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

iamwhoiam

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.

Dated November 2020 . Science says differently now . The highest risk of death is age not occupation . So the rollout is based on prioritising the highest risk of death



https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/health/vaccine-rollout-changes-age-the-defining-factor-in-covid-risk-not-profession-1.4525022?mode=amp


Niac chairwoman Karina Butler said age is the defining risk factor from coronavirus. People aged 60-65 years are 70 times more at risk than those aged 30 to 35 years, she said. The risk of hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission, and death, rises as you get older, she said.

The only occupation that comes out with more severe outcomes is healthcare work, said Prof Butler. She added that the aim is to protect everyone but there has to be some level

History Queen

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Dated November 2020 . Science says differently now . The highest risk of death is age not occupation . So the rollout is based on prioritising the highest risk of death



https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/health/vaccine-rollout-changes-age-the-defining-factor-in-covid-risk-not-profession-1.4525022%3fmode=amp


Niac chairwoman Karina Butler said age is the defining risk factor from coronavirus. People aged 60-65 years are 70 times more at risk than those aged 30 to 35 years, she said. The risk of hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission, and death, rises as you get older, she said.

The only occupation that comes out with more severe outcomes is healthcare work, said Prof Butler. She added that the aim is to protect everyone but there has to be some level

Yes but WHO says in the rationale:

"Overall public health strategy for this epidemiologic setting: Initial focus on direct reduction of morbidity and mortality and maintenance of most critical essential
services; also, reciprocity. Expand to reduction in transmission to further reduce disruption of social and economic functions."

Literally the opposite of what we are going doing.

iamwhoiam

History Queen wrote: »

Yes but WHO says in the rationale:

"Overall public health strategy for this epidemiologic setting: Initial focus on direct reduction of morbidity and mortality and maintenance of most critical essential
services; also, reciprocity. Expand to reduction in transmission to further reduce disruption of social and economic functions."

Literally the opposite of what we are going doing.

“ Initial focus on reduction of morbidity and mortality “ , which is exactly what Karina Butler is saying .


Personally I think by doing according to age it will speed up the process and save a huge muddy mess of admin slowing it down

History Queen

iamwhoiam wrote: »

“ Initial focus on reduction of morbidity and mortality “ , which is exactly what Karina Butler is saying .

There are other points in the same sentence that we are not following... that rationale is in the screenshot I posted a couple of posts back. Look at the rollout prioritisation it suggests. We have not up to now, followed it and are now deviating further from it.

Edit: my reading of the "initial focus of reduction of morbidity and mortality" was what we did at the beginning by focusing on the elderly and frontline healthcare.

History Queen

iamwhoiam wrote: »

“
Personally I think by doing according to age it will speed up the process and save a huge muddy mess of admin slowing it down

To be honest if it speeds the whole process up I'm for it mostly too. But I still say some sectors (not my own as a second level mainstream teacher) should have been prioritised ahead of that. Just look at what has happened that school in Clontarf. How they can justify not prioritising vaccines for those who can't distance or work with those who can't wear masks or deal with intimate care needs I just don't know.

iamwhoiam

History Queen wrote: »

There are other points in the same sentence that we are not following... that rationale is in the screenshot I posted a couple of posts back. Look at the rollout prioritisation it suggests. We have not up to now, followed it and are now deviating further from it.

Edit: my reading of the "initial focus of reduction of morbidity and mortality" was what we did at the beginning by focusing on the elderly and frontline healthcare.

My reading of it that you eliminate the risk of mortality by vaccinating the group at highest risk first and work your way down

I fully understand your point though and it is a bitter pill to swallow when it was promised
I think SNA’s should be done with healthcare workers as should teachers in special schools .

History Queen

iamwhoiam wrote: »

My reading of it that you eliminate the risk of mortality by vaccinating the group at highest risk first and work your way down

I fully understand your point though and it is a bitter pill to swallow when it was promised
I think SNA’s should be done with healthcare workers as should teachers in special schools .

Honestly not too worried about myself as a second level teacher. We have masks as do our students. The same cannot be said for special schools, primary schools, childcare facilities etc. If mitigation factors are compromised (such as masks/social distancing) I really think these people should be prioritised.

Edit: i would be less happy going back next September unvaccinated

Beasty

History Queen wrote: »

Edit: i would be less happy going back next September unvaccinated

Given where we are in the vaccine program I think there is a very high chance the whole of the adult population wanting the vaccine will have had it by September.

The questions in September may have turned to how long protections lasts, or if there are new variants the vaccines do not protect you from.

Think it was Luke O'Neill on the radio yesterday suggesting the evidence is building on both fronts that vaccines will remain effective, but this particular disease has caught us out on so many fronts already no-one is going to commit to much at present

History Queen

Beasty wrote: »

Given where we are in the vaccine program I think there is a very high chance the whole of the adult population wanting the vaccine will have had it by September.

The questions in September may have turned to how long protections lasts, or if there are new variants the vaccines do not protect you from.

Think it was Luke O'Neill on the radio yesterday suggesting the evidence is building on both fronts that vaccines will remain effective, but this particular disease has caught us out on so many fronts already no-one is going to commit to much at present

Ya I agree with you that most should be done by then, then Simon Harris was quoted today as looking for testing for colleges to open on campus next year... this made me doubtful or am I reading too much in to it? Why would they need rapid testing if our adult population is vaccinated?

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0402/1207627-rapid-testing/

Beasty

I think they need to leave as many of their options as they reasonably can open, particularly given the ever changing nature of this disease. No-one will be thanked if we get to September and there is a new surge, for whatever reason, and we are not in a position to batter manage it

History Queen

Beasty wrote: »

I think they need to leave as many of their options as they reasonably can open, particularly given the ever changing nature of this disease. No-one will be thanked if we get to September and there is a new surge, for whatever reason, and we are not in a position to batter manage it

Oh look I've been very vocal on the lack of planning by the government ( Department of Education in particular) many times myself. I hope you are correct and it is just contingency planning. Here's hoping those rapid test won't be needed!

Beasty

It's only now they are concluding the vaccines actually prevent you catching the disease. Prior to that they were saying it relieved the symptoms but could not draw conclusions on whether it prevented transmission.

Of course it's always caveated on the basis of efficacy never being 100%, so there will be exceptions.

The other issue I guess is that even if we are all vaccinated by September that only currently applies to adults and some will either refuse the vaccine or may be unable to take it for medical reasons. To get to herd immunity they are saying we need something like 80% protected. To get there we will need a significant number of under-16s protected, but trials are ongoing and again nothing is guaranteed

To add to that, as and when international travel takes off again we face the risk of further "importations" of the virus

One other thing Luke O'Neill said is it looks like the variants will tend to converge over time, with different strains ultimately becoming something close to a single one, which will help with vaccinations

We are over a year into this now, and we continue to learn new things about this disease, but I feel a bit more comfortable that we seem to be getting on top of things rather than finding more issues with it

headtheball14

For those who agree with this change to prioritisation as I do the into allows you to send a message to your public representatives through their website.
You just need to change the message. I am sure that they have received many messages from teachers in the last few days, It could do with rebalancing.

It makes no sense slowing down the vaccination program and prioritising 20 something year olds at the expense of those at much greater risk of hospitalisation and death.
We know the likelihood is that this will mean that less people will be hospitalised and admitted to icu .

Using discretion in prioritising occupation groups will mean that groups with strong representation will be prioritised over groups without.

So transport workers, food and delivery workers ,taxi drivers all have high infection rates but won't be prioritised.
Age is an objective ,fair and evidence based and I completely support these changes.

Nothing about this pandemic is fair.

We all feel a little cheated at the moment from our "normal lives".

However it was correct to vaccinate health workers and nursing home residents first.

Then very oldest/medically vulnerable/travelling community/homeless and then go down by age.

Its hard to be bitter about seeing a 50 year old vaccinated before a 40 year old etc etc.

Its the fairest in terms of major risk factor and the easiest logistically.

I personally would find it stomach churning watching a perfectly healthy 25 year old teacher or gardai getting vaccinated before someone in their fifties.

That letter the gardai were able to get from hse recently for leftover vaccines is all wrong from an optics point of view of living in ireland. In theory now a 20 year old gardai is perfectly allowed to be vaccinated before someone in their 70's if things fall the right way for said gardai. Nothing right about that and that letter should never have been given by HSE and should now be revoked for public good.

The UK have a long history of standing up to unions etc., were the public good is not being met.

They showed us the template to follow. Little public outcry in UK when professions etc. were told NO.

We could learn something from UK re: trade unions.

.42.

Saw the following on the rte website today from AGSI General Secretary Antoinette Cunningham

Ms Cunningham said the AGSI cannot understand why the undertakings given to the association by the Minster for Justice, in that gardaí should be vaccinated as soon as possible, could not be adhered to.

She said gardaí need a "proper" vaccination roll-out programme that runs in tandem with the current system.

Ms Cunningham said the Government is "reading the mood of the people wrong" in that most people want gardaí to be vaccinated early.

I for one do not agree with the part in bold.

astrofool

.42. wrote: »

Saw the following on the rte website today from AGSI General Secretary Antoinette Cunningham



I for one do not agree with the part in bold.

I'm sure she cited an opinion poll or study showing this rather than just anecdotally saying that people think Garda are great and deserve vaccines ahead of older more at risk people....

Beasty

In my book science trumps sentiment. That's particularly where we are talking exposure to death.

Of course many older members of relevant professions who were previously in a "higher" cohort will actually move up the priority list

endacl

is_that_so wrote: »

Probably not at all as they are all in groups not affected by this change. Don't you get a second date when you go for the first one?

I didn’t. Was just told it’d be up to 12 weeks and look out for the email.