Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

Panrich

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.

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

And this bit in particular doesn't inspire much confidence in the suitability for the U60s either

He said if the advice had been that only people over 60 could receive the J&J vaccine, there would be an excess of vaccines for that age group.

Strazdas

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

There's no rule that says people in their 50s can only receive one type of vaccine - very possible they could be vaccinated with any one of the three (i.e. luck of the draw and where you live).

is_that_so

Strazdas wrote: »

There's no rule that says people in their 50s can only receive one type of vaccine - very possible they could be vaccinated with one of the three (i.e. luck of the draw and where you live).

Well as J&J is to be largely used for the over 50s only it's likely to be one. The order up to the end of June apparently fits the size of that group.

ACitizenErased

is_that_so wrote: »

Well as J&J is to be largely used for the over 50s only it's likely to be one. The order up to the end of June apparently fits the size of that group.

This. We'll end up with excess J&J if we start giving over 50s Pfizer & Moderna

User142

funnydoggy wrote: »

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.

The "abundance of caution" approach of NIAC would make you forget that this virus has had society closed for over a year. They are far too comfortable with this lockdown.

If we went back to March 2020, the J&J and AZ would be given out restriction free if closing society was the alternate.

Strazdas

is_that_so wrote: »

Well as J&J is to be largely used for the over 50s only it's likely to be one. The order up to the end of June apparently fits the size of that group.

Yes but there is also the issue of trying to get that age cohort done before moving on to the 40s and 30s. It's hard to imagine a scenario where healthy people in their 30s would be getting vaccinated whilst those in their fifties hadn't even received their first dose yet.

Turtwig

funnydoggy wrote: »

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?!

The EMA basically advises their member bodies of all the relevant information regarding the vaccination. The individual authorities then apply that to their own situation and circumstances. Regarding determining the usage for the viral vector vaccines the principle used in every country both EU and non EU are actually very similar. The results differ mainly because the countries circumstances do. It's actually incredibly difficult to determine whether one body or the other is being conservative or not. To do that you'd have to look in depth at the analysis used by the two (European) countries you're comparing. To my knowledge nobody has done this.

funnydoggy

An abundance of caution for a scarcity of time.

is_that_so

Strazdas wrote: »

Yes but there is also the issue of trying to get that age cohort done before moving on to the 40s and 30s. It's hard to imagine a scenario where healthy people in their 30s would be getting vaccinated whilst those in their fifties hadn't even received their first dose yet.

I'm not so sure about that. I think most of the J&J is coming in June and they will want to be down to the 30s at that point. I am so glad I don't have to plan this!

Christy42

funnydoggy wrote: »

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.

Terrified is absolutely an overreaction. I mean new cars with top of the line safety features are safer than other cars. Does that mean they are all terrified of all cars more than 2 years old? No idea if baths or showers are the safer option but they should look that up for their safety as well.

AZ is getting restricted because we have slightly safer options. If we had no other option AZ would be approved for everyone. The likelihood is no vaccine will be 100% safe. However this applies to damn near everything in life if not everything.

I am being harsh on them and there is a lot of media muck about the vaccines to make them seem scary but looking at the actual data shows the reasons behind being cautious have nothing to with it being that dangerous.

ACitizenErased

Christy42 wrote: »

Terrified is absolutely an overreaction. I mean new cars with top of the line safety features are safer than other cars. Does that mean they are all terrified of all cars more than 2 years old? No idea if baths or showers are the safer option but they should look that up for their safety as well.

AZ is getting restricted because we have slightly safer options. If we had no other option AZ would be approved for everyone. The likelihood is no vaccine will be 100% safe. However this applies to damn near everything in life if not everything.

I am being harsh on them and there is a lot of media muck about the vaccines to make them seem scary but looking at the actual data shows the reasons behind being cautious have nothing to with it being that dangerous.

I'm fairly certain that last paragraph if exactly the point the poster was making. These over-restrictive recommendations do more harm than good in most cases.

funnydoggy

Christy42 wrote: »

Terrified is absolutely an overreaction. I mean new cars with top of the line safety features are safer than other cars. Does that mean they are all terrified of all cars more than 2 years old? No idea if baths or showers are the safer option but they should look that up for their safety as well.

AZ is getting restricted because we have slightly safer options. If we had no other option AZ would be approved for everyone. The likelihood is no vaccine will be 100% safe. However this applies to damn near everything in life if not everything.

I am being harsh on them and there is a lot of media muck about the vaccines to make them seem scary but looking at the actual data shows the reasons behind being cautious have nothing to with it being that dangerous.

I understand you completely. Some can't help it - some of them struggle with anxiety and some of them are part of the twitter crowd. They are the younger students too, straight out of 6th year (I'm a mature student) so they are still kids really.

It's just when you hear media communications about vaccines being restricted due to blood clots, some of the general public will be alarmed. A few people I know are VERY alarmed but it's through no fault of their own IMO

Cork2021

Okay this abundance of caution crap it has to stop! As Hmmm has said we need to start opening up the economy ASAP! Having unused vaccines in a fridge just because you have to be cautious! What in the name of god would happen if Pfizer or moderna suddenly showed some clotting issues? The under 50’s would be bolloxed!
Mr Holahan will not reject their advice and neither will the govt! There too cautious already so it’s suits the agenda

Strazdas

is_that_so wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that. I think most of the J&J is coming in June but I am so glad I don't have to plan this!

If they decided to use J & J only on people in their fifties, it would mean that healthy people in their early 30s would be getting vaccinated in mid to late June whilst many in their fifties would 'still' be waiting for their first dose. I don't think they could stand over that.

It would also mean that the 40s and 30s website portals were now going ahead of the 50s one in terms of appointments / vaccinations.

is_that_so

Strazdas wrote: »

If they decided to use J & J only on people in their fifties, it would mean that healthy people in their early 30s would be getting vaccinated in mid to late June whilst many in their fifties would 'still' be waiting for their first dose. I don't think they could stand over that.

It would also mean that the 40s and 30s website portals were now going ahead of the 50s one in terms of appointments / vaccinations.

They may have to in that scenario. There's no obvious way around that if they want to hit 80% by the end of June unless they extend the target by some weeks.

hmmm

Cork2021 wrote: »

Okay this abundance of caution crap it has to stop! As Hmmm has said we need to start opening up the economy ASAP! Having unused vaccines in a fridge just because you have to be cautious! What in the name of god would happen if Pfizer or moderna suddenly showed some clotting issues? The under 50’s would be bolloxed!
Mr Holahan will not reject their advice and neither will the govt! There too cautious already so it’s suits the agenda

A lot of people won't realise how big a blow this is as they might not realise this is a one-shot vaccine. J&J was always the game-changer in our rollout.

A couple of weeks extra lockdown at the height of Summer will mean the difference between many hospitality and tourism businesses surviving or not.

I actually think the government is on the verge of losing control of the situation. They need to get as many vaccines out as quickly as possible as people are choosing themselves to ignore restrictions. There is no way we can tell the over-50s to wait until June to get vaccinated, we're going to end up with unused vaccines unless it is allowed to be used on younger groups.

funnydoggy

Ronan Glynn said recently that if the AZ vaccine was our only vaccine, it wouldn't be restricted.

J&J isn't our only, but it's an important, strong vaccine to have in our arsenal. I think a vaccine with so much importance having such restrictions is unjustifiable.

Next press conference, will somebody ask the following:-

“So Ms Butler, in light of restrictions placed on the AZ and J&J vaccines by NIAC in spite of being cleared by the EMA, is it fair to say NIAC no longer has confidence in the EMA and as such recommend that Ireland should withdraw from the organisation?”

MerlinSouthDub

hmmm wrote: »

A lot of people won't realise how big a blow this is as they might not realise this is a one-shot vaccine. J&J was always the game-changer in our rollout.

A couple of weeks extra lockdown at the height of Summer will mean the difference between many hospitality and tourism businesses surviving or not.

I actually think the government is on the verge of losing control of the situation. They need to get as many vaccines out as quickly as possible as people are choosing themselves to ignore restrictions. There is no way we can tell the over-50s to wait until June to get vaccinated, we're going to end up with unused vaccines unless it is allowed to be used on younger groups.

It's very poor advice from NIAC, which doesn't appear to consider reality. The government should say to NIAC that they plan to reopen everything on, let's say, 25th June. Bearing that in mind, NIAC, what is the best vaccine strategy? NIAC seem to be making decisions as if it makes zero difference it things are delayed for a month or two. In reality, it makes a massive difference, socially and economically.

scamalert

hmmm wrote: »

A lot of people won't realise how big a blow this is as they might not realise this is a one-shot vaccine. J&J was always the game-changer in our rollout.

A couple of weeks extra lockdown at the height of Summer will mean the difference between many hospitality and tourism businesses surviving or not.

I actually think the government is on the verge of losing control of the situation. They need to get as many vaccines out as quickly as possible as people are choosing themselves to ignore restrictions. There is no way we can tell the over-50s to wait until June to get vaccinated, we're going to end up with unused vaccines unless it is allowed to be used on younger groups.

but it wont make a difference as gov wont skip 50s simply because they dont have j j now so seems it will go to 30s group anyway, as if they announce that 50s are skipped then this entire thing would collapse tomorrow.

ACitizenErased

Deleted User wrote: »

Next press conference, will somebody ask the following:-

“So Ms Butler, in light of restrictions placed on the AZ and J&J vaccines by NIAC in spite of being cleared by the EMA, is it fair to say NIAC no longer has confidence in the EMA and as such recommend that Ireland should withdraw from the organisation?”

And then drop the mic

funnydoggy

Businesses were probably right keeping their Christmas decorations up so late lol :pac:

Turtwig

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Next press conference, will somebody ask the following:-

“So Ms Butler, in light of restrictions placed on the AZ and J&J vaccines by NIAC in spite of being cleared by the EMA, is it fair to say NIAC no longer has confidence in the EMA and as such recommend that Ireland should withdraw from the organisation?”

Ms Butler would basically parrot the EMA press release:

EMA’s recommendations are the foundation upon which individual EU Member States will design and implement their own national vaccination campaigns. These may differ from country to country depending on their national needs and circumstances, such as infection rates, priority populations, vaccine availability and hospitalisation rates.

hmmm

It's Professor Butler. I don't blame NIAC here, they do what they do and recommend. The Government ultimately makes the decision, and it needs to consider the wider needs of the country.

is_that_so

Meanwhile in the US, people not getting their 2nd shots.

Nearly 8 percent of those who got initial Pfizer or Moderna shots missed their second doses. State officials want to prevent the numbers from rising.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/25/business/covid-vaccines-second-doses.html

ACitizenErased

hmmm wrote: »

It's Professor Butler. I don't blame NIAC here, they do what they do and recommend. The Government ultimately makes the decision, and it needs to consider the wider needs of the country.

Has the government ever actually done that?

It's getting very messy. Would a 45 year old or a 55 year old have any idea when they will be vaccinated and with what vaccine?

EddieN75

Do we have any data on the actual numbers refusing the vaccine by age category?

When they say the over 70s are vaccinated obviously it doesn't mean every over 70 in the country went for it.

As they go down through the ages I think more and more will refuse to take it. It might be only 10 to 20 percent of a certain age group (10 year) but it would be interesting to see the data.
Perhaps the data doesn't exist , would they have to cross reference with latest census figures to get the actual number of each person in each age group plus it hasn't actually happened yet as they are only in 60s group

And to be honest nobody has the time nor is it a priority right now.

I ask because I'm early to mid 30s and know plenty of people who aren't particularly interested or keen on taking a vaccine. Do I just happen to know the vaccine hesitant by some coincidence or is it more widespread.

MerlinSouthDub

hmmm wrote: »

It's Professor Butler. I don't blame NIAC here, they do what they do and recommend. The Government ultimately makes the decision, and it needs to consider the wider needs of the country.

Ah I don't agree with you there. Very difficult to overrule medical advice like this. If NIAC's advice is more openly worded e.g. preference to use J&J for over 50s but safe at all ages, then the government would have a free hand. Let's see what the advice actually says when published, but their advice on AZ left very little wriggle room.

Turtwig

hmmm wrote: »

It's Professor Butler. I don't blame NIAC here, they do what they do and recommend. The Government ultimately makes the decision, and it needs to consider the wider needs of the country.

That would make for a fascinating legal and ethical discussion. I doubt they'd be brave enough to explore it.