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

1huge1

eastie17 wrote: »

has anyone tried this: https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/ireland-vaccine-queue

Apologies if its already been posted

The supply issue is a load of BS in my opinion, the HSE have ****ed this up as they still dont have their logistics squared away.

This calculator is fairly simple maths, currently uses a vaccination rate of 137K per week and an uptake rate of 74%, which we hit last week but I dont think we'll be able to do it consistently. The fact that its not consistent tells you they haven't got their ducks in a row logistically.
Based on me having no underlying conditions or no special case and currently being in my late 40s this predicts I will get my first vaccination late July early August.
If I was 25 it will be November!
Its been almost 4 months of "the vaccines are coming lads", the vaccines are there, they just haven't setup the infrastructure to handle giving them out. Its always someone else's issue.
I call bull**** on the Ministers assertion that 80% of adults who want one will be offered one by the end of June. We'll get news on some other supply issues at the end of April or early May I predict.

What are you basing this on, a hunch?

You say that we are going to have supply issues again at the end of April or early May you "predict" but then say say that the HSE have F'd this up?

The fact remains, they got 98% of all vaccines recived last week within arms within 7 days and that has been fairly consistent throughout.

Also, that website, I don't see where it takes into account the amount of vaccines already administrated (not saying its not in the background), but anyway, why would you assume its going to stay at 137k, could you provide some evidence as to that been the peak of our weekly vaccinations?

Deeper Blue

People are still posting that ****ing calculator thing? Christ almighty

Bubbaclaus

Deeper Blue wrote: »

People are still posting that ****ing calculator thing? Christ almighty

At this stage we must assume they are clearly on a deliberate wind up.

snotboogie

eoinbn wrote: »

860k was the target but it seems to have been revised upwards a bit.
Note delivery does not equal vaccinations. If 150k doses arrive very late in the month then it is hard to expect them to be all used. However we will be carrying over doses from last month so that will offset some of that.

Weekends aren't the issue - supply of vaccines are. The vaccines we do have in stock are been held for a special cohort that is proving hard to identify. Once the supply issue is addressed, which is happening, then we will see high vaccination figures throughout the week.

Thought 1 million was the delivery target and 850k was the administration target? Was there any administration target given??

Bubbaclaus

irishlad. wrote: »

https://twitter.com/PriscillaLynch/status/1380151314550775809

Good stuff.

1huge1

nibtrix wrote: »

Yeah this is similar to my meds (I'm on a combination of secukinumab and methotrexate) so it looks like it's up to the GP now. Unfortunately they told me earlier this week that they haven't even looked at cohort 4 yet as they are expecting to be vaccinating over 70s for another 2-3 weeks.

I agree that the age based approach is better as identifying all of the previously planned cohorts was going to be a nightmare.

Well just to say, while the GP seems to have organised the appointment at the MVC to have the AC vaccine, the GP surgery themselves are giving Pfizer/Moderna to patients there to the over 70s and doesn't expect that cohort to be done for another 2 weeks or so.

So even if your GP is still on the over 70s, it doesn't appear to be a barrier for getting an appointment organised by your GP for the MVC.

But perhaps others on this thread understand the booking system better than me.

astrofool

speckle wrote: »

I dont agree entirely... reading across the boards covid thread and having family friends neighbours in that cohort and people I know working with(ngos) or/treating them.. Some gps and hospital consultants and even ngo's have definitly been more organised than others in getting their lists together and in some instances personally contacting the patients/clients.
...

Good post, and sorry to cut it, but it precisely highlights the issues that we just don't have the processes in place to handle ambiguous cohorts, you can be at the mercy of a digitised GP or non-digitised GP, where some will put in the extra hours by hand and some won't, there's lots of ways to gather the numbers, but all are time intensive leading to delays in the rollout, treating them as a parallel group after the initial 150,000 (maybe subject to cancellations) would probably have allowed the more elderly cohorts to keep moving ahead, again, the disarray in systems would have led to lots of hard luck cases "My GP knows nothing, hospital won't tell me what to do.", it's also led to a creep in what qualifies, people who aren't really at risk now identify as someone who is at risk pushing the numbers up, and there's nothing a politician hates more than having to say no to a sick person.

In reality, if there had been a quarter of planning done beforehand rather than a snap decision, then they'd probably be done by now, as people have said, hindsight is 20/20.

Turtwig

Turtwig wrote: »

This is an inaccurate post.

The Oxford trials initially tried short dosing intervals but werent getting the desired antibody responses. So they tried other intervals.

Got a link? Would be interested.
Also it doesn't address the longer-gap idea. Genuinely interested to see the initial stuff but I would have thought they increased it until an acceptable response was generated. That's often as far as they'll go, it can turn out even longer (or different doses) could be even more effective but "good enough" can win out in a hurry/time of scarcity. Again, not saying that's the case (Brits "took a chance" on 12 weeks, the data as I recall showed it shouldn't make much difference) in this particular case.

Medication such as steroids are frequently adjusted by weight. In fact, the dosages are usually given as mg per 5 kg of body weight. (Nurses btw are amazing here they usually calculate this stuff on the fly.)
Other factors such as individuals bloods levels, medication, previous illnesses are all taken into account when determining medication and dosage.

Depends on your definition of "frequently" but I'm going to make a guesstimate that at least 95% of medication is taken in a pre-made tablet form that no-one has touched since it left the factory. Whether it be over the counter or prescribed by a doctor. Probably closer to 99% of all medication I've ever taken has been either from blister packs or filled into a bottle.

For mass-medication best-guess averages are what's used and they're refined. Just in this week in Ireland hundreds of thousands of 500mg paracetamol will be taken this week by men, women, children, skinny people, smokers, fat people, diabetics, etc., etc. I'm sure there are a few people in hospitals will have specific amounts put into drips somewhere in hospitals but not for the vast majority of use. I find it incredible that the perfect dose of so many drugs just so happens to be a nice round number of units of a man-made measuring unit. :pac:

speckle

nibtrix wrote: »

Great post speckle. I'd add one point which is it seems the changing cohort requirements are not clear enough in some cases. For example the immunocompromised section states:


I've seen several posts from people on "other" immunosuppressive meds who have received a vaccine (or at least an appointment) but one of the largest public Rheumatology departments in the country told me today that they are only including patients receiving the named medications! Seems to be completely up to the individual department/consultant.

Yes..I have seen those also...I wonder is it due to some departments especially in cities having a large number of patients on their books and a smaller vaccine amount per % of patients or only so much time/staff spare in week to deliever them safely versus continueing care appontments?..

Have they(hospital/consultant) prioritised patients on the listed meds into an A group first but others with RA in a B group? Yes the changing dynamics of cohorts been messy due to understandably newer research evolving but it is the lack of communication of why that needs to be improved. ..ie why these meds and not others. Should have it very clear on the internet in mutiple sites on Irish gov.ie/HSE/Hpra/hospital/advovacy..they may have since I last checked or maybe hard to find?

Maybe the med list needs to be expanded or not...think ours is the same as they UK.

Maybe certain hospitals constrained because of higher numbers of positive cases in their area/patients/hospital?

Rheumatology very underfunded and staffed in this country towards other EU countrys. Maybe other Rhuemy departments have this B cohort on a backup list for spares?

Maybe some RA patients getting it via their gp as they will know they have other physical co morbidities or even severe mental health issues like bi polar which people will not necessarily and understandably post publically here on boards considering some people would even be embrassed to say they are obese or the extreme opposite here because of some posters trying to embarass/shame them.

Regarding the last paragraph.. I know some people with both RA and the above type co morbidtys who are going the GP route as they have a fuller patient risk history not skipping queue but taking respondibility of their health information and making sure GP up to date.

If you know some one with RA remind them of the other co morbidtys that make you high risk and maybe contact your GP pointing out/updating them... that the sum totality of your health makes you fall into a certain cohort?

I did come across an RA site think it was the USA or UK one that explained the rationale behind the narrower drug list and linked the Governments and research papers...

Hope this helps...RA and other rhuemy/autoimune diseases can make ones life hell and the waiting around so long for a diagnosis sometimes in the public health system only adds more stress and possibly deducts time off your lifespan let alone the ones spent in pain waiting or trying different meds with sometimes nasty side effects and people in public saying sure you can be ill as alot of the illness is invisible hidden behind closed doors...but it is great if you get meds/lifestyle that works... can bring a spring in your step back to life and joy.
Edit..Important..just checked site saying list of immunosuppressants niw not limited to those listed..not sure when this changed been buzy

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/39038-provisional-vaccine-allocation-groups/

Wolf359f

JDD wrote: »

So I have a 1 in 250,000 chance of developing a serious blood clot condition when getting two shots of AZ...

whereas I had a 1 in 10,000 chance of developing blood clots (which in all cases can be serious) when taking the contraceptive pill. Which I took every day for 20 years.

And I have 1 in 1,000 chance of developing a blood clot when taking a long haul flight.

This panic is nonsense. Give me the AZ (or whatever you have) please.

Completely different blood clots you're comparing.

ACitizenErased

Wolf359f wrote: »

Completely different blood clots you're comparing.

If you watched the EMA briefing yesterday Dr. Peter Arlett was asked which other medicines have the same clots and he said contraceptives.

JDD

JDD wrote: »

So I have a 1 in 250,000 chance of developing a serious blood clot condition when getting two shots of AZ...

whereas I had a 1 in 10,000 chance of developing blood clots (which in all cases can be serious) when taking the contraceptive pill. Which I took every day for 20 years.

And I have 1 in 1,000 chance of developing a blood clot when taking a long haul flight.

This panic is nonsense. Give me the AZ (or whatever you have) please.

It was ages ago at this point that the first panic started and it was mostly women. They've released feck all data but if it's a female problem or correlated with women taking the contraceptive pill then they can (should) just switch it so women (on the pill) don't take AZ. But that would be easy.


Also at this stage when things are meant to actually start swinging up maybe they should just focus on that. Daily vaccine numbers should be almost irrelevant once supply is sorted and they're being distributed and used quickly. Then again after the hammering due to **** supply for the first 3 months of the year they're probably dying to get a PR win of several record daily numbers per week for the next while, sure what's a few million quid for that?

JDD

JDD wrote: »

So I have a 1 in 250,000 chance of developing a serious blood clot condition when getting two shots of AZ...

whereas I had a 1 in 10,000 chance of developing blood clots (which in all cases can be serious) when taking the contraceptive pill. Which I took every day for 20 years.

And I have 1 in 1,000 chance of developing a blood clot when taking a long haul flight.

This panic is nonsense. Give me the AZ (or whatever you have) please.

It's not comparable to the pill, it's an entirely different type of clotting disorder which is harder to treat and has a much higher mortality rate.

On a population level, and for many individuals, the benefit of AZ outweighs the risk. But for healthy young people with a very low risk of serious harm from covid, it's not so clear cut. That's precisely why so many countries are applying an age cut off.

In Norway there were 6 cases out of 120,000 people, so 1 in 20,000. Of those, 4 died.

Germany had 39 cases out of 2.7m. That's 1 in 69,000.

Based on the QCovid risk calculator, someone in their mid-30s with no underlying conditions has about a 1 in 150,000 risk of dying from covid. So the benefit of AZ does not outweigh the risk for this age group.

Of course it's still beneficial to get vaccinated, but with a vaccine with a better safety profile that tips the risk/benefit balance into positive territory.

Maxface

Deleted User wrote: »

It was ages ago at this point that the first panic started and it was mostly women. They've released feck all data but if it's a female problem or correlated with women taking the contraceptive pill then they can (should) just switch it so women (on the pill) don't take AZ. But that would be easy.


Also at this stage when things are meant to actually start swinging up maybe they should just focus on that. Daily vaccine numbers should be almost irrelevant once supply is sorted and they're being distributed and used quickly. Then again after the hammering due to **** supply for the first 3 months of the year they're probably dying to get a PR win of several record daily numbers per week for the next while, sure what's a few million quid for that?

It's clear they have no idea what the issue is.


https://www.breakingnews.ie/covid-vaccine/sister-of-man-who-died-of-blood-clot-after-vaccine-urges-others-to-have-the-jab-1108126.html


As we see more of the above it is going to become a bit messy, I can hear it already from friends and family and so on.

nibtrix

speckle wrote: »

Edit..Important..just checked site saying list of immunosuppressants niw not limited to those listed..not sure when this changed been buzy

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/39038-provisional-vaccine-allocation-groups/

Yeah it's been "including but not limited to x meds" since they split the cohorts into VERY high risk and high risk, hence my surprise at the Rheumy dept. saying "only the named meds". Could have just been an overworked administrator trying to cut down the calls though!

ACitizenErased

Can we stop saying "its not comparable to the pill"? The EMA literally compared them at the briefing yesterday. Rewatch it if you don't believe it.

lucernarian

quokula wrote: »

It’s down to the fact that when these decisions were being made, the UK was being decimated with 1000+ deaths per day. They were desperate and they had to gamble and try the unproven route to get themselves out of catastrophic trouble.

Ireland and most of Europe were in a much healthier position in terms of infection rates and were able to more comfortably follow the manufacturers guidelines. Obviously the risk has ended up paying off for the UK and they’re looking better right now, but only after suffering enormously to get where they are.

I feel the need to point out how completely untrue it was to say that Ireland was in a much healthier position in terms of infection rates.

Ireland had, in the two weeks since the arrival of doses of vaccine, the worst infection rate per capita in the world....

trixi001

Flying Fox wrote: »

It's not comparable to the pill, it's an entirely different type of clotting disorder which is harder to treat and has a much higher mortality rate.

On a population level, and for many individuals, the benefit of AZ outweighs the risk. But for healthy young people with a very low risk of serious harm from covid, it's not so clear cut. That's precisely why so many countries are applying an age cut off.

In Norway there were 6 cases out of 120,000 people, so 1 in 20,000. Of those, 4 died.

Germany had 39 cases out of 2.7m. That's 1 in 69,000.

Based on the QCovid risk calculator, someone in their mid-30s with no underlying conditions has about a 1 in 150,000 risk of dying from covid. So the benefit of AZ does not outweigh the risk for this age group.

Of course it's still beneficial to get vaccinated, but with a vaccine with a better safety profile that tips the risk/benefit balance into positive territory.

The bit in bold is the important bit. risk from the vaccine is higher than the risk from the covid for certain people..

I am a female in my mid 30's, With no underlying conditions, and don't know what to do when the vaccine is offered (And as i am in the North, and we are now doing the 40-44 age group, so i'm the next cohort)..
They have stopped giving AZ to under 30's now, but still being given to over 30's..
We don't know which vaccine we get until the day we turn up at the vaccination centre either, and from what i have read if you turn it down, you aren't eligible to be offered another one..

I am definitely not in any panic to get vaccinated given the issues and the low risk COVID poses to me

josip

irishlad. wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ZaraKing/status/1380150292432437255

Good that she added the, "on a daily basis" :rolleyes:

speckle

astrofool wrote: »

Good post, and sorry to cut it, but it precisely highlights the issues that we just don't have the processes in place to handle ambiguous cohorts, you can be at the mercy of a digitised GP or non-digitised GP, where some will put in the extra hours by hand and some won't, there's lots of ways to gather the numbers, but all are time intensive leading to delays in the rollout, treating them as a parallel group after the initial 150,000 (maybe subject to cancellations) would probably have allowed the more elderly cohorts to keep moving ahead, again, the disarray in systems would have led to lots of hard luck cases "My GP knows nothing, hospital won't tell me what to do.", it's also led to a creep in what qualifies, people who aren't really at risk now identify as someone who is at risk pushing the numbers up, and there's nothing a politician hates more than having to say no to a sick person.

In reality, if there had been a quarter of planning done beforehand rather than a snap decision, then they'd probably be done by now, as people have said, hindsight is 20/20.

Ambigous cohorts no but yes harder to coalate..

lists for potential treatments/vaccine should have been started months earlier as science pointed to the high risk people for serious covid under 70 and then added or subtracted from...hindsight is great but even ordinary people on boards were pointing to this months ago aswell as some GPs/specialists who started theirs early but we do have to remember some were dealing with other things like high risk patients from their departments with covid in a and e and ICU.. thing we are back to a creaking health service issue

We did do the nursing homes snd most of the over 70s first... so are you talking about the 60 to 70s? Not sure what your saying re 150,000 sentence?

Completely pararell would have worked only if you have enough vaccines of the right type..at the right time...trained staff etc...I think/hope once we get over the next 2 weeks and the high riskers under 70 really get going things will pick up speed...they need too for both high riskers, hospitals/staff and others whose lives have been on hold for over a year to protect them.

And their are better informed postets here posting re tracking the numbers than myself!

Wolf359f

ACitizenErased wrote: »

If you watched the EMA briefing yesterday Dr. Peter Arlett was asked which other medicines have the same clots and he said contraceptives.

So you are saying the pill has a 1/10000 of causing cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), the same clotting causing the concern with AZ?

salmocab

Will the J&J be used for any particular group given it’s just one shot? Like for some at risk group so they are finished quicker.

ACitizenErased

Wolf359f wrote: »

So you are saying the pill has a 1/10000 of causing cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), the same clotting causing the concern with AZ?

The EMA say that yes, watch the briefing. Journalist asked if there's other medication that could be used as an example for the same types of clots, Dr. Arlett said oral contraception.

giveitholly

So reading between the lines it will be May before we see 250k vaccinated in a week

https://twitter.com/FergalBowers/status/1380171540784943110?s=19

speckle

nibtrix wrote: »

Yeah it's been "including but not limited to x meds" since they split the cohorts into VERY high risk and high risk, hence my surprise at the Rheumy dept. saying "only the named meds". Could have just been an overworked administrator trying to cut down the calls though!

Glad you saw edit went looking after posting straight away for more info..Thanks for the timing info....that was the start of the 10 relatives in the family who are high risk who wanted getting theirs or when I had the fall that injured the leg..so a bit out of the loop on updates and wrecked tired as they are all starting on number two and have to be kept an eye on for side effects and one in hospital again for the umpteened time this year..they could do their own pcr test at this rate with no hands

Have you pointed out the change to them/in writing or got your Gp too.. maybe the gp in surgery or at a MVcenter..is the best way foward? Or run public health/vax line for mote info?
Would be interesting to know why the highlighted certain drugs..was it just because they are used more hence they saw more severly ill patients on them with covid or is their more too it.

Wolf359f

ACitizenErased wrote: »

The EMA say that yes, watch the briefing. Journalist asked if there's other medication that could be used as an example for the same types of clots, Dr. Arlett said oral contraception.

There's no way it's 1 in 10,000 chance of CVT/CVST in the pill. Could be a 1 in a billion chance and when a journalist asked, it would be a correct statement for the EMA to make, but without actually comparing the rates for like for like clotting issues (identical clots) would be more accurate.

nibtrix

speckle wrote: »

Would be interesting to know why the highlighted certain drugs..was it just because they are used more hence they saw more severly ill patients on them with covid or is their more too it.

The drugs they list are mostly cancer treatments or higher risk immunosuppressants that are given as infusions in hospitals, rather than self-administered injections or tablets. I totally agree that people on these treatments are higher up the scale and need to be prioritised.

It's the uncertainty around "not limited to" that is the issue, with the choice of what other meds to include being left up to individual departments.

stefanovich

Wolf359f wrote: »

There's no way it's 1 in 10,000 chance of CVT/CVST in the pill. Could be a 1 in a billion chance and when a journalist asked, it would be a correct statement for the EMA to make, but without actually comparing the rates for like for like clotting issues (identical clots) would be more accurate.

Saw a graphic from the UK government that suggested that the risk from the vaccine is greater than the risk of catching covid and becoming very unwell in under 30's, hence the change in guidance.

Vaccines and the pill are comparable in that they are both prophylactic, ie they are given to healthy people to prevent illness or pregnancy.

If you are a 20 year old with a low risk from covid anyway I'd definitely not hold it against you if you preferred one of the other choices.

Wolf359f

Wolf359f wrote: »

There's no way it's 1 in 10,000 chance of CVT/CVST in the pill. Could be a 1 in a billion chance and when a journalist asked, it would be a correct statement for the EMA to make, but without actually comparing the rates for like for like clotting issues (identical clots) would be more accurate.

That risk is calculated based on taking the drug daily for a defined period (usually a year, but might be 10 years). So to compare it directly to a single dose of a vaccine is a little bit odd, and the type of clot that the vaccine may be causing is more serious than the clots typically linked to the pill.

Overall the pill increases the chance of clotting by a factor of 3 or 4 compared to people not on the pill and we know a bit about how to reduce the risk (risk is higher in smokers, certain pre-existing conditions etc.) so it can be minimised. Hopefully they'll figure out how to minimise the risk with the vaccine.

Ireland is currently giving AZ to high risk pregnant women, which I feel is an unnecessary risk, given that there is a significant clotting risk in pregnancy anyway.

Been hearing a bit lately about how the vaccines aren't having much of an effect in Chile. They are.

https://twitter.com/RufusSG/status/1380169345486184450?s=20