Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

Happydays2020

I read today that 46 year olds in Belgium are now getting their vaccines. Are we performing or not on vaccine delivery?

Panrich

revelman wrote: »

Here are German predictions for delivery of vaccines in May and June (as of Friday).

This document outlines the number of vaccines to go to GP offices: https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/fileadmin/Dateien/3_Downloads/C/Coronavirus/Impfstoff/Lieferprognose_Praxen-Betriebsaerzte_2._Quartal.pdf

The second document outlines the number of vaccines going to MVCs: https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/fileadmin/Dateien/3_Downloads/C/Coronavirus/Impfstoff/Lieferungen_Bu-Laender_Impfzentren_2._Quartal.pdf

I’m most interested in AZ delivery, as Pfizer looks relatively stable and we will need AZ for over 50s here, especially if J&J doesn’t pull through. So far, the Germans are expecting 3.15 million AZ vaccines in May. Adjusting for population, this would mean 189,975 AZ vaccines for us here in Ireland in May. I am assuming that this is not everything since only the first two weeks of May seem to have AZ deliveries. If AZ deliver in weeks 3 and 4 of May in the same way, we could have 380,000 AZ vaccines arriving in May.

Caveat. These are back-of-the-envelope calculations mixed with speculation so don’t quote me on this!

Just quoting you on this.

revelman

Happydays2020 wrote: »

I read today that 46 year olds in Belgium are now getting their vaccines. Are we performing or not on vaccine delivery?

Every country is doing things in a different way. But most EU countries bar Hungary have a broadly similar supply. Is Belgium currently vaccinating young adults in high risk cohorts? I don’t know but we are. Different choices are being made. Key indicator is to look at doses administered per 100,000 people. Belgium is not that much ahead of us: https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/

Russman

Happydays2020 wrote: »

I read today that 46 year olds in Belgium are now getting their vaccines. Are we performing or not on vaccine delivery?

But sure you can’t compare who one country is vaccinating with what another country is doing. Belgium’s rollout could have totally different categories. All we can compare is total amount administered versus delivered.

MerlinSouthDub

Happydays2020 wrote: »

I read today that 46 year olds in Belgium are now getting their vaccines. Are we performing or not on vaccine delivery?

Up to yesterday, Belgium had done 3.882 million vaccine doses. Adjusted for population, that’s 1.67 million doses here. We had 1.59 million doses done by yesterday. So we are about 2 to 3 days behind Belgium at current rates. They have a slight advantage, with the Pfizer plant being in Belgium which probably speeds things up by a day or so.

I don’t know why Belgium are vaccinating 46 year olds, but countries are taking different approaches to rollout. Overall, we’re similar to Belgium.

irishlad.

https://twitter.com/laoneill111/status/1388940267273826308

Loving this

PhilOssophy

Turtwig wrote: »

I had no idea what you read so googling would be utterly pointless.

Now I have an idea of where you are coming from I can address it. Blind googling would not have made this possible.

Provided you go to reputable sites, you'd have seen similar to what I had read/saw. And since I didn't post any links, etc - your Googling talents must be pretty good

Turtwig wrote: »

The study you are referring to observed breakthrough infections in vaccinated people. This is to be expected. The majority of these occurred within two weeks after the first dose.
There were no breakthroughs observed 2 weeks after second Pfizer dose. Though that may down to restricted time frame of study. The authors were also unsure at that point in time whether standard social controls and restrictions also played a role in suppression.

Well of course the infections will be in vaccinated people - that is exactly what I was saying, yet it has been completely ignored by RTE/etc as they peddle the "Pfizer is great" agenda. And I fully agree - they aren't sure what/why it has happened.

Turtwig wrote: »

Pfizer has no link as of yet to myocarditis. The original source of that story the Times of Israel even stated the level of the incidence was not beyond the natural background rate. It does need to be monitored. I don't know which way that will go. Myocarditis diagnosis is often subjective too.

With AZ there is a clear safety signal. We know for certain if 200,000 people get vaccinated we expect 1 to 2 of them to have the severe adverse clotting event. We would not expect them to encounter this event otherwise.

It's not incorrect to say that at this point in time the viral vectors are least safest option. They are still very very safe but there is a known adverse outcome that will happen to some individuals.

I never said there was a definite link, I just said that if we are applying the reactionary policy that RTE are applying to the equally rare blood clots which they are absolutely transfixed on for the past week, then surely they should have been warning of the equally rare risk of this?

Note - I am completely supportive of all these vaccines, and the entire process, and the stats for vaccines are telling their own story in terms of efficacy and safety. But I (and others on Friday evening if you look back) are just raising the point of the inaccurate reporting by George Lee and others. This deserves to be called out.

Danzy

PMBC wrote: »

45,000 vaccinated on Friday indicates to me that we can probably do 1/4 million in a week. Neither I or any of my extended family work with HSE but this is definitely good and augurs well for the next eight or nine weeks

They are only doing 45k a day because that's all they got for the day.

It's a great number but they would walk through 250k a week..


There are a lot of other strings in the rollout that will not be drawn upon unless serious volume comes in.

PhilOssophy

Watching the news last night was heartbreaking what is going on in India - not just seeing the desparation in people, but then seeing a load of Sputnik being unloaded off a plane. The poor f'ers are going to be injected with that crap.

It reminded me how lucky we are - seeing people complaining about the gap in AZ vaccines meaning they won't be able to travel, is incredibly entitled. In fact, if the 18-25 year olds were talking like this about not being able to go abroad this summer, I have no doubt the 50-60 somethings would be calling them snowflakes and bleating on about "in my day a holiday was to Courtown, take what your given an shut up" would be the mantra.

iamwhoiam

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Watching the news last night was heartbreaking what is going on in India - not just seeing the desparation in people, but then seeing a load of Sputnik being unloaded off a plane. The poor f'ers are going to be injected with that crap.

It reminded me how lucky we are - seeing people complaining about the gap in AZ vaccines meaning they won't be able to travel, is incredibly entitled. In fact, if the 18-25 year olds were talking like this about not being able to go abroad this summer, I have no doubt the 50-60 somethings would be calling them snowflakes and bleating on about "in my day a holiday was to Courtown, take what your given an shut up" would be the mantra.

In all fairness if you read the thread there are many people wanting to see family abroad . Its not all about a week in Benidorm , its about needing to see sons and daughters and grandchildren who many have not seen in 14 months
I personally have not seen my daughter in the UK since February 2020 . I would very much like to see her this year
My brother and sister in law have two children and three grandchildren they haven’t seen for the same lenght of time

heyjude

is_that_so wrote: »

The HSE have given short shrift to anyone looking to do this. Their policy and the only one that matters is take what what we give you or back of the queue for you. That will not change.

It will change if sufficient numbers in the 50-59 age group either refuse the lower efficacy Az and Johnson & Johnson vaccines that are being 'dumped' on them, having been rejected for use on all other remaining age groups. A case of "well we've ordered them now and so we have to use them on someone", so we'll use the AZ vaccine on the 60-69 age group as their risk from covid is so much higher they'll just be grateful to be vaccinated, but its a much harder sell on younger lower risk age groups.

If tens or even hundreds of thousands of the 50-59 group either refuse to register or turn up and refuse the AZ or J&J vaccines, then we'll see if the HSE continues to hold this line. Bluffing is fine, unless your bluff is called.

The admission that the single shot J&J vaccine broadly speaking offers as much protection as a single shot of the AZ vaccine will hardly help either, especially when the HSE has been adamant that you need 2 shots of the AZ vaccine to be fully vaccinated. As it shows that the J&J vaccine offers considerably less protection than two doses of the other vaccines.

The vaccination programme has already changed over 20 times and if resistance to the AZ or J&J vaccines is significant then they will need to alter course to deal with this, even if they can't admit that now. They are moving away from the mass vaccination centre model for vaccine distribution in the US, as the original tsunami of eager patients have been vaccinated and threats won't work against the rest, so now they are realising that persuasion may be needed and if that means offering a vaccine choice to those for whom that was an issue, I'm sure that they won't rule it out indefinitely The HSE/government have to be careful about making provocative threats to those refusing the AZ or J&J vaccines now, as they may just make things worse later in the year.

PhilOssophy

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Watching the news last night was heartbreaking what is going on in India - not just seeing the desparation in people, but then seeing a load of Sputnik being unloaded off a plane. The poor f'ers are going to be injected with that crap.

It reminded me how lucky we are - seeing people complaining about the gap in AZ vaccines meaning they won't be able to travel, is incredibly entitled. In fact, if the 18-25 year olds were talking like this about not being able to go abroad this summer, I have no doubt the 50-60 somethings would be calling them snowflakes and bleating on about "in my day a holiday was to Courtown, take what your given an shut up" would be the mantra.

Crap? It's 97.6% effective according to a recent study: https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-russia-vaccine-idINL1N2MC1BG

odyssey06

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Crap? It's 97.6% effective according to a recent study: https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-russia-vaccine-idINL1N2MC1BG

Is that the one with the active adenovirus or did a different one get rejected by Brazil and Slovakia?
That vaccine cannot be trusted nor anything reported about it from Moscow.

Strazdas

heyjude wrote: »

It will change if sufficient numbers in the 50-59 age group either refuse the lower efficacy Az and Johnson & Johnson vaccines that are being 'dumped' on them, having been rejected for use on all other remaining age groups. A case of "well we've ordered them now and so we have to use them on someone", so we'll use the AZ vaccine on the 60-69 age group as their risk from covid is so much higher they'll just be grateful to be vaccinated, but its a much harder sell on younger lower risk age groups.

If tens or even hundreds of thousands of the 50-59 group either refuse to register or turn up and refuse the AZ or J&J vaccines, then we'll see if the HSE continues to hold this line. Bluffing is fine, unless your bluff is called.

The admission that the single shot J&J vaccine broadly speaking offers as much protection as a single shot of the AZ vaccine will hardly help either, especially when the HSE has been adamant that you need 2 shots of the AZ vaccine to be fully vaccinated. As it shows that the J&J vaccine offers considerably less protection than two doses of the other vaccines.

The vaccination programme has already changed over 20 times and if resistance to the AZ or J&J vaccines is significant then they will need to alter course to deal with this, even if they can't admit that now. They are moving away from the mass vaccination centre model for vaccine distribution in the US, as the original tsunami of eager patients have been vaccinated and threats won't work against the rest, so now they are realising that persuasion may be needed and if that means offering a vaccine choice to those for whom that was an issue, I'm sure that they won't rule it out indefinitely The HSE/government have to be careful about making provocative threats to those refusing the AZ or J&J vaccines now, as they may just make things worse later in the year.

Anyone who refuses a vaccine in early May is an idiot. They could end up waiting months to be vaccinated (and even then they mightn't be offered the vaccine they want).

babaracus

Gortanna wrote: »

Crap? It's 97.6% effective according to a recent study: https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-russia-vaccine-idINL1N2MC1BG

Propaganda against anything Russian is pumped out daily on the media, no surprise that it is working

astrofool

babaracus wrote: »

Propaganda against anything Russian is pumped out daily on the media, no surprise that it is working

Sure, but why would Brazil be taking part in it?

odyssey06

odyssey06 wrote: »

Is that the one with the active adenovirus or did a different one get rejected by Brazil and Slovakia?
That vaccine cannot be trusted nor anything reported about it from Moscow.

I don't know why it was rejected by Brazil. The health regulator referred to 'inherent risks': https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazil-health-regulator-anvisas-technical-staff-recommend-against-importing-2021-04-26/

But in that same article one reads the following:

"The Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), which markets the Sputnik V vaccine abroad, rejected Anvisa's comments, saying the shot's safety and efficacy had been assessed by regulators in 61 countries which approved it for use."

I'm sure the information in that statement by RDIF can be verified.

Miike

odyssey06 wrote: »

Is that the one with the active adenovirus or did a different one get rejected by Brazil and Slovakia?
That vaccine cannot be trusted nor anything reported about it from Moscow.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/04/russias-covid-19-vaccine-safe-brazils-veto-sputnik-v-sparks-lawsuit-threat-and

I've not kept super up-to-date with how this has unfolded but there is still a big question mark around the presence of RCAs in Sputnik. Anvisa didn't actually check for replication competence and instead found evidence of it in the documentation submitted by Gamaleya. If anyone on this thread has anything more up to date I'd love to see it...

Strazdas wrote: »

Anyone who refuses a vaccine in early May is an idiot. They could end up waiting months to be vaccinated (and even then they mightn't be offered the vaccine they want).

I don't see many people refusing a vaccine. People are getting giddy with the idea of returning to some level of normality with some level of protection!

babaracus wrote: »

Propaganda against anything Russian is pumped out daily on the media, no surprise that it is working

I think this runs a bit deeper than propaganda. There are have been some serious concerns about this vaccine backed by evidence. The EMA are investigating a SERIOUS ethical concern around their clinical trials, for example.

astrofool

Gortanna wrote: »

I don't know why it was rejected by Brazil. The health regulator referred to 'inherent risks': https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazil-health-regulator-anvisas-technical-staff-recommend-against-importing-2021-04-26/

But in that same article one reads the following:

"The Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), which markets the Sputnik V vaccine abroad, rejected Anvisa's comments, saying the shot's safety and efficacy had been assessed by regulators in 61 countries which approved it for use."

I'm sure the information in that statement by RDIF can be verified.

Just to be clear on why it was rejected, they found live cells present when it should be fully inactivated and inert indicating a pretty serious manufacturing and quality problem and doesn't represent the vaccine the lancet published data about.

odyssey06

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't know why it was rejected by Brazil. The health regulator referred to 'inherent risks': https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazil-health-regulator-anvisas-technical-staff-recommend-against-importing-2021-04-26/

But in that same article one reads the following:

"The Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), which markets the Sputnik V vaccine abroad, rejected Anvisa's comments, saying the shot's safety and efficacy had been assessed by regulators in 61 countries which approved it for use."
I'm sure the information in that statement by RDIF can be verified.

You dont know why?
How about researching it instead of regurgitating russian propaganda?
There may be a decent vaccine in there somewhere but what is being actually produced by factories is a different matter and its consistency cannot be relied upon.

A crucial issue for Anvisa was the presence in the vaccine of the adenovirus that could reproduce, a "serious" defect, according to Anvisa's medicines and biological products manager Gustavo Mendes.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazil-health-regulator-anvisas-technical-staff-recommend-against-importing-2021-04-26/

babaracus

User1998 wrote: »

Why would healthy 12 year olds need a covid vaccine

Marcusm wrote: »

For the same reason they get measles vaccines, to protect others who are more vulnerable or who cannot take the vaccine and to provide a level of immunity an an early stage in life.

This is totally incorrect, children do not receive measles vaccines to protect others, they receive them to protect themselves and others. Children die or are disabled by measles, in statistically significant numbers, if unvaccinated. Even previously healthy children, not just those immunocomprimised. Children are at virtually zero risk of covid, either in terms of death, serious illness or disability. To compel, or even encourage, the vaccination of children with a vaccine whose long term effects are unknown is immoral. I cannot believe the amount of thanks this and other similar posts received. If you are at no risk you should not be vaccinated, those who are at risk should be.

Russman

heyjude wrote: »

It will change if sufficient numbers in the 50-59 age group either refuse the lower efficacy Az and Johnson & Johnson vaccines that are being 'dumped' on them, having been rejected for use on all other remaining age groups. A case of "well we've ordered them now and so we have to use them on someone", so we'll use the AZ vaccine on the 60-69 age group as their risk from covid is so much higher they'll just be grateful to be vaccinated, but its a much harder sell on younger lower risk age groups.

If tens or even hundreds of thousands of the 50-59 group either refuse to register or turn up and refuse the AZ or J&J vaccines, then we'll see if the HSE continues to hold this line. Bluffing is fine, unless your bluff is called.

The admission that the single shot J&J vaccine broadly speaking offers as much protection as a single shot of the AZ vaccine will hardly help either, especially when the HSE has been adamant that you need 2 shots of the AZ vaccine to be fully vaccinated. As it shows that the J&J vaccine offers considerably less protection than two doses of the other vaccines.

The vaccination programme has already changed over 20 times and if resistance to the AZ or J&J vaccines is significant then they will need to alter course to deal with this, even if they can't admit that now. They are moving away from the mass vaccination centre model for vaccine distribution in the US, as the original tsunami of eager patients have been vaccinated and threats won't work against the rest, so now they are realising that persuasion may be needed and if that means offering a vaccine choice to those for whom that was an issue, I'm sure that they won't rule it out indefinitely The HSE/government have to be careful about making provocative threats to those refusing the AZ or J&J vaccines now, as they may just make things worse later in the year.

Your first paragraph is a gross misrepresentation of what has transpired. ALL the vaccines give almost complete protection against severe illness or hospitalisation, and the HSE is offering them to those that NIAC have deemed safe to do so.

As for the rest about provocative threats - it sounds like you think people will take an attitude of “I’ll refuse AZ and risk covid if you don’t give me Pfizer”, I’m sure there might be a few but most people realise the benefits of getting vaccinated and will take one when offered.

Vaccinated30

I got dose 1 of Pfizer on 21st April
Today I've a bit of a dry cough and a very odd sweet taste in my mouth with a gravely throat. I have been referred for a Covid test. Do I have any protection from my vaccine 11 days ago? I know its 2 weeks but surely its like charging a battery takes 2 hours to fully charge but there's some charge after 30 mins... Or am I way off the mark here.

Also if I test positive am I considered fully vaccinated after my 1 dose and positive swab?

ACitizenErased

Vaccinated30 wrote: »

I got dose 1 of Pfizer on 21st April
Today I've a bit of a dry cough and a very odd sweet taste in my mouth with a gravely throat. I have been referred for a Covid test. Do I have any protection from my vaccine 11 days ago? I know its 2 weeks but surely its like charging a battery takes 2 hours to fully charge but there's some charge after 30 mins... Or am I way off the mark here.

Also if I test positive am I considered fully vaccinated after my 1 dose and positive swab?

If you are currently COVID positive and have symptoms now it suggests exposure 5-7 days ago so I would not think you'd be protected tbh.
You will still get your second dose if this is the case.

secman

HSE 's biggest problem in vaccinating the country is supply, the second largest one is stupidity..just no accounting for it.
Looking forward to getting vaccinated on Tuesday.

Wolf359f

heyjude wrote: »

It will change if sufficient numbers in the 50-59 age group either refuse the lower efficacy Az and Johnson & Johnson vaccines that are being 'dumped' on them, having been rejected for use on all other remaining age groups. A case of "well we've ordered them now and so we have to use them on someone", so we'll use the AZ vaccine on the 60-69 age group as their risk from covid is so much higher they'll just be grateful to be vaccinated, but its a much harder sell on younger lower risk age groups.

If tens or even hundreds of thousands of the 50-59 group either refuse to register or turn up and refuse the AZ or J&J vaccines, then we'll see if the HSE continues to hold this line. Bluffing is fine, unless your bluff is called.

The admission that the single shot J&J vaccine broadly speaking offers as much protection as a single shot of the AZ vaccine will hardly help either, especially when the HSE has been adamant that you need 2 shots of the AZ vaccine to be fully vaccinated. As it shows that the J&J vaccine offers considerably less protection than two doses of the other vaccines.

The vaccination programme has already changed over 20 times and if resistance to the AZ or J&J vaccines is significant then they will need to alter course to deal with this, even if they can't admit that now. They are moving away from the mass vaccination centre model for vaccine distribution in the US, as the original tsunami of eager patients have been vaccinated and threats won't work against the rest, so now they are realising that persuasion may be needed and if that means offering a vaccine choice to those for whom that was an issue, I'm sure that they won't rule it out indefinitely The HSE/government have to be careful about making provocative threats to those refusing the AZ or J&J vaccines now, as they may just make things worse later in the year.

If people are as ill-informed as yourself, then yes they will refuse an effective and safe vaccine. I guess you wouldn't take Moderna as it's 'less effective' as Pfizer?

Wolf359f

secman wrote: »

HSE 's biggest problem in vaccinating the country is supply, the second largest one is stupidity..just no accounting for it.

Hopefully when the pandemic is over, they can focus on a vaccine for stupidity! /s

Miike

Vaccinated30 wrote: »

I got dose 1 of Pfizer on 21st April
Today I've a bit of a dry cough and a very odd sweet taste in my mouth with a gravely throat. I have been referred for a Covid test. Do I have any protection from my vaccine 11 days ago? I know its 2 weeks but surely its like charging a battery takes 2 hours to fully charge but there's some charge after 30 mins... Or am I way off the mark here.

Also if I test positive am I considered fully vaccinated after my 1 dose and positive swab?

For the first part of your question it's a bit "how long is a piece of string". Just operate on the assumption you're positive until proven otherwise (for safety sake).

Second part about being considered fully vaccinated depends on a number of factors including your age. Public health will advise further if you do test positive but I would imagine you will not be considered fully vaccinated, because of the relatively small time lag between vaccine and testing positive.

Grab All Association

More than 55 hours have passed since my first Pfizer vaccination. No side effects have occurred, no fevers no headaches, absolutely nothing. Now obviously everyone is different of course, but I do have a history of undesirable side effects to medications I have taken.

CrowdedHouse

secman wrote: »

Looking forward to getting vaccinated on Tuesday.

Which one?