Covid vaccine , age before special interest groups good or bad? *Mod Note In OP*

meeeeh

Well at least we know now that Pfizer/Modern vaccine can be easily transported to bed ridden in their homes.

is_that_so

Amirani wrote: »

The hospital don't own the vaccines, it's not their acceptance to give.

They were released to them for distribution so theirs to administer according to guidelines and their best judgement. They were clearly applying a very faulty process to vaccine distribution and by the sounds it of just making it up as they went along.

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote: »

Based on the guidance at the time they could claim good faith, a very weak argument morally. I don't think anyone wants to look at criminality but they do want to make a very good example of them.

I would tend to agree with you if the private school scandal didn't happen. I can see serious repercussions for this doctor.

Beasty

Take discussion of the Coombe and Beacon incidents to the relevant threads. This one covers the new vaccine priority rollout

I posted this on the other threads, but are they going to be checking the under 65s for underlying conditions under the "by age" system? If not, many people who could still potentially be at risk to get very sick/die could fall through the cracks if they go by age only.

I am 51 and under the old system I fell into cohort 4 on more then one grounds. But if they go by age only, I will fall down the list.

My daughter has a heart condition, but as she is only in her early 20s, she'll probably be in one of the last groups.

Stark

"At risk" are cohorts 4, 5 and 7 (depending on how much at risk). Cohort 9 is under-65s with no underlying conditions.

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

Stark

Stark wrote: »

"At risk" are cohorts 4, 5 and 7 (depending on how much at risk). Cohort 9 is under-65s with no underlying conditions.

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

Well, hopefully we'll be able to self-identify as at risk when this portal opens.

Because I haven't attended a hospital clinic since the end of 2017, and my GP was seemingly totally unaware when asked that according to the hospital my diabetes care was transferred to them then. Which means I'll probably end up in cohort 9. A drop of 5 levels, if they only look at my age.

Turtwig

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, hopefully we'll be able to self-identify as at risk when this portal opens.

Because I haven't attended a hospital clinic since the end of 2017, and my GP was seemingly totally unaware when asked that according to the hospital my diabetes care was transferred to them then. Which means I'll probably end up in cohort 9. A drop of 5 levels, if they only look at my age.

Your GP should be able to include at Cohort 7 at the very least. If not Cohort 4.

Turtwig

Turtwig wrote: »

Your GP should be able to include at Cohort 7 at the very least. If not Cohort 4.

GP is totally disengaged and uninterested, thats all I can describe it as.

I will be looking for a new GP once things open up again.

moonage

astrofool wrote: »

Untrue, a lot of people in the under 60 age group have died, less than over 60's age group, but there is a lot more people in the under 60 group that will die without vaccines.

False. The number of healthy under 60s who've died is a tiny percentage. For this group the benefits of a vaccine are tiny and the risks could be significant.

astrofool wrote: »

Untrue, vaccines are between 60-95% effective at stopping all symptoms, with the remaining % only getting mild to moderate symptoms and no severe symptoms. They also reduce transmission, with the % reduction looking about 66%.

False. They might reduce symptoms but they don't stop someone getting infected in the first place. There's no proof that they stop transmission. Where are you getting the 66% figure from?

astrofool wrote: »

Untrue, there has been no less testing on these vaccines than any other vaccines, they have been rolled out safely to hundreds of millions of people.

The clinical trials for these vaccines are ongoing and won't finish for years. They haven't been approved by the regulatory authorities. Obviously any medium and long term potential harms are unknown.

astrofool

moonage wrote: »

False. The number of healthy under 60s who've died is a tiny percentage. For this group the benefits of a vaccine are tiny and the risks could be significant.

Still untrue. The chances of an adverse effect from a vaccine are still infinitesimally smaller than that person getting COVID-19 and dying or having severe symptoms.

moonage wrote: »

False. They might reduce symptoms but they don't stop someone getting infected in the first place. There's no proof that they stop transmission. Where are you getting the 66% figure from?

Still untrue, They completely eliminate symptoms in 62-95% of people who have been vaccinated and are then exposed to the SARS-COV2 virus, those that do get symptoms only get mild to moderate symptoms. Transmission % are still being tabulated, so currently not conclusive other than we know there is a large drop in transmission rate, studies in Israel and the UK will confirm the actual % (some early reports say up to 90% drop in transmission rates).

You also need to define what you mean by infected, there is nothing that can physically stop a virus from transferring to someone, however for someone to be infected, the virus needs to invade that persons cells and multiply, the vaccines stop this from happening in 62-95% of cases.

moonage wrote: »

The clinical trials for these vaccines are ongoing and won't finish for years. They haven't been approved by the regulatory authorities. Obviously any medium and long term potential harms are unknown.

Still untrue. Studies are ongoing for how effective the vaccines are, however, safety trials for all approved vaccines have been completed successfully and signed off by the relevant regulatory bodies.

wes

I see a lot of people angry over this change, but I am not sure it warranted.

When, we you have limited supply, it makes sense to prioritize people, but when you have plenty of supply, then imo speed is the most important factor.

Also, if nphet and niac are saying this is the way to go, then it make sense to listen to experts, and not people who are angry about this online, about the relative fairness of someone working from home potentially getting a vaccine before someone working in a shop. If the supply is there, then this is not really an issue imo, as both will get the vaccine asap if supply is available.

I think the Voltaire quote of the perfect being the enemy of the good comes to mind. Is it really worth time, working on a priority list, when the supply is available. We have seen the US just open vaccine appointments, when supply was available and they are getting it done at a amazing rate.

I think some peoples sense of fairness is getting the better of them, and want the rollout to be fair, as opposed to quick. IMO, the faster it is done, the better and fairer for everyone.

moonage

astrofool wrote: »

Still untrue. The chances of an adverse effect from a vaccine are still infinitesimally smaller than that person getting COVID-19 and dying or having severe symptoms.

Since these vaccines were rushed any potential adverse effects are unknown, so what you're saying above is wishful thinking.

Healthy young and middle-aged people are at such a low risk from SARS-CoV-2 that it would be unwise for them to take these vaccines.

astrofool wrote: »

Still untrue, They completely eliminate symptoms in 62-95% of people who have been vaccinated and are then exposed to the SARS-COV2 virus, those that do get symptoms only get mild to moderate symptoms. Transmission % are still being tabulated, so currently not conclusive other than we know there is a large drop in transmission rate, studies in Israel and the UK will confirm the actual % (some early reports say up to 90% drop in transmission rates).

You also need to define what you mean by infected, there is nothing that can physically stop a virus from transferring to someone, however for someone to be infected, the virus needs to invade that persons cells and multiply, the vaccines stop this from happening in 62-95% of cases.

The WHO has stated:

"We do not know whether the vaccines will prevent infection and protect against onward transmission."

astrofool wrote: »

Still untrue. Studies are ongoing for how effective the vaccines are, however, safety trials for all approved vaccines have been completed successfully and signed off by the relevant regulatory bodies.

No, clinical trials are ongoing—to determine efficacy and safety. They haven't been approved. In the US they have got Emergency Use Authorization which is not proper approval. It's similar in the EU.

For example, in the US the FDA information sheet for the Moderna shot says:

"The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine has not undergone the same type of review as an FDA-approved or cleared product.”

astrofool

moonage wrote: »

Since these vaccines were rushed any potential adverse effects are unknown, so what you're saying above is wishful thinking.

Healthy young and middle-aged people are at such a low risk from SARS-CoV-2 that it would be unwise for them to take these vaccines.




The WHO has stated:

"We do not know whether the vaccines will prevent infection and protect against onward transmission."



No, clinical trials are ongoing—to determine efficacy and safety. They haven't been approved. In the US they have got Emergency Use Authorization which is not proper approval. It's similar in the EU.

For example, in the US the FDA information sheet for the Moderna shot says:

"The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine has not undergone the same type of review as an FDA-approved or cleared product.”

All you have posted on this is bunkum.

Just on the specific trials question, the EU has given conditional marketing authorisation, which means that the liability for the vaccines is on the manufacturer and the medicine has gone through a full safety sign off.

If you want to discuss further about vaccines, I suggest you bring your content to this thread, and not derail discussion here with your nonsense:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058159465
COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 3 - Read OP

JP Liz V1

I'm curious has all the government been vaccinated, I assume a good few would want photo ops

meeeeh

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I'm curious has all the government been vaccinated, I assume a good few would want photo ops

No. They are not in the any of the groups that were due vaccine.

funnydoggy

Simon Harris will get his soon no doubt. Maybe with group 7 along with other high risk patients. Not sure about any other cabinet members' underlying illnesses.

meeeeh

funnydoggy wrote: »

Simon Harris will get his soon no doubt. Maybe with group 7 along with other high risk patients. Not sure about any other cabinet members' underlying illnesses.

Yes I forgot about Harris. I doubt those with medical issues would want it advertised though.

bodhrandude

I just tried the vaccine helpline today to find out where I am in the queue, no info whatsoever, this was the number my GP gave me as they are only vaccinating over 70s at the moment. My sister was vaccinated last Saturday as she turns sixty on the 5th but she also has a respiratory condition, asthma and Alpha-1. I've Emphysema myself and I'm 56 and currently been tested for Alpha-1 too as its apparently hereditary in my family. I was surprised the vaccine centre in Dublin didn't ask me my pps number or medical card number, I thought I would've been able to get a vaccination date from them. So now it looks like I'll have to wait for either a letter, email or phone call when I get one. I suppose this online portal will help with information, well hopefully anyway.

tjhook

I can see the logic of the new priority system - It has very broad/simple strokes that align roughly with the risks. And as many have said, it removes the lobbies from the decision making.

However, the government did make a deal with certain sectors to return to work on the basis that they would be prioritised. Maybe such a deal shouldn't have been demanded, or maybe it shouldn't have been agreed to. But it was. I'm not comfortable with one side turning away form an agreement. Unions shouldn't dictate public policy, especially if more recent expert advice is clear. But surely if an agreement is made the proper thing to do is for both parties to discuss it before one party reverses it, even if that reversal is ultimately necessary? I'd be equally critical if those sectors had accepted their vaccines and then unilaterally refused to return to work when another Covid variant pops along.

I'd also add that the strokes are *very* broad. Frontline healthcare workers and staff in care facilities are still being rightly prioritised, presumably on the basis of close physical contact with those in their care, including intimate needs (bodily fluids etc). I'd argue that many SNAs would fall under the same definition.

CrabRevolution

tjhook wrote: »

I can see the logic of the new priority system - It has very broad/simple strokes that align roughly with the risks. And as many have said, it removes the lobbies from the decision making.

However, the government did make a deal with certain sectors to return to work on the basis that they would be prioritised. Maybe such a deal shouldn't have been demanded, or maybe it shouldn't have been agreed to. But it was. I'm not comfortable with one side turning away form an agreement. Unions shouldn't dictate public policy, especially if more recent expert advice is clear. But surely if an agreement is made the proper thing to do is for both parties to discuss it before one party reverses it, even if that reversal is ultimately necessary? I'd be equally critical if those sectors had accepted their vaccines and then unilaterally refused to return to work when another Covid variant pops along.

I'd also add that the strokes are *very* broad. Frontline healthcare workers and staff in care facilities are still being rightly prioritised, presumably on the basis of close physical contact with those in their care, including intimate needs (bodily fluids etc). I'd argue that many SNAs would fall under the same definition.

What deal was this?

Teachers returned to work in September, long before the vaccine priority list was published. Gardaí never stopped.

tjhook

CrabRevolution wrote: »

What deal was this?

Teachers returned to work in September, long before the vaccine priority list was published. Gardaí never stopped.

I'm not sure where I heard it, but a quick google sees "Letter to Special Needs Assistants on Government Plan to reopen Special Education", from the start of Feb 2021:

"Unions have now been informed that SNAs will be prioritised within the first 30% of the population to receive the vaccine."

I don't know if there are other such groups.

Edit: To add, also from Feb, "Framework Plan for phased return of primary school education":
"The Department of Education has engaged with the Department of Health on the vaccination schedule who have confirmed that those essential to Education are estimated at this time to be in the first one third of the population captured by the Vaccine Allocation Strategy. "

is_that_so

tjhook wrote: »

I'm not sure where I heard it, but a quick google sees "Letter to Special Needs Assistants on Government Plan to reopen Special Education", from the start of Feb 2021:

"Unions have now been informed that SNAs will be prioritised within the first 30% of the population to receive the vaccine."

I don't know if there are other such groups.

Edit: To add, also from Feb, "Framework Plan for phased return of primary school education":
"The Department of Education has engaged with the Department of Health on the vaccination schedule who have confirmed that those essential to Education are estimated at this time to be in the first one third of the population captured by the Vaccine Allocation Strategy. "

That's really politics v scientific data - the age approach is faster, based on how other countries have fared. The decision/recommendation came from NIAC.

tjhook

is_that_so wrote: »

That's really politics v scientific data - the age approach is faster, based on how other countries have fared. The decision/recommendation came from NIAC.

I agree that there is logic to the new approach. I just think there are better ways to communicate the breaking of a deal.

is_that_so

tjhook wrote: »

I agree that there is logic to the new approach. I just think there are better ways to communicate the breaking of a deal.

Not make a deal in the first place! Foley has really been dreadful. I genuinely can't see the problem for people, who like the rest of us, are taking precautions not to get sick and wouldn't have been eligible till near school year end anyway. With the new system some will be up faster.

Natterjack from Kerry

is_that_so wrote: »

Not make a deal in the first place! Foley has really been dreadful. I genuinely can't see the problem for people, who like the rest of us, are taking precautions not to get sick and wouldn't have been eligible till near school year end anyway. With the new system some will be up faster.

Not Foley's fault if they send representatives who cant understand risk, and show such a lack of understanding of the issue, as they display in the following :

Teachers’ Union of Ireland (TUI) general secretary Michael Gillespie said they sought “and did not receive, a persuasive rationale for treating teachers, who work in busy, crowded classrooms, in the same manner as workers who are able to work from home”.

I didnt think there was an person left in Ireland still looking at the matter in such a flawed and simplistic way.

is_that_so

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Not Foley's fault if they send representatives who cant understand risk, and show such a lack of understanding of the issue, as they display in the following :

Teachers’ Union of Ireland (TUI) general secretary Michael Gillespie said they sought “and did not receive, a persuasive rationale for treating teachers, who work in busy, crowded classrooms, in the same manner as workers who are able to work from home”.

I didnt think there was an person left in Ireland still looking at the matter in such a flawed and simplistic way.

If you separate the idea itself and what the HSE say it's terribly straightforward.

Our priority is to protect the people who are most likely to have a poor outcome or die if they get COVID-19.

I think they are more hooked on the deal breaking rather than the overall big picture. If vaccines arrive as predicted we'll be flying in a month or so.

History Queen

The WHO advice on Vaccine prioritisation is not in line with what we are now doing.

Full advice document attached. Also attached is the screenshot of their recommended prioritisation list.

Jane1012

History Queen wrote: »

The WHO advice on Vaccine prioritisation is not in line with what we are now doing.

Full advice document attached. Also attached is the screenshot of their recommended prioritisation list.

That was from 5 months ago... the change this week has been based on recent evidence

History Queen

Jane1012 wrote: »

That was from 5 months ago... the change this week has been based on recent evidence

I realise that. I couldn't find a more recent publication by WHO on vaccine prioritisation that didn't reference this document as the one to follow. Can you link to where more recent evidence is published? I'll have a read.