Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

thebaz

stephenjmcd wrote: »

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.

Everything HSE/NPHET/NIAC do is over-cautious, perhaps it is to do with our letigious society, where any accident seams to result in massive compensation claim.
Given what is happening in India, and the risk of virus over vaccine, seams crazy to me to not at least limit Johnson to over 30s, but what would I know just a stupid citizen.

snotboogie

stephenjmcd wrote: »

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.

That would be true if the HSE reserve AZ and J&J for 50+ only and start vaccinating under 50's concurrently with the mRNA's.

I don't see that being politically palitable so I'd imagine we'll keep going as planned for now and hit supply shortages when we get to the under 50's and can't use AZ or J&J.

TomOnBoard

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

If these blood clots arise, and you haven't sought treatment (because you didn't know you should, or didn't think you needed to) you may die. Treatment is only possible after a diagnosis.

titan18

snotboogie wrote: »

That would be true if the HSE reserve AZ and J&J for 50+ only and start vaccinating under 50's concurrently with the mRNA's.

I don't see that being politically palitable so I'd imagine we'll keep going as planned for now and hit supply shortages when we get to the under 50's and can't use AZ or J&J.

It seemed to be politically palatable to do it for 60-69, why wouldn't it be the same for 50-59.

stephenjmcd

snotboogie wrote: »

That would be true if the HSE reserve AZ and J&J for 50+ only and start vaccinating under 50's concurrently with the mRNA's.

I don't see that being politically palitable so I'd imagine we'll keep going as planned for now and hit supply shortages when we get to the under 50's and can't use AZ or J&J.

It's been done already for 60-69 so they'll absolutely do it again for 50+

There's been a few things done that wouldn't have been seen as politically palitable, teachers vaccines etc but they've been done.

JPup

snotboogie wrote: »

That would be true if the HSE reserve AZ and J&J for 50+ only and start vaccinating under 50's concurrently with the mRNA's.

I don't see that being politically palitable so I'd imagine we'll keep going as planned for now and hit supply shortages when we get to the under 50's and can't use AZ or J&J.

Why wouldn’t it be politically palatable? It’s the logical thing to do and the only way they can hit the 80% target by the end of June. Martin needs to make that target, or at least get very close, to get FF off life support in the polls.

nibtrix

titan18 wrote: »

It seemed to be politically palatable to do it for 60-69, why wouldn't it be the same for 50-59.

They are talking about skipping ahead to 40s while 50s wait for the supply of J&J not being palatable.

Stark

stephenjmcd wrote: »

It's been done already for 60-69 so they'll absolutely do it again for 50+

There's been a few things done that wouldn't have been seen as politically palitable, teachers vaccines etc but they've been done.

Maybe they could start prioritising by occupation again. Might be a way to sneak younger people up the queue without making it too obvious.

JPup

nibtrix wrote: »

They are talking about skipping ahead to 40s while 50s wait for the supply of J&J not being palatable.

They wouldn’t be skipping ahead. The two groups would run concurrently as over 60s and over 70s are now.

Klonker

NIAC are making a difficult job for government and the HSE multiple times as difficult.

As others have mentioned, a lot of over 50s will be waiting until late June to get their vaccine. How many of this cohort would statistical die of covid compared to if there was no age restriction on J&J? Same issue with AZ and over 60s. Sure no bother as long as NIAC can't be blamed if someone ends up with bad reaction to a vaccine.

greenheep

JPup wrote: »

They wouldn’t be ‘skipping ahead’. The two groups would run concurrently as over 60s and over 70s are now.

The bulk of J&J isn't due until late June so they can't do them concurrently, they have to wait for it to arrive

AdamD

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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.

Ethically prudent if you make no other considerations on the impact of your decision on wider society and people's livelihoods

Myramar

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?

Stephen Donnelly answered this question a few weeks ago. He said that if AZ was the only vaccine we had it would be a "different story".
32 million people in Europe have received this vaccine and it has proved itself effective. People are not dropping like flies after taking one vaccine or the other.
The problem with AZ is that it has a "bad image" fuelled by Social Media and a traditional media that now follows Social Media. 25 years ago the blood clotting issue would never have seen the light of day. Nowadays we think we are enlightened because we have more information but this is a two edged sword. Too much information is as bad as not enough.
I am in the 60-69 age group and I will take the AZ vaccine. Not because of what Donnelly, Martin, Varadkar, Nephet, NIAC, or Reid have to say but because 32 million people have had something to say.
There is no logical reason why all the vaccines should not be considered equally. The clotting issue is insignificant and a red herring.

joeysoap

Don’t you just love those smart vaccines that know the age difference between 59 and 60 and between 69 and 70. Really smart.

Rebelbrowser

If they give over 50s a mix of AZ and J&J, there's a hell of a difference between those who get one versus the other in terms of when they are fully vaccinated. Imagine if, say, a 51 year old is getting AZ in June when a 46 year old gets Pfizer in late May. 46 year old is fully vaccinated by early July, 51 year old is fully vaccinated sometime in late September or October. Easier sell if he's given J&J in June, back on track then with his 46 year old comparator, both fully vaccinated by July.

Pretzill

My other half is getting his first dose tomorrow - he would be cohort 4 but over 60 so it's AZ he's a little nervous because of all the recent press about AZ but I believe it to be a good type of vaccine and would prefer it over the DNA type vaccines - although I won't get a choice as I'm in a different cohort. I will most likely be waiting a while yet but so happy the roll out is picking up its pace!

hmmm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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.

A "couple of weeks" while the country remains in a lockdown with the economic and social damage this causes. Lockdowns are not cost-free, and sometimes I think this is forgotten on the medical side.

NPHET/NIAC or whoever shouldn't get to decide that lockdowns are an acceptable price to pay to reduce the very small risk from a vaccine - that's a decision a government should be taking.

I think the current lockdown is fraying badly, and I'm not sure the people are going to give the government an "extra few weeks". We need to get vaccines into arms as quickly as possible.

Myramar

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

If they give over 50s a mix of AZ and J&J, there's a hell of a difference between those who get one versus the other in terms of when they are fully vaccinated. Imagine if, say, a 51 year old is getting AZ in June when a 46 year old gets Pfizer in late May. 46 year old is fully vaccinated by early July, 51 year old is fully vaccinated sometime in late September or October. Easier sell if he's given J&J in June, back on track then with his 46 year old comparator, both fully vaccinated by July.

J&J is a one shot Jab so it won't be mixed with anything.

plastic glass

joeysoap wrote: »

Don’t you just love those smart vaccines that know the age difference between 59 and 60 and between 69 and 70. Really smart.

Silly statement. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Van.Bosch

hmmm wrote: »

A "couple of weeks" while the country remains in a lockdown with the economic and social damage this causes. Lockdowns are not cost-free, and sometimes I think this is forgotten on the medical side.

NPHET/NIAC or whoever shouldn't get to decide that lockdowns are an acceptable price to pay to reduce the very small risk from a vaccine - that's a decision a government should be taking.

I think the current lockdown is fraying badly, and I'm not sure the people are going to give the government an "extra few weeks". We need to get vaccines into arms as quickly as possible.

Fraying badly is right - I don’t know anyone 100%, most are doing I’d say 90% but very different to last April.

Klonker

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

If they give over 50s a mix of AZ and J&J, there's a hell of a difference between those who get one versus the other in terms of when they are fully vaccinated. Imagine if, say, a 51 year old is getting AZ in June when a 46 year old gets Pfizer in late May. 46 year old is fully vaccinated by early July, 51 year old is fully vaccinated sometime in late September or October. Easier sell if he's given J&J in June, back on track then with his 46 year old comparator, both fully vaccinated by July.

Both would have similar protection after first dose of J&J and AZ. It's just that after second does of AZ this person would have marginally better and longer protection.

The issue seems to be only with a green cert. I think the only fair thing is to give the certs after a person has the first dose. If it's for a vaccine that is supposed to have a second dose then there should be a date on it for second vaccine. If that date passes and no second shot the cert should be null and void until second vaccine.

josip

nibtrix wrote: »

They are talking about skipping ahead to 40s while 50s wait for the supply of J&J not being palatable.

I thought there were still a lot of 2nd doses of Pfizer to be administered to the over 70s before the 49s and under start getting jabs?
Whereas any J&J we get in April (40k) and May (140k) will go into 50-59 year olds immediately.
A lot of 50-59 year olds are still going to get jabbed before 40-49 year olds.

Rebelbrowser

Myramar wrote: »

J&J is a one shot Jab so it won't be mixed with anything.

Didn't mean it that way. Meant some get AZ, some get J&J. Apologies I wasn't clear

JPup

josip wrote: »

I thought there were still a lot of 2nd doses of Pfizer to be administered to the over 70s before the 49s and under start getting jabs?
Whereas any J&J we get in April (40k) and May (140k) will go into 50-59 year olds immediately.
A lot of 50-59 year olds are still going to get jabbed before 40-49 year olds.

Correct. And talk of AZ being used for 50-59 age group too. Best to use up all vaccines available. So what if some people in their 40s are done before some people in their 50s. Plenty of people under 40 have already been vaccinated for a variety of reasons. We’ve got to think of the big picture. Get to herd immunity as fast as possible.

Myramar

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

Didn't mean it that way. Meant some get AZ, some get J&J. Apologies I wasn't clear

No it was me who got it wrong! Your point was well made.

Strazdas

JPup wrote: »

Why wouldn’t it be politically palatable? It’s the logical thing to do and the only way they can hit the 80% target by the end of June. Martin needs to make that target, or at least get very close, to get FF off life support in the polls.

I can't see imagine any scenario where it would be acceptable for hundreds of thousands of people in their 50s to be still waiting for a vaccine in mid June (nearly two months away from now), when the whole idea of the programme is that it moves down through the age cohorts : at that stage you would nearly see people in their twenties and teens being vaccinated ahead of them.

They would rightly be questioning what was going on and why it had been deemed they could receive J & J, but nothing else.

Russman

Strazdas wrote: »

I can't see imagine any scenario where it would be acceptable for hundreds of thousands of people in their 50s to be still waiting for a vaccine in mid June (nearly two months away from now), when the whole idea of the programme is that it moves down through the age cohorts : at that stage you would nearly see people in their twenties and teens being vaccinated ahead of them.

They would rightly be questioning what was going on and why it had been deemed they could receive J & J, but nothing else.

True but at the same time, it would depend on how govt “sells” it. I totally agree the programme should be moving down the age cohorts, the virus is progressively more deadly the older you are, after all.
However, given the likely dates for full protection - say a 50 something getting J&J in mid June would be fully protected by the end of June, and a 40 something getting Pfizer in mid May would also only be fully protected by the end of June too, with the second dose - is something govt could highlight, along with the benefits of only having to get one jab. That, along with the message that “if we don’t do it this way, we’ll end up binning half a million J&J shots, and taking much longer” would get it over the line I think. The plan was always a “live” document and subject to change.
Now, on one hand I don’t really agree with this, there’s something inherently wrong imo in the 50s & 60s being only given the vaccines that are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as being inferior, for a virus that’s worse for older people.
On the other hand, I’m not on NIAC or privy to the data they have, and if the medical advice is what is being speculated re the 50s, then it’s just something we have to deal with. I’m not even sure reducing the AZ restriction to 50 would help much, if you’re 58 you’d be p1ssed that you might get AZ in mid May and have to wait 12 weeks for dose two, while a 52 year old might get J&J late May and be done with it.
Then again a vaccination programme is mostly about the herd rather than the individual, so what best for the herd ? I’d hate to be on the HSE planning team right now, that’s for sure ! It’ll be bin J&J and take longer, or else p1ss off the 50-59 age cohort but stay on target.

timsey tiger

Strazdas wrote: »

I can't see imagine any scenario where it would be acceptable for hundreds of thousands of people in their 50s to be still waiting for a vaccine in mid June (nearly two months away from now), when the whole idea of the programme is that it moves down through the age cohorts : at that stage you would nearly see people in their twenties and teens being vaccinated ahead of them.

They would rightly be questioning what was going on and why it had been deemed they could receive J & J, but nothing else.

people in their 60s got vaccinated before some in their 70s. This wouldn't be any different. It is about getting everybody done as quickly as possible, not sticking to some arbitrary order for the sake of it.

Miike

timsey tiger wrote: »

people in their 60s got vaccinated before some in their 70s. This wouldn't be any different. It is about getting everybody done as quickly as possible, not sticking to some arbitrary order for the sake of it.

It's not an arbitrary order though? There is sound logic and evidence behind "COVID Age".

SJFly

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/double-boost-for-ireland-s-vaccine-rollout-j-j-use-approved-and-astrazeneca-restrictions-eased-1.4548432

Interesting take by the Irish Times. Interpreting the NIAC decision as a double boost to he vaccine rollout.