Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

is_that_so

is_that_so wrote: »

It is interesting to note how the risk of AZ to a slightly younger cohort has suddenly lessened over the last few days. Clearly nothing to do with the more limited J&J supplies of course.

The original AZ restriction was influenced by availability of other vaccines, this was clearly stated by NIAC. So it's hardly surprising that restrictions on one of the other vaccines results in a review of AZ.

is_that_so

Cork2021 wrote: »

But that’s just stupid in my opinion why not have had AZ for over 50’s in the first place after the last decision? Just sounds to me as if they’re getting advice from somewhere other then the EMA, FDA! This is me being cynical and not liking Tony H being back as well!

There is an element of that about the original AZ decision but they did qualify it by saying that could change but it was definitely not expected this fast.

Russman

Cork2021 wrote: »

It’s poor advice driven by an abundance of caution! But you yet you’ve Germany and USA saying no restrictions on it!

Yeah, but you've others with restrictions too, its not just us in fairness. If 50 is true for us, we'd have one of the lowest restrictions from what I can see:
Spain 70-79
France 55+
Italy 60+
Iceland 60+

Its so subjective that there's likely no definitive "right" or "wrong" answer, but every country's version of NIAC will come to its own decision.

is_that_so

Flying Fox wrote: »

The original AZ restriction was influenced by availability of other vaccines, this was clearly stated by NIAC. So it's hardly surprising that restrictions on one of the other vaccines results in a review of AZ.

That might be acceptable if they hadn't rolled back on it less than a month later. If they weren't going with this yes but no advice on J&J, AZ would have been done after the over 60s. This is about the possible effect on the rollout not the safety of vaccines.

iamwhoiam

Are they putting an upper age limit on J and J ? So can over 70s have it ? That might ease the problems they have getting Pfizer to the bed bound ?

is_that_so

Russman wrote: »

Yeah, but you've others with restrictions too, its not just us in fairness. If 50 is true for us, we'd have one of the lowest restrictions from what I can see:
Spain 70-79
France 55+
Italy 60+
Iceland 60+

Its so subjective that there's likely no definitive "right" or "wrong" answer, but every country's version of NIAC will come to its own decision.

Ours is not even definitively over 50s and the revisiting of AZ at the same time is very odd.

Russman

is_that_so wrote: »

Which is a pretty shoddy way to approach it and hardly science. If they hadn't gone with this yes but no advice on J&J, AZ would have been done after the over 60s.

Well, not really. If you view it that we're taking these "abundance of caution" measures because we're in a position that we're able to take them at the moment. I think it was Glynn who said at one of the press conferences, effectively, that if we were in a much worse position with cases/numbers etc or other vaccines weren't available then AZ wouldn't be restricted. I guess it depends on whether its seen as a good thing that we're able to do it, or a bad thing that we have to do it.

is_that_so

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Are they putting an upper age limit on J and J ? So can over 70s have it ? That might ease the problems they have getting Pfizer to the bed bound ?

In theory anyone over 50 but the doses expected do almost exactly match the size of the 50-59 group.

Russman

is_that_so wrote: »

Ours is not even definitively over 50s and the revisiting of AZ at the same time is very odd.

True, and I'd have no doubt the J&J decision brought on the AZ one.
If all the reports are true obviously !

is_that_so

Russman wrote: »

Well, not really. If you view it that we're taking these "abundance of caution" measures because we're in a position that we're able to take them at the moment. I think it was Glynn who said at one of the press conferences, effectively, that if we were in a much worse position with cases/numbers etc or other vaccines weren't available then AZ wouldn't be restricted. I guess it depends on whether its seen as a good thing that we're able to do it, or a bad thing that we have to do it.

It's a very poor term to use in this case. There's a very loose any other group attached to the J&J advice and AZ has suddenly been moved down to 50, so which abundance of caution do you believe?

Tim Robbins

Hi,
The HSE web site states they have started Cohort 7. I asked my GP who informed me they won't be doing Cohort 7 and are only starting Cohort 4. Once they are finished Cohort 4 they won't be doing anymore as they cannot do vaccinations and normal GP service. So not sure what to do now?

Note: frustrating that people under 65 are able to register online. I thought they were Cohort 8?

iamwhoiam

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Hi,
The HSE web site states they have started Cohort 7. I asked my GP who informed me they won't be doing Cohort 7 and are only starting Cohort 4. Once they are finished Cohort 4 they won't be doing anymore as they cannot do vaccinations and normal GP service. So not sure what to do now?

Note: frustrating that people are 65 are able to register online. I thought they were Cohort 8?

Do you attend a hospital clinic ? If so you can ring them .

Stark

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Hi,
The HSE web site states they have started Cohort 7. I asked my GP who informed me they won't be doing Cohort 7 and are only starting Cohort 4. Once they are finished Cohort 4 they won't be doing anymore as they cannot do vaccinations and normal GP service. So not sure what to do now?

Note: frustrating that people are 65 are able to register online. I thought they were Cohort 8?

Over-65s were cohort 5(high risk)/6(other O65s) in the pre-AZ age limits system. In the post AZ age limits system, everyone aged 60-69 is cohort 5.

seamus

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Note: frustrating that people are 65 are able to register online. I thought they were Cohort 8?

They're cohort 5 & 6 which are being done together.
Cohort 7 is "starting", but there doesn't seem to be any details. They're not expecting to start this cohort until next week, so they're probably just in the prep phase right now and more info will be provided in the coming days.

odyssey06

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Hi,
The HSE web site states they have started Cohort 7. I asked my GP who informed me they won't be doing Cohort 7 and are only starting Cohort 4. Once they are finished Cohort 4 they won't be doing anymore as they cannot do vaccinations and normal GP service. So not sure what to do now?

I have family member in Cohort 7 in same limbo, they only attended GP for the condition. GP isn't vaccinating Cohort 7.

Azatadine

vienne86 wrote: »

Dr Moore from UCC was just on Morning Ireland there pointing out that these efficacy figures came from trials, but so far all vaccines seem about equally effective in the rollouts.

I thought that was a great interview. Balanced.

Russman

is_that_so wrote: »

It's a very poor term to use in this case. There's a very loose any other group attached to the J&J advice and AZ has suddenly been moved down to 50, so which abundance of caution do you believe?

It seems to me like they're tailoring their advice to be more all encompassing and to factor in other vaccines and the realities of using J&J for those other groups. Advice and guidance can always change depending on circumstances. Honestly I've no idea what exact factors they look at, or whether its a good or bad decision. But they're presumably looking at it with their medical hats on and with an eye on the vaccine roll out programme, not necessarily the economy.

Hurrache

Cork2021 wrote: »

Why are the papers saying this is a positive?

You have to be commended for the first person to question as to why the media are being positive. The whinging is usually about the media ignoring any hint of positivity.

is_that_so

Russman wrote: »

It seems to me like they're tailoring their advice to be more all encompassing and to factor in other vaccines and the realities of using J&J for those other groups. Advice and guidance can always change depending on circumstances. Honestly I've no idea what exact factors they look at, or whether its a good or bad decision. But they're presumably looking at it with their medical hats on and with an eye on the vaccine roll out programme, not necessarily the economy.

If the J&J advice had been suggested by Donnelly we'd laugh at him and it has the potential to cause a lot of grief with its very vague whatever you're having yourself. We also know the risk of depending on AZ for any numbers. You'd like it to work out but bumpy road may be an understatement and we really don't want to see half the over 50s unvaccinated in the middle of June when the under 30s are getting their call.

Gile_na_gile

Supercell wrote: »

Have to say that as a 50 year old I'm concerned that it seems I am going to have to take the worst possible vaccine available in terms of effectiveness. I was very much a pro vaxxer previously, however I am leaning towards waiting it out now and seeing if something better becomes available later on in the summer. Also some reports out of the US on severe reactions to this one have me nervous also.

I can't blame you for feeling peeved for a decision that privileges those born a few years earlier for the collective good. However, I would think it likely that J&J or AZ will be more than sufficient protection in the short-term and you may get an mRNA booster in the late autumn/winter anyway.

You could choose to wait it out and get mRNA when it is abundant but the best decision (to protect against death and transmission) is to take any vaccine and worry about long-term even higher protection later with a further vaccination.

PhilOssophy

Thread has moved on too far since I last logged in.

I was talking to my cousin a few minutes ago who works as a secretary in a GP's practice.

2 weeks ago: Calling people to arrange vaccine:
- "Are you offering me Pfizer or AZ? Because I don't want the AZ......oh its Pfizer? Great - book me in".

This morning at 7.45, phone starts hopping, several such calls before 9.30: Patients in their 50's:
- "Hi, is there any way you can get me a Pfizer vaccine?"
- "Can I be added to a waiting list, etc or will you be getting more Pfizer"?

My mother was saying there are 2 questions now in her circle:
1. Are you vaccinated
2. Which one did you get

This is what this is generating. AZ has served 30-40m people in the UK perfectly well, and the overall vibe is "they are all excellent vaccines, it doesn't matter which one you get". The US and EU have both said unrestricted access to J&J is fine.

Here, we are just faffing around, creating arbitrary rules, and generating vaccine hysteria because people think a blood clot which is 1000 times less likely to kill you than Covid is a danger.

You simply couldn't make it up. I have previously defended scientists, etc on this thread, and do favour a cautious approach for the most part, but how many other lives will be lost due to missed cancer screening, missed operations, etc because of this arseing around?

Hmmzis

Interesting vaccine approach, but I think the main reason for doing this research was to establish the role of N directed immune responses:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.24.441228v1.full.pdf+html

The N protein of the virus does not have any neutralizing epitopes, so this vaccine relies exclusively on N directed binding antibodies and CD8+ T-cells (killer cells that eliminate infected cells). With some other pathogens this approach has lead to bad results (disease enhancement), in this case it looks like we've got lucky. Just having some pathogen specific killer cells and some binding Abs appears to blunt the disease severity in a substantial way.

What this means is that even if the neutralizing response of antibodies wanes completely or some variation of the virus causes the same effect, as long as there are still at least some T cells recognizing a part of the virus and/or binding antibodies of some sort, the severity of the disease should be blunted.

PhilOssophy

Supercell wrote: »

Have to say that as a 50 year old I'm concerned that it seems I am going to have to take the worst possible vaccine available in terms of effectiveness. I was very much a pro vaxxer previously, however I am leaning towards waiting it out now and seeing if something better becomes available later on in the summer. Also some reports out of the US on severe reactions to this one have me nervous also.

On what basis is it the worst possible vaccine? Comparing 2 clinical trials is like comparing apples and oranges. They are based on completely different criteria.

There is 1 statistic you need to worry about - every vaccine is nearly 100% effective against hospitalisation and death.

Take whichever vaccine is offered and enjoy your new found freedom.

(Good part about 1/2 way down this article - "The best vaccine" https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00409-0)

Tim Robbins

odyssey06 wrote: »

I have family member in Cohort 7 in same limbo, they only attended GP for the condition. GP isn't vaccinating Cohort 7.

I'll send you a PM and if I hear anything useful will contact you.

Tim Robbins

Stark wrote: »

Over-65s were cohort 5(high risk)/6(other O65s) in the pre-AZ age limits system. In the post AZ age limits system, everyone aged 60-69 is cohort 5.

Sorry I had a typo - meant to say under 65's

PropJoe10

We're once again in an idiotic situation, entirely of our own making. We're now going to be giving the least effective vaccine to an age group that is more susceptible to the virus. We're the only country to limit use of this J&J vaccine, and are going against the findings of the EMA and the US authorities.

Someone needs to publish the findings of NIAC with a clear and unambiguous reasoning as to why this J&J vaccine is being limited.

And another thing - why is AstraZeneca now acceptable for over 50s whereas previously it was only to be used on over 60s? What has changed in the medical advice there? All this is doing is creating doubt and confusion. We really aren't capable of doing anything right.

Polar101

hmmm wrote: »

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".

Also, if it's OK to give J&J to under 50s if a random condition is met, why is it being restricted in the first place?

In any case, at least many people in their 50s would be fully vaccinated pretty quickly, since there's only one dose.

PhilOssophy

People need to stop saying "least effective vaccine". That is based on a very limited clinical trial. People take a flu jab every winter which might be 40-50% effective.
The efficacy is based on a clinical trial. There are 3 key things which matter, does it prevent you getting it, does it prevent hospitalisation and death, and does it prevent you from spreading it. All are performing outstandingly well on all of these.
If J&J had gone for the 2-shot approach, they could well have achieved a similar efficacy to Pfizer/Moderna, but they decided it would be a 1-shot.
It would be hilarious if in 6 months time, the J&J vaccine was still offering immunity whereas Pfizer/Moderna had lost their protection. There is nothing to say this won't be the case.

gandalfio

Pretzill wrote: »

I'm also in this age group and I always thought it would be J & J by the time the got around to me - Any vaccine is better than none and all have side effects they are looking into the bioanteq one being linked to heart issues in Germany (sorry no link) Also a one shot is very acceptable to me they wouldn't have it on the market if it wasn inferior they just have to check everything.

You're going to have to provide a source for that claim

Sweet.Science

PropJoe10 wrote: »

We're once again in an idiotic situation, entirely of our own making. We're now going to be giving the least effective vaccine to an age group that is more susceptible to the virus. We're the only country to limit use of this J&J vaccine, and are going against the findings of the EMA and the US authorities.

Someone needs to publish the findings of NIAC with a clear and unambiguous reasoning as to why this J&J vaccine is being limited.

And another thing - why is AstraZeneca now acceptable for over 50s whereas previously it was only to be used on over 60s? What has changed in the medical advice there? All this is doing is creating doubt and confusion. We really aren't capable of doing anything right.

Power does terrible things to people