Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

titan18

JTMan wrote: »

There is international evidence that groups such as the homeless and drug addicts are hard to track for a second dose. It makes sense to give J&J to these groups regardless of their age.

Not if you say it's unsafe for everyone else under 50. It can't be safe for some and not others and the only reason is cos it's logistically difficult to give them a 2 dose one.

revelman

funnydoggy wrote: »

This will no doubt increase vaccine hesitance, IMO

We were told to expect J&J as the gamechanger due to its storage requirements and the fact that it's one dose.

Now NIAC are saying it's safe for over 50s. Woeful messaging. Very frustrating.

Very little evidence of vaccine hesitancy. Look at the percentage of people in their sixties who signed up for AZ.

fm

JTMan wrote: »

It would make a lot of sense to give J&J exclusively to those in their 50s. Difficult sell but it can be sold to those in their 50s as the fact that they will be fully vaccinated before most people get a second dose.

It would mean a concurrent rollout for those in their 50s and younger groups but it makes sense.

It's only concurrent because they would be delaying one age group, could the 40 plus age group get vaccinated before the 50 plus?

hmmm

revelman wrote: »

There are 600,000 people in their fifties. There are 600,000 J&J vaccines coming in Q2.

"You wait there, we're just going to get started on the 40 year olds and will be back to you."

The US equivalent body debated putting a warning on the vaccine for women under 50, I didn't see much in the way of any concern over men under 50.

duffman13

is_that_so wrote: »

There are only 37 MVCs and they are not uniformly distributed. Varadkar has mentioned the role of pharmacies in this more than once. However, between the completion of groups 1-7 and the dealing with the over 60s, what infrastructure we have can cope with it. If the much larger deliveries promised from May do transpire they will come into play for sure.

Possibly but pharmacy had been earmarked for AZ and the back up was J&J. They won't get the mRNA vaccines therefore the role of them will be limited if used at all.

Paul Reid has barely acknowledged pharmacy and nor have the HSE bar requesting expression of interest forms. I hope I'm wrong btw but having been planning involvement for a few months now, it's not looking good IMO.

The positive side to it is the MVC are ramping up and look like they can ramp up further. GPs surgerys will make up the numbers required with perhaps a few select pharmacies.

titan18

revelman wrote: »

There are 600,000 people in their fifties. There are 600,000 J&J vaccines coming in Q2.

Stuff like that feeds into the theory its only considered safe cos for that age group cos we have it ordered and coming in.

revelman

hmmm wrote: »

"You wait there, we're just going to get started on the 40 year olds and will be back to you."

But those in their 40s won’t be fully vaccinated until roughly the time that those in their 50s would be receiving their only shot. It is about how the government sells this now.

funnydoggy

Apparently Italy has restricted it too. Why do we have the EMA if our own regulatory bodies make the decisions?

I should rephrase it - why do we have an Irish committee if we have the EMA?!

hmmm

revelman wrote: »

But those in their 40s won’t be fully vaccinated until roughly the time that those in their 50s would be receiving their only shot. It is about how the government sells this now.

Under 50s will have received their first shot, and substantial immunity, before over 50s get any protection.

As for the government selling it well we know they'll be hiding.

Anyway, let's see what happens.

is_that_so

And then there was one! Quite convoluted advice.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0426/1212222-niac/

stephenjmcd

Overall if its limited to over 50s, vulnerable communities and basically anyone who wants it, then it's not going to delay things that much if anything.

If this is what is gone with I could easily see it being used widespread, with the caveat of there was nothing else available so people u50 end up getting it.

Wouldn't be concerned if the NIAC recommendations are what is gone with.

As for the comments around vaccine hesitatancy, it's not something we seem to have a major issue with and there wasn't all that much with AZ in the end either despite it being much more high profile and more changes every few weeks, plenty still signing up for it, don't see any difference coming with J&J. Being 1 shot whoever is offered it will be lining up for it I suspect

funnydoggy

Speaking on RTÉ's Drivetime, David Nabarro said he liked the fact that NIAC said it could be used for younger people if there is no other option.

"This is advice being given for a very, very rare side effect and the authorities are saying if there's no alternative, use it," he said.

Is getting the economy and society back up and running as soon as possible not the only option? J&J will help us do that. Restricting it is no good.

titan18

The decision is retarded imo.

Safe for over 50, live in a hard to reach area or if you've no other option. Whatever about the first one but how does the vaccine know you live in a hard to reach area so it magically becomes safe.

If its safe for a 25 year old living in the Aran Islands or wherever, how is it not safe for a 25 year old living in Dublin city?

is_that_so

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Overall if its limited to over 50s, vulnerable communities and basically anyone who wants it, then it's not going to delay things that much if anything.

If this is what is gone with I could easily see it being used widespread, with the caveat of there was nothing else available.

Wouldn't be concerned if the NIAC recommendations are what is gone with.

As for the comments around vaccine hesitatancy, it's not something we seem to have a major issue with and there wasn't all that much with AZ in the end either, plenty still signing up for it, don't see any difference coming with J&J. Being 1 shot whoever is offered it will be lining up for it I suspect

It still means just one vaccine until we get CureVac, with all the potential attendant risks to supplies.

Gael23

revelman wrote: »

There are 600,000 people in their fifties. There are 600,000 J&J vaccines coming in Q2.

This is the reason why I think this decision won’t make any huge difference to the rollout. It just might mean 50-59 year olds are done out of sequence

Lumen

This is great news. It pushes 40-something me almost to the front of the queue.

Screw you 50 somethings, I'll be double Pfizered for me holliers!

Last one to wine tasting country is a rotten grape!

Hopefully they won't die waiting, but you can't make omlettes without breaking eggs eh?

Corholio

How will the 'if there is no other option' thing work though? Will people be called for it and told then, or be told when they are informed of the appointment?

All this needs to be communicated very fast and not taking a week to chat about it.

is_that_so

duffman13 wrote: »

Possibly but pharmacy had been earmarked for AZ and the back up was J&J. They won't get the mRNA vaccines therefore the role of them will be limited if used at all.

Paul Reid has barely acknowledged pharmacy and nor have the HSE bar requesting expression of interest forms. I hope I'm wrong btw but having been planning involvement for a few months now, it's not looking good IMO.

The positive side to it is the MVC are ramping up and look like they can ramp up further. GPs surgerys will make up the numbers required with perhaps a few select pharmacies.

If that is the case then I agree they won't be involved at all.

EddieN75

Is it true that vaccine producers have been given legal protection from being sued if anything goes wrong with people after taking their vaccines? Both short and long term

This is the case in the Us but not sure about Ireland?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html

titan18

titan18 wrote: »

The decision is retarded imo.

Safe for over 50, live in a hard to reach area or if you've no other option. Whatever about the first one but how does the vaccine know you live in a hard to reach area so it magically becomes safe.

If its safe for a 25 year old living in the Aran Islands or wherever, how is it not safe for a 25 year old living in Dublin city?

Nobody is saying the vaccine is unsafe, and I'm sure NIAC will be at pains to point that out.

What is a consideration is risk v benefit for the various groups. Better to get vulnerable populations fully vaccinated in one go than partially vaccinate them.

Gael23

EddieN75 wrote: »

Is it true that vaccine producers have been given legal protection from being sued if anything goes wrong with people after taking their vaccines? Both short and long term

This is the case in the Us but not sure about Ireland?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html

I believe so yes, but it was do that or wait 7-10 years

is_that_so

Corholio wrote: »

How will the 'if there is no other option' thing work though? Will people be called for it and told then, or be told when they are informed of the appointment?

All this needs to be communicated very fast and not taking a week to chat about it.

It does look like it may be used in the minority communities as proposed, a positive. Otherwise, it's a very vague proviso.

iamwhoiam

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Overall if its limited to over 50s, vulnerable communities and basically anyone who wants it, then it's not going to delay things that much if anything.

If this is what is gone with I could easily see it being used widespread, with the caveat of there was nothing else available so people u50 end up getting it.

Wouldn't be concerned if the NIAC recommendations are what is gone with.

As for the comments around vaccine hesitatancy, it's not something we seem to have a major issue with and there wasn't all that much with AZ in the end either despite it being much more high profile and more changes every few weeks, plenty still signing up for it, don't see any difference coming with J&J. Being 1 shot whoever is offered it will be lining up for it I suspect

Genuine question . Do we have enough supplies of Pfizer and Moderna to justify that only those 50-70 can recieve J and J or Astra Zeneca .
I am stunned by this news tonight and really disappointed for people still waiting

is_that_so

Flying Fox wrote: »

Nobody is saying the vaccine is unsafe, and I'm sure NIAC will be at pains to point that out.

What is a consideration is risk v benefit for the various groups. Better to get vulnerable populations fully vaccinated in one go than partially vaccinate them.

So now the over 50s are vulnerable? Would you have said the same if they had said over 40s only? Overall what it looks like the proviso is a loose attempt to give J&J some kind of extended life in the programme.

Tyrone212

Won't over 50s be vaccinated by the time the end of June comes, with a first shot anyway. So what are they going to do with 500k shots then as most of them come in June to late June.

titan18

Flying Fox wrote: »

Nobody is saying the vaccine is unsafe, and I'm sure NIAC will be at pains to point that out.

What is a consideration is risk v benefit for the various groups. Better to get vulnerable populations fully vaccinated in one go than partially vaccinate them.

To me by recommending it not be used on people under 50, it's saying it's unsafe for those people.

From a risk Vs benefit pov and the vaccine is safe, then it's better to use it.

Not for someone on the Aran Islands to get it cos its logistically an issue to give them Pfizer but unsafe to give it to someone in Dublin

Deeper Blue

This is so bloody frustrating.

What's going to happen to j&j doses that arrive from July onwards?

Ugh

wadacrack

Great results

https://twitter.com/vacciworld/status/1386742408583524352

EddieN75

Gael23 wrote: »

I believe so yes, but it was do that or wait 7-10 years

Has there ever been a vaccination against a disease or virus that was either proven or rumoured to have caused medical complications years later?

is_that_so

is_that_so wrote: »

So now the over 50s are vulnerable? Would you have said the same if they had said over 40s only?

Huh?

I'm talking about the homeless, etc, which was the context here.