COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 3 - Read OP

Turtwig

ddarcy wrote: »

Disagree. If the heavy population is not fit to take it, neither is the vulnerable. A massive lawsuit(s) is lurking if they do. You can’t say a vulnerable group more prone to serious adverse events from the vaccine are grand whereas the normal healthy population are not. If they go this route Solicitors / Barristers will be creaming themselves.

The calculus of risk is notoriously different for the vulnerable groups to the larger population. There is also no data at this time to suggest vulnerable cohorts are more at risk of this adverse event. These groups aren't naive either. Many of them will be on medications with risk of very severe side effects that include death. They should at least be given the option because I suspect most would opt to be vaccinated as soon as possible vs risking covid.

Solicitors will take any case. Doesn't mean it has merit.

eoinbn

eoinbn wrote: »

It is very likely that the people that have gotten the first dose will get something else for the second - unless they are over 60.
You are assuming that we will do all the over 60s with AZ - some won't.
They will be done with what ever is available as they are at a relatively high risk. However the 12 week gap does help.
We should start the 65-69 asap. Use as many AZ for the next month. After that it will just be used for second doses.
If the same thing happens with J&J it will be a big blow.

Would not be so sure - no cases after 2nd dose I believe. The heightened immune response that triggers the issue seems to follow the initial dose within 2 weeks

Rebelbrowser

Turtwig wrote: »

Solicitors will take any case. Doesn't mean it has merit.

Well certain solicitors will if they see sufficient upside, most solicitors wouldn't touch this kind of thing with a barge pole. As we don't (yet) have class actions per se in Ireland we are less of a litigation risk than, say, the US.

RavenBea17b

Sanjuro wrote: »

My mam's friend has a GP who has never computerised. Does everything with paper and pencil. Real old school type. Unsurprisingly, it's been absolute chaos trying to get his patients vaccinated. Said friend is 75. Not a sign of getting even the first dose so far.

brendanwalsh wrote: »

Anyone who got their first Az shot would rightly refuse the second shot at this point too

Why would that be ? Risk of blood clots are being monitored. Notification of signs too for each person vaccinated. Does that mean women who take the contraceptive pill refuse now.

How about people start refusing the Johnson Jansen one as well, due similar type of blood clots ongoing investigations. I understand that the type of clot is rare.

I would look at the balance of catching COVID vs risk of clot.
If at some point maybe we get asked to take an aspirin or anti clot medication of some sort for a month or so after a jab,(any jab) then so be it. (IMHO). I am not a medic, but having seen the damage that long Covid is doing, I will take a chance.
I think I read somewhere that there is research about the platelet impact - related to if you have already had Covid. Many Covid sufferers have increased blood clot risks and have been impacted by clots. Each day more is being learnt about the ongoing effects of the virus and the impact of vaccines.

noplacehere

Ah ffs. I would have preferred a different one but I still danced up to get my first dose (cohort 4). Now what the **** do they do. I don’t want a mix and match jabs? Sod that. Either finish me properly or give me a fill proper mRNA vaccine schedule. This is a mess of a recommendation

iamwhoiam

So the only people now getting AZ are age 60-70 ?

lbj666

Russman wrote: »

So, if the figures in post #8606 are correct, there are 483,100 people between 60 & 69 in the country. That would mean 966k doses required.
We've already administered 233k AZ - presumably they're mostly first doses, would there be much overlap with the 966k above ?
We'll still probably need around a million AZ shots in total, give or take.

Ya i thinking this may not significantly effect rollout on a broader level than we might think. 233k you say will be getting their 2nd dose in June. 483k 60-69s will get theirs before that, so thats your AZ allocation til end of June used up more or less.

Problem is do you really ring fence AZ and AZ only for one of the last remaining real at risk groups and how much it would prolongue things. NIAC have advised already about oldest first regardless, so they might stay out of the logistical bit of that.


I'll say again, broadening the dosing interval for pfizer when we get to less risk groups would ease the burden big time.

funnydoggy

Hmm.. My 30 year old other half is due to get her vaccine tomorrow in Parc Uí Chaoimh too but my mammy's GP said they're only doing AZ down there. What's the craic then I wonder. Guess I'll wait for an official announcement.

stephenjmcd

Can't see 180-190k being reached this week now to be honest. They'll have to change things up in terms of logistics etc, that'll take a little bit of time to do.

iamwhoiam

So will under 60 now get their 2nd dose of AZ ?

stephenjmcd

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Its a very very rare side effect and a very small number of cases relative to the amount of AZ used.

I fail to see how they've come up with this recommendation to be honest.

None of us would take any medication or vaccine if we knew the very very rare side effects to each one.

(queue the replies of this isn't any other medication - they all come with a list of rare side effects)

Because even if the risk is very low, this vaccine has caused a fairly significant number of deaths (32 across the UK, Germany and Norway alone). Many of those deaths were in young people who would be at a very low risk from covid. And that's only the deaths, the other 75% of people who developed CVST and survived could be dealing with after effects for some time.

When there are other vaccines available that are not causing otherwise healthy people to die from a blood clot, it's sensible to use them. Especially when they make up 80% of our supply.

vienne86

iamwhoiam wrote: »

So the only people now getting AZ are age 60-70 ?

Yep. They've loads of it, so we'll probably get offered one in each arm!

vienne86

iamwhoiam wrote: »

So will under 60 now get their 2nd dose of AZ ?

Good question.

Dressoutlet

I'm a very optimistic person. And I always say everything happens for a reason.
I now believe AZ not delivering the promised vaccines in Q1 was a blessing In disguise. I'm cohort 4 and in my 30s, but high risk for blood clots so I don't think my GP will recommend me to take AZ.

Russman

The response when the online portal opens up for the 65-69 year olds will be very telling IMO. I suppose that's likely to change to the 60-69 year olds now, assuming the recommendation is accepted.

I dunno, I really thought they go with 40s or 50s, rather than 60s. I'll preface this by saying I'd take AZ tomorrow, but its such a bad look that only one 10 year block of elderly people are being given the vaccine that, rightly or wrongly, is perceived as being unsafe or inferior. I know the risk of covid Vs vaccine etc etc, but just from a layman's perspective of how it looks.

Not a lot they could do and its not anyone's fault, but still. Won't take much for AZ to be relegated to COVAX donations by wealthier countries.

Stheno

Russman wrote: »

The response when the online portal opens up for the 65-69 year olds will be very telling IMO. I suppose that's likely to change to the 60-69 year olds now, assuming the recommendation is accepted.

I dunno, I really thought they go with 40s or 50s, rather than 60s. I'll preface this by saying I'd take AZ tomorrow, but its such a bad look that only one 10 year block of elderly people are being given the vaccine that, rightly or wrongly, is perceived as being unsafe or inferior. I know the risk of covid Vs vaccine etc etc, but just from a layman's perspective of how it looks.

Not a lot they could do and its not anyone's fault, but still. Won't take much for AZ to be relegated to COVAX donations by wealthier countries.

I think the one adverse reaction here so far was a woman in their 40s so that may have guided this new rationale somewhat?

titan18

Surprised they went 60+, thought they'd at least go 50. It shouldn't make any impact really (bar logistically) until another 3 weeks so maybe by then things will be clearer. As someone in their 30s in group 7, I'd much rather Pfizer over AZ at this stage. I'd be close to rejecting AZ and just waiting tbh.

Wonder will they start giving AZ to over 70s or are they just going to limit to 60-69.

lbj666

Russman wrote: »

The response when the online portal opens up for the 65-69 year olds will be very telling IMO. I suppose that's likely to change to the 60-69 year olds now, assuming the recommendation is accepted.

I dunno, I really thought they go with 40s or 50s, rather than 60s. I'll preface this by saying I'd take AZ tomorrow, but its such a bad look that only one 10 year block of elderly people are being given the vaccine that, rightly or wrongly, is perceived as being unsafe or inferior. I know the risk of covid Vs vaccine etc etc, but just from a layman's perspective of how it looks.

Not a lot they could do and its not anyone's fault, but still. Won't take much for AZ to be relegated to COVAX donations by wealthier countries.

Correct me if am wrong but I understood that the CST was an issue with 50 and younger and there was not as elevated levels in say 60+.

So as such it isnt really a risk vs benefit call in that cohort, more that it is simply "safer" in older groups.

Doctor Jimbob

titan18 wrote: »

Surprised they went 60+, thought they'd at least go 50. It shouldn't make any impact really (bar logistically) until another 3 weeks so maybe by then things will be clearer. As someone in their 30s in group 7, I'd much rather Pfizer over AZ at this stage. I'd be close to rejecting AZ and just waiting tbh.

Wonder will they start giving AZ to over 70s or are they just going to limit to 60-69.

I'm also in my 30s, no underlying conditions, and I'd walk to the other side of the country for an AZ vaccine.

titan18

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm also in my 30s, no underlying conditions, and I'd walk to the other side of the country for an AZ vaccine.

Ya, some will and some won't want to risk it. Someone said earlier about maybe asking people to sign waivers for AZ if they want it, and whilst I doubt they will do that, if people want it and we have supply, I'm all for anyone taking the chance. Just prefer it's not me.

eoinbn

Deleted User wrote: »

Would not be so sure - no cases after 2nd dose I believe. The heightened immune response that triggers the issue seems to follow the initial dose within 2 weeks

How many people have gotten a second dose? Nobody outside of the UK. Probably not many in the lower age groups in the UK.

crossman47

titan18 wrote: »

Just prefer it's not me.

I'm afraid most people don't understand risk. The risk from getting Covid is way higher then that from AZ. Its the same lack of understanding that led to children dying from measles when a vaccine was available but people listened to a charlatan.

lbj666

lbj666 wrote: »

Correct me if am wrong but I understood that the CST was an issue with 50 and younger and there was not as elevated levels in say 60+.

So as such it isnt really a risk vs benefit call in that cohort, more that it is simply "safer" in older groups.

The approach being taken is very cautious. If at a later date the rules are relaxed again this shows there is very high confidence in the safety of the vaccine.

Some of the drugs below also known to trigger thrombocytopenia

Furosemide
Gold, used to treat arthritis
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)
Penicillin
Quinidine
Quinine
Ranitidine
Sulfonamides
Linezolid and other antibiotics
Statins

titan18

crossman47 wrote: »

I'm afraid most people don't understand risk. The risk from getting Covid is way higher then that from AZ. Its the same lack of understanding that led to children dying from measles when a vaccine was available but people listened to a charlatan.

Sure, but there's less risk with a different vaccine, so if my options are AZ now or Pfizer in 3 months, I'd prefer to wait. The options aren't just risk of side effects from AZ or risk of covid, there's more there.

greenerie

I received a text to come for my vaccine (:))but have had to reschedule due to another appointment. Sent the requested reply of 'Reschedule' but received nothing back - anyone else experienced this?

crossman47

crossman47 wrote: »

I'm afraid most people don't understand risk. The risk from getting Covid is way higher then that from AZ. Its the same lack of understanding that led to children dying from measles when a vaccine was available but people listened to a charlatan.

1. This assumes a binary choice of AZ v Covid. But AZ only makes up 20% of our supply. We have other vaccines.

2. The risk of covid is not higher than the risk of AZ for everyone. The younger you are, the higher the risk from AZ in comparison to the benefit, as highlighted by the MHRA last week.

seamus

Euch, what a mess.

All is not lost though.

If AZ can only be used on the 60+ cohort, then it will be used as a matter of priority on them, and other vaccines only used to fill the gaps.

This means an overavailability of the other vaccines, which means that we should be able to clean up the 70+ cohort a bit faster, AND move on to the younger age groups faster too. We'll likely be doing 50-59 age group in parallel with the 60-69.

While the AZ dosing regime in use is 12 weeks, that's a maximum. The second dose can be provided after 4 weeks, and if we have "too much" AZ, then it's likely the dosing schedule will be tightened up to 4/5 weeks. The biggest issue (IMO) with AZ is the 3-month window. We can't have the most vulnerable cohorts sitting half-vaccinated until August/September. So hopefully we can abandon that now.

It'll make things tricky in the vaccination centres though. There'll need to be separate areas set up for AZ and non-AZ vaccinations.

sd1999

I do think RTÉ announcing it early is a bad move because I imagine NIAC/HSE will be providing more details about the rollout going forward in the actual announcement. As of right now, we know AZ is only for over 60s but we don’t know anything else.

lbj666

Deleted User wrote: »

The approach being taken is very cautious. If at a later date the rules are relaxed again this shows there is very high confidence in the safety of the vaccine.

Some of the drugs below also known to trigger thrombocytopenia

Furosemide
Gold, used to treat arthritis
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)
Penicillin
Quinidine
Quinine
Ranitidine
Sulfonamides
Linezolid and other antibiotics
Statins

Not the question I asked, i know its very rare but is the likelyhood less in 60+ based on the data so far, because thats worth emphasising to the 60-69 group if it is.

Or is it only the likelyhood of severe covid or death that increases the risk ratio's enough for it to still be recommended.

stephenjmcd

GPs are out having their say,

"Dr Denis McAuley, the chair of the Irish Medical Organisation’s GP committee, said the impact of the anticipated change on the vaccine rollout will be significant. "

"If AstraZeneca cannot be given to younger groups, it effectively means “there’s less vaccine available and more people to vaccinate”.

namloc1980

Should have used AZ on the over 70s also. Why was Pfizer and Moderna ringfenced to that cohort?

Turtwig

AZ on shorter dosing schedules is not recommended. The immune response in the initial clinical trials was not very good.

Mix and match would effectively be making people guinea pigs without affording them the protections they'd get in a clinical trial.

Imo it has to be the option to continue with AZ for those already dosed. Or a full vaccination from MRNA.

I've a feeling, J & J will have the same issue as AZ.

Multipass

titan18 wrote: »

Sure, but there's less risk with a different vaccine, so if my options are AZ now or Pfizer in 3 months, I'd prefer to wait. The options aren't just risk of side effects from AZ or risk of covid, there's more there.

That’s fine to say you want to wait, just don’t expect to stay in lockdown while you wait. The lunacy of all of this - we need to use whatever vaccines are available. Pronto. And open the country.

AlekSmart

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm also in my 30s, no underlying conditions, and I'd walk to the other side of the country for an AZ vaccine.

Jeepers I'd save you a walk,I'm 60+ and I'd happily allow you to slip in front of me in the Queue.

AlekSmart

Turtwig wrote: »

AZ on shorter dosing schedules is not recommended. The immune response in the initial clinical trials was not very good.

Mix and match would effectively be making people guinea pigs without affording them the protections they'd get in a clinical trial.

Imo it has to be the option to continue with AZ for those already dosed. Or a full vaccination from MRNA.

I've a feeling, J & J will have the same issue as AZ.

Probably one very good reason for having that State indemnification against Liability all the same ?

Stark

namloc1980 wrote: »

Should have used AZ on the over 70s also. Why was Pfizer and Moderna ringfenced to that cohort?

They didn't have data on over 65s when they started on them. (They do now though, although they'll probably be too thick skulled to change the policy and will end up wasting all the mRNA vaccines on them leaving us with stockpiles of AZ and J&J we can't use)

lbj666

lbj666 wrote: »

Not the question I asked, i know its very rare but is the likelyhood less in 60+ based on the data so far, because thats worth emphasising to the 60-69 group if it is.

Or is it only the likelyhood of severe covid or death that increases the risk ratio's enough for it to still be recommended.

I read your post as a statement and not a question and as such agreed with it. My response was to highlight the other products where we accept a risk and as an aside you can point out to 60-69 year olds that it is safer for them rather than more dangerous for others, and also they are likely yo have taken multiple other drugs that have similar risks

ACitizenErased

I reckon if this does come to pass they'll have to demand AZ only for anyone 60 plus. Won't work otherwise

marno21

The reports on the Janssen vaccine to date of blood clots suggest it’s an issue with the adenovirus viral vector which would mean it’ll likely be an issue with Janssen too.

Over 60 restrictions is exactly the type of ultra conservative approach we continue to see in this country. Apart from the blanket ban for a short period, those aged 60-69 are the only ones in this country who haven’t been not advised to take this vaccine.

The risk balance for those aged 45+ and those under 60 with underlying conditions makes this a very very poor decision. Way too conservative (as usual).

Stark

seamus wrote: »

Euch, what a mess.

All is not lost though.

If AZ can only be used on the 60+ cohort, then it will be used as a matter of priority on them, and other vaccines only used to fill the gaps.

This means an overavailability of the other vaccines, which means that we should be able to clean up the 70+ cohort a bit faster, AND move on to the younger age groups faster too. We'll likely be doing 50-59 age group in parallel with the 60-69.

While the AZ dosing regime in use is 12 weeks, that's a maximum. The second dose can be provided after 4 weeks, and if we have "too much" AZ, then it's likely the dosing schedule will be tightened up to 4/5 weeks. The biggest issue (IMO) with AZ is the 3-month window. We can't have the most vulnerable cohorts sitting half-vaccinated until August/September. So hopefully we can abandon that now.

It'll make things tricky in the vaccination centres though. There'll need to be separate areas set up for AZ and non-AZ vaccinations.

If only you were the one running the country.

I've a sad feeling the way it'll play out is they'll stick with their current approach of vaccinating over 70s with Pfizer/Moderna then continuing through the priority list as it stands with a mix of vaccines, leaving us with stockpiles of J&J and AZ in June.

Frank Bullitt

My Da got his first jab yesterday, small steps will get us there.

funnydoggy

Afraid to think of a virtual start to my second year of MTU in September.. I can't do another fúcking semester sitting down in my room looking at a screen :pac:

eoinbn

Turtwig wrote: »

AZ on shorter dosing schedules is not recommended. The immune response in the initial clinical trials was not very good.

Mix and match would effectively be making people guinea pigs without affording them the protections they'd get in a clinical trial.

Imo it has to be the option to continue with AZ for those already dosed. Or a full vaccination from MRNA.

I've a feeling, J & J will have the same issue as AZ.

The US trials used 4 weeks and had good efficacy. AZ trial data is a mess. No rhyme or reason to it.
AZ is a setback but J&J would be a hammer blow. We would need to find another 2m doses to account for what we would lose out on Q2 and July.

leahyl

I know of a 35 year old female who got the pfizer vaccine today - didn't think they were giving the pfizer to the younger population?

Update: My mother got her 5th offer for a first vaccine yesterday.
That's 4 lists she's been on in error. Likely won't be the last either.

ACitizenErased

leahyl wrote: »

I know of a 35 year old female who got the pfizer vaccine today - didn't think they were giving the pfizer to the younger population?

What group?

leahyl

ACitizenErased wrote: »

What group?

Have no idea - I assume group 4 seeing as she is 35? Isn't group 4 for people aged 16-69 with underlying conditions?

Micky 32

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Its a very very rare side effect and a very small number of cases relative to the amount of AZ used.

I fail to see how they've come up with this recommendation to be honest.

None of us would take any medication or vaccine if we knew the very very rare side effects to each one.

(queue the replies of this isn't any other medication - they all come with a list of rare side effects)

Just looked at the leaflet with my chol tabs rare side effects:

Breast enlargement in men

Hepatitis.

Damage to the nerves of your arms and legs

Memory loss

:pac:

namloc1980

If AZ is now off the table then that sets back the vaccination programme massively.

ddarcy

eoinbn wrote: »

The US trials used 4 weeks and had good efficacy. AZ trial data is a mess. No rhyme or reason to it.
AZ is a setback but J&J would be a hammer blow. We would need to find another 2m doses to account for what we would lose out on Q2 and July.

Novovax has a high efficacy and are mass producing now. They should be submitting in the next few weeks to the FDA/ EMA. FDA is an issue as they, like AZ, have used non approved FDA sites to run the trial for results. They do however have another US trial wrapping up as well. I’d expect the efficacy to drop like AZ as the FDA is far mor rigorous in testing, but even dropping from 89% to probably high 70’s isn’t bad.