Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

timsey tiger

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.

Like Chimps and gorillas are identical. 1 in 900,000 vs 1 in 125,000 is a long way from identical odds.

snotboogie

is_that_so wrote: »

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.

All of these countries are pulling from the same pool as us but are vaccinating 50% more people per capita per day. France, Spain, Italy, Denmark and Germany have all restricted Astra Zeneka and are all vaccinating at a far faster pace than us.

Dempo1

timsey tiger wrote: »

Like Chimps and gorillas are identical. 1 in 900,000 vs 1 in 125,000 is a long way from identical odds.

Probably taking my "Pretty Identical" point out of context, I'm just pointing out manufacturing process, ingredients and how both Vacinnes work. I accept incidents absolutely tiny, my primary concern is interference prior to a decision being made and objectively how one vacinne can be restricted and another potentially not, I think it's a ligitimate question when and if it happens

Widescreen

I'm convinced AZ is a political thing from the start and the J&J decision will prove it.

timsey tiger

Dempo1 wrote: »

Probably taking my "Pretty Identical" point out of context, I'm just pointing out manufacturing process, ingredients and how both Vacinnes work. I accept incidents absolutely tiny, my primary concern is interference prior to a decision being made and objectively how one vacinne can be restricted and another potentially not, I think it's a ligitimate question when and if it happens

Probably? How so? I qouted your entire post. It was you who was making an irrelevant false equivalence. Based on what you are saying we should be popping the Sanofi vaccine into everybody, because it is "pretty identical" to the AZ and Janssen vaccines. I was just calling you on your sh1t.

Dempo1

timsey tiger wrote: »

Probably? How so? I qouted your entire post. It was you who was making an irrelevant false equivalence. Based on what you are saying we should be popping the Sanofi vaccine into everybody, because it is "pretty identical" to the AZ and Janssen vaccines. I was just calling you on your sh1t.

Charming contribution and un called for, shame ligitimate questions, concerns on Vacinnes decend into rudeness.

Dempo1

Widescreen wrote: »

I'm convinced AZ is a political thing from the start and the J&J decision will prove it.

Yes and in a roundabout way, it's what I'm concerned about

secman

Registered my wife on Monday, got a text this morning for appointment at 6:30 pm tomorrow evening in Citywest.

I can register tomorrow, this is a thinly veined.....my wife is older than me thread

timsey tiger

Dempo1 wrote: »

Charming contribution and un called for, shame ligitimate questions, concerns on Vacinnes decend into rudeness.

Legitimate questions do not need to have disingenuous misdirection within them. I made a legitimate criticism of this dishonesty you accused me of quoting out of context again a misdirection since I quoted the entirety of your post.

Who is the one who should be ashamed of themselves here?

Gael23

secman wrote: »

Registered my wife on Monday, got a text this morning for appointment at 6:30 pm tomorrow evening in Citywest.

I can register tomorrow, this is a thinly veined.....my wife is older than me thread

Ok so it seems to be quite short notice then?

Pablo Escobar

Widescreen wrote: »

I'm convinced AZ is a political thing from the start and the J&J decision will prove it.

Was the UK decision political? And South Africa? Or just the decision of the individual European countries?

And I'm not going to agree that a decision on allowing J&J more flexibility proves anything. In fact, the data to my mind makes it much more likely that more flexibility should be given. And I'm not in agreement with being so cautious around AZ.

Widescreen

Pablo Escobar wrote: »

Was the UK decision political? And South Africa? Or just the decision of the individual European countries?

And I'm not going to agree that a decision on allowing J&J more flexibility proves anything. In fact, the data to my mind makes it much more likely that more flexibility should be given. And I'm not in agreement with being so cautious around AZ.

EU were turning there nose up at the AZ vaccine from the start. That's why they are getting short changed with supplies.

Johnson and Johnson will be portrayed as Mother's milk next week and all will be ok. It's American it has to be ok!

secman

Gael23 wrote: »

Ok so it seems to be quite short notice then?

32.5 hours exactly

vienne86

secman wrote: »

Registered my wife on Monday, got a text this morning for appointment at 6:30 pm tomorrow evening in Citywest.

I can register tomorrow, this is a thinly veined.....my wife is older than me thread

CityWest seems to be steaming ahead. I know a good few people who registered at least a week ago and who have heard nothing .......their local MVC would most likely be the Aviva.

TomOnBoard

secman wrote: »

Registered my wife on Monday, got a text this morning for appointment at 6:30 pm tomorrow evening in Citywest.

I can register tomorrow, this is a thinly veined.....my wife is older than me thread

What is it about all these baby-snatching women who were marauding around the gaff in tbe 70's and early 80's?

iamwhoiam

Gael23 wrote: »

Ok so it seems to be quite short notice then?

I got my text on Monday 6pm for Thursday afternoon slot

iamwhoiam

vienne86 wrote: »

CityWest seems to be steaming ahead. I know a good few people who registered at least a week ago and who have heard nothing .......their local MVC would most likely be the Aviva.

Definitely they seem to be firing ahead
I have friends all done and dusted in City west and other friends who registered the same day awaiting a text . They would be Croke Park or Aviva
Whoever is in charge of logistics in City West is doing a tremendous job

stephenjmcd

Wednesday 21st
https://twitter.com/COVID19DataIE/status/1385536936480321537?s=19

Turtwig

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 no group identified yet as being more at risks of the clots. Simply stating otherwise is wrong. If an elderly person had this incident in Jan or Feb it likely wouldn't even have been recognised. Only because younger people in their 30s and 40 were affected was their condition so thoroughly investigated. A possible reason that along with vaccination profile the event was observed first in younger cohorts. Younger people may be more at risk. They may not be. We don't have enough reliable information to definitely say either way yet.

People here keep quoting dismissive stats as if they are final. 1 in several million and other ridiculous tweets. The stats are in flux. The UK rate now is almost 1 in 125,000. That may increase even further - and if goes to 1 in 100,000 or higher an interesting discussion will have to be had. There may be a set % of the population that should never take the viral vector vaccines. Small enough that you would never see the issue in clinical trials but large enough that if this were not a pandemic the medicine may be withdrawn or withheld under very strict circumstances until the individuals at risk are known and understood better.

Politicians would do well to sht the fck up. I disagree with NIACs position. I disagree much stronger with the public comments declaring the age thresholds. It's a complicated subject that can be updated as more information becomes available. The limits are not set in stone.

Pablo Escobar

Widescreen wrote: »

EU were turning there nose up at the AZ vaccine from the start. That's why they are getting short changed with supplies.

Johnson and Johnson will be portrayed as Mother's milk next week and all will be ok. It's American it has to be ok!

Turning their noses up? You might have to explain that one to me. As far as I was aware the initial issue was around supply. That was the cause, not the effect. But I'm totally open to you showing me how I'm wrong here.

Also, is the UK's restriction on AZ then not political?

Personally, I think J&J will be restricted, but with more flexibility. For example, for over 50's. The data, so far, backs this additional flexibility up.

seamus

Widescreen wrote: »

I'm convinced AZ is a political thing from the start and the J&J decision will prove it.

There's a pretty considerable difference in the incidence rate - but that is bearing in mind that J&J hasn't been in widespread use like AZ has.

So on the face of it, this is apples & oranges. Not only is J&J "safer" than AZ, but it's also one-dose. So that tips the balance of risk -v- reward in a very different way.

I don't think it would fair to say that if J & J gets the go-ahead for under-60s that it must be a political decision.

vienne86

Widescreen wrote: »

EU were turning there nose up at the AZ vaccine from the start. That's why they are getting short changed with supplies.

Johnson and Johnson will be portrayed as Mother's milk next week and all will be ok. It's American it has to be ok!

I can't see any evidence of the EU 'turning up their noses' at AZ. They were p***ed off, and still are, at being repeatedly let down on supplies.

Dempo1

timsey tiger wrote: »

Legitimate questions do not need to have disingenuous misdirection within them. I made a legitimate criticism of this dishonesty you accused me of quoting out of context again a misdirection since I quoted the entirety of your post.

Who is the one who should be ashamed of themselves here?

We'll agree to disagree, I certainly did not intend disingenuous misdirection, I made ligitimate observations and asked legitimate questions based on what I've seen happening over the past few days. If you look at my response re context, I used the word 'Probably " with the intent of not suggesting dishonesty as you put it. Many have differing opinions and the whole debate on Vacinnes can get heated, this was certainly not my intention. Like many, I wish to learn. On a personal level I have an auto immune disease which a side affect of seriously high blood pressure, so whilst absolutely pro vacinne, I have genuine concerns should I be offered either J&J or AZ, it's not about trust or lack of it, it's out of concern. What led to my initial post was what I perceived as an agenda being pushed by some prior to NIAC"s next decision.

Strazdas

Widescreen wrote: »

EU were turning there nose up at the AZ vaccine from the start. That's why they are getting short changed with supplies.

Johnson and Johnson will be portrayed as Mother's milk next week and all will be ok. It's American it has to be ok!

Definitely not - it's because AZ are a useless supplier. The big row between the EU and AZ broke out because of their poor deliveries. Nearly three months on and their deliveries are as bad as ever.

Turtwig

seamus wrote: »

So on the face of it, this is apples & oranges. Not only is J&J "safer" than AZ, but it's also one-dose. So that tips the balance of risk -v- reward in a very different way.

This only tips the risk vs reward balance if the number of doses is a factor. That's unknown at this point. It could simply be, individuals with a certain biology get one of these vaccines they get the reaction. The number of doses may not matter. Your biology has marked your cards.
Or it could be a issue with the delivery and quality whereby multiple doses increase the risk.

I've oversimplified. I hope it helps illustrate the principle. We don't yet know if J and J single dose has an advantage or not.

timsey tiger

Dempo1 wrote: »

We'll agree to disagree, I certainly did not intend disingenuous misdirection, I made ligitimate observations and asked legitimate questions based on what I've seen happening over the past few days. If you look at my response re context, I used the word 'Probably " with the intent of not suggesting dishonesty as you put it. Many have differing opinions and the whole debate on Vacinnes can get heated, this was certainly not my intention. Like many, I wish to learn. On a personal level I have an auto immune disease which a side affect of seriously high blood pressure, so whilst absolutely pro vacinne, I have genuine concerns should I be offered either J&J or AZ, it's not about trust or lack of it, it's out of concern. What led to my initial post was what I perceived as an agenda being pushed by some prior to NIAC"s next decision.

I don't think that I'll ever agree anything with anybody who can't just make their point without embellishing the truth. But, I agree we'll leave it there. lol

Strazdas

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

If there’s evidence that AZ are deliberately not delivering to EU out of spite as that poster insists then imho that’s criminal.

They're clearly not up to the job and will never be a major global supplier of vaccines.

seamus

Turtwig wrote: »

This only tips the risk vs reward balance if the number of doses is a factor. That's unknown at this point. It could simply be, individuals with a certain biology get one of these vaccines they get the reaction. The number of doses may not matter. Your biology has marked your cards.
Or it could be a issue with the delivery and quality whereby multiple doses increase the risk.

I've oversimplified. I hope it helps illustrate the principle. We don't yet know if J and J single dose has an advantage or not.

True, however from another perspective, the # of doses does matter at a population level. The single dose allows for full vaccination to be achieved considerably faster than the two-dose one.
Which is another aspect to be included in the weighting.

hmmm

Germany has given the approval for J&J to be used without restrictions.
https://www.ft.com/content/b254833a-27c9-482c-8492-4b63571e57ee

Interestingly, it looks like the regulator there may also allow citizens to receive the AZ vaccine "at their own risk".

hmmm

hmmm wrote: »

Germany has given the approval for J&J to be used without restrictions.
https://www.ft.com/content/b254833a-27c9-482c-8492-4b63571e57ee

Interestingly, it looks like the regulator there may also allow citizens to receive the AZ vaccine "at their own risk".

It will be so disappointing if they enforce restrictions here, well severe restrictions on age at least.

Signing a waiver should be allowed, plenty of people out there who would happily take the AZ or J&J of offered it