Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

duffman13

Might be some hope yet on J&J if there is no other vaccine available people may be able to avail of it if they wish to do so. Really will depend on the wording of the NIAC recommendation.

Really disappointing, 40s even would have given the vaccination programme far more wiggle room

Doc07

Doc07 wrote: »

NIAC and indeed the government can make use of modelling. It might surprise people but EMA and other regulators generally do not use modelling for vaccine approval decisions.

EMA use models as you can see below and this type of modelling would go into any decisions they make.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/presentation/presentation-expected-impact-covid-19-vaccination-european-union-ecolzani-ecdc_en.pdf


I have seen NPHET/NIAC recent data and scenario analysis from a few months ago. As someone who works with data and modelling I thought the presentation of their results were poor and some of their modelling assumptions were wild to say the least and have subsequently proved wide of the mark. They also couldn't even format the predicted spikes to fit onto a presentation and left them in regardless.

Strazdas

duffman13 wrote: »

Might be some hope yet on J&J if there is no other vaccine available people may be able to avail of it if they wish to do so. Really will depend on the wording of the NIAC recommendation.

Really disappointing, 40s even would have given the vaccination programme far more wiggle room

Are they ruled out though? That line "if no other vaccine is available" could leave far more room for manoeuvre than people think - you could easily end up seeing even hundreds of thousands getting it with that proviso.

Doc07

davidod1983 wrote: »

EMA use models as you can see below.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/presentation/presentation-expected-impact-covid-19-vaccination-european-union-ecolzani-ecdc_en.pdf


I have seen their recent data and scenario analysis from a few months ago. As someone who works with data and modelling I thought the presentation of their results were poor and some of their modelling assumptions were wild to say the least and have subsequently proved wide of the mark. They also couldn't even format the predicted spikes to fit onto a presentation and left them in regardless.

The modelling in that presentation is for the ECDC work on vaccine impact as part of a proposed collaboration with EMA.

Fair enough your point overall and ’m very far from a modelling expert. Not defending a bad presentation but NIAC don’t do the modelling rather can make use of it for considerations.

AMKC

They better not make the JandJ vaccine just for 50 and over like the media are saying or it will be the best part of a decade before I get my vaccine lol. Joking aside I think that is stupid. What is the difference between someone who is 40 and someone 50 or 52 etc? What could I a 40 year get a clot from it easier? I will take my chance thank you. It is the Vaccine I want. I think I should be giving that choice to decide if I want it not done stupid organisation we did not even hear about 6months ago because they did not exist then.

revelman

Woody79 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/niac-to-recommend-johnson-johnson-and-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccines-for-over-50s-1.4547891

Astra and jandj 50 and over

I should do the lotto. I predicted this earlier today based on nothing but a gut feeling!

Turtwig

AMKC wrote: »

They better not make the JandJ vaccine just for 50 and over like the media are saying or it will be the best part of a decade before I get my vaccine lol. Joking aside I think that is stupid. What is the difference between someone who is 40 and someone 50 or 52 etc? What could I a 40 year get a clot from it easier? I will take my chance thank you. It is the Vaccine I want. I think I should be giving that choice to decide if I want it not done stupid organisation we did not even hear about 6months ago because they did not exist then.

NPHET didn't exist over a year ago. NIAC is around with a few decades.

Sofa King Great

AMKC wrote: »

. I think I should be giving that choice to decide if I want it not done stupid organisation we did not even hear about 6months ago because they did not exist then.

Just because you've never heard of them does not mean they didn't exist. NIAC was established in 1998

Strazdas

VM1 Tonight Show says there will be no announcement tonight but they pretty much confirm the over 50s J & J story.

iamwhoiam

AMKC wrote: »

They better not make the JandJ vaccine just for 50 and over like the media are saying or it will be the best part of a decade before I get my vaccine lol. Joking aside I think that is stupid. What is the difference between someone who is 40 and someone 50 or 52 etc? What could I a 40 year get a clot from it easier? I will take my chance thank you. It is the Vaccine I want. I think I should be giving that choice to decide if I want it not done stupid organisation we did not even hear about 6months ago because they did not exist then.

While I agree with your point in all fairness none of us got a choice of vaccines . I would have chosen Pfizer but got AZ . I was glad to get it and am grateful for it

revelman

If they are going to bring down the AZ age to 50, surely this means things are back on track?

Apogee

is_that_so wrote: »

Which is about the size of 50-59 age group. To paraphrase Varadkar we will have 4 vaccines for the over 50s but only 2 (really only one) for the under 50s!

CSO estimates 50-59 population total at 608,700 (will include high risk etc).

DoH estimates Janssen deliveries of 604,800 by end of June:
https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1379770370434158595?s=19

blackcard

NIAC should not be making this decision on restrictions purely on the minute risk of blood clots. They have to take into account the possible delays in rolling out the vaccine programme and the risks associated with that. They also have to take into the mental health of those affected by the delays and the economic cost of any delay. The country is on its knees and cannot afford the over abundance of caution that is destroying Ireland.

Speak Now

If J&J and AZ were the only approved vaccines in the EU what would NIAC recommend? Herd immunity for most under 50's?

AMKC

iamwhoiam wrote: »

While I agree with your point in all fairness none of us got a choice of vaccines . I would have chosen Pfizer but got AZ . I was glad to get it and am grateful for it

That's ok for you but some of us are not good with needles been stuck in our arms. The less of them in my arm the better for me. Fainting once is better than fainting twice.

Happydays2020

Speak Now wrote: »

If J&J and AZ were the only approved vaccines in the EU what would NIAC recommend? Herd immunity for most under 50's?

Forever lockdown.

iamwhoiam

AMKC wrote: »

That's ok for you but some of us are not good with needles been stuck in our arms. The less of them in my arm the better for me. Fainting once is better than fainting twice.

Sorry you have that issue . Believe me it is so quick and you won’t even feel it .

hmmm

revelman wrote: »

If they are going to bring down the AZ age to 50, surely this means things are back on track?

I'm not sure it makes much difference. Unless we give one of these vaccines to under-50s, we're going to end up with vaccines we can't use once the over 50s are vaccinated.

I'm also not sure I understand the line in the media that the J&J vaccine can be used by under 50s if no other vaccines are available. What does "available" mean? We have Pfizer & Moderna - it might be a months delay before you get them, but they are "available".

The Government should also be asked for an explanation as to what has changed which allows the AZ vaccine to be given out to over-50s now.

And at the end of all that, someone should really be asked why we keep getting this information through leaks. The CDC in the US solved this by holding their meetings in public - should we consider the same in Ireland because the current situation does not help public confidence ?

Did I not hear something earlier about a proven treatment for when these blood clots arise? Why can't we go with that instead of limiting their use?

Doc07

Doc07 wrote: »

The modelling in that presentation is for the ECDC work on vaccine impact as part of a proposed collaboration with EMA.

Fair enough your point overall and ’m very far from a modelling expert. Not defending a bad presentation but NIAC don’t do the modelling rather can make use of it for considerations.

This is the presentation if you're interested- from the Irish Epidemiological Modelling Advisory Group (IEMAG) - slide 16 says it all. To put out a scenario of 578,000 cases (278,000 – 792,000) which takes into account 85% vaccine effectiveness 28 days from the first dose and an uptake 80-90% isn't a realistic scenario. The rate at which they decided R will decrease from 2 as the vaccine is implemented from Apr 5th is wrong.

How 5 organisations can put their name on this pack and sign off on it is worrying, they can't even format the graphs to fit the page. It wouldn't happen in a properly run private company. Too many stakeholders involved. People in NIAC get presentations of these ilk who likely don't fully understand modelling making assumptions and this is why they should trust the EMA to make these calls.

https://t.co/PDeCvLYpwc?amp=1

LuckyLloyd

Speak Now wrote: »

If J&J and AZ were the only approved vaccines in the EU what would NIAC recommend? Herd immunity for most under 50's?

They would recommend it to everyone.

It’s difficult for people to grasp, but the availability of safer vaccines makes it ethically prudent to err on the side of caution. If a couple of weeks is the difference in removing risk for younger cohorts it is the right decision.

KrustyUCC

Kingston Mills unusually glum on Claire Byrne live

Surprised at NIAC decision to limit J&J

Would prefer to take J&J over AZ

Worried about Indian Variant

Doc07

davidod1983 wrote: »

This is the presentation if you're interested- from the Irish Epidemiological Modelling Advisory Group (IEMAG) - slide 16 says it all. To put out a scenario of 578,000 cases (278,000 – 792,000) which takes into account 85% vaccine effectiveness 28 days from the first dose and an uptake 80-90% isn't a realistic scenario. The rate at which they decided R will decrease from 2 as the vaccine is implemented from Apr 5th is wrong.

How 5 organisations can put their name on this pack and sign off on it is worrying, they can't even format the graphs to fit the page. It wouldn't happen in a properly run private company. Too many stakeholders involved. People in NIAC get presentations of these ilk who likely don't fully understand modelling making assumptions and this is why they should trust the EMA to make these calls.

https://t.co/PDeCvLYpwc?amp=1

Thanks for posting it. However on the last point EMA don’t make the call on who should get what vaccine, especially when their are more than one vaccine in the mix.

ixoy

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

If a couple of weeks is the difference in removing risk for younger cohorts it is the right decision.

Is it just a couple of weeks? Could those couple of weeks also mean that young people getting infected suffer more long-term Covid, spread it to those 50+ who haven't been vaccinated? Are there knock on effects to hospitalisations that affect other areas?
And do they present the reasoning behind their results, versus that adopted by other countries, or is it a case of :"We don't have to explain ourselves to you".

stephenjmcd

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Kingston Mills unusually glum on Claire Byrne live

Surprised at NIAC decision to limit J&J

Would prefer to take J&J over AZ

Worried about Indian Variant

Course he'd prefer it, sure its one dose. Wouldn't we all prefer one dose.

Think some people need to take a step back and wait for the final advice & actually look at the overall impact to the rollout. There's little change to June timelines, some groups may move a little faster, some a little slower than expected, to me I don't see a major issue here its not going to throw things out completely. It'll take the HSE a bit of planning but it's all possible.

Would have preferred a lower cut off myself but it is what it is and they'll have have work with it, like I say though it's possible.

lbj666

I ll say it again there is a far clearer route for a few days in court for NiAC CMO et al over vacine safety than any of their decisions would have for prolonguing the vacine programme and the how many deaths would happen as a result.It's far muddier and fingers can be pointed anywhere. They just get numbed into such super conservative decisions and the government leave them at it and provide no sort of amnesty to put them more at ease and allow more balanced or broader picture approach in their decision making.

dominatinMC

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Course he'd prefer it, sure its one dose. Wouldn't we all prefer one dose.

In fairness, the reason he stated for choosing J&J over AZ is the increased efficacy against the SA variant - which he said AZ was only 10% effective against. And he even cited that much-maligned study (with the CIs) as evidence of this, which I have to say was surprising. He did qualify that by saying that it was a very small study and that AZ does still protect against severe illness.

Doc07

Doc07 wrote: »

Thanks for posting it. However on the last point EMA don’t make the call on who should get what vaccine, especially when their are more than one vaccine in the mix.

You're right, be interesting to see what countries approve for all cohorts. USA & FDA has approved for over 18s.

Turtwig

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Course he'd prefer it, sure its one dose. Wouldn't we all prefer one dose.

Mills preferred JJ over AZ because he thinks AZ doesn't work as well against the south African variant.

He did not mention anything about single shot iirc.

stephenjmcd

dominatinMC wrote: »

In fairness, the reason he stated for choosing J&J over AZ is the increased efficacy against the SA variant - which he said AZ was only 10% effective against. And he even cited that much-maligned study (with the CIs) as evidence of this, which I have to say was surprising. He did qualify that by saying that it was a very small study and that AZ does still protect against severe illness.

Not bothered watching the Tonight Show or Claire Byrne these days myself to be honest but for the love of god that study again. Not sure how they've not been pulled up on that study as a reference. Fair enough he said it was a small study but there's plenty more going against it than that.