Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

Chuzzle7

Does anyone follow the news coming out from other countries that have vaccinated most of their population? How are they doing?

I would like to make plans for later in the year, September time. I would like to sign up to do a practical course but don't know if we will have restrictions and classes goes back online. You can't have online classes with a practical course.

But not sure how things will go later in the year so it is very hard to decide.

Charles Babbage

Deleted User wrote: »

Got my AZ yesterday at Aviva. 2 hours standing in queue, give the endurance test, was quite unwell by the time I got into the vaccine room. However they agreed to vaccinate me as they understood I have merely be one dehydrated from ileostomy issue. No reaction until this evening, developed a fever that peaked at 103.2 but thankfully not too much of a headache and no nausea as reported by some others.

I got AZ In the Aviva yesterday, it took 90 mins. Slight sore arm but otherwise nothing much until this evening when I had a initial shivers then a slight fever, bit of a headache but nothing too alarming. This may already be passing.

snotboogie

Chuzzle7 wrote: »

Does anyone follow the news coming out from other countries that have vaccinated most of their population? How are they doing?

I would like to make plans for later in the year, September time. I would like to sign up to do a practical course but don't know if we will have restrictions and classes goes back online. You can't have online classes with a practical course.

But not sure how things will go later in the year so it is very hard to decide.

Israel are really the only country, not using Russian or Chinese vaccines, to have enough vaccinated to come close to eliminating community transmission through vaccination. They have 121 per 100 vaccinated and are down to 5 cases per million per day. The UK and the US are next, both with about 80 per 100 vaccinated and are down to 35 cases and 130 cases per million respectively.

Turtwig

Wolf359f wrote: »

Efficancy means very little to people who are immune compromised if a vaccine will produce a lower than normal antibody response. I believe the south African trial included HIV patients who didn't produce a high immune response, hence why the vaccine would appear less effective as a whole. When it's just producing a lower antibody response in certain people as they are immune compromised.

So it's down to what vaccine produces the highest antibody response or the fastest to reach it etc... It's a medical decision. The online booking system wouldn't have a clue, it was designed for healthy people and the only deciding factor is age related vaccine restrictions.

I have no idea how Johnson and Johnson performs in immuno compromised.
Generalising broadly here :
Both Pfizer and AZ first doses do not generate the same level of neutralising antibodies in the immunocompromised compared to levels found in the general population after the first dose. The second dose seems to be required for certain immuno compromised individuals for both vaccines to get neutralising antibodies of the same level. One dose may not be enough.

The research is ongoing. Indications are there's no difference between giving the immuno compromised PB or AZ. What seems to matter is they get their second dose on schedule. They probably shouldn't consider themselves vaccinated until they've got both doses.

Where that leaves J&J is anyone's guess. They did a two dose trial so I guess we'll have to wait for that.

ShineOn7

franciscanpunk wrote: »

GP actually told a family member DO NOT take AZ, cat 7 need to get Pfizer in the GP office. all good, family member waits and waits doesnt ring every hounding GP as trying to be patient and fair. eventually calls GP who have decided they are now doing 70 plus only as the made a mess of everything and GP tells patient he could never recommend one vaccine over the other and to use the portal or contact HSE or go anywhere else i dont care.

If they had just said from day 1 we arent doing cohort 7 and never said anything about vaccine types the patient would just have organised it himself.

GP here was actually a hinderence to the process!

That's a mess

What did they do in the end? The portal or a different GP?

Russman

Happydays2020 wrote: »

Really needs to be some positive messaging around JJ particularly among 20’s and 30’s.

Agree there should be positive messaging, but I’d say there’s almost zero chance of anyone in their 20s or 30s in Ireland getting J&J unless they’re part of the hard to reach groups.

Happydays2020

Russman wrote: »

Agree there should be positive messaging, but I’d say there’s almost zero chance of anyone in their 20s or 30s in Ireland getting J&J unless they’re part of the hard to reach groups.

Supply issue or NIAC advice?

Russman

Happydays2020 wrote: »

Supply issue or NIAC advice?

I’d say NIAC advice. If we’re at a cap of 50yrs now, I just can’t see them going lower than 40 if they do go lower. Purely a guess of course.

astrofool

Wolf359f wrote: »

Efficancy means very little to people who are immune compromised if a vaccine will produce a lower than normal antibody response. I believe the south African trial included HIV patients who didn't produce a high immune response, hence why the vaccine would appear less effective as a whole. When it's just producing a lower antibody response in certain people as they are immune compromised.

So it's down to what vaccine produces the highest antibody response or the fastest to reach it etc... It's a medical decision. The online booking system wouldn't have a clue, it was designed for healthy people and the only deciding factor is age related vaccine restrictions.

There has been no data so far to indicate a different immuno response between the different vaccines it's been speculated that the adenovirus vector vaccines may give a better immune response among the immuno compromised but the studies haven't provided any conclusion to this yet.

It's also important to know that one of the reasons the efficacy of J&J has been recorded as lower than the mRNA based vaccines is due to the higher presence of variants during the trials but that all the vaccines were equally capable of preventing death in all individuals who got the vaccines.

If someone is saying that someone in cohort 7 should get an mRNA vaccine of adenovirus vector vaccine then they have not been reading any of the studies and are providing an opinion, not a fact (they're speaking out of their ar5e, doctors can do this too). The only consideration for adenovirus vector vaccines is the potential for very rare blood clots, but for those in cohort 7, the risk from COVID-19 is orders of magnitude greater than the risk from clots.

Wolf359f

Turtwig wrote: »

I have no idea how Johnson and Johnson performs in immuno compromised.
Generalising broadly here :
Both Pfizer and AZ first doses do not generate the same level of neutralising antibodies in the immunocompromised compared to levels found in the general population after the first dose. The second dose seems to be required for certain immuno compromised individuals for both vaccines to get neutralising antibodies of the same level. One dose may not be enough.

The research is ongoing. Indications are there's no difference between giving the immuno compromised PB or AZ. What seems to matter is they get their second dose on schedule. They probably shouldn't consider themselves vaccinated until they've got both doses.

Where that leaves J&J is anyone's guess. They did a two dose trial so I guess we'll have to wait for that.

It's one of the reasons why people who recovered from covid only need 1 dose of a vaccine, but an immune compromised person needs 2. Nothing to do with efficacy, but all down to highest immune response.

Happydays2020

Russman wrote: »

I’d say NIAC advice. If we’re at a cap of 50yrs now, I just can’t see them going lower than 40 if they do go lower. Purely a guess of course.

Looking at other countries, I have a feeling that advice will change to an opt in, but will depend also on the supplies of Pfizer.

franciscanpunk

ShineOn7 wrote: »

That's a mess

What did they do in the end? The portal or a different GP?

Went on the portal after several hours calls beibg passed around from GP to HSE call centre to a hospital he attended last year.

The man never asked anything about which vaccines are better ot anything of the sort the GP brought it up doesnt know what vaccine he will get now and trying to take the attitude of ill take whatever the medical professionals give me but it must be in the back of mind why did the doctor originally tell me specifically without being asked, not to take AZ, im sure this GP will have many more patients in the same situation as the ages go down. He was waiting his turn but when everyone he knew who is younger and not in an at risk group were being done before him it was getting a bit of a joke!

I am very happy to be critical of HSE and their organisation when deserved but it seems here its very unfortunate when they are doing a good job here certain GPs are making the process a shambles. You can guarantee to the GPs who have decided not be part of the rollout after the plus 70s are done wont even comminicate it for fear of bad publicity

Wolf359f

astrofool wrote: »

There has been no data so far to indicate a different immuno response between the different vaccines it's been speculated that the adenovirus vector vaccines may give a better immune response among the immuno compromised but the studies haven't provided any conclusion to this yet.

There's no studies comparing different vaccines immune response on immune comprised. But going on what's known, flu vaccine being less effective in said patients and a paper out of the USA showing a good antibody response in immune suppressed patients on biological immune suppressents, with mRNA vaccines and the absence of evidence from J&J and AZ, from a medical point of view, you would expect a doctor to recommend an mRNA vaccine over others.

Turtwig

Wolf359f wrote: »

It's one of the reasons why people who recovered from covid only need 1 dose of a vaccine, but an immune compromised person needs 2. Nothing to do with efficacy, but all down to highest immune response.

Agreed.

Chuzzle7

snotboogie wrote: »

Israel are really the only country, not using Russian or Chinese vaccines, to have enough vaccinated to come close to eliminating community transmission through vaccination. They have 121 per 100 vaccinated and are down to 5 cases per million per day. The UK and the US are next, both with about 80 per 100 vaccinated and are down to 35 cases and 130 cases per million respectively.

Wow, so vaccines work. There might be some normal later on in the year then.

astrofool

Wolf359f wrote: »

There's no studies comparing different vaccines immune response on immune comprised. But going on what's known, flu vaccine being less effective in said patients and a paper out of the USA showing a good antibody response in immune suppressed patients on biological immune suppressents, with mRNA vaccines and the absence of evidence from J&J and AZ, from a medical point of view, you would expect a doctor to recommend an mRNA vaccine over others.

As far as I know, they've been seeing the same good immune response from viral vector vaccines in lab studies and due to the mechanism (delivering the spike protein directly rather than have the messenger RNA deliver the instructions) they'd expect the immuno compromised to have a better response with viral vector (less steps in the process), but again, nothing is proven and the real world trials are showing all the vaccines to be effective and there is no guidance to doctors to recommend one vaccine over another except around the CVST side effect. If a doctor is recommending an mRNA vaccine that then causes a delay to the person being vaccinated that is negligent on that doctors behalf and against what the science and trials and real world data have been showing.

Turtwig

Wolf359f wrote: »

There's no studies comparing different vaccines immune response on immune comprised.

There are.
This one is pretty good imo.
https://gut.bmj.com/content/early/2021/04/25/gutjnl-2021-324789

Compares PB, AZ and previous infection for individuals on anti TNF treatment (e.g Remicade) and anti integrins (Entyvio) . Those on anti integrins showed a similar level of response to the normal population after the first first dose of both AZ and PB. Those who were on anti TNF treatment showed a reduced response after the first dose of AZ and PB.

Authors conclude those on anti tnfs should not have their second doses delayed for any reason. Response for PB is probably better overall. After second dose though the difference between vaccines doesn't really matter. The first dose of PB does not seem to produce enough of a response.

josip

Reading between the PrimeTime and RTE lines, it's looking like they will delay vaccinating 49-40 until June and use J&J on them.

JMR46

Flying Fox wrote: »

I know three people in their late 50s/early 60s who got their texts in the last couple of days, and they're all getting Moderna. Kind of surprising given our low stock of that vaccine compared to the others. Might just be a strange coincidence!

That's interesting! My father (56) got the call for his vaccine this evening, appointment in Galway Racecourse this Friday morning.
Very quick turnaround, I registered him last Friday.

Anyway it's Moderna and I was surprised because as you said the chances of getting that are quite low compared to the others. Might be being used more widely now

Tyrone212

josip wrote: »

Reading between the PrimeTime and RTE lines, it's looking like they will delay vaccinating 49-40 until June and use J&J on them.

Maybe they'll vaccinate 30s at the same time as 40s if they delay them.

Glico Man

In Belfast, got my first jab today (Pfizer), am 33. Had a bad enough headache earlier that put to bed for a couple of hours and after I woke I felt like I'd been given a beating. Arm is still quite sore now like its had a good thump, while I feel a bit stiff in my joints.

ShineOn7

josip wrote: »

Reading between the PrimeTime and RTE lines, it's looking like they will delay vaccinating 49-40 until June and use J&J on them.

Was there someone on from the government who mentioned it?

Wolf359f

Turtwig wrote: »

There are.
This one is pretty good imo.
https://gut.bmj.com/content/early/2021/04/25/gutjnl-2021-324789

Compares PB, AZ and previous infection for individuals on anti TNF treatment (e.g Remicade) and anti integrins (Entyvio) . Those on anti integrins showed a similar level of response to the normal population after the first first dose of both AZ and PB. Those who were on anti TNF treatment showed a reduced response after the first dose of AZ and PB.

Authors conclude those on anti tnfs should not have their second doses delayed for any reason. Response for PB is probably better overall. After second dose though the difference between vaccines doesn't really matter. The first dose of PB does not seem to produce enough of a response.

I wish I could understand that!
But there's a difference in values/results between PB and AZ. I couldn't tell you which is better as I'm lost trying to understand it. But as you said they are equal after both doses, however that's a difference of 8 weeks wait from one vaccine to another.

josip

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Was there someone on from the government who mentioned it?

PrimeTime flashed up on the screen at some point, 45-49 J&J
HSE mentioned as the originator in the RTE article
https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2021/0511/1221044-vaccine-roll-out-250000-target/


Sounds like they're testing the waters, the same as they did a few weeks ago with vaccinating multiple age cohorts in parallel.

eoinbn

josip wrote: »

Reading between the PrimeTime and RTE lines, it's looking like they will delay vaccinating 49-40 until June and use J&J on them.

Here we go again.

Prime time stated the exact opposite. They said the that the 45-49 would not be asked to wait. Doses that arrive in early June will be used, doses in the second half won't be used. Any delay and most of J&J goes unused.

Strazdas

josip wrote: »

Reading between the PrimeTime and RTE lines, it's looking like they will delay vaccinating 49-40 until June and use J&J on them.

Apparently there are 225k J & J doses due this month (May) and it seems they could be used on the 45-49 year olds.

josip

Strazdas wrote: »

Apparently there are 225k J & J doses due this month (May) and it seems they could be used on the 45-49 year olds.

According to that RTE article, those doses aren't due until June.

...Those doses are due to arrive between 1 June and 20 June...

So I do think that 45-49 year olds would end up 'waiting' if those vaccines were earmarked for them.
That wait would be more than counterbalanced by being fully vaccinated after 1 dose.

And I think they'll find a way for 40-44 year olds to get that other J&J batch at the end of June that would otherwise go to waste.
Regardless of what they are seeming to say now.
220,000 extra people fully vaccinated with 10 days of deliveries; you can't pass up an opportunity like that.

expectationlost

josip wrote: »

Reading between the PrimeTime and RTE lines, it's looking like they will delay vaccinating 49-40 until June and use J&J on them.

HSE pushes for lower age limits on single-shot Johnson & Johnson Covid vaccine https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hse-pushes-lower-age-limits-single-shot-johnson-johnson-covid-vaccine-b67dqbn5s?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1620543479

vicwatson

If you register, get a text and then you can’t make it do you need to register again or how does it work?

Strazdas

vicwatson wrote: »

If you register, get a text and then you can’t make it do you need to register again or how does it work?

You text back the word 'New' and then they'll send you out a new appointment date.