Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

secman

Just back from the Aviva, baby brother down for his vaccine, he got on the queue at 6:20 pm and came out all done and dusted at 7:30 pm.

revelman

MerlinSouthDub wrote: »

Yes it looks like it at the moment. But someone on here posted that Germany are expecting a large AZ delivery next week, so that could change things again.

The Germans have updated their delivery schedule.

https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/coronavirus/faq-covid-19-impfung.html?fbclid=IwAR226xZH-AuFo9FN9EHLEdSqNz2lVvOdMAmxeTFRsGK2Abi1pEtaYvod_YI

They are expecting an Astrazeneca delivery this week and another one next week. Proportionally, this would mean we should get 50,000 AZ doses this week and another 50,000 next week.

Interestingly, they are not expecting many J&J doses for the week after next. Proportionally, it would mean 30,000 J&J vaccines coming to us on the last week of May.

hmmm

https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1392935847863934987

Skyfloater

secman wrote: »

Just back from the Aviva, baby brother down for his vaccine, he got on the queue at 6:20 pm and came out all done and dusted at 7:30 pm.

Age? Any conditions?

revelman

Varadkar says that we will hear from NIAC about J&J age limit “certainly before Tuesday”. Can we suspect that they will be opening registration for those in their forties middle of next week? Why stress “certainly before Tuesday”?

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0513/1221303-covid-19-ireland/

ddarcy

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Thanks. So the odds are still very much stacked in favour of Pfizer still, in terms of upcoming appointments for the 50-60 age group.

I’d say so. Remember cohort 4 started AZ in early March, so those 12 weeks are now coming around for the second dose. I think healthcare staff starting February will be do the second doses going forward as well as it’s getting close to the 16 week period.

KerryConnor

Do people think the lowering of age for AZ/JnJ (to 45+) might be opt in like in Germany?

Beanybabog

Does anyone know anything about breastfeeding and vaccines? I read the Pfizer and moderna vaccines are fine and actually give antibodies to baby but I’m wondering now after reading here Richard chambers tweeted consideration is being given to J&J from 35 years? I wouldn’t be too happy with that as I thought the clot risks were in mainly in young women but also then I’d have consider feeding. I’d probably take what I’m offered though but weaning from feeding isn’t a quick process

secman

Skyfloater wrote: »

Age? Any conditions?

No conditions, he's 57 ...a big baby:)

Strazdas

revelman wrote: »

Varadkar says that we will hear from NIAC about J&J age limit “certainly before Tuesday”. Can we suspect that they will be opening registration for those in their forties middle of next week? Why stress “certainly before Tuesday”?

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0513/1221303-covid-19-ireland/

Yes, I think the 40s portal will be opened very quickly. They're not going to slow up now.

Economics101

The EMA has already approved AZ and J&J, and various other national bodies analogous to NIAC have made determinations. Also I presume that NIAC has ready access to all the relevant information that those other bodies have. Why then does it take them so long to come to a decision? Are they expecting to have some insights which have evaded the rest of Europe?

NIAC has done more for vaccine hesitancy than it has for public safety.

Russman

Economics101 wrote: »

The EMA has already approved AZ and J&J, and various other national bodies analogous to NIAC have made determinations. Also I presume that NIAC has ready access to all the relevant information that those other bodies have. Why then does it take them so long to come to a decision? Are they expecting to have some insights which have evaded the rest of Europe?

NIAC has done more for vaccine hesitancy than it has for public safety.

I suspect NIAC are struggling with the political pressure to approve something that they maybe feel they shouldn’t.

How do you reconcile a position like say, a Denmark who aren’t using it at all, with a country like the US using it without restriction ? Can’t be easy in fairness.

Mind you I think at this stage the dye is cast and no matter what NIAC say, the 40s (at least) will be getting J&J and AZ.

SJFly

KerryConnor wrote: »

Do people think the lowering of age for AZ/JnJ (to 45+) might be opt in like in Germany?

I hope so, but I'm not too optimistic. It seems to have been dismissed as an option a while back. I suppose the logistics are a lot more straight forward without the opt in, but I think it's the right thing to do.

ddarcy

Russman wrote: »

How do you reconcile a position like say, a Denmark who aren’t using it at all, with a country like the US using it without restriction ? Can’t be easy in fairness.

Well in the US they aren’t putting a gun to your head and saying go to the back of the queue if you don’t take what is offered. Even from the start it’s been your choice what you get there (eg where I’m from they had MVC s and you could choose which one you wanted to go with; they had a list of what was on offer when booking a place. Pharmacies let you book online and choose from what they had / what other pharmacies, if in a chain had etc).

I’d really be interested in Denmark though. I’d love to see their rationale outlined on why they are stopping it completely.

Turtwig

Russman wrote: »

I suspect NIAC are struggling with the political pressure to approve something that they maybe feel they shouldn’t.

How do you reconcile a position like say, a Denmark who aren’t using it at all, with a country like the US using it without restriction ? Can’t be easy in fairness.

Mind you I think at this stage the dye is cast and no matter what NIAC say, the 40s (at least) will be getting J&J and AZ.

It's really difficult for NIAC they gave explicit rationale for their chosen restrictions. This was largely based on data presented by the EMA. If they are to remain consistent the data will have to changed considerably to lower the risk of adverse events. To my knowledge that hasn't happened.
Then NIAC need to consider immunisation delays. If these aren't too lengthy then I can't see what rationale they can use to lower the age restrictions.
Really liked the potential solution of one dose MRNA to general pop someone floated earlier in the thread.

NIAC are an independent body for a reason. Find it very disturbing people want this impeded. Even more so when nobody has provided any decent estimates of the trade off in social harm from maintaining social restrictions and vaccinating with a causalty rate.

Also in the US, when J&J was resumed the CDC advised that women under 50 should have an alternative vaccine. That's not very widely reported but it was part of their guidance. So it's not comparable with the way we allocate vaccines here.

Turtwig

Flying Fox wrote: »

Also in the US, when J&J was resumed the CDC advised that women under 50 should have an alternative vaccine. That's not very widely reported but it was part of their guidance. So it's not comparable with the way we allocate vaccines here.

J&J are also less than 1% of doses administered in the US. Helps a lot when only a tiny minority of your population are exposed to the risk.

Russman

Turtwig wrote: »

It's really difficult for NIAC they gave explicit rationale for their chosen restrictions. This was largely based on data presented by the EMA. If they are to remain consistent the data will have to changed considerably to lower the risk of adverse events. To my knowledge that hasn't happened.
Then NIAC need to consider immunisation delays. If these aren't too lengthy then I can't see what rationale they can use to lower the age restrictions.
Really liked the potential solution of one dose MRNA to general pop someone floated earlier in the thread.

NIAC are an independent body for a reason. Find it very disturbing people want this impeded. Even more so when nobody has provided any decent estimates of the trade off in social harm from maintaining social restrictions and vaccinating with a causalty rate.

Exactly. They have their credibility to think of. For a non medical person like myself who knows sweet FA about vaccine approval and risks, I want to trust a body like NIAC. If we start to think their decisions are driven by HSE logistics over science it puts a big question mark over future product approvals.

I should point out, I’ve no idea what the “right” answer is, nor do I “want” a delay, but I do think NIaC should be left to make their decision. I’ll still take whatever I’m offered, when I’m offered.

Turtwig

Turtwig wrote: »

J&J are also less than 1% of doses administered in the US. Helps a lot when only a tiny minority of your population are exposed to the risk.

Definitely.

I really hope NIAC stick to their guns. Over the past week there have been more countries tightening restrictions on AZ rather than loosening them, and that's based on the latest data. For us to do the opposite, for the sake of convenience, would leave a very bad taste.

Strazdas

A counter argument to the NIAC story is that the State has an absolute responsibility to get the population vaccinated as quickly as possible. If vaccines are on the shelves ready to go, then they should be used....that's what this argument will say (and it's a compelling enough one).

Turtwig

Flying Fox wrote: »

Definitely.

I really hope NIAC stick to their guns. Over the past week there have been more countries tightening restrictions on AZ rather than loosening them, and that's based on the latest data. For us to do the opposite, for the sake of convenience, would leave a very bad taste.

Not just taste. Trust. We know they'd be more adverse events in Ireland. One or two of those in low medical risk people in the younger age cohorts could dent the confidence in the entire program.

Russman

Strazdas wrote: »

A counter argument to the NIAC story is that the State has an absolute responsibility to get the population vaccinated as quickly as possible. If vaccines are on the shelves ready to go, then they should be used....that's what this argument will say (and it's a compelling enough one).

But if the vaccines aren’t deemed safe enough......? I appreciate the debate is around what is “safe enough”.
I get what you’re saying but imho it’s not just as simple as we have them so we have to use them.

They also arguably could have avoided all this by making the 50s wait a few weeks for J&J to come through in big quantities and plowing on with the 40s in the meantime.

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

A counter argument to the NIAC story is that the State has an absolute responsibility to get the population vaccinated as quickly as possible. If vaccines are on the shelves ready to go, then they should be used....that's what this argument will say (and it's a compelling enough one).

For many people under 50, the risk benefit equation does not favour getting vaccinated with AZ or J&J. It is unethical to push a vaccine on them that is more likely to do them harm than the thing you're trying to protect them from. Especially when an MRNA vaccine makes up the majority of our supply.

florawest

afro man wrote: »

Florawest


Lets us Know how you get on and hopefully no Side effects

Hello,

Thank you afro man.
Well so far so good, very big crowd in Ballybrit Race course, prob 3.40 (3 oclock time slot) when I got the vaccine, have to wait 15 minutes after in case any problems.
Didn't feel it TG and arm feels bit heavy and bit sore but not to bad.
2nd dose in 4 weeks time.
Good luck all.

Turtwig

Strazdas wrote: »

A counter argument to the NIAC story is that the State has an absolute responsibility to get the population vaccinated as quickly as possible. If vaccines are on the shelves ready to go, then they should be used....that's what this argument will say (and it's a compelling enough one).

This would be the immunisation delay. The harm done by this must outweigh the harm done by the vaccine. Much as we don't want it to be the case. It actually could end up that a mass vaccination does more harm than our delay. Why would you do that? You'd be adversely impacting the quality of life of people for no reason.

hmmm

It's all very well people in nice comfortable jobs dancing around on the head of a pin about whether the risk from J&J is .0001% or .00001%, but in the real world a quarter of the population is out of work, and there are entire industries who are dependent on the next few months for their annual income running out of time to reopen. Someone will need to explain to them why the prospect of (going on US figures) 1 death per 2 million J&J doses is sufficient to extend the vaccine rollout by what we are told is several weeks, and we're also going to have to explain to 20 and 30 year olds why we are delaying them from getting their lives back.

hmmm

Flying Fox wrote: »

For many people under 50, the risk benefit equation does not favour getting vaccinated with AZ or J&J. It is unethical to push a vaccine on them that is more likely to do them harm than the thing you're trying to protect them from. Especially when an MRNA vaccine makes up the majority of our supply.

Then don't "push" it on them, do what Germany does - make it available to those who want it.

On top of the antigen test debacle this feels like another paternalistic decision being taken because Irish people are felt to be not bright enough to understand the risks.

A slight delay in vaccinating relatively young people (who are not at a high risk of covid) is not going to set back our reopening.

Why should someone take a vaccine that is more likely to harm them than benefit them, rather than wait for a safer one?

Russman

hmmm wrote: »

Then don't "push" it on them, do what Germany does - make it available to those who want it.
.

No issue at all with that as long as those who don’t want it aren’t pushed to the back of the queue.

hmmm

hmmm wrote: »

Then don't "push" it on them, do what Germany does - make it available to those who want it.

On top of the antigen test debacle this feels like another paternalistic decision being taken because Irish people are felt to be not bright enough to understand the risks.

I have no problem with the opt-in approach, but it seems unlikely we'll do that seeing as it was rejected just a few weeks ago.

I do have a problem with people in their 30s and 40s being offered one of the viral vector vaccines with no alternative option, and being put to the back of the queue if they decide not to take it.