Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

sd1999

Supercell wrote: »

I hope the government are not trying to be cute hoors by opening up registration to the 40's and 50's cohorts at the same time with the plan to delay actually vaccinating the 50's cohort until the J&J comes though while pushing on vaccinating the 40's with mRNA vaccines. That's putting all their eggs in one basket.
What if J&J is delayed further down the line?, its going to leave a lot of very angry people in a demographic that gets out and votes.

There is a mental health aspect to all of this too, we all have had enough of the lockdowns, i think that's pretty fair to say.
If AZ is the only choice (for the 50's cohort) that's another summer lost to a group that has less ahead of them than behind them. Personally speaking I find that prospect quite depressing, I'd take the J&J over that choice any day, the 60's cohort registrations are telling a story of their own, i don't see that as mysterious at all - many are hoping not to have to take the AZ by delaying and maybe get offered a J&J or mRNA vaccine, I know thats what I'd be doing if I were in that cohort. What's to loose, they've already likely lost most of their summer, again.

So you're saying if you were in the 60+ cohort you wouldn't want AZ despite, presumably being more vulnerable than you already are? Kinda goes against the argument of wanting the over 50s to get whatever is available on the assumption that they are more vulnerable. You're saying you would be willing to wait for something other than AZ (despite being considered safe to meet others after 4 weeks) but that making over 50s wait a bit longer for J&J is bad?

As it stands, AZ and J&J will be prioritised for over 50s as under 50s don't have the luxury of four different vaccines. Once the EMA approves Pfizer for the 11-15 group they will be the ones getting those once the over 16 population are finished. It's not a given that if over 50s don't have to wait for J&J that they will get Pfizer, they're more likely to be offered AZ as the Pfizer is still needed for Cohort 4 & 7 (the people who are more vulnerable than healthy 50-59s if that's the argument you want to make) and all other under 50s. Not waiting for J&J for over 50s leaves 600,000 vaccines to waste between now and June. That's 1.2 million of the other vaccines. We would be significantly delaying everyone coming out of lockdown for the sake of making a small minority of the population happy in the short term. None of us, not even over 50s, will have much of a summer if we need to catch up with 1.2 million doses of Pfizer.

EDIT: I may be wrong but it sounds like you're in the 50-59 group and are annoyed you probably won't get Pfizer.

Supercell

AdamD wrote: »

The level of entitlement here is utterly outstanding

The level of empathy here is utterly outstanding.

revelman

Supercell wrote: »

The level of empathy here is utterly outstanding.

Several members of my immediate family have had AZ? Should I be feeling sorry for them now? I’m actually jealous. Can I suggest you google BMJ and read some of the publicly available articles about the vaccines on that.

PhilOssophy

is_that_so wrote: »

They will be moved to the back of the list as per HSE policy so it could be July or later before she's reconsidered. From her perspective all we'll have then are mRNA the "safer" vaccines. TBH I'd let it go. I know a couple of complete refuseniks but figure they are not for changing and not inclined to damage relationships over this.

"Safer vaccine"? How/why? Do explain....and in addition - define safer vaccine vs the risk of covid.

seamus wrote: »

If there was a mass movement encouraging over 60s to refuse AZ en masse, then the HSE would need to re-examine the policy and just take the hit.

If there was a mass movement then the government should skip everybody involved and let them take their own risk.

stephenjmcd wrote: »

How are they losing their summer ? The vaccine benefit being given to people who get vaccinated kicks in earlier with both AZ & J&J than it would with Pfizer or Moderna.

Yes you've to still get your 2nd dose which for most vulnerable is 12 weeks later but you don't have to wait 12 weeks for the additional freedoms associated with vaccination.

That's already been clarified.

Considered vaccinated:

AZ - 4 weeks after dose 1
J&J - 2 weeks after your only dose
Pfizer - 1 week after dose 2 - 5 weeks total from dose 1
Moderna - 2 weeks after dose 2 - 6 weeks total

AdamD wrote: »

The level of entitlement here is utterly outstanding

I don't understand this either and was going to make the 4 weeks after dose 1 point myself. I think Supercell wants the best vaccine, delivered to him immediately, and to be able to hop on a flight immediately afterwards....

Supercell

revelman wrote: »

Several members of my immediate family have had AZ? Should I be feeling sorry for them now? I’m actually jealous. Can I suggest you google BMJ and read some of the publicly available articles about the vaccines on that.

I wouldn't have minded getting it either a month or two ago either, I'd be looking forward to a safe summer.

PhilOssophy

revelman wrote: »

Several members of my immediate family have had AZ? Should I be feeling sorry for them now? I’m actually jealous. Can I suggest you google BMJ and read some of the publicly available articles about the vaccines on that.

I've already questioned him about his understanding of clinical trials and vaccine risk but no responses are forthcoming....

Supercell

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I don't understand this either and was going to make the 4 weeks after dose 1 point myself. I think Supercell wants the best vaccine, delivered to him immediately, and to be able to hop on a flight immediately afterwards....

Please leave out the personal insults.

Necro

Jabbed with Pfizer today, 2nd dose on 28th May. Delighted

sd1999

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

No it doesn’t make sense if the aim is to beat Covid

Dropping this silly policy and adopting German waver idea would ensure that this vaccine would endup in arms of those who want to take a risk.

Once again what is the aim of the Covid vaccination programme?

The aim is to get as many people vaccinated as possible in the shortest time possible. That's how you "beat COVID". People getting picky gums up the works and creates far more admin than is necessary, delaying the process for everyone. People who don't want AZ aren't put to the back of the queue for vaccines. They can get an AZ vaccine at any point over the next few months. They are however put to the back of the Pfizer queue as that vaccine needs to be prioritised for people who can't get AZ or J&J.

PhilOssophy

Supercell wrote: »

Please leave out the personal insults.

Well you posted this earlier which is about as much of a personal insult as the above:

"Originally Posted by Supercell View Post
Said the person in their 40's proving my point exactly. Also it's not just the clotting, it's the 12-16 weeks between doses as well."

P.S. I am still waiting for you to tell me what point I proved

is_that_so

PhilOssophy wrote: »

"Safer vaccine"? How/why? Do explain....and in addition - define safer vaccine vs the risk of covid.

In the context of the poster's spouse, it seems to be what she believes.

seamus

PhilOssophy wrote: »

If there was a mass movement then the government should skip everybody involved and let them take their own risk.

If we were to take that approach, we'd have no restrictions at all, "let everybody take their own risk".

The goal here is to get everyone vaccinated as quickly as possible, in order of their risk of developing serious illness.

If there were hundreds of thousands of over-50s who weren't going to get vaccinated until after the over-20s, then that goal is at risk. Sticking to the principle of the matter and doggedly insisting they go to the back of the queue, loses sight of what you're actually trying to achieve.

When that number is small - in the hundreds or thousands - then the goal is still on track.

Supercell

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Well you posted this earlier which is about as much of a personal insult as the above:

"Originally Posted by Supercell View Post
Said the person in their 40's proving my point exactly. Also it's not just the clotting, it's the 12-16 weeks between doses as well."

P.S. I am still waiting for you to tell me what point I proved

Its not, please read my posts before hitting reply, thanks.

Skygord

Article here about German mayor of town/city where Curevac is being produced commenting about slow EMA approval process. The interesting part, I think, is his confirmation that finished stock is on hand ahead of approval.

The Mayor of Tübingen, Boris Palmer (Greens), has called for national German emergency approval for the corona vaccine from the pharmaceutical company Curevav based in his city. "The sham security of bureaucratic testing is placed above the real security of a vaccine," said Palmer of the "Augsburger Allgemeine" on Friday. "Curevac produced vaccine on stock - now these doses could save lives."

"What is missing is the final inspection in Brussels to finally be able to use it - an emergency license would be just right," added the Green politician.

https://nuernberger-blatt.de/2021/04/tuebinger-oberbuergermeister-palmer-fordert-notfallzulassung-fuer-curevac-impfstoff-99407/

sd1999

Supercell wrote: »

Please leave out the personal insults.

You literally said you don't want to wait for J&J because you want to have more of a summer to do stuff.

sd1999

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

You don’t get it, some of those who “can’t get AZ or J&J” might have no issues taking the risk, see posts in this thread as example, that frees up dozes for those freaked out by all the AZ issues

I know, I'm 21, I would take either in a hearbeat. Unfortunately that's just not an option and is unlikely to be in the future.

SJFly

For the average person who isn't shielding, what will make the biggest difference to their life is the country reaching herd immunity and opening up. Not as an individual, receiving a vaccine while we are all in lockdown and chances of catching the virus is low. If one cohort is delayed by a couple of weeks (but ends up fully vaccinated quicker with a single dose) that is in everyone's interest, if the country opens up sooner.

PhilOssophy

seamus wrote: »

If we were to take that approach, we'd have no restrictions at all, "let everybody take their own risk".

The goal here is to get everyone vaccinated as quickly as possible, in order of their risk of developing serious illness.

If there were hundreds of thousands of over-50s who weren't going to get vaccinated until after the over-20s, then that goal is at risk. Sticking to the principle of the matter and doggedly insisting they go to the back of the queue, loses sight of what you're actually trying to achieve.

When that number is small - in the hundreds or thousands - then the goal is still on track.

Well if hundreds of thousands in their 50s decide the risk or delay caused by getting AZ is too much, then let them wait around. They are clearly not weighing up the risk of a vaccine vs the risk of covid.

Supercell wrote: »

Its not, please read my posts before hitting reply, thanks.

Your making even less sense now so maybe time to leave it there. I've read your posts and none of them make any sense.

Supercell

sd1999 wrote: »

You literally said you don't want to wait for J&J because you want to have more of a summer to do stuff.

I'm sorry, but whats your point? We have no idea of J&J is going to arrive when its currently planned for, others have been posting stories that cast considerable doubt on that. If it arrives when planned then that's great, but to hold off vaccinating all the 50+ cohort in the hope that transpires seems reckless.

Supercell

Supercell wrote: »

I hope the government are not trying to be cute hoors by opening up registration to the 40's and 50's cohorts at the same time with the plan to delay actually vaccinating the 50's cohort until the J&J comes though while pushing on vaccinating the 40's with mRNA vaccines. That's putting all their eggs in one basket.
What if J&J is delayed further down the line?, its going to leave a lot of very angry people in a demographic that gets out and votes.

There is a mental health aspect to all of this too, we all have had enough of the lockdowns, i think that's pretty fair to say.
If AZ is the only choice (for the 50's cohort) that's another summer lost to a group that has less ahead of them than behind them. Personally speaking I find that prospect quite depressing, I'd take the J&J over that choice any day, the 60's cohort registrations are telling a story of their own, i don't see that as mysterious at all - many are hoping not to have to take the AZ by delaying and maybe get offered a J&J or mRNA vaccine, I know thats what I'd be doing if I were in that cohort. What's to loose, they've already likely lost most of their summer, again.

Except those who received AZ are considered fully vaccinated 4 weeks after first dose

persons who have received AstraZeneca (Vaxzevria) – 4 weeks after dose 1
persons who have received Janssen/Johnson & Johnson – 2 weeks after dose 1 (only dose)
persons who have received Pfizer – 1 weeks after dose 2
persons who have received Moderna – 2 weeks after dose 2
persons who have had a confirmed Covid-19 infection in the previous 6 months

sd1999

seamus wrote: »

If we were to take that approach, we'd have no restrictions at all, "let everybody take their own risk".

The goal here is to get everyone vaccinated as quickly as possible, in order of their risk of developing serious illness.

If there were hundreds of thousands of over-50s who weren't going to get vaccinated until after the over-20s, then that goal is at risk. Sticking to the principle of the matter and doggedly insisting they go to the back of the queue, loses sight of what you're actually trying to achieve.

When that number is small - in the hundreds or thousands - then the goal is still on track.

But those over 50s have access to a vaccine, just not the specific vaccine that they want. It's extremely entitled.

sd1999

Supercell wrote: »

I'm sorry, but whats your point? We have no idea of J&J is going to arrive when its currently planned for, others have been posting stories that cast considerable doubt on that. If it arrives when planned then that's great, but to hold off vaccinating all the 50+ cohort in the hope that transpires seems reckless.

OK what if they say over 50s won't get delayed but will instead get AZ because Pfizer is needed for the more vulnerable people in Cohorts 4 and 7?

Edit: I'm saying it's not a personal insult, they were just repeating what you said.

PhilOssophy

sd1999 wrote: »

But those over 50s have access to a vaccine, just not the specific vaccine that they want. It's extremely entitled.

Its not just entitled, its also mis-guided understanding of the risks associated with each vaccine, which when all is said and done are tiny no matter how you compare them to each other.

But I've said it before, the perception that Pfizer = great and all the others are crap, is so off the mark it is laughable.

ddarcy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Except those who received AZ are considered fully vaccinated 4 weeks after first dose

Yeah this is a problem for the government. AZ requires a second dose because it loses efficacy quickly. So not denying that at 4 weeks you’re grand. But that lessens as the weeks go on. What this is telling me is that outside all the spin from the government, people would rather wait and get another. So they’re desperate to get people to take it. Could be wrong, but this is what it looks like to me right now.

ddarcy

ddarcy wrote: »

Yeah this is a problem for the government. AZ requires a second dose because it loses efficacy quickly. So not denying that at 4 weeks you’re grand. But that lessens as the weeks go on. What this is telling me is that outside all the spin from the government, people would rather wait and get another. So they’re desperate to get people to take it. Could be wrong, but this is what it looks like to me right now.

Incorrect.

AZ requires the booster to ensure efficacy is maintained long term, this can happen out to 12 weeks, but it does not increase the effectiveness, therefore the full protection is there from 4 weeks.

With the mRNA vaccines, you need to second dose to achieve the maximum effect

seamus

sd1999 wrote: »

But those over 50s have access to a vaccine, just not the specific vaccine that they want. It's extremely entitled.

I don't disagree with that. The point remains though. If they decided en masse to reject the AZ vaccine, the HSE could not just choose to skip over them and circle back at the end. That doesn't achieve the best outcome from a public health perspective.

SJFly

Supercell wrote: »

I'm sorry, but whats your point? We have no idea of J&J is going to arrive when its currently planned for, others have been posting stories that cast considerable doubt on that. If it arrives when planned then that's great, but to hold off vaccinating all the 50+ cohort in the hope that transpires seems reckless.

I don't think anyone is proposing over 50s waiting indefinitely specifically for j&j. There's a big difference between a short delay (weeks) and vaccinating in parallel with over 40s, and a large delay (months) and vaccinating in parallel with teenagers. There is a middle ground and sensible decisions need to be made for the good of all society.

sd1999

seamus wrote: »

I don't disagree with that. The point remains though. If they decided en masse to reject the AZ vaccine, the HSE could not just choose to skip over them and circle back at the end. That doesn't achieve the best outcome from a public health perspective.

But giving over 50s something other than AZ is arguably worse from a public health perspective as it delays the entire programme for everyone else. Yes there would be less hospitialistions and deaths but they are being given the chance to protect themselves against that. If they don't take that chance, they will have to make do with secondary protection from others being vaccinated and reducing transmission.

Ll31

Originally Posted by sd1999 View Post
But those over 50s have access to a vaccine, just not the specific vaccine that they want. It's extremely entitled

No, over 50s can on medical advice take any of 4 vaccines. But people want them restricted to 2, and the other 2, used to vaccinate younger cohorts ahead of them, against niac advise. We know j&j are due late June at earliest. We know other vaccines are here now. So saying to over 50 s you can register now but we will only vaccinate u late June or July despite us having vaccines on hand which u are eligible for, is the issue. There is nothing entitled about objecting to that.

Yes it would be entitled to demand a specific vaccine. I'm just saying the over 50 s should get whatever vaccine is available when they are being vaccinated, not restricted to two vaccines which are not currently available. At least I hope the HSE and govt call it what it is if they take this route, total disregard of niac advice.

There is something unpleasant about pretending that people are not trying to vaccinate younger cohorts before older cohorts.

funnydoggy

https://www.thejournal.ie/micheal-martin-vaccination-5424720-Apr2021/

'Parallel' vaccination of age cohorts could soon be in place as supplies increase, Martin says

TAOISEACH MICHEÁL MARTIN has said there may be a “parallel” vaccination system as supplies begin to increase, vaccinating two cohorts at the same time.