Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

FrankN1

funnydoggy wrote: »

Why do you feel so? Not arguing, genuinely curious

I know some who have got the vaccine and would be great to have them get the 2nd dose as soon as possible

robinph

FrankN1 wrote: »

I know some who have got the vaccine and would be great to have them get the 2nd dose as soon as possible

Would it not be better for more people to get one dose and be similarly protected sooner, rather than use those doses to give people a second jab for a small extra bit of protection?

If out of 100 people you have 50 of them with one jab rather than 25 of them with two jabs, that 100 people are much better protected as a whole with the 50 people having had one jab.

ixoy

FrankN1 wrote: »

I know some who have got the vaccine and would be great to have them get the 2nd dose as soon as possible

They already have a strong degree of protection with one dose.By not spacing out further, there's a risk someone else will have zero protection because there's no vaccine for them.

Russman

Deleted User wrote: »

Indeed, explain these decisions more clearly to appease people’s frustrations.

Spacing to six weeks seems so obvious considering the protection given from the first dose. It’s so hard not to get annoyed when we see what other countries are doing, it’s literally the biggest thing that has happened in most of our lifetimes, this “abundance of caution” needs to stop.

Not disagreeing with you, but could it be a fear that people are less likely to return for the second dose after 6 weeks have passed rather than after 4 ? Would there be an element of ".......arra, sure I'm protected enough as it is, no need for me to go back and take a day off work......" ?

hmmm

Russman wrote: »

Not disagreeing with you, but could it be a fear that people are less likely to return for the second dose after 6 weeks have passed rather than after 4 ? Would there be an element of ".......arra, sure I'm protected enough as it is, no need for me to go back and take a day off work......" ?

The US CDC decision meetings were deliberately held in public to increase confidence in the process. It would be great to see the same here.

PhilOssophy

FrankN1 wrote: »

I know some who have got the vaccine and would be great to have them get the 2nd dose as soon as possible

Oh well once that 1 person is fully protected, that's grand then!

LineOfBeauty

Every single decision they make seems to lengthen the lockdown. They are so risk averse where it comes to easing lockdown restrictions that we've become a bizarre European outlier. It's infuriating. Every. Single. Time.

odyssey06

ixoy wrote: »

They already have a strong degree of protection with one dose.By not spacing out further, there's a risk someone else will have zero protection because there's no vaccine for them.

They don't have to justify leaving those people without protection.
They have to justify extending the spacing if someone gets sick in the extended 2 weeks.
Could it be down to that?

odyssey06

odyssey06 wrote: »

They don't have to justify leaving those people without protection.
They have to justify extending the spacing if someone gets sick in the extended 2 weeks.
Could it be down to that?

Its as simple as if J&J was not available, increasing the spacing would be need to achieve the 80% by end of June, now that J&J will be used it can be achieved without increasing the spacing and taking the risk

odyssey06

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Its as simple as if J&J was not available, increasing the spacing would be need to achieve the 80% by end of June, now that J&J will be used it can be achieved without increasing the spacing and taking the risk

Why does end of June matter to their recommendations.
They are taking a risk by leaving people longer before getting any vaccine but its a risk they dont seem to put any weight on. They dont seem to own it as a risk.

FrankN1

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Oh well once that 1 person is fully protected, that's grand then!

Well there must be some reason they didn't extend it? Hardly doing it for the craic.

leahyl

Just listened into a talk in UCC there with Professor Liam Fanning and it's the most positive talk I've heard in a long time. He was really positive about the vaccines and he can see there being face to face teaching again in September; perhaps for big groups in lecture halls, they might wear masks but it generally sounded very positive. He said he thinks that over 30's should be able to register to receive vaccine in late May/early June.

Turtwig

hmmm wrote: »

The US CDC decision meetings were deliberately held in public to increase confidence in the process. It would be great to see the same here.

If they did that the journalists who's day jobs are dependent on reporting the constant leaks would be under threat. There's seemingly an entire industry you need to consider here!

seamus

On a risk/reward basis I prefer keeping the second dose as tight as possible.

I'm not convinced by the argument that more people with one dose is better than fewer people with two. Not in the long term anyway.

In the short term, there's a good economic argument for it. But if we want to be permanently shot of this thing, then driving to achieve full vaccination is the only way forward.

I've said all along that I think the UK's strategy will bite them in the arse, and they have in the last week started sandbagging; warning that there may be further waves and reintroduction of health measures.

There's a real concern that the uptake of dose 2 will fall way behind and they'll struggle to achieve herd immunity at all. That's the big risk when you've got a big gap. 3 months is a long time to wait.

odyssey06

odyssey06 wrote: »

Why does end of June matter to their recommendations.
They are taking a risk by leaving people longer before getting any vaccine but its a risk they dont seem to put any weight on. They dont seem to own it as a risk.

I think, its an opinion by the way, that there is an understanding that at 80% of adults with a first dose means herd immunity is effectively guaranteed, meaning cases will remain under control with minimal further restrictions, and also with the understanding that between anti-vaxxers and those with a high level of inertia, the rollout of first doses much past 80% will slow down significantly as we chase the stragglers. The priority then will be getting everyone fully vaccinated as especially with the mRNA with one dose only there appears to be a slip back with time, while fully vaccinating as many as possible will further reduce the possibility of any variants that may have an increased risk of bypassing immunity gaining a foothold.

Turtwig

I think for the vulnerable cohorts sticking to the two doses schedule is preferable. Once we are solely doing the general population I do think there is argument for extending the interval, but it has to be said, we may be flush with vaccines at that point that the discussion largely becomes moot. By extending the dosage intervals we are also potentially postponing the end of the vaccination program even further.

scamalert

sorry posted in wrong place

Russman

Russman wrote: »

Not disagreeing with you, but could it be a fear that people are less likely to return for the second dose after 6 weeks have passed rather than after 4 ? Would there be an element of ".......arra, sure I'm protected enough as it is, no need for me to go back and take a day off work......" ?

Certainly possible, but I would like to think people would come back for the second dose if it was only an extra two weeks involved, two months and I would expect fewer to come back.

It’s a tough one to be fair, would just like to see a bit more urgency myself. However, I totally get other points of view, you’re never going to please everyone I guess.

odyssey06

Deleted User wrote: »

I think, its an opinion by the way, that there is an understanding that at 80% of adults with a first dose means herd immunity is effectively guaranteed, meaning cases will remain under control with minimal further restrictions, and also with the understanding that between anti-vaxxers and those with a high level of inertia, the rollout of first doses much past 80% will slow down significantly as we chase the stragglers. The priority then will be getting everyone fully vaccinated as especially with the mRNA with one dose only there appears to be a slip back with time, while fully vaccinating as many as possible will further reduce the possibility of any variants that may have an increased risk of bypassing immunity gaining a foothold.

We're leaving people with zero protection for additional weeks by prioritising the small additional protection given from a second dose.
Variants can also arise in unvaccinated populations, and people are far more likely to be infected when unvaccinated.

People who are bothered about getting a second dose are either going to turn up after 4 weeks, or not. It seems a doubtful argument that the extra 2 weeks is going to cause a people to not bother to turn up for 2nd dose.

robinph

seamus wrote: »

On a risk/reward basis I prefer keeping the second dose as tight as possible.

I'm not convinced by the argument that more people with one dose is better than fewer people with two. Not in the long term anyway.

In the short term, there's a good economic argument for it. But if we want to be permanently shot of this thing, then driving to achieve full vaccination is the only way forward.

I've said all along that I think the UK's strategy will bite them in the arse, and they have in the last week started sandbagging; warning that there may be further waves and reintroduction of health measures.

There's a real concern that the uptake of dose 2 will fall way behind and they'll struggle to achieve herd immunity at all. That's the big risk when you've got a big gap. 3 months is a long time to wait.

Which is fine if you have unlimited supply of vaccinations and unlimited number of people to immediately stick those jabs into arms. In real life where you are doing the dosing against high rate of cases/ deaths far more important to get some dose into as many people as possible.

Where the UK is now, and if the number of doses and people to inject were available it would make good sense for those getting their first jabs to be on a shorter time between doses as cases are low and not showing any signs of rising despite lockdown restrictions easing. Also those who are now coming up for their first doses are potentially less motivated to wait around for 3 months and then turn up again for the second. Those currently getting jab 2 in the UK got their first in Feb, and even those who got jabbed in March so due for jab 2 next month are all going to be in relatively high risk categories so will still be massively motivated to turn up and get that jab.

Despite the UK saying that supply would drop in April, it never really happened. The total number of doses being given remained around the same of about half a million a day, just the ratio switched more to 2nd rather than 1st doses. Not seeing anything to be concerned about with the UK numbers in terms of cases, deaths, take up of 2nd doses, take up of 1st doses among younger age groups, relaxation of lockdown or anything much. All going along with numbers in the right directions so far.

odyssey06

Turtwig wrote: »

I think for the vulnerable cohorts sticking to the two doses schedule is preferable. Once we are solely doing the general population I do think there is argument for extending the interval, but it has to be said, we may be flush with vaccines at that point that the discussion largely becomes moot. By extending the dosage intervals we are also potentially postponing the end of the vaccination program even further.

I take your point on the vulnerable cohorts.

But when it comes to extending the vaccination programme, it's not clear to me it would have that impact. You should have started first doses sooner than you would have otherwise so end date would be the same?

funnydoggy

seamus wrote: »

On a risk/reward basis I prefer keeping the second dose as tight as possible.

I'm not convinced by the argument that more people with one dose is better than fewer people with two. Not in the long term anyway.

In the short term, there's a good economic argument for it. But if we want to be permanently shot of this thing, then driving to achieve full vaccination is the only way forward.

I've said all along that I think the UK's strategy will bite them in the arse, and they have in the last week started sandbagging; warning that there may be further waves and reintroduction of health measures.

There's a real concern that the uptake of dose 2 will fall way behind and they'll struggle to achieve herd immunity at all. That's the big risk when you've got a big gap. 3 months is a long time to wait.

Hmmm food for thought right there!

Sarah1916

Based on todays announcement that all pregnant women should get the vaccine does anyone know if there would be a portal opened up for registering or would this be done through our doctors. I don't want to ring the doctors surgery annoying them as I am sure they are getting endless calls from people looking for a vaccine.

Turtwig

Sarah1916 wrote: »

Based on todays announcement that all pregnant women should get the vaccine does anyone know if there would be a portal opened up for registering or would this be done through our doctors. I don't want to ring the doctors surgery annoying them as I am sure they are getting endless calls from people looking for a vaccine.

The HSE will have to review it and decide how its administered. My guess would be the easiest way to do facilitate this cohort would be through the maternity hospitals.

Wolf359f

Has anyone actually worked out how many extra first doses we could gain by increasing the dosing to 6 weeks?
It's not double as some people may think.
Going by the Belgium forecast
And not withstanding the large order that gets delivered 28th June, doubt they could get that jabbed in like 2 days!

So potentially the maximum gain would be on 17th & 24th May (as these, if it was extended to 6 weeks, wouldn't need their second dose until July) Going by Belgium's figures and adjusting by our share, that could be an extra 311k first doses?
It's obviously not as simple as that.

AdamD

leahyl wrote: »

Just listened into a talk in UCC there with Professor Liam Fanning and it's the most positive talk I've heard in a long time. He was really positive about the vaccines and he can see there being face to face teaching again in September; perhaps for big groups in lecture halls, they might wear masks but it generally sounded very positive. He said he thinks that over 30's should be able to register to receive vaccine in late May/early June.

It kind of baffles me that we'd be discussing having masks in a lecture hall if everyone in the lecture hall is fully vaccinated.

PhilOssophy

seamus wrote: »

On a risk/reward basis I prefer keeping the second dose as tight as possible.

I'm not convinced by the argument that more people with one dose is better than fewer people with two. Not in the long term anyway.

In the short term, there's a good economic argument for it. But if we want to be permanently shot of this thing, then driving to achieve full vaccination is the only way forward.

But at the moment, we are only focusing on the short term, getting rid of the hospitalisations, reducing the spread and allowing people back to work and re-opening our economy.

Giving people 1 dose will help speed that process up, as well as giving more people some level of confidence as well as affording the govt more options regarding reducing the lock-down.

timsey tiger

odyssey06 wrote: »

Why does end of June matter to their recommendations.
They are taking a risk by leaving people longer before getting any vaccine but its a risk they dont seem to put any weight on. They dont seem to own it as a risk.

Yes but they aren't, that is the governments fault for not securing supplies fast enough. They are not going to take on risk to save the government.

robinph

odyssey06 wrote: »

I take your point on the vulnerable cohorts.

But when it comes to extending the vaccination programme, it's not clear to me it would have that impact. You should have started first doses sooner than you would have otherwise so end date would be the same?

Either system you still have exactly the same number of doses to give so the end date is still the same assuming an even level of supply and arms to put it in.

If it's going to take 6 months to jab everyone twice you have to be in a better place to have 100% of people with one jab done after 3 months, than have just 50% with two jabs and the other 50% with nothing.

It might have an effect on the usefulness of the vaccines in 12 months time, but now is really not the time to be worried about that. In 12 months time then maybe the vulnerable groups need a booster or a different brand to deal with a new variant, but very unlikely that the entire population is going to be double vaccinated every year.

Turtwig

odyssey06 wrote: »

I take your point on the vulnerable cohorts.

But when it comes to extending the vaccination programme, it's not clear to me it would have that impact. You should have started first doses sooner than you would have otherwise so end date would be the same?

It would only be the same if you were administering the exact same number of doses per week. That will not be the case as our supply ramps ups the maths get complicated. I haven't worked it out so I could be wrong. You'll have to take it with a pinch of salt because all I can really back up here is that people who I think should know this stuff have said it could mean the program goes on for longer depending on which way the supply levels work.