Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

stephenjmcd

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

The state covers it

Stheno

iamwhoiam wrote: »

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

What it also means is that the 60-69 age group may be on of the last to be fully vaccinated due to the current twelve week gap

Even those done now won't be fully vaxxed till the end of July

I forsee the gap being shortened, due to political fear of the grey vote

titan18

Tyrone212 wrote: »

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.

Best case is everyone in the 50-59 group gets J&J and nothing else so keeps Pfizer for the ones that can't get az or j&j. They probably won't do that and we end up wasting doses and taking longer.

is_that_so

Flying Fox wrote: »

Huh?

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

OK, not clear in your post nor the one you replied to.

titan18

titan18 wrote: »

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

It's not deemed unsafe though, and can be used in younger people if other options are unavailable.

It's simply recommended to offer a different vaccine if that is possible.

is_that_so

titan18 wrote: »

Best case is everyone in the 50-59 group gets J&J and nothing else so keeps Pfizer for the ones that can't get az or j&j. They probably won't do that and we end up wasting doses and taking longer.

One would assume the "hard to reach" communities will be done first so no vaccines for the over 50s for quite a bit.

marno21

wadacrack wrote: »

Great results

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

Those numbers are simply ****ing daft for such a speedily developed vaccine on a breakthrough platform

Moderna should trial a 1 shot vaccine to see how long immunity lasts. Could be very useful going forward

is_that_so

Flying Fox wrote: »

It's not deemed unsafe though, and can be used in younger people if other options are unavailable.

It's simply recommended to offer a different vaccine if that is possible.

They will really need to explain that one properly especially if it is not recommended for under 50s.

iamwhoiam

Stheno wrote: »

What it also means is that the 60-69 age group may be on of the last to be fully vaccinated due to the current twelve week gap

Even those done now won't be fully vaxxed till the end of July

I forsee the gap being shortened, due to political fear of the grey vote

I am delighted to be vaccinated but a tiny bit miffed that I will be in that group that has to wait 12 weeks . My husband had Pfizer and will be fully vaccinated ages before me .

titan18

Flying Fox wrote: »

It's not deemed unsafe though, and can be used in younger people if other options are unavailable.

It's simply recommended to offer a different vaccine if that is possible.

Should offer to it everyone if its safe imo.

is_that_so

is_that_so wrote: »

OK, not clear in your post nor the one you replied to.

The same poster I quoted was arguing that it was unsafe for all under 50s and therefore shouldn't be given to homeless under 50s.

The point I'm making (which is being missed completely) is that the vaccine is not unsafe, and that NIAC will state as much. Just like they did with AZ.

ACitizenErased

Mark Coughlan from Prime Time who does all the vaccine numbers thinks that NIAC's decision will cause delays. Worth checking his twitter profile for rationale.

ACitizenErased

Flying Fox wrote: »

The same poster I quoted was arguing that it was unsafe for all under 50s and therefore shouldn't be given to homeless under 50s.

The point I'm making (which is being missed completely) is that the vaccine is not unsafe, and that NIAC will state as much. Just like they did with AZ.

If the vaccine was safe in NIAC's eyes they'd be offering it to anyone. Not recommending it for U50s inherently insinuates it's not safe.

is_that_so

is_that_so wrote: »

They will really need to explain that one properly especially if it is not recommended for under 50s.

It's not recommended if there are other options available, which in the majority of cases there will be.

It's not black and white. A tiny risk does not make the vaccine unsafe in general. However it does make it reasonable to offer an alternative to the people at the highest risk of clotting, where it is possible to do this.

is_that_so

Flying Fox wrote: »

The same poster I quoted was arguing that it was unsafe for all under 50s and therefore shouldn't be given to homeless under 50s.

The point I'm making (which is being missed completely) is that the vaccine is not unsafe, and that NIAC will state as much. Just like they did with AZ.

There is a very convoluted "we don't recommend it but if you really have to" message at work in this. My own feeling is that it is a tacit recognition of the spanner they are throwing into the vaccination programme with this.

KrustyUCC

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Mark Coughlan from Prime Time who does all the vaccine numbers thinks that NIAC's decision will cause delays. Worth checking his twitter profile for rationale.

Terrinle news if that transpires

NIAC cause a delay in the vaccination program which is the basis for easing restrictions

Pushing opening of things like hospitality further down the line

ACitizenErased

ACitizenErased wrote: »

If the vaccine was safe in NIAC's eyes they'd be offering it to anyone. Not recommending it for U50s inherently insinuates it's not safe.

Would you say the same about AZ? Because NIAC were at great pains to emphasize that it was safe for under 60s too, but that the very small risk to younger people and availability of other vaccines influenced their recommendation.

is_that_so

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Mark Coughlan from Prime Time who does all the vaccine numbers thinks that NIAC's decision will cause delays. Worth checking his twitter profile for rationale.

It will also very likely find a fair cohort of the under 50s done before some of them receive a shot.

ACitizenErased

Flying Fox wrote: »

Would you say the same about AZ? Because NIAC were at great pains to emphasize that it was safe for under 60s too, but that the very small risk to younger people and availability of other vaccines influenced their recommendation.

It doesn't matter what they say, their recommendations completely contradict their comments. Not sure what's so hard to get that recommendations saying 'oh you cant have that one' insinuates that it's unsafe.

funnydoggy

ACitizenErased wrote: »

If the vaccine was safe in NIAC's eyes they'd be offering it to anyone. Not recommending it for U50s inherently insinuates it's not safe.

That's what I mean - most of us here would take it in a heartbeat but when two of our vaccines are age restricted, it isn't a good look and the general public won't take it handy. I already have college friends who are terrified of AstraZeneca, and now this happens.. They can't get them now anyway but again, not a good look for these vaccines.

Stheno

is_that_so wrote: »

It will also very likely find a fair cohort of the under 50s done before some of them receive a shot.

Yeah.
My GP has a reserve list of people in their late 50s for Pfizer as 60-69 are getting AZ

Now I can see them jumping to 45-49

Its all getting a little bit messy

is_that_so

Flying Fox wrote: »

It's not recommended if there are other options available, which in the majority of cases there will be.

It's not black and white. A tiny risk does not make the vaccine unsafe in general. However it does make it reasonable to offer an alternative to the people at the highest risk of clotting, where it is possible to do this.

One option - Pfizer. So why was AZ treated differently with no wishy washy proviso?

funnydoggy

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Terrinle news if that transpires

NIAC cause a delay in the vaccination program which is the basis for easing restrictions

Pushing opening of things like hospitality further down the line

I need to go back to work, and if I have to spend another college semester on zoom I'll fúcking have a mental breakdown

is_that_so

Stheno wrote: »

Yeah.
My GP has a reserve list of people in their late 50s for Pfizer as 60-69 are getting AZ

Now I can see them jumping to 45-49

Its all getting a little bit messy

It'll have to go back to the HSE to scratch their heads. The fact that we won't have much J&J for a bit may also affect things.

Sparko

I know there was talk of using J&J for homeless people and travellers due to the ease of one dose with no follow up appointment and they may be trying to keep this plan in place with the caveats they've listed but I would suspect advocacy groups for homeless people and travellers may not be happy with a homeless person or traveller under 50 getting J+J if the rest of the under 50s are being advised against it.

Strazdas

The "if no other vaccine is available" stipulation could leave the way open for a lot of people in their forties to receive J & J, so things mightn't be as glum as is suggested.

It would suggest they don't intend dramatically slowing down the vaccinations once it come comes to the time for the 40s portal to open.

KrustyUCC

funnydoggy wrote: »

I need to go back to work, and if I have to spend another college semester on zoom I'll fúcking have a mental breakdown

I know what you mean

People are going to be livid if this forces targets to be missed and that's used to not ease restrictions or push restrictions out further

Bad news for hopes of indoor dining in July and by extension staycations

Still will wait and see how HSE are going to have to change the vaccination program now

IRISHSPORTSGUY

It's possible that Stephen Donnelly can overrule them. He can actually make a popular decision for once by saying 'thanks for the advice but for the good of the economy and mental health of this nation I must expand the age eligibility for this vaccine beyond NIAC's recommendation'.

ACitizenErased

I reckon Paul Reid and co will explode, the HSE have an awful task on their hands organising this, very very complex

KrustyUCC

IRISHSPORTSGUY wrote: »

It's possible that Stephen Donnelly can overrule them. He can actually make a popular decision for once by saying 'thanks for the advice but for the good of the economy and mental health of this nation I must expand the age eligibility for this vaccine beyond NIAC's recommendation'.

Donnelly hides behind health advice so he won't do that