.

hynesie08

dan786 wrote: »

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.

My ex worked for a large company, basically the equivalent of a medical temp agency, she never dealt with patients but she was directly involved with getting staff where they needed to be. If your job is anything like that, I got no issues with your branch getting vaccinated.

Good luck.

Melanchthon

seamus wrote: »

The pragmatic approach is to just get it done and move on. Being overly picky might save you some doses, but at the cost of time. And ultimately time is what we're trying to save here, not doses.

That's just not true, this like keeps getting put out the last few days because of the negative reporting.
Before this all the people being positive about the HSE/Irish response were saying that the supply of vaccine was the limiting factor.

titan18

seamus wrote: »

I imagine some are on-site and some are not. This comes back to the "risk of being too picky" issue that has bitten other countries.

I have no doubt that of this branch, you will have a load of admin staff, I.T. people, etc. who basically never go into the hospital, but will get included in this deal on a nod, wink, "just in case" basis.
And that's OK. It ensures that the vaccination programme keeps on moving rather than getting held up for the entire hospital because someone has to audit whether all of the people in this branch are "entitled" to the vaccine.

The pragmatic approach is to just get it done and move on. Being overly picky might save you some doses, but at the cost of time. And ultimately time is what we're trying to save here, not doses.

I'd be ok if some are onsite and some aren't that all are for same reasons as you said, although would hope that all the actual staff with patient contact across all hospitals are done first.

dan786

Lads to be clear as some have already said, I personally do not deal with any patients but I deal with several people throughout the day who deal with dozens of patients daily. As others have said the smartest and logical way doing it is getting everyone as the site vaccinated.

I have 3 people in my household vaccinated already. None of them deal directly with patients. Its just that their job requires dealing with people who are in contact with patients daily.

is_that_so

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a bit strange when we've yet to start Group 3 and there are significant numbers of Group 2 that are still waiting. Lots of Dublin paramedics for example still waiting for a date.

That should be from next week as this week looks like a charge to finish care homes.

seamus

Melanchthon wrote: »

That's just not true, this like keeps getting put out the last few days because of the negative reporting.
Before this all the people being positive about the HSE/Irish response were saying that the supply of vaccine was the limiting factor.

It's a pretty classic logistics problem.

When you have production lines competing for a limited resource, you assign that resource to the first production line that is available to take it.

You only use priorities when there are multiple lines available to take it. You do not sit on the limited resource and wait for the highest priority to be ready to take it.

In this case, where you have group 4 ready to get the vaccine and group 3 not ready, you get it out to group 4.

This is how you minimise delays.

But for most of us it can be a bit counter-intuitive because it appears like a lower priority is jumping the queue.

Hmmzis

ryanch09 wrote: »

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

Well, that's not great news. The study hasn't been uploaded yet, eagerly awaiting the details outlined there.
Edit: referencing this: https://mobile.twitter.com/kakape/status/1351252334890901504

The bit about higher titers having more signal and that the reinfection rate isn't any different from baseline would be good though. No increase in severity is also good.

The Moderna person seems very confident though that vaccines are less affected by this than convalescent serum.

Disclaimer: this is about the SA variant.

Gael23

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.

Group 2 not complete and group 3 not even starred so why are group 4 being bumped up?

Melanchthon

seamus wrote: »

It's a pretty classic logistics problem.

When you have production lines competing for a limited resource, you assign that resource to the first production line that is available to take it.

You only use priorities when there are multiple lines available to take it. You do not sit on the limited resource and wait for the highest priority to be ready to take it.

In this case, where you have group 4 ready to get the vaccine and group 3 not ready, you get it out to group 4.

This is how you minimise delays.

But for most of us it can be a bit counter-intuitive because it appears like a lower priority is jumping the queue.

Yeah thing is though, I know for a fact there is people who have fairly limited contact but have it with literally some of the very most vulnerable that aren't getting the jab or even a hint of a date they aren't complaining because they know of people (last week anyway) who were in continuous direct patient contact with vulnerable people and not vaccinated. The fact secretaries and IT people are getting vaccinated ahead of them is crazy even if those people are technically in health care settings.

We aren't at a stage like Israel or even northern Ireland. And priorities of delivery need to be looked at, if the vial is not diluted down it's not as unstable and there is a few days at low but not -70 temperatures. Instead of opening and diluting all the vials in one hospital and then having a excess that is used on those who don't have a pressing need make an effort to distribute them.

Also we know there is highest priority areas that did not receive enough doses so they are 100% able to take them.

ACitizenErased

Gael23 wrote: »

Group 2 not complete and group 3 not even starred so why are group 4 being bumped up?

They run concurrently. Not 1 by 1.

Melanchthon

ACitizenErased wrote: »

They run concurrently. Not 1 by 1.

Group 1 is the highest priority though and it's known there are places waiting for enough doses. When people wanted a quicker rollout they wanted it given to the most vulnerable not the most connected.

ACitizenErased

Melanchthon wrote: »

Group 1 is the highest priority though and it's known there are places waiting for enough doses. When people wanted a quicker rollout they wanted it given to the most vulnerable not the most connected.

There's a timeline and dates have been given to nursing homes. What more can you do?

is_that_so

Melanchthon wrote: »

Group 1 is the highest priority though and it's known there are places waiting for enough doses. When people wanted a quicker rollout they wanted it given to the most vulnerable not the most connected.

Group 1 is scheduled to finish the first shot this coming Sunday.

dominatinMC

Hmmzis wrote: »

Well, that's not great news. The study hasn't been uploaded yet, eagerly awaiting the details outlined there.

The bit about higher titers having more signal and that the reinfection rate isn't any different from baseline would be good though. No increase in severity is also good.

The Moderna person seems very confident though that vaccines are less affected by this than convalescent serum.

Disclaimer: this is about the SA variant.

What's not good about the linked story? Evidence that the vaccines work against the new variants would surely be considered good news

Melanchthon

ACitizenErased wrote: »

There's a timeline and dates have been given to nursing homes. What more can you do?

You can send the vials to them instead of locations with low risk patients. You could make sure that a location being vaccinated only thaws and opens enough vials for their priority 1 (and possibly 2 people.

It's not actually rocket science and this is vaccinating people down the list literally killing it the most vulnerable. They are priority one for a reason

ACitizenErased

Melanchthon wrote: »

You can send the vials to them instead of locations with low risk patients. You could make sure that a location being vaccinated only thaws and opens enough vials for their priority 1 (and possibly 2 people.

It's not actually rocket science and this is vaccinating people down the list literally killing it the most vulnerable. They are priority one for a reason

Which is why they're finishing this week?

Gael23

Hmmzis wrote: »

Well, that's not great news. The study hasn't been uploaded yet, eagerly awaiting the details outlined there.

The bit about higher titers having more signal and that the reinfection rate isn't any different from baseline would be good though. No increase in severity is also good.

The Moderna person seems very confident though that vaccines are less affected by this than convalescent serum.

Disclaimer: this is about the SA variant.

What’s not great news? Can’t see anything negative in that tweet

Water John

ACitizenErased wrote: »

They run concurrently. Not 1 by 1.

You'll need to explain a Ghantt chart, for some.

Hmmzis

dominatinMC wrote: »

What's not good about the linked story? Evidence that the vaccines work against the new variants would surely be considered good news

Apologies, went down the rabbit hole a bit, the presentation from SA about their findings on serology with the new variant. Convalescent serum seems to be quite a bit affected in the assays by it (48% had no reactivity to the variant). This would put it into the different strain category.

Hmmzis

Gael23 wrote: »

What’s not great news? Can’t see anything negative in that tweet

Apologies, updated the post with the link to one of the related tweets:

https://mobile.twitter.com/kakape/status/1351252334890901504

The video is worth a look and explains why the scientists were concerned.

Some summary here: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/new-coronavirus-variants-could-cause-more-reinfections-require-updated-vaccines

Not good news. There are some brighter things around it though:

- The same Twitter user (from Moderna) said they don't expect the vaccine efficacy to drop below 90% for any of the variants.
- At least in South Africa they have not noticed any systematic surge of re-infections in the 2nd wave even though their 484K type is now the most prevalent there.
- No increase in severity has been noticed either
- Vaccine updates might have to come sooner than we expected

Gile_na_gile

Some more preliminary results from Israel from a health provider suggesting a lower than 54% efficacy for a single dose of Pfizer after 14 days, instead showing 33%. No data given on how many patients, so imagine the final figure is somewhere in between and likely related to the UK variant making an impact. Obviously, a proper double dose and 28 (dose 1 + 21 days + week) days will be much more efficacious.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-virus-czar-says-1st-dose-less-effective-than-pfizer-indicated-report/

As in the link shared above, it would seem we can expect resistant strains to emerge eventually and that it will be a whack a mole situation of suppressing and eliminating all through fast vaccine tweaking and regionalised lockdowns to prevent spread.

Newuser2

Gile_na_gile wrote: »

Some more preliminary results from Israel from a health provider suggesting a lower than 54% efficacy for a single dose of Pfizer after 14 days, instead showing 33%. No data given on how many patients, so imagine the final figure is somewhere in between and likely related to the UK variant making an impact. Obviously, a proper double dose and 28 (dose 1 + 21 days + week) days will be much more efficacious.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-virus-czar-says-1st-dose-less-effective-than-pfizer-indicated-report/

As in the link shared above, it would seem we can expect resistant strains to emerge eventually and that it will be a whack a mole situation of suppressing and eliminating all through fast vaccine tweaking and regionalised lockdowns to prevent spread.

Will delay easing of restrictions

Mars Bar

franciscanpunk wrote: »

What vacine are the likes of israel, Bahrain and the UAE using or is it a combination?

Obviusly I know they are all safe and tested alrrady but its an interesting live trial to see what impact it will have on hospital rates over the next few months

UAE

Pfizer in Dubai. The DHA is offering Pfizer for over 60's I think in Abu Dhabi but it's Sinopharm for the rest of us. Got mine yesterday.

plodder

Gile_na_gile wrote: »

Some more preliminary results from Israel from a health provider suggesting a lower than 54% efficacy for a single dose of Pfizer after 14 days, instead showing 33%. No data given on how many patients, so imagine the final figure is somewhere in between and likely related to the UK variant making an impact. Obviously, a proper double dose and 28 (dose 1 + 21 days + week) days will be much more efficacious.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-virus-czar-says-1st-dose-less-effective-than-pfizer-indicated-report/

As in the link shared above, it would seem we can expect resistant strains to emerge eventually and that it will be a whack a mole situation of suppressing and eliminating all through fast vaccine tweaking and regionalised lockdowns to prevent spread.

Very conflicting information in that report. One crowd saying 50% reduction, another saying 33% and another 60%. Though it would make you wonder given the fragility of the Pfizer vaccine that its efficacy could be reduced if it is mishandled at all.

Deeper Blue

Gile_na_gile wrote: »

As in the link shared above, it would seem we can expect resistant strains to emerge eventually and that it will be a whack a mole situation of suppressing and eliminating all through fast vaccine tweaking and regionalised lockdowns to prevent spread.

That's a bit of a stretch to say the least. Let's wait and see the effects of the second dose first.

Gile_na_gile

Hmmzis wrote: »

Apologies, updated the post with the link to one of the related tweets:

https://mobile.twitter.com/kakape/status/1351252334890901504

The video is worth a look and explains why the scientists were concerned.

Some summary here: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/new-coronavirus-variants-could-cause-more-reinfections-require-updated-vaccines

Not good news. There are some brighter things around it though:

- The same Twitter user (from Moderna) said they don't expect the vaccine efficacy to drop below 90% for any of the variants.
- At least in South Africa they have not noticed any systematic surge of re-infections in the 2nd wave even though their 484K type is now the most prevalent there.
- No increase in severity has been noticed either
- Vaccine updates might have to come sooner than we expected

El Sueño wrote: »

That's a bit of a stretch to say the least. Let's wait and see the effects of the second dose first.

True. I meant the link in previous post from Hmmzis.

dominatinMC

Gile_na_gile wrote: »

Some more preliminary results from Israel from a health provider suggesting a lower than 54% efficacy for a single dose of Pfizer after 14 days, instead showing 33%. No data given on how many patients, so imagine the final figure is somewhere in between and likely related to the UK variant making an impact. Obviously, a proper double dose and 28 (dose 1 + 21 days + week) days will be much more efficacious.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-virus-czar-says-1st-dose-less-effective-than-pfizer-indicated-report/

As in the link shared above, it would seem we can expect resistant strains to emerge eventually and that it will be a whack a mole situation of suppressing and eliminating all through fast vaccine tweaking and regionalised lockdowns to prevent spread.

A lot of conflicting information in that article, coupled with conjecture would lead me to believe that it is something of a headline-grabbing exercise. Statements such as "it APPEARS that the protection offered by the first dose is less effective than we had thought" and "MAY not protect against new strains of the virus" are not exactly conclusive.

In any case, are "data" from the first dose that significant? We all know that we need the second dose and if that is as efficacious as we are told (plus the added benefit of reduced transmission), we are in a good position. Let's see how the data looks after the second doses have been administered before jumping to conclusions. But, as others have frequently remarked on here, some posters seem to relish the prospect of the vaccine failing..