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

Irish Stones

emrys wrote: »

I just watched it - the Italians are taking a regional approach they are basing the figures on current vaccination rates and extrapolating the figures to a finish date (not sure if thats everyone or 80%) but some regions on current rates will be done by october this year and others not for at least another 12 months.

I started watching from the start - huge number of over 80's still to be vaccinated, some regions like lazio saying the could triple the rate of vaccination if the had the supply.

So a bit of a mess

I would like to compliment with you for your excellent understanding of my language!

Irish Stones

Turtwig wrote: »

No idea what the situation is in Italy but that calculation seems like the ones in Ireland where individuals assumed the rate for the current week and used that to estimate Ireland would take until 2024 to have its population vaccinated.

If the rate is expected to change you have to factor that in. You can't assume a constant rate. The error in the calculation will be disproportionate.

You are so right, but currently we have no evidence of any speed-up in sight, so people base their forecasts on the numbers we have had in the past 3 months.

Apogee

Am I right in thinking the original vaccine allocation started at age 18 as per this post?

It is now explicitly starting at age 16. That's an extra ~130K individuals.

Padre_Pio

ectoraige wrote: »

Childminders probably aren't at that high an actual risk since children don't harbour and spread the virus as effectively as adults, but the perception of risk should certainly be no different to the risk the teacher unions claim. The lack of outcry is down to not having unions pushing their agenda.

It's risk vs severity.

Older people have lower risk of contracting the virus due to isolation/cocooning, but a high severity of death if they do get it.

Teachers/ front line etc have high risk due to high level of contact, but low severity since they're younger and don't have preexisting conditions.

So, high cases & low deaths is better than low cases & higher deaths.

EDIT: Personally, I think it's the best approach. It's a PITA as I was up the list and now I'm near the bottom, but this will ultimately save lives.

stephenjmcd

Apogee wrote: »

Am I right in thinking the original vaccine allocation started at age 18 as per this post?

It is now explicitly starting at age 16. That's an extra ~130K individuals.

Yeah the provisional lists had everything starting aged 18, Pfizer was approved from 16 upwards hence the change

trellheim

https://www.gov.ie/en/publications/?q=deliveries&sort_by=published_date


List of government updates on vaccine deliveries so far. As can be seen updated avg weekly. Shots into arms updated with a 3/4 day delay on the usual Govt portals.

charlie14

Irish Stones wrote: »

You are so right, but currently we have no evidence of any speed-up in sight, so people base their forecasts on the numbers we have had in the past 3 months.

That October 2022 date seems rather strange.
According to an Irish Examiner report, on Friday when inspecting a vaccination centre at Rome`s Leonardo da Vinci airport Mario Draghi noted that the pace, now running at 170,000 shots daily had picked up this month.

At that rate it would mean around 1 million shots per week. For a total population of 60 million, unless vaccine deliveries fall completely off a cliff or Draghi got his figures wrong, then it is difficult to see where this October 2022 date comes from.

JTMan

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Yeah the provisional lists had everything starting aged 18, Pfizer was approved from 16 upwards hence the change

How could this mistake have occurred? The issue was not just with the provisional list. It has being known for some time that the Pfizer vaccine was going to be approved for 16+ rather than 18+. The term "adults" is overused and all government planning documents should day "16+".

I guess the vaccination of 16 and 17 year olds will require parental consent? and hence a slightly different approach?

ACitizenErased

Someone shouldn’t have opened their mouth:
https://twitter.com/afp/status/1379417650305118213?s=21

Hococop

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Someone shouldn’t have opened their mouth:
https://twitter.com/afp/status/1379417650305118213?s=21

So they jumped the gun?

stephenjmcd

JTMan wrote: »

How could this mistake have occurred? The issue was not just with the provisional list. It has being known for some time that the Pfizer vaccine was going to be approved for 16+ rather than 18+. The term "adults" is overused and all government planning documents should day "16+".

I guess the vaccination of 16 and 17 year olds will require parental consent? and hence a slightly different approach?

What mistake ??

It was a living document and the post references it in December and the document was updated to reflect the approval that was given later in December. That's how they work, nothing is a final version.

stephenjmcd

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

New study published about AZ being next to useless against South African variant

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2021/03/17/astrazeneca-vaccine-fails-to-protect-against-the-south-african-variant/?sh=6a6560ca6526

Not a new study and has been discussed in the thread numerous times with regards to the failings of said study

ACitizenErased

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

New study published about AZ being next to useless against South African variant

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2021/03/17/astrazeneca-vaccine-fails-to-protect-against-the-south-african-variant/?sh=6a6560ca6526

Thats not a new study, it’s the one with the humongous confidence intervals

ACitizenErased

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

If wouldn’t have then passed peer review and posted in one of the more prestigious papers

———

Two doses of the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine were found to have only a 10.4% efficacy against mild-to-moderate infections caused by the B.1.351 South Africa variant, according to a phase 1b-2 clinical trial published on Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The fact it states that there's a possibility the vaccine has an efficacy of -40% is enough for me to ignore it

nocoverart

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

New study published about AZ being next to useless against South African variant

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2021/03/17/astrazeneca-vaccine-fails-to-protect-against-the-south-african-variant/?sh=6a6560ca6526

Neigh! You’re a bad horsey.

lucernarian

I've had to stay away from Boards lately, some of the threads even on this forum have been too much to read through. A lot of toxicity and negativity elsewhere. Might just stick to reading and posting here.

JTMan

stephenjmcd wrote: »

What mistake ??

I have seen multiple government documents, post December, that referred to the rollout as being "18+" or "adults" rather than "16+". Anyways, glad it is now clear, but I would guess that 16 and 17 year olds will need to be placed in a group of their own due to the likely parental consent requirement.

Stark

Don't think we had vaccines approved for 16-17 year olds earlier in the year. Now we do.

JTMan

Stark wrote: »

Don't think we had vaccines approved for 16-17 year olds earlier in the year. Now we do.

We did, the EMA approved BioNTech/Pfizer for 16+ in December 2020. It was also known for some time that BioNTech/Pfizer were going to seek approval for 16+.

emrys

Irish Stones wrote: »

I would like to compliment with you for your excellent understanding of my language!

Italian mother..!

shoppergal

Deenie78 wrote: »

I had a quick question about the second dose of Pfizer - does anyone know someone who has had their second jab and if so, was there any ill effects? My Dad's due to get his on Thursday and is only just out of hospital after having an infection, I'm hoping it doesn't set him back. Thanks in advance

My dad had his second dose last Friday. He had chemotherapy Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and the vaccine on Friday and thankfully no ill effects.

ixoy

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

I like how resident medical experts are dismissing peer reviewed and published scientific paper showing in a trial that AZ is rubbish against the South African variant, an over glorified placebo which could lead to vaccine scepticism

So if you do accept the published report (which is still open to peer review) then you accept that it is 100% effective against serious Covid, which is good for a placebo.

Deeper Blue

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Wishful thinking doesn’t increase vaccine efficacy for likes of AZ

I like how resident medical experts are dismissing peer reviewed and published scientific paper showing in a trial that AZ is rubbish against the South African variant, an over glorified placebo which could lead to vaccine scepticism

Anyone with even a vague idea about stats and confidence intervals can see that it's impossible to draw meaningful conclusions from that study.

That's before we even mention the dosing intervals used.

I don't care where it's published.

MerlinSouthDub

From this site - https://covid-vaccinatie.be/en/doses-delivered - I see that Belgium got their biggest delivery yet from Pfizer yesterday - 267,930 doses. This should be about 110,000 doses for us.

Going to be a busy week in GP practices and vaccination centres!

eagle eye

I don't know what to do now. Talked to a guy in biotech who knows his stuff and he said AZ was fine but we've stories about it every week.
I'm expecting to get a call before the end of the month to go for a vaccine shot. My wife is due to get hers on Friday and it's AZ. She doesn't want to take it, I don't want it.
I'm willing to risk going without it at this stage until I have a choice or get offered a vaccine I'm happy to take.
Surely it won't be too long before you can pay for the vaccine of your choice?

Gael23

How are they progressing through group 4 do we know?

PCeeeee

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Wishful thinking doesn’t increase vaccine efficacy for likes of AZ

I like how resident medical experts are dismissing peer reviewed and published scientific paper showing in a trial that AZ is rubbish against the South African variant, an over glorified placebo which could lead to vaccine scepticism

Do you deny there are large confidence intervals quoted in the study and can you explain what that means?

eagle eye

PCeeeee wrote:

Do you deny there are large confidence intervals quoted in the study and can you explain what that means?

Are you denying that it's been peer reviewed?

KrustyUCC

MerlinSouthDub wrote: »

From this site - https://covid-vaccinatie.be/en/doses-delivered - I see that Belgium got their biggest delivery yet from Pfizer yesterday - 267,930 doses. This should be about 110,000 doses for us.

Going to be a busy week in GP practices and vaccination centres!

That would be great to see

ShyMets

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't know what to do now. Talked to a guy in biotech who knows his stuff and he said AZ was fine but we've stories about it every week.
I'm expecting to get a call before the end of the month to go for a vaccine shot. My wife is due to get hers on Friday and it's AZ. She doesn't want to take it, I don't want it.
I'm willing to risk going without it at this stage until I have a choice or get offered a vaccine I'm happy to take.
Surely it won't be too long before you can pay for the vaccine of your choice?

Was it the same guy that told you before Christmas that ivermectin was the miracle cure that was going to end the pandemic in weeks.