Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

is_that_so

snotboogie wrote: »

Im looking at the 7 day average for vaccination rates. On the 1st of April we were in the high middle of the pack among the 18 Western European countries, in 6th place with a rolling 7 day average vaccination rate of 0.39 per 100 per day.

Since the 14th of April we have been in last place. Our current 7 day average is 0.42, only a slight increase from the 1st of April. Sweden went from 0.31 to 0.65, Portugal went from 0.38 to 0.67, Germany went from 0.37 to 0.6, even Spain who were leading the pack on the 1st of April have gone from 0.46 to 0.63. We are the only Western European country to never hit a 0.5 average over 7 days.

Im not sure why people are not picking up on this but we are really starting to fall behind. It's going to start showing in the overall vaccination rates very soon, we had pretty good months by European standards in February and March which is hiding the current trends in the overall numbers but it won't stay like that for much longer. There is no point celebrating a 35k or 40k day on Friday if we keep having 5k days on Weekends and 20k days on Mondays and Tuesdays. We need to consistently be averaging 25k to 30k over 7 days to keep up with the rest of Europe now.

It's really never been about league tables, we are consistently putting over 90% of what we get into arms within 7 days. That is a supply issue in our case and you can't really tell what mix of vaccines other countries are using nor what strategies they are using.

Dempo1

hmmm wrote: »

There seems to be a significant difference in the number of reported clotting cases for J&J versus AZ. The risk profile does not look identical.

Government could do more than merely "hint" here. They need to give NIAC cover and tell them what they would like the risk balance to be.

"This is a medical decision" I hear some say. Look, this is either a pandemic or it isn't - if we're in a pandemic and Covid is dangerous, then we need to deploy vaccines as quickly as possible and accept a slightly higher risk than we would in normal times. If it's not a pandemic and we can leave good vaccines go unusued, then let's reopen the country. Extended lockdowns are not a low-cost alternative to vaccination.

I do agree it's a medical decision which is why I'm alarmed at politicians in particular making statements like 'it should be aporoved", suggesting' Hope" when they mean 'Approve " etc

Valhallapt

Flying Fox wrote: »

They're also moving down the ages and into the groups most at risk of the clots.

It is concerning. I know people will argue the risk is tiny, but 32 people in the UK alone have died from this. That's not insignificant. The covid risk for many of those people would have been very low too.

I'm relieved at NIAC's approach, even if it was on the conservative side.

Almost 130,000 people have died from covid in the uk. How many more will die from late cancer diagnosis or suicide as a side effect of covid?

32 deaths is terrible, but it’s better than anything else

revelman

hmmm wrote: »

There seems to be a significant difference in the number of reported clotting cases for J&J versus AZ. The risk profile does not look identical.

I’m no scientist but there is a certain assumption built into this statement surely. You are assuming that the quality and quantity of reporting of side effects is the same in the United States as it is in Europe. I imagine it is very good in places like Germany and Norway. Is it just as good elsewhere?

Russman

hmmm wrote: »

There seems to be a significant difference in the number of reported clotting cases for J&J versus AZ. The risk profile does not look identical.

Government could do more than merely "hint" here. They need to give NIAC cover and tell them what they would like the risk balance to be.

"This is a medical decision" I hear some say. Look, this is either a pandemic or it isn't - if we're in a pandemic and Covid is dangerous, then we need to deploy vaccines as quickly as possible and accept a slightly higher risk than we would in normal times. If it's not a pandemic and we can leave good vaccines go unusued, then let's reopen the country. Extended lockdowns are not a low-cost alternative to vaccination.

I can't agree with this at all. Yes we're in a pandemic and all that that entails, but IMHO there's no way politicians should be deciding what the medical risk profile should be. I get all the economy and lockdown stuff, but we need to have faith in our medical products that they've been assessed by competent professionals and the system of approvals hasn't had interference from vested interests. I'm sure (?) that NIAC factor us being in an urgent situation into their deliberations anyway.

wadacrack

We need to ramp up vaccination very quickly. Race between infection and protection. What NIAC ae doing could have long term repercussions. Being overly cautious in spite of EMA approval in a fast moving pandemic is not a rational way of thinking. We are falling well behind the EU average and this seems to missed by the media conveniently again.

stephenjmcd

SusanC10 wrote: »

In this article Eamonn Ryan is talking about J&J for Aged 50+


http://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0422/1211323-covid-ireland/

He's not. He gave a hypothetical situation when asked and used the 50 age group as an example

hmmm

Dempo1 wrote: »

I do agree it's a medical decision which is why I'm alarmed at politicians in particular making statements like 'it should be aporoved", suggesting' Hope" when they mean 'Approve " etc

It's not a medical decision.

A medic will look at the risk of an age group getting Covid and what their outcomes will be, and will compare it to the risk of them taking the vaccine. It's a simple mathematical decision as to what age groups get the vaccine.

There's no-one there taking into account the cost (and this will primarily affect younger people) of weeks or months extra of lockdowns and social distancing. It won't take into account the tourism and hospitality businesses who will not be able to reopen until we're nearly into Winter. It won't take into account the impact of MHQ on people who want to see their familes & a whole host of other impacts.

We're either in a pandemic or we are not. If you're not going to use the tools to get us out of a pandemic then it doesn't sound very serious - reopen the country.

I agree with posters above. Make it available to people if they choose to take it.

is_that_so

Flying Fox wrote: »

They're also moving down the ages and into the groups most at risk of the clots.

It is concerning. I know people will argue the risk is tiny, but 32 people in the UK alone have died from this. That's not insignificant. The covid risk for many of those people would have been very low too.

I'm relieved at NIAC's approach, even if it was on the conservative side.

There is nothing wrong with caution but will NIAC consider the effect on our programme? Restrictions will push it out by at least 2-3 weeks. The kite flying of an over 50s restriction at least gives it a purpose, if it's just the over 60s it's really of little use to us in the overall vaccination programme.

Dempo1

Valhallapt wrote: »

Couldn’t disagree more. The government should be telling niac that there is a balance to be had, the J&j vaccine is safe and effective albeit with an extremely rare side effect. We can’t keep the country locked down forever waiting for the perfect vaccine, that may never come.

If J&j was the only vaccine in town, we won’t even bother talking about the rare side effects.

J&j should be approved for everyone as per the ema and fda recommendations. Perhaps they can offer people an opt out of J&j and they can join a queue for a preferred vaccine.

I do get your points but I respectively disagree, primarily because of the contradiction that is obvious here, AZ restricted, J&J, hmmmm mm, maybe not. I wouldn't subscribe to the notion Government or Politicians should be permitted to tell medical experts what to do.

I'm not being critical of NIAC, just pointing out that it would seem wholely inappropriate for politicians to be nudging a decision that is preferential to their narrative.

JPup

Dempo1 wrote: »

There's certainly a growing not so gentle hint campaign coming from Certain Government ministers, HSE senior management, NPHET levelled toward NIAC to approve full use of J&J vacinne, it's boarding on interference quite frankly and very disturbing. As I've stated previously if AZ & J&J Vacinnes are pretty identical and have had some small numbers of reported blood clotting incidents, NIAC will have some explaning to do if they give full approvals to J&J and continue to restrict AZ. I'm no medical expert but something is not right with this process and I find it concerning any not so subtle persuading is going on. I'm pro vacinne, anti mixed messaging.

Is it interference though? It is the government that makes the decision at the end of the day. NIAC is just there to give advice. Ministers have to also consider the economic impact of prolonging the lockdown which the medical experts don't.

Valhallapt

Russman wrote: »

I can't agree with this at all. Yes we're in a pandemic and all that that entails, but IMHO there's no way politicians should be deciding what the medical risk profile should be. I get all the economy and lockdown stuff, but we need to have faith in our medical products that they've been assessed by competent professionals and the system of approvals hasn't had interference from vested interests. I'm sure (?) that NIAC factor us being in an urgent situation into their deliberations anyway.

Doctors differ, patients die. The EMA and the FDA continue to show all vaccines on the market are safe and effective.

I know I trust the EMA far above NIAC or NEPHET for that matter.

Gael23

Still no text. How long does it take after your GP registers you?

pc7

Paul Reid on Claire Byrne saying 39k vaccinated yesterday, that's super.

Valhallapt

pc7 wrote: »

Paul Reid on Claire Byrne saying 39k vaccinated yesterday, that's super.

That must be a record! I hope we can keep going at this rate.

Dempo1

hmmm wrote: »

It's not a medical decision.

A medic will look at the risk of an age group getting Covid and what their outcomes will be, and will compare it to the risk of them taking the vaccine. It's a simple mathematical decision as to what age groups get the vaccine.

There's no-one there taking into account the cost (and this will primarily affect younger people) of weeks or months extra of lockdowns and social distancing. It won't take into account the tourism and hospitality businesses who will not be able to reopen until we're nearly into Winter. It won't take into account the impact of MHQ on people who want to see their familes & a whole host of other impacts.

We're either in a pandemic or we are not. If you're not going to use the tools to get us out of a pandemic then it doesn't sound very serious - reopen the country.

I agree with posters above. Make it available to people if they choose to take it.

It is a medical decision surely?

All well in good if people were permitted to have a choice, the HSE have made it abundantly clear, there is no choice given, refuse what's offered and go to the bottom of the Q, a policy I do agree with incidentally albeit with clarity given.

Russman

Valhallapt wrote: »

I know I trust the EMA far above NIAC or NEPHET for that matter.

Why is that ?

Valhallapt

Valhallapt wrote: »

Almost 130,000 people have died from covid in the uk. How many more will die from late cancer diagnosis or suicide as a side effect of covid?

32 deaths is terrible, but it’s better than anything else

I lost a parent to covid, I know only too well how serious it is.

AZ is a good vaccine and it's a no brainer that older and vulnerable people should take it, as the benefit far outweighs the risk for them. But that's not necessarily the case in younger people, so yes I'm relieved NIAC took the stance they did, even more so now in light of this new UK data.

lbj666

Dempo1 wrote: »

There's certainly a growing not so gentle hint campaign coming from Certain Government ministers, HSE senior management, NPHET levelled toward NIAC to approve full use of J&J vacinne, it's boarding on interference quite frankly and very disturbing. As I've stated previously if AZ & J&J Vacinnes are pretty identical and have had some small numbers of reported blood clotting incidents, NIAC will have some explaning to do if they give full approvals to J&J and continue to restrict AZ. I'm no medical expert but something is not right with this process and I find it concerning any not so subtle persuading is going on. I'm pro vacinne, anti mixed messaging.

As already the mentioned the incidence level of such cases for J&J is not anywhere near those for AZ as of now. So allowing J&J for younger cohorts the AZ would not be mixed messaging. Where the problem lies is news headlines for both vacines say "rare blood clots" painting both of them with the same brush, people to perceive there is a mixed message when a public figure, NIAC rightfully doesnt paint them both with the same brush.

The fear of mixed messaging perceived by the less informed can not be a primary driver for such a crucial decision.

Dempo1

JPup wrote: »

Is it interference though? It is the government that makes the decision at the end of the day. NIAC is just there to give advice. Ministers have to also consider the economic impact of prolonging the lockdown which the medical experts don't.

I believe it is interference albeit subtle.

I fully agree its government that has to consider economic impacts etc.

Strazdas

Valhallapt wrote: »

That must be a record! I hope we can keep going at this rate.

It is : I think we hit 35k on one day last week.

JPup

snotboogie wrote: »

Im looking at the 7 day average for vaccination rates. On the 1st of April we were in the high middle of the pack among the 18 Western European countries, in 6th place with a rolling 7 day average vaccination rate of 0.39 per 100 per day.

Since the 14th of April we have been in last place. Our current 7 day average is 0.42, only a slight increase from the 1st of April. Sweden went from 0.31 to 0.65, Portugal went from 0.38 to 0.67, Germany went from 0.37 to 0.6, even Spain who were leading the pack on the 1st of April have gone from 0.46 to 0.63. We are the only Western European country to never hit a 0.5 average over 7 days.

Im not sure why people are not picking up on this but we are really starting to fall behind. It's going to start showing in the overall vaccination rates very soon, we had pretty good months by European standards in February and March which is hiding the current trends in the overall numbers but it won't stay like that for much longer. There is no point celebrating a 35k or 40k day on Friday if we keep having 5k days on Weekends and 20k days on Mondays and Tuesdays. We need to consistently be averaging 25k to 30k over 7 days to keep up with the rest of Europe now.

I don't think there is any reason to be concerned yet. The astrazeneca age limit put a spanner in the works this month, but we'll be back on track soon.

If J&J is allowed for at least some people under 60 and the spacing for pfizer goes out to 6 weeks then we will still hit the 80% vaccinated by the end of June I think.

Valhallapt

Flying Fox wrote: »

I lost a parent to covid, I know only too well how serious it is.

AZ is a good vaccine and it's a no brainer that older and vulnerable people should take it, as the benefit far outweighs the risk for them. But that's not necessarily the case in younger people, so yes I'm relieved NIAC took the stance they did, even more so now in light of this new UK data.

I understand that, but pausing or limiting our vaccination programme will result in hundred of more deaths than vaccine side effects

Strazdas

Given that the bulk of J & J doses aren't due to arrive until June, I think people are reading a tiny bit too much into its potential impact. It would be a help certainly but not a total gamechanger (and definitely not that in the next six weeks).

eleventh

rm212 wrote: »

This is all extremely concerning (for me, at least), that acceleration makes it look like it is a much bigger problem in the younger age groups than initially thought.

As a 25yo who has already had one dose of AZ, the fact it occurred in a second dose for one case is worrying me. Not that many second doses of AZ have been given out due to the 3 month gap, so it could be indicative that not experiencing the CVST in the first dose doesn't preclude you from experiencing it with the second. I'm losing more and more confidence in getting the second dose... really not sure what to do.

Genuine concerns, as were the concerns of this person.

Advice if you want it is to wait.

Valhallapt

Valhallapt wrote: »

I understand that, but pausing or limiting our vaccination programme will result in hundred of more deaths than vaccine side effects

We haven't though? We've just redirected supply.

J&J is a separate issue and if there is an age cut off it's likely to be lower. The risk appears to be much lower than AZ too, so there's a reasonable chance it will be approved for all ages.

sd1999

I’m not too concerned about how long the NIAC J&J decision is taking relating specifically to J&J. However, it seems the decision on the interval between Pfizer/Moderna doses is going to be made based on the outcome of the J&J decision and that is something I would like to know sooner rather than later.

Valhallapt

Flying Fox wrote: »

We haven't though? We've just redirected supply.

J&J is a separate issue and if there is an age cut off it's likely to be lower. The risk appears to be much lower than AZ too, so there's a reasonable chance it will be approved for all ages.

Yes that what limiting it to over 60s does. We have the over 60s covered with AZ there are no more arms for the J&J to go into. Everyone else have to wait for pfizer or moderna. It’ll effectively remove 1.2m jabs from our supply and slow roll out by several months

The government want 80% vaccinated by June, that’s not going to happen without J&J. J&J is due to vaccinate 15% of the population between now and end of June

TomOnBoard

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

This is a bit ambiguous, unless I'm reading it wrong. From the last line, it appears they aren't just talking about CVST. Was the one case after the second dose CVST or a different kind of clot? Was it in someone prone to clotting?

It's very hard to draw conclusions when CVST cases are lumped in with other kinds of clots.

The issue being reported is the unusual "major blood clots with low platelets " condition, rather than the location in which those blood clots are found. The CVST relates to the location in which the condition occurs, but whether it occurs in the brain or elsewhere, it has the same causation, and that's what is being analysed.

Its good that they are looking wider than the brain to establish the incidence of this condition, as it will make the risks better understood. If it presents itself in the big toe, it is still an incidence of the condition and needs to be treated in the person so that CVST or other serious illnesses don't occur, and the case needs to be counted.

Doctor Jimbob

TomOnBoard wrote: »

The issue being reported is the unusual "major blood clots with low platelets " condition, rather than the location in which those blood clots are found. The CVST relates to the location in which the condition occurs, but whether it occurs in the brain or elsewhere, it has the same causation, and that's what is being analysed.

Its good that they are looking wider than the brain to establish the incidence of this condition, as it will make the risks better understood. If it presents itself in the big toe, it is still an incidence of the condition and needs to be treated in the person so that CVST or other serious illnesses don't occur, and the case needs to be counted.

Yep, I was misreading then - somehow missed the low platelets part. Thanks for clarifying.