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

ShineOn7

Seen on Reddit Ireland

Eye opening stats here and should be shown to every anti-vax psychopath

https://i.redd.it/26aankf2wr861.png

timsey tiger

Geuze wrote: »

That seems like low productivity to me? If one person can do 35 per shift, why does it take a team a shift to do 30 people? That looks like 50% productivity to me.

I don't know, how much extra would you give them to vaccinate a confused alzheimer's sufferer?

You also really don't want to be going back to a site because you didn't get the job done first time.

timsey tiger

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Seen on Reddit Ireland

Eye opening stats here and should be shown to every anti-vax psychopath

https://i.redd.it/26aankf2wr861.png

You'd be wasting your time. They'd just counter with how many aids deaths in the 90s vs now.

ShineOn7

timsey tiger wrote: »

You'd be wasting your time. They'd just counter with how many aids deaths in the 90s vs now.

Probably

Thankfully though most polls have them at just 20-25% in the "iM noT tAlkIng No vAcCiNe!" section of society

GreeBo

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Oh in general the IT systems in the HSE are god awful. Every consultant in the industry thats dealt with the HSE gives out crap about them, even now its just throwing money at them to keep them working.

Would have been cheaper in the long run to have updated them years ago. Anyway I digress

I'm decades in the industry and it's the same everywhere.

"I'm not paying to sunset/upgrade that, just make it work"

Inevitably followed by "what do you mean it's not working anymore and no one who built it works here/is still alive. Who let it get to this state?!"

GreeBo

Geuze wrote: »

Can I ask a few questions?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/operation-vaccination-hses-plan-for-care-home-residents-39902805.html

We know that the HSE will have up to 345 staff to deploy the vaccine across 583 nursing homes over six weeks, that covers 70,000 staff and residents.

We know that a vaccinator does 35 per day / 12 mins each.

Each team will have minimum of two, three or four vaccinators, an administrator and "observation clinician" .

So each team has 4 or 5 or 6 members, okay.

But it will take a team of four (2 vaccinators) a day to do the 30 residents of a small nursing home.

That seems like low productivity to me? If one person can do 35 per shift, why does it take a team a shift to do 30 people? That looks like 50% productivity to me.

Q2 - will there be parallel programmes going on during Jan/Feb, or just the 580 nursing homes?

Q3 - 70,000 in two months seems slow, at that rate 3.5m will take 100 months - so it seems we need way more than 345 staff?

It will get faster as the patients are less vulnerable and we learn more about and get comfortable with handling side effects.

GreeBo

Stheno wrote: »

We don't but there is a patient id used for tests so that might be the workaround

Hence why Israel having the mandatory insurance card also helps their efficiency.

Apogee

Gael23 wrote: »

Did someone post a sheet with the number of people in each priority group?

https://twitter.com/RachelLavin/status/1338484785367408640


https://twitter.com/RachelLavin/status/1341354445880389633

timsey tiger

does education workers include third level?

McGiver

iamwhoiam wrote:

They had vaccinated 131.626 by Thursday morning . Not 1.3 million

Sorry the 1.3m figure was the plan for end of January.

JTMan

Sky News have an update on the UK vaccine supply here.

- 530,000 doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine next week.
- 1 million doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine the following week.
- Two million doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine will be supplied each week by the middle of January.
- This means 2 million people vaccinated per week with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine because the UK are not holding back a second dose nor is the second dose being administered for aprox. 12 week.
- Pfizer and AstraZeneca were both reported as saying there is no problem with supply, saying millions of doses have already been delivered.

Still agree with the Bloomberg opinion piece that things will START to get better, for some countries, from mid February.

Bobeagleburger

Which vaccine is best at preventing the spread of the virus? Or has that been established yet?

gally74

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/prolonging-interval-between-covid-vaccine-shots-to-aid-rollout-speed-examined-1.4448401?mode=amp

irishgeo

6 wrote: »

Which vaccine is best at preventing the spread of the virus? Or has that been established yet?

None. They were designed to stop you getting the worst symptoms and needing hospital treatment a d to try reduce deaths.

They haven't aimed to reduce the viral loads so may be infectious to other non vaccinated people.

it may end up reducing the viral loads but that's a bonus rather than by design.

There is rumours the Oxford may be better at reducing the viral load but it's not proven..

This is why mask a d social may still need to be continue until after the vaccine is given to the majority of the vulnerable groups.

Another vaccine in development may come out which are designed to stop the virus altogether.

Gael23

gally74 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/prolonging-interval-between-covid-vaccine-shots-to-aid-rollout-speed-examined-1.4448401?mode=amp

That would be too sensible. Too far outside the box for us

Azatadine

Vaccines aside, what is the status of the various antibody treatments such as the Regeneron cocktail? I assume its too late to give it to someone who is already quite ill in hospital?

What Username Guidelines

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Seen on Reddit Ireland

Eye opening stats here and should be shown to every anti-vax psychopath

https://i.redd.it/26aankf2wr861.png


[IMG][/img]

"Yeah, but 27 still died from flu even with a vaccine, checkmate" :rolleyes:

obi604

Let’s say you have been in contact with someone who has corona and they indeed pass it to you. How long before you start getting sick? (ignore Asymptomatic etc)

RebelButtMunch

obi604 wrote: »

Let’s say you have been in contact with someone who has corona and they indeed pass it to you. How long before you start getting sick? (ignore Asymptomatic etc)

Up to 5 days I think.

Sardonicat

obi604 wrote: »

Let’s say you have been in contact with someone who has corona and they indeed pass it to you. How long before you start getting sick? (ignore Asymptomatic etc)

It's usually 4-5 days but can take up to14 days in a few cases. Bare in mind, some people have reported only having sympoms for a few hours (headache, dizzy, achy) and didn't realise they were COVID symptoms.

ACitizenErased

https://twitter.com/irishtimes/status/1345290154118967298?s=21

stephenjmcd

ACitizenErased wrote: »

https://twitter.com/irishtimes/status/1345290154118967298?s=21

Was mentioned at the press conference the other day that they'd look into it but currently no plans to deviate from EMA approval guidelines.

It was also mentioned EMA will look at it

ACitizenErased

Was the British scheduling decision based on supply? Pfizer statement just now suggest no problems with supply
https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak/status/1345343347574108160?s=21

iguana

timsey tiger wrote: »

You'd be wasting your time. They'd just counter with how many aids deaths in the 90s vs now.

The ones I know would tell you that it would have been better for their immune systems to have had the diseases and gotten better. Especially if they are breastfed. I had a friend who waxed lyrical about what a lovely time she had when she had Measles as her argument for not vaccinating her children. I suspect she means when she had Rubella which we called German Measles in the 80s. I had Rubella in the mid-80s too and it was a lovely time, as was Mumps which I had a week later. I had actual Measles in the early 80s and it was a bit ****, like what I'd now compare to a 3 day migraine. I'm 99.9999% sure my full term breastfed son would have been absolutely fine with all of those illnesses, though obviously I'd worry about him having mumps post-puberty.

I'm also 100% sure that if he'd spread those viruses when infected by them he would have put less healthy children and those in utero at risk of severe illness and death. I've had him vaccinated because I'm not a selfish asshole who can't see beyond my own very healthy child.

Van.Bosch

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Was mentioned at the press conference the other day that they'd look into it but currently no plans to deviate from EMA approval guidelines.

It was also mentioned EMA will look at it

It’s hard to know, on one hand I would think, do it right and stick to the guidance. On the other hand, things are so bad in the UK and going that way here that maybe we need to do something radical.

ACitizenErased

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Was the British scheduling decision based on supply? Pfizer statement just now suggest no problems with supply
https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak/status/1345343347574108160?s=21

I think the British decision is based on desperation. I'd hope Ireland don't follow suit. Whatever about the Oxford one, the Pfizer study was clear cut, 2 doses 3 weeks apart.

timsey tiger

iguana wrote: »

"I'm 99.9999% sure my full term breastfed son would have been absolutely fine with all of those illnesses, though obviously I'd worry about him having mumps post-puberty.

I'm 99.9999% sure you've not tought this through critically, if you had, you'd realise that this is a pretty inane statement. What was the mortality rates for these diseases before babies were bottle fed?

Beanybabog

Is there a possibility a single dose won’t work at all? And it could end up wasting loads of vaccines? Or do the people who know these things know it’ll work to some extent, but how much or for how long is just not established? Like I know for the chicken pox vaccine for my kids I was told after dose 1 it was something like 80% protection but second dose brings it to 98%.... is it the same for these, or are they taking a risk and hoping it is?

coastwatch

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the British decision is based on desperation. I'd hope Ireland don't follow suit. Whatever about the Oxford one, the Pfizer study was clear cut, 2 doses 3 weeks apart.

I think the decision was based on giving some level of immunisation to as many vulnerable as possible in a short time, instead of giving a high level of immunisation to fewer people.
IIRC The first dose Pfzier/BioNTech is 50% effective in preventing infection and the first dose of the AstraZeneca/ Oxford vaccine is 70% effective.

quokula

Beanybabog wrote: »

Is there a possibility a single dose won’t work at all? And it could end up wasting loads of vaccines? Or do the people who know these things know it’ll work to some extent, but how much or for how long is just not established? Like I know for the chicken pox vaccine for my kids I was told after dose 1 it was something like 80% protection but second dose brings it to 98%.... is it the same for these, or are they taking a risk and hoping it is?

The assumption is that this would be the case, but there haven’t been any proper trials to test if this is true, or what impact a longer delay would have when you do get the second dose. The UK is just winging it at this stage and ignoring the science.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/01/health/coronavirus-vaccines-britain.html