Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

Strazdas

Russman wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0510/1218047-holohan-reopening/

Not sure if this has been posted earlier.

NIAC are in a bit of a bind really if you think about it. If they change their advice, with no new evidence and purely based on logistics, they're open to the question of why is it safe now but wasn't two weeks ago ? Obviously its way more nuanced than that but that'll be how some perceive it.
If they stick to their guns, a different group of people will be whinging about inevitable delays etc etc.
Kinda damned if they do, damned if they don't.

When you look at the different age groups being vaccinated in different locations at the moment, ie some doing the 58/59s in the next few days, some still doing well into the 60s, some still waiting for their text, you'd imagine this could all have been avoided by some sort of hybrid or parallel rollout, which probably wouldn't have even got much attention if it was just let happen.

Having said that, the advice is not meant to be set in stone. Many countries in Europe have changed their advice on AZ several times. They can point out that these vaccines are brand new (AZ wasn't even available in the EU at the start of February) and that they have freedom to keep changing the criteria as they get more info.

B2021M

seamus wrote: »

Not really. They did produce one at the end of March, but they're not providing regular forecasts like this.

It's for the reason same that Micheál Martin got his vaccination over the weekend instead of earlier in the rollout. In Irish politics, anything you say can and will be used against you.

They don't want to provide delivery forecasts because so far they've been scuppered by unreliable suppliers. But that wouldn't stop journalists and opposition parties from using it to attack the Govt.

Ive no doubt thats what would happen and thats why they dont do it. It is fairly serious that our government is afraid to do something as basic as this though.

revelman

Russman wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0510/1218047-holohan-reopening/

Not sure if this has been posted earlier.

NIAC are in a bit of a bind really if you think about it. If they change their advice, with no new evidence and purely based on logistics, they're open to the question of why is it safe now but wasn't two weeks ago ? Obviously its way more nuanced than that but that'll be how some perceive it.
If they stick to their guns, a different group of people will be whinging about inevitable delays etc etc.
Kinda damned if they do, damned if they don't.

When you look at the different age groups being vaccinated in different locations at the moment, ie some doing the 58/59s in the next few days, some still doing well into the 60s, some still waiting for their text, you'd imagine this could all have been avoided by some sort of hybrid or parallel rollout, which probably wouldn't have even got much attention if it was just let happen.

I read that RTE report and the reasoning is difficult to follow. Shouldn’t the decision to take any medicine, which has been approved by the EMA, be down to the individual in the end, making an informed choice? We seem to have an incredibly paternalistic approach to this and other matters. In Germany, their version of NIAC has recommended AZ and J&J for over-60s only. But the health minister says that any adult should be able to get these vaccines as long as they have given informed consent i.e. spoken to their GP first. Unless, I’m completely missing something, what is wrong with this approach?

lukas8888

Charles Babbage wrote: »

It isn't a question of surviving, it is a question of good service. Instead of texting me 8 days after I registered to come in 2 days, they could have texted me after 7 days to come in 3 days.

You really have little to complain about.I along with hundreds of others got my text at 10 am on a Tuesday for my vaccination at 11 am same day.My centre is located one hour from my home.Nobody in the queue complaining everybody delighted to be there.

hmmm

Russman wrote: »

NIAC are in a bit of a bind really if you think about it. If they change their advice, with no new evidence and purely based on logistics, they're open to the question of why is it safe now but wasn't two weeks ago ? Obviously its way more nuanced than that but that'll be how some perceive it.

They'll have several weeks more data available now, so they should be able to show that the risk remains the same. In particular they should be able to show that the risk is the same between men & women for the J&J vaccine because they have adopted a general over-50s approach.

They put themselves in this bind, and the government I think haven't been particularly helpful either by requesting a change but with no change in circumstances (e.g. some sort of indemnity).

I'm not hopeful that either of the two of them will change their approach, and I really wish we could have adopted the approach of other countries which will make it available to younger people if they request it.

B2021M

revelman wrote: »

I read that RTE report and the reasoning is difficult to follow. Shouldn’t the decision to take any medicine, which has been approved by the EMA, be down to the individual in the end, making an informed choice? We seem to have an incredibly paternalistic approach to this and other matters. In Germany, their version of NIAC has recommended AZ and J&J for over-60s only. But the health minister says that any adult should be able to get these vaccines as long as they have given informed consent i.e. spoken to their GP first. Unless, I’m completely missing something, what is wrong with this approach?

I agree...it must be due to potential litigation? But on the other hand doesnt an overly paternalistic approach almost imply that any vaccine that is deemed safe to use is completely safe?!

revelman

B2021M wrote: »

I agree...it must be due to potential litigation? But on the other hand doesnt an overly paternalistic approach almost imply that any vaccine that is deemed safe to use is completely safe?!

The litigation point comes up a lot. And we are a litigious country. But the very definition of informed consent, is that you have been informed of the risks and then you have decided to go ahead and take the vaccine. So, I really can’t see what form the litigation would take.

I dunno. I find it all very puzzling...

B2021M

revelman wrote: »

The litigation point comes up a lot. And we are a litigious country. But the very definition of informed consent, is that you have been informed of the risks and then you have decided to go ahead and take the vaccine. So, I really can’t see what form the litigation would take.

I dunno. I find it all very puzzling...

I totally agree with you.

zebastein

Charles Babbage wrote: »

It isn't a question of surviving, it is a question of good service. Instead of texting me 8 days after I registered to come in 2 days, they could have texted me after 7 days to come in 3 days.

Honestly nobody owes you anything. You have the chance to be offered a free vaccine and you have the chance to be prioritized to get it before 70% population are offered one. If for any reason you are not happy to be offered an appointment 2 days in advance you can cancel it and wait a few months more. I suppose that later in the year the vaccine will be available as any other vaccine and you will be able to phone your GP and get an appointment in the conditions you want.



We are in an emergency rollout of vaccine. It is deployed at an unprecedented scale, with the shortest notice possible between the delivery of vaccine in the country and the vaccination. There is no notion of good service in an emergency health operation. This is not a cable TV subscription, you don't pay anything, nobody has signed any contract and owes you any level of service.


The current level of service is acceptable/good for most of the population, the uptake is really good, and there is no sign that the way it is organized prevents the vaccination from ramping up at the moment. As long as there is more demand than offer, that is really all that matters for the country.

eoinbn

Wolf359f wrote: »

You're definitely correct.
AZ & Moderna breakdowns on the ECDC site are the same for Ireland & Belgium (based on population we received 42.75% of what they got)
But for Pfizer, we've received in total 1.5mil and Belgium received 2.7mil (we got 54.8% of there figure)
Checking Sweden's Pfizer figures, and we're in line with them, so I can only imagine Belgium did not take up the full allotment of Pfizer under the agreement?

J&J figures seem a little off, but it could be just sketchy deliveries initially.
Netherlands seems to have a higher amount than us etc...

Belgiums expected Pfizer's deliveries for Q2 are the same as ours, ~2.75m, so I don't think it is down to ordering more. Maybe they wanted them back loaded. Or maybe the that site isn't 100% correct.

Rebelbrowser

revelman wrote: »

The litigation point comes up a lot. And we are a litigious country. But the very definition of informed consent, is that you have been informed of the risks and then you have decided to go ahead and take the vaccine. So, I really can’t see what form the litigation would take.

I dunno. I find it all very puzzling...

Yup. An awful lot of legal musing in this country takes place without actually talking to lawyers.....

PhoenixParker

revelman wrote: »

The litigation point comes up a lot. And we are a litigious country. But the very definition of informed consent, is that you have been informed of the risks and then you have decided to go ahead and take the vaccine. So, I really can’t see what form the litigation would take.

I dunno. I find it all very puzzling...

You can't sign away your statutory rights.
Consent, informed or otherwise, doesn't avoid that.

Litigation will be straight on to that.

muckisluck

[

Charles Babbage wrote: »

It isn't a question of surviving, it is a question of good service. Instead of texting me 8 days after I registered to come in 2 days, they could have texted me after 7 days to come in 3 days.

Well now if , like other people I know, you are waiting after 14 days with no contact while people 10 years younger are being called to receive the vaccination your complaint would really be justified.

revelman

Peter Kremser, lead scientist on Curevac vaccine, hopes that it will be approved this month. The below is in German and behind a paywall.

https://www.suedkurier.de/baden-wuerttemberg/studienleiter-kann-sich-curevac-zulassung-schon-im-mai-vorstellen-doch-jetzt-gibt-es-lieferschwierigkeiten-ist-die-impfstoffversorgung-nun-gefaehrdet;art417930,10801321

revelman

PhoenixParker wrote: »

You can't sign away your statutory rights.
Consent, informed or otherwise, doesn't avoid that.

Litigation will be straight on to that.

But you don’t have a statutory right to stay healthy. How would any form of medical treatment work in these circumstances? don’t know, I’m not a lawyer but that doesn’t make sense.

I can understand litigation where a problem is discovered later and it is due to a manufacturer’s negligence. But when people are consenting to a vaccine and they are being pre-informed of the risks, how on earth can you still have a right to sue the manufacturer?

is_that_so

revelman wrote: »

Peter Kremser, lead scientist on Curevac vaccine, hopes that it will be approved this month. The below is in German and behind a paywall.

https://www.suedkurier.de/baden-wuerttemberg/studienleiter-kann-sich-curevac-zulassung-schon-im-mai-vorstellen-doch-jetzt-gibt-es-lieferschwierigkeiten-ist-die-impfstoffversorgung-nun-gefaehrdet;art417930,10801321

That also mentions the country who want to waive IP but will not allow more basic materials to be exported for increased worldwide vaccine production.

KrustyUCC

Mom just finished getting dose one of AZ in Páirc ui Chaoimh

Must say it was very well run down there

Plenty of signs and stewards directing traffic

One way system very good for getting in and out

rameire

namloc1980 wrote: »

She'll have amazing 5G coverage though.

1st dose gives you 5G
2nd dose gives you 5G with Roaming.
6 doses Bill Gates has a direct Telekinetic link with you.

Gile_na_gile

revelman wrote: »

Peter Kremser, lead scientist on Curevac vaccine, hopes that it will be approved this month. The below is in German and behind a paywall.

They are taking excessively long with the release of their efficacy data and talking up their production plans while also noting they can't procure materials.
In contrast, Novavax long ago announced excellent efficacy data and now have data on preclinical trials of a combined Covid/Influenza vaccine.
https://ir.novavax.com/news-releases/news-release-details/novavax-announces-positive-preclinical-data-combination

Rebelbrowser

revelman wrote: »

But you don’t have a statutory right to stay healthy. How would any form of medical treatment work in these circumstances? don’t know, I’m not a lawyer but that doesn’t make sense.

I can understand litigation where a problem is discovered later and it is due to a manufacturer’s negligence. But when people are consenting to a vaccine and they are being pre-informed of the risks, how on earth can you still have a right to sue the manufacturer?

You can certainly sue, you've a constitutional right to sue for anything, however barmy. But would you succeed? I have a legal background for my sins and, like you, I doubt it if consent is fully informed and there's no negligence.

d15ude

lukas8888 wrote: »

Charles Babbage wrote: »

It isn't a question of surviving, it is a question of good service. Instead of texting me 8 days after I registered to come in 2 days, they could have texted me after 7 days to come in 3 days.

You really have little to complain about.I along with hundreds of others got my text at 10 am on a Tuesday for my vaccination at 11 am same day.My centre is located one hour from my home.Nobody in the queue complaining everybody delighted to be there.

Your received your invitation text only 1 hour before the date?
I understand it's a crisis situation, but a little better planning should be possible.
What kinda SW are the running?

Russman

Strazdas wrote: »

Having said that, the advice is not meant to be set in stone. Many countries in Europe have changed their advice on AZ several times. They can point out that these vaccines are brand new (AZ wasn't even available in the EU at the start of February) and that they have freedom to keep changing the criteria as they get more info.

Absolutely, as more info comes to light they should adjust the advice accordingly.

revelman wrote: »

I read that RTE report and the reasoning is difficult to follow. Shouldn’t the decision to take any medicine, which has been approved by the EMA, be down to the individual in the end, making an informed choice? We seem to have an incredibly paternalistic approach to this and other matters. In Germany, their version of NIAC has recommended AZ and J&J for over-60s only. But the health minister says that any adult should be able to get these vaccines as long as they have given informed consent i.e. spoken to their GP first. Unless, I’m completely missing something, what is wrong with this approach?

Yeah, but where's the line between a bit of a free for all, and government not allowing a product because of a safety concern ? Ultimately the people depend on regulators and government to clear a product or not. I get the logic and reasoning behind it, and to a point agree with it, I just think there's some point where the medical advice should be beyond "interference" (not the best choice of word, but you get the idea).

hmmm wrote: »

They'll have several weeks more data available now, so they should be able to show that the risk remains the same. In particular they should be able to show that the risk is the same between men & women for the J&J vaccine because they have adopted a general over-50s approach.

They put themselves in this bind, and the government I think haven't been particularly helpful either by requesting a change but with no change in circumstances (e.g. some sort of indemnity).

I'm not hopeful that either of the two of them will change their approach, and I really wish we could have adopted the approach of other countries which will make it available to younger people if they request it.

Totally agree with this. Whether the vaccine is safe or not, personally I don't think the argument to use it should ever really be "but it'll go to waste if we don't" which essentially seems to be the HSE's position. We can all disagree over what risk threshold is appropriate, and cite different countries that have banned it entirely or use it without restriction, or sit somewhere in the middle, they can't all be right, can they ?

To your last point, I do think they'll change their approach and we'll see at least the 40s getting J&J in a couple of weeks. I'm not sure they can get close to their June target without that.

revelman

Russman wrote: »

Yeah, but where's the line between a bit of a free for all, and government not allowing a product because of a safety concern ? Ultimately the people depend on regulators and government to clear a product or not. I get the logic and reasoning behind it, and to a point agree with it, I just think there's some point where the medical advice should be beyond "interference" (not the best choice of word, but you get the idea).

I think it is important to have regulators but I’ve never had someone properly explain to me what the point of the EMA is if national regulators are then going to go off and do their own thing. You’d think the EMA would be well-resourced, have the best scientists and we could trust their guidance. Or is it just an extra level of bureaucracy with no real purpose? Maybe, science people here can explain it to me.

eoinbn

Gile_na_gile wrote: »

They are taking excessively long with the release of their efficacy data and talking up their production plans while also noting they can't procure materials.
In contrast, Novavax long ago announced excellent efficacy data and now have data on preclinical trials of a combined Covid/Influenza vaccine.
https://ir.novavax.com/news-releases/news-release-details/novavax-announces-positive-preclinical-data-combination

Curevac don't seem to be have been ready to become a commercial company. Their trials are taking months longer than anyone else even though Covid has been rampant which should speed up the process.
They also can't manufacture at scale. Won't be able to manufacture it in meaningful quantities until late until Q3 or even Q4.

Turtwig

NIAC based their assessment off the EMAs profile for likelihood from hospitalisations from covid vs the AZ and J&J vaccines for the various incidence rates of covid.

Presumably that means unless our disease levels increase the age restrictions will increase rather than decrease in the short term. Simply put we need more covid, a shortage of vaccines supply or international evidence to pin down the underlying causes of the vaccines adverse events.

zebastein

d15ude wrote: »

Your received your invitation text only 1 hour before the date?
I understand it's a crisis situation, but a little better planning should be possible.
What kinda SW are the running?

How do you guys know for sure that a better planning is possible?


Imagine John Smith receives a text 3 days before the D day of his appointment. Jane Doe is on the waiting list so that her vaccine is only due at D+7.


John Smith calls the HSE to cancel the appointment 2hours before the due time. Now there is an unused dose, an empty booth, and a staff doing nothing.
Option A: they send a text to Jane Doe for an appointment in 1h or 2h, hoping that she is available. Jane Doe is available, she gets lucky to get a vaccine 7days before she should have initially, but she does not know it and complains that the HSE is really bad at planning.



Option B: they do nothing, because everyone needs to be asked at least 3days in advance. The slot is not used, the vaccination program is slow and Jane Doe is only vaccinated 7days later.


I think it is easy to complain when nobody knows the circumstances. People cancel, people don't show up to the appointments, extra doses become available at the very short notice, that is the normal life of vaccinating 230k people a week.



Better planning = less flexibility = running a much slower campaign

secman

zebastein wrote: »

How do you guys know for sure that a better planning is possible?


Imagine John Smith receives an appointment 3 days before the D day. Jane Doe is on the waiting list so that her vaccine is only due at D+7.


John Smith calls the HSE to cancel the appointment 2hours before the due time. Now there is an unused dose, an empty booth, and a staff doing nothing.
Option A: they send a text to Jane Doe for an appointment in 1h or 2h, hoping that she is available. Jane Doe is available, she gets lucky to get a vaccine 7days before she should have initially, but she does know it and complains that the HSE is really bad at planning.



Option B: they do nothing, because everyone needs to be asked at least 3days in advance. The slot is not used, the vaccination program is slow and Jane Doe is only vaccinated 7days later.


I think it is easy to complain when nobody knows the circumstances. People cancel, people don't show up to the appointments, extra doses become available at the very short notice, that is the normal life of vaccinating 230k people a week.



Better planning = less flexibility = running a much slower campaign

And that's a Slam Dunk

Russman

revelman wrote: »

I think it is important to have regulators but I’ve never had someone properly explain to me what the point of the EMA is if national regulators are then going to go off and do their own thing. You’d think the EMA would be well-resourced, have the best scientists and we could trust their guidance. Or is it just an extra level of bureaucracy with no real purpose? Maybe, science people here can explain it to me.

Agree. I don't know either. Possibly because the EU isn't an actual country, certain things are left as national competencies, maybe with a view that somewhere way down the line, the joint EU bodies will eventually take precedence. How could you ever reconcile countries that aren't using it at all and those that have no restrictions. Culturally, some or all countries would be loathe to pass over their nation's health advice to "Brussels".

TheDoctor

0 covid deaths reported in England today.

First time since July.

hmmm

Well, seems like relatively rapid progress is being made designing a vaccine which will protect against any coronavirus. Important as they seem to be emerging quite regularly now.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03594-0