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

Hococop

Still no word for my dad, his gp still seems to be doing 75+ and maybe a still 80's based off a status , not sure if they are just slow or lacking the vaccines, hopefully him and my mam (65+) get the call soon

How much further on with over 70s would they be if they were allowed astra zeneca and given to gps? Thats what happened throughout UK.

Given its low risk to older patients and higher risk to younger, have we got strategy wrong in ireland considering we are vaccinating the exact opposite as to the risks?

We can thank superman tony holihan for that one. He went further than niac recommendations to get his way.

Strazdas

Interesting stats on Prime Time just now - they think 4m doses in Q2 is a possibility, with 1.8m coming in June (that would equate to over 400k doses a week during the month of June).

Stephen Donnelly says those figures look "pretty accurate".

Apogee

Apogee wrote: »

This is his slide on vaccine supply but the source is not clear, so hard to know how reliable these projections are.



Eyeballing them:
April 900K
May 1,250K
June 1,750K
Total of 3.9M (average of 1.3M per month)

That fits with the number of doses required to reach 80% population having had dose 1 at end of June.

For comparison, Prime Time's prediction. Donnelly said these numbers were broadly accurate.

Strazdas

^^ RTE extrapolated their figures from the Swedish rollout, who in theory should be getting identical numbers per capita as us.

Goldengirl

hmmm wrote: »

I hate to sound harsh, but there's only so much we can do for people. They're in group 4 because they are at high risk and they're being offered a vaccine. The stats are convincing that they are at much more danger from Covid than any possible risk from the vaccine, and there's only so much our medical staff can be expected to do to convince them.

Where I think it gets more difficult is when we get into the "non-vulnerable" groups and you start trying to vaccinate people who have a risk of Covid which may be similar to risk of blood clots from a vaccine. You perhaps start weighing up risk of long-Covid? There may be an ethical issue at that point, and hopefully more information.

I agree as regards the latter groups.

I appreciate that everyone's patience is running low , but we cannot say to people "there is a very low risk that this may seriously disable or even kill you but it's this jab , or you go back to cocooning until we can give you another vaccine , or you go to the bottom of the queue , and risk dying from Covid " .
Some of these people may be risk adverse as a result of their conditions and having to take much more care than others on a continual basis . .
I know colleagues doing vaccination and the lack of cohesion in the different EU countries around the AZ vaccine is being picked up on by patients who need the jab most .

A lot would have a better awareness of what is going on than most and are conflicted, to say the least .

hmmm

I wish they'd find a way to separate out the J&J one dose from the others as it doesn't make much sense conflating the two. By the time June comes, J&J alone will be fully vaccinating nearly half a million people a month.

Also, why are AstraZeneca deliveries going backwards?

3mom4

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How much further on with over 70s would they be if they were allowed astra zeneca and given to gps? Thats what happened throughout UK.

Given its low risk to older patients and higher risk to younger, have we got strategy wrong in ireland considering we are vaccinating the exact opposite as to the risks?

We can thank superman tony holihan for that one. He went further than niac recommendations to get his way.

I think you are correct for the most part;

NIAC recommended that very/high risk cohorts under 70 be given mrna vaccines as a priority. We have done the opposite based on outdated evidence that AstraZeneca is less suited to the elderly than the at risk under 70s. Opposite is now true.

Some people under 70 in high risk cohorts (including many females under 50 like myself) are at a higher risk of blood clotting. This is ignored.

The choice is that there is none. Suck up the high risk or get covid.

Why are those most at risk with the AZ vaccine being the ones only offered it?

Those least at risk are being offered the others?

This makes no sense. Why are we still continuing with this stupid strategy? It's convenient.

stephenjmcd

Hococop wrote: »

Still no word for my dad, his gp still seems to be doing 75+ and maybe a still 80's based off a status , not sure if they are just slow or lacking the vaccines, hopefully him and my mam (65+) get the call soon

Not sure what age group your folks are in but if they're 65-69 it won't be the GP doing it. They'll register on the portal when it's launched and then attend a vaccination centre.

LLMMLL

3mom4 wrote: »

I think you are correct for the most part;

NIAC recommended that very/high risk cohorts under 70 be given mrna vaccines as a priority. We have done the opposite based on outdated evidence that AstraZeneca is less suited to the elderly than the at risk under 70s. Opposite is now true.

Some people under 70 in high risk cohorts (including many females under 50 like myself) are at a higher risk of blood clotting. This is ignored.

The choice is that there is none. Suck up the high risk or get covid.

Why are those most at risk with the AZ vaccine being the ones only offered it?

Those least at risk are being offered the others?

This makes no sense. Why are we still continuing with this stupid strategy? It's convenient.

I think for many people they prioritise the group they are in themselves as the most “at risk” in their head.

Over 70s are most at risk overall. Why not give them the most effective vaccine? Because there is a very low risk for certain groups of an adverse event?

Goldengirl

3mom4 wrote: »

I think you are correct for the most part;

NIAC recommended that very/high risk cohorts under 70 be given mrna vaccines as a priority. We have done the opposite based on outdated evidence that AstraZeneca is less suited to the elderly than the at risk under 70s. Opposite is now true.

Some people under 70 in high risk cohorts (including many females under 50 like myself) are at a higher risk of blood clotting. This is ignored.

The choice is that there is none. Suck up the high risk or get covid.

Why are those most at risk with the AZ vaccine being the ones only offered it?

Those least at risk are being offered the others?

This makes no sense. Why are we still continuing with this stupid strategy? It's convenient.

It's the fastest route , basically .
But you have just highlighted what I have been saying beautifully., thank you .!
Those at risk should not be given the most convenient vaccine ,but the one most suited to their age , conditions and risk profile ..
Less speedy but safer .

3mom4

3mom4 wrote: »

I think you are correct for the most part;

NIAC recommended that very/high risk cohorts under 70 be given mrna vaccines as a priority. We have done the opposite based on outdated evidence that AstraZeneca is less suited to the elderly than the at risk under 70s. Opposite is now true.

Some people under 70 in high risk cohorts (including many females under 50 like myself) are at a higher risk of blood clotting. This is ignored.

The choice is that there is none. Suck up the high risk or get covid.

Why are those most at risk with the AZ vaccine being the ones only offered it?

Those least at risk are being offered the others?

This makes no sense. Why are we still continuing with this stupid strategy? It's convenient.

Its called tony holihans brain. His thinking seems to be protect all over 70s at all costs to the detriment of everyone else. He wanted to vaccinate 18 year olds before 54 year olds again his theory an 18 year old will reduce spread quicker and protect a 90 year old in a nursing home further by reducing spread in community. This is the same 90 year old that has had two.pfzier jabs a month apart. The man was trying to make up for deaths in nursing homes in first wave. With regards vaccination policy he has been inept.Its not about disproportionately helping one cohort to the detriment of everyone else.

astrofool

3mom4 wrote: »

I think you are correct for the most part;

There was very little correct in that post, with a lot of other posters including myself laying out the reasons why it was incorrect in quite a factual manner.

astrofool

Deleted User wrote: »

Its called tony holihans brain. His thinking seems to be protect all over 70s at all costs to the detriment of everyone else. He wanted to vaccinate 18 year olds before 54 year olds again his theory an 18 year old will reduce spread quicker and protect a 90 year old in a nursing home further by reducing spread in community. This is the same 90 year old that has had two.pfzier jabs a month apart. The man was trying to make up for deaths in nursing homes in first wave. With regards vaccination policy he has been inept.

Where supply of vaccines isn't an issue, and where vaccines reduce transmission, vaccinating the spreaders leads to a lower disease and morbidity rate than vaccinating those most at risk to the disease, this is one of the reasons why colleges and those at work are targeted with flu vaccines. Where there is supply issues, it makes most sense to vaccinate those at risk of the disease as the number of vaccines required to prevent a death is quite a low number. This is vaccination 101 stuff.

Deeper Blue

I've seen Chile being used as an example of why the vaccines "aren't a silver bullet", however if I'm not mistaken Israel's cases skyrocketed in early January despite having given out millions of vaccines. And look at them now.

astrofool

astrofool wrote: »

Where supply of vaccines isn't an issue, and where vaccines reduce transmission, vaccinating the spreaders leads to a lower disease and morbidity rate than vaccinating those most at risk to the disease, this is one of the reasons why colleges and those at work are targeted with flu vaccines. Where there is supply issues, it makes most sense to vaccinate those at risk of the disease as the number of vaccines required to prevent a death is quite a low number. This is vaccination 101 stuff.

Supply is an issue and he should have ought to have known it would be considering everyone in the world of 7 billion people are looking a vaccine today. The only thing that provisional vaccination allocation did was antagonise everyone from its release and then amendment. Its basically unrecognisable from December. UK or US have not had to made such wholesale changes correcting previous lists. I knew in December it would change. Too fiddly and cumbersome. People spendinge endless hours of admin. People fighting to get into certain groups etc. He has caused alot of unecessary stress and antagonism

3mom4

astrofool wrote: »

There was very little correct in that post, with a lot of other posters including myself laying out the reasons why it was incorrect in quite a factual manner.

I think they were correct in that people at risk from the blood clotting side effects of AZ should not be the group ONLY offered the vaccine that causes that!

What is your problem with this statement?

LLMMLL

3mom4 wrote: »

I think they were correct in that people at risk from the blood clotting side effects of AZ should not be the group ONLY offered the vaccine that causes that!

What is your problem with this statement?

What should they be offered? Pfizer? And then when a 70+ person is upset and anxious that they are getting AZ what do we do then?

Hococop

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Not sure what age group your folks are in but if they're 65-69 it won't be the GP doing it. They'll register on the portal when it's launched and then attend a vaccination centre.

Dad 70+ mam 65-69

snotboogie

Deeper Blue wrote: »

I've seen Chile being used as an example of why the vaccines "aren't a silver bullet", however if I'm not mistaken Israel's cases skyrocketed in early January despite having given out millions of vaccines. And look at them now.

Yes, Israels cases remained high right through 100 vaccines per 100. Chile are not even at 60. Chile also had a big drop in cases yesterday.

3mom4

LLMMLL wrote: »

What should they be offered? Pfizer? And then when a 70+ person is upset and anxious that they are getting AZ what do we do then?

It should be literally a few weeks before over 70s are given a first dose. Why can't those at risk from side effects in cohort 4 and AZ be given the opportunity to wait those few weeks and take an mrna vaccine.

What I am saying is that the opportunity to wait doesn't exist. You don't take AZ and you're gone in this cohort. That's not right.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

What should they be offered? Pfizer? And then when a 70+ person is upset and anxious that they are getting AZ what do we do then?

Correct. Its impossible to undo many of the vaccination policy mistakes that tony holihan has made. This is one of them. All over 70s will have to be vaccinated with pfzier now. Totally avoidable stuff were over 70s unvaccinated at present are now suffering for no good reason. Any over 70s should have been vaccinated with any vaccine from the start given their risk of death. This is now left further mistrust of AZ by the public.

ectoraige

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Its called tony holihans brain. His thinking seems to be protect all over 70s at all costs to the detriment of everyone else. He wanted to vaccinate 18 year olds before 54 year olds again his theory an 18 year old will reduce spread quicker and protect a 90 year old in a nursing home further by reducing spread in community. This is the same 90 year old that has had two.pfzier jabs a month apart. The man was trying to make up for deaths in nursing homes in first wave. With regards vaccination policy he has been inept.Its not about disproportionately helping one cohort to the detriment of everyone else.

Tony Holohan isn't NIAC, and white the deputy CMO is a member there are 23 other members of the committee too.

Turtwig

3mom4 wrote: »

I think they were correct in that people at risk from the blood clotting side effects of AZ should not be the group ONLY offered the vaccine that causes that!

What is your problem with this statement?

More guidance will issue this week on the risks from AZ. As it stands we don't yet know if these are because of the vaccine. Or just a coincidence.

It's worth keeping that last part in mind. The EMA and MHRA will be going over the cases with a fine tooth comb.

The goal is to better understand the vaccine and associated risk factors. There could be something. There might not be.

The idea that it's a female issue could also be red herring. This might just be because they're a larger portion of the recipients of AZ. Or something different.

The puzzle will slowly be pieced together.

ectoraige

ectoraige wrote: »

Tiny Holohan isn't NIAC, and white the deputy CMO is a member there are 23 other members of the committee too.

You mean Tony. Tony pushed beyond niacs advise to have mrna only for over 70s. He also had a big say in original priority list.

Turtwig

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Correct. Its impossible to undo many of the vaccination policy mistakes that tony holihan has made. This is one of them. All over 70s will have to be vaccinated with pfzier now. Totally avoidable stuff were over 70s unvaccinated at present are now suffering for no good reason. Any over 70s should have been vaccinated with any vaccine from the start given their risk of death. This is now left further mistrust of AZ by the public.

It's raining you have the option of an umbrella that works or one that in theory should work but it's not been robustly tested yet as you didn't collect the hard data. I would say using the first umbrella is the most reasonable option.

There was insufficient efficacy data for AZ use in over 70s. Just adequate safety data. Had we given people a dud vaccine that while safe to administer would not have gone down well.

This decision btw was not Tony Holohans. It was NIACs. They approved the AZ vaccine for all ages over 18. They also recommended that where possible the over 70s should be given MRNA if a timely administration was possible.

mmclo

VG31 wrote: »

I've never seen anyone in goggles. I'd imagine everyone you meet would stare at you, I certainly would!

Very common in Wuhan at the outset, If you remember the Irish guy who was stuck there mentioned it a lot on the media

lbj666

Deleted User wrote: »

You mean Tony. Tony pushed beyond niacs advise to have mrna only for over 70s. He also had a big say in original priority list.

Which you have only come to critises here tonight retrospectively because of the potential quandry left due to safety concerns in AZ that only transpired in the past few weeks.

The level of Johnny Hindsighting here to get a bit of Tony bashing in is a bit pathetic.

Turtwig

Turtwig wrote: »

It's raining you have the option of an umbrella that works or one that in theory should work but it's not been robustly tested yet as you didn't collect the hard data. I would say using the first umbrella is the most reasonable option.

There was insufficient efficacy data for AZ use in over 70s. Just adequate safety data. Had we given people a dud vaccine that while safe to administer would not have gone down well.

This decision btw was not Tony Holohans. It was NIACs.

But you dont have enough umbrellas for everyone until middle/end of april. So you give 20 per cent of cohort super protection.in february march, while the other 80 per cent are having to fend for themselves for months on end until third wave is completely over. Tonys ideas were correct in his head with endless amounts of vaccine of all discriptions simply waiting to be used. The on the ground reality for hse to.implement was completely different. Hence in April many unvaccinated 70s are waiting unnecessarily. In this pandemic you have to.make judgements. Always being so conservative does not always get best results. The over 70s he thought was helping many are waiting around with AZ reputation in further tatters. we need people to take this vaccine in large part in next 3 months and he has planted another seed of doubti in.peoples mind. not good enough for over 70s but good enough for you. I will take astra if offered but this distinction made for.over 70s was without evidence. I remember andrew lloyd weber who.is over 70 saying he got az in abtrial and remebering him saying.it has good record with elderly. That was last summer. Unforgiveable mistakes.

astrofool

Turtwig wrote: »

It's raining you have the option of an umbrella that works or one that in theory should work but it's not been robustly tested yet as you didn't collect the hard data. I would say using the first umbrella is the most reasonable option.

There was insufficient efficacy data for AZ use in over 70s. Just adequate safety data. Had we given people a dud vaccine that while safe to administer would not have gone down well.

This decision btw was not Tony Holohans. It was NIACs. They approved the AZ vaccine for all ages over 18. They also recommended that where possible the over 70s should be given MRNA if a timely administration was possible.

People also forget that AZ was being used in homebound over 70's due to the difficulty of transporting Pfizer.

We also haven't seen any of the reported issues with AZ and young people in Ireland, for whatever reason.