Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

ddarcy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

There is another problem as well with extending doses. Moderna requires that the second dose be out in storage to be used. Basically you get no benefit in extending the deadline as more vaccine will need to be put in storage.

I don’t believe Pfizer is as strict, but they will have a requirement like this as well. So essentially there is no point extending as the unused vaccine will be in storage and people will complain that we aren’t using the vaccine...

Corholio

Will be good for a certain number of people I guess.

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1387052080343388165?s=19

stephenjmcd

Corholio wrote: »

Will be good for a certain number of people I guess.

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1387052080343388165?s=19

In advise terms it's logical based on growing evidence from studies.

In practical terms I don't know how they manage it to be honest.

Turtwig

stephenjmcd wrote: »

In advise terms it's logical based on growing evidence from studies.

In practical terms I don't know how they manage it to be honest.

NIAC really don't like make the HSE's job any bit easier do they? My thoughts are with the folks that are going to have to work this out.

eoinbn

stephenjmcd wrote: »

In advise terms it's logical based on growing evidence from studies.

In practical terms I don't know how they manage it to be honest.

Pretty straight forward if they are a joined up IT system...
That could save 150k-200k doses of the vaccine.

seamus

Corholio wrote: »

Will be good for a certain number of people I guess.

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1387052080343388165?s=19

Rough crunch of the numbers suggests that the number of non-HCWs between 16 and 50 who've had covid is about 120,000.

So not a game-changer, but 120k doses now becoming available is not to be sniffed at.

KrustyUCC

stephenjmcd wrote: »

In advise terms it's logical based on growing evidence from studies.

In practical terms I don't know how they manage it to be honest.

That shouldn't be that hard

Proof of a positive test

HSE should have details like name, dob, doctor on cases as it is

If 49 or under proof of test = one vaccine

Would love to know up to date figure on cases in that cohort

out of 247,069 I'd imagine cases in under 50 to be at least 40% which is a big amount of people only needing one dose

KrustyUCC

seamus wrote: »

Rough crunch of the numbers suggests that the number of non-HCWs between 16 and 50 who've had covid is about 120,000.

So not a game-changer, but 120k doses now becoming available is not to be sniffed at.

In effect that's like an extra 120,000 J&J though and really should help speed up the rollout

titan18

eoinbn wrote: »

Pretty straight forward if they are a joined up IT system...
That could save 150k-200k doses of the vaccine.

It's the HSE though, do they even have a database of everyone who's tested positive?

stephenjmcd

KrustyUCC wrote: »

That shouldn't be that hard

Proof of a positive test

HSE should have details like name, dob, doctor on cases as it is

If 49 or under proof of test = one vaccine

Would love to know up to date figure on cases in that cohort

out of 247,069 I'd imagine cases in under 50 to be at least 40% which is a big amount of people only needing one dose

Minus health care workers and minus the fact that this only applies to Pfizer & Moderna vaccines, it really isn't going to make that big of a difference, it's not a "game changer"

Don't get me wrong it's welcome advice but it's really not going to speed things up to any noticeable impact

Corholio

seamus wrote: »

Rough crunch of the numbers suggests that the number of non-HCWs between 16 and 50 who've had covid is about 120,000.

So not a game-changer, but 120k doses now becoming available is not to be sniffed at.

I wonder will antibody tests become more available because of this now too. I'm not too sure of their reliability either though.

hmmm

Brazil has rejected Sputnik. Brazil.
https://www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br/assuntos/noticias-anvisa/2021/anvisa-nao-aprova-importacao-da-vacina-sputnik-v

Maybe it's the translation, but it's quite damning e.g.
"According to GGMED, flaws in product development were identified in all stages of clinical studies (phases 1, 2 and 3). There is also an absence or insufficiency of quality control, safety and efficacy data. One of the worrying information regarding the evaluation of the data available so far is that the cells where the adenoviruses are produced for the development of the vaccine allow their replication. This can lead to infections in humans and can cause damage and death, especially in people with low immunity and respiratory problems, among other health problems."

Sounds like potentially a good vaccine, but flaws in manufacturing?

Turtwig

Corholio wrote: »

I wonder will antibody tests become more available because of this now too. I'm not too sure of their reliability either though.

I think they'll have to draw a very firm line at previous positive PCR.

Neamhshuntasach

Corholio wrote: »

Will be good for a certain number of people I guess.

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1387052080343388165?s=19

Wonder that will be recorded in terms of the data maintained for 1st and 2nd doses. Increments both columns? Guess it's the same for J and J, but not sure what they're doing there either.

ACitizenErased

I think NIAC met and said 'how do we make this as difficult for the HSE as possible?'

Russman

Is there actually a formal announcement of the NIAC advice and Tony's take on it, or does it just become "the way" we now do the rollout ?

Eod100

ACitizenErased wrote: »

I think NIAC met and said 'how do we make this as difficult for the HSE as possible?'

HSE should have a database of everyone that has tested positive. Maybe appointment system could link in with that but does get tricky if someone is immunocompromised as no registry of that.

KrustyUCC

Eod100 wrote: »

HSE should have a database of everyone that has tested positive. Maybe appointment system could link in with that but does get tricky if someone is immunocompromised as no registry of that.

Fair point

Still HSE or GP would be dealing with mmunocompromised people at some level so hopefully they won't be as difficult to identify

stephenjmcd

Eod100 wrote: »

HSE should have a database of everyone that has tested positive. Maybe appointment system could link in with that but does get tricky if someone is immunocompromised as no registry of that.

Another factor to consider is, is this going to be common practice now in other countries. What is the definition of "fully vaccinated" for EU green pass, remains to be seen if countries would let someone in without issue if they'd only 1 dose

titan18

Seems more trouble than its worth to me. At best you're saving some vaccines from mid June on which isn't a huge thing really if supply from Pfizer goes as anticipated. Extending the gap by a week or two would have been much handier.

josip

Russman wrote: »

Is there actually a formal announcement of the NIAC advice and Tony's take on it, or does it just become "the way" we now do the rollout ?

No, Fergal Bowers is now running the country it seems.
He must have taken over from Tony sometime in the past month.
I hope they had the common courtesy to let Micheal and Leo know about the change.

Eod100

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Another factor to consider is, is this going to be common practice now in other countries. What is the definition of "fully vaccinated" for EU green pass, remains to be seen if countries would let someone in without issue if they'd only 1 dose

Good question. Maybe member states will have leeway but would think it would need to be agreed at EU level. Also impacts who has to do MHQ too.

Sammy2012

Maybe this is the wrong place to post this but I am so annoyed today and I just need to vent. So my 69 year old mother registered for her vaccine on the 15th of April, the day they opened registration. As of today she has not received an appointment, and according to the HSE helpline might not receive one until the 6th of May. However people in Wexford, that are younger than her, that we know, have since received both appointments and vaccines. People we know of in other counties have received the same. According to the helpline staff you will not be called by age but it is pretty much random allocation. So people who are 60 could receive an appointment tomorrow but she will still have to wait.

Then to top it off a GP practice in our local town have it advertised on their web page that if you are aged between 60 and 69 you can register to receive a vaccine this Friday. Our own GP are not vaccinating anyone under 70 as they are following HSE guidelines or so they say.

So to me the rollout is following no order at all. I was advised to call the HSE Have your say helpline but guess what they are very busy right now and there's noone to take the call...

seamus

Given the relatively low numbers, I wonder will they decide to drop this recommendation on the basis that it would take longer to figure out how to make it work than to just give these people a second jab.

If it's 120k people and we're vaccinating 250k a week, then applying this recommendation will "save" us about 3 days in the vaccination programme.

How many days will it cost to make it work?

Again, simplicity and speed are preferable to perfection. Same reason we removed the 15+ priority groups. Just get jabs in arms and get it done with.

duffman13

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Another factor to consider is, is this going to be common practice now in other countries. What is the definition of "fully vaccinated" for EU green pass, remains to be seen if countries would let someone in without issue if they'd only 1 dose

It'll be interesting but Finland and somewhere else I can't recall have said from May, one dose is sufficient to travel into Finland with once its two weeks after administration

Goldengirl

PhilOssophy wrote: »

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

Yes. It is.
Better to have proper full protection than a population half done , like the UK , who are now starting to get very anxious about the different vocs getting a hold before people fully immunised .
Kingston Mills, who is a very sane and sensible person through this , got the wind up a lot of people last night discussing how the variants of concern are increasingly likely to prolong this .

I know there are people on here who think it is all over once we are vaccinated but looking very much as if this is just the start , unfortunately .

stephenjmcd

seamus wrote: »

Given the relatively low numbers, I wonder will they decide to drop this recommendation on the basis that it would take longer to figure out how to make it work than to just give these people a second jab.

If it's 120k people and we're vaccinating 250k a week, then applying this recommendation will "save" us about 3 days in the vaccination programme.

How many days will it cost to make it work?

Again, simplicity and speed are preferable to perfection. Same reason we removed the 15+ priority groups. Just get jabs in arms and get it done with.

Thinking the same, when I posted earlier about it not being "a game changer" my rough numbers were 3-4 days saved. It'll take longer than that to implement it.

It's really not going to make a blind bit of difference & gives rise to more questions if anything else.

Fitz*

Corholio wrote: »

Will be good for a certain number of people I guess.

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1387052080343388165?s=19

How exactly would they know if people had COVID or not? And therefore 'eligible' for one dose.

We can assume that there is a database of all the confirmed positive cases maintained.

But what about the people under 50 that could have contracted the virus but never went forward for testing, were actually asymptomatic positive and are not an officially recorded case? That number could be high, especially in the late teens to mid 20s demographic.

Eod100

Guess will need to be approved by Cabinet anyway. Could be a compromise to not spacing out doses so government have better chance of reaching 80% target by end of June. Seems to be an outlier to rest of the world though.

odyssey06

odyssey06 wrote: »

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.

You misunderstand my point.

Its that as we go past 80% first doses, the final 20% are the harder to get to, those with mental health issues, those who cannot be vaccinated for health reasons, the anti-vaxxers, the lazy, etc will make up a not insignificant portion of that group. But in essence, that 20% will benefit from the protection already given to the 80% because there is strong evidence that the vaccines significantly prevent transmission. By delaying 2nd doses to the 80% to catch up the 20% you run the risk that more people remain at increased risk unnecessarily, and counter intuitively putting those un-vaccinated or who cannot be vaccinated at increased risk. The vaccines have a two dose regime for a reason. Its not just for the extra few %. We know with lots of vaccines that without the booster, immunity can wane over time. The second doses "fixes" long term immunity.