Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

Turtwig

hmmm wrote: »

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.

The likely incident rate of adverse events is between 1 in 50,000 and 1 in 100,000. If you're going to use the economic argument you need to show something that the economic harm to society's wellbeing will be greater than the vaccination harm. I'm not convinced it is. We could put a lot of young people in ICU needlessly if we let vaccines go without restriction.

It's not a simple decision but I fear those spouting the economic argument aren't even willing to stop and consider just how much harm that does? They assume it must be worse, but is it?

I'm not even considering the blowback of if the public loses trust in the program and we can't get herd immunity.

hmmm

Flying Fox wrote: »

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.

Looking at the stats I agree with you on that (certainly people in their 30s), but all it will really take to use up the stock is to make it available to over 40s. They're not being asked to force 20 year olds to take it.

I don't think it's too much to ask to allow people over 40 voluntarily get either vaccine. I would say certainly with the J&J vaccine, single shot, you can't produce enough for the demand we would see.

Turtwig

Flying Fox wrote: »

I have no problem with the opt-in approach,

I have a problem with this. The individual risk is very low. So their incentive is to get the vaccine. The population is at risk of significant net harm. You can't reasonably allow something that'd cause net harm to your society when you know in advance that would have been the outcome.

hmmm

Turtwig wrote: »

I'm not even considering the blowback of if the public loses trust in the program and we can't get herd immunity.

In my opinion the single biggest cause of loss of trust in the vaccines has been the excessive risk aversion of certain Western regulators. Despite their po-faced assurances that the public will be reassured by what they have done we have seen the exact opposite happen in reality. There isn't a person I've talked to who is feeling more comfortable about getting AZ because of what the regulators have done, and that same aversion is beginning to spread to what looks a perfectly good J&J vaccine because of all the debate around it.

We're one bad reaction to Pfizer away from a disaster.

Russman

hmmm wrote: »

In my opinion the single biggest cause of loss of trust in the vaccines has been the excessive risk aversion of certain Western regulators. Despite their po-faced assurances that the public will be reassured by what they have done we have seen the exact opposite happen in reality. There isn't a person I've talked to who is feeling more comfortable about getting AZ because of what the regulators have done, and that same aversion is beginning to spread to what looks a perfectly good J&J vaccine because of all the debate around it.

We're one bad reaction to Pfizer away from a disaster.

Can you imagine the reaction if the regulators didn’t flag these things and a country like Ireland saw 15 people hospitalised due to one of the vaccines ? All we’d hear in the media is “why wasn’t this flagged up ? Why did they approve this vaccine ?”

Strazdas

Flying Fox wrote: »

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?

Younger people are still 'far' more at risk of contracting Covid-19 than of dying from taking a vaccine. Have we even had a single vaccine related death in Ireland so far? Even a wait of a few short weeks would see literally thousands, not hundreds, of people newly infected with the virus.

Turtwig

hmmm wrote: »

In my opinion the single biggest cause of loss of trust in the vaccines has been the excessive risk aversion of certain Western regulators.

We're one bad reaction to Pfizer away from a disaster.

Which ones? All of them pretty much applied the same rationale.

Yep if something is linked to Pfizer it'll get awkward. Nothing we can do about that.

josip

Strazdas wrote: »

Younger people are still 'far' more at risk of contracting Covid-19 than of dying from taking a vaccine. Have we even had a single vaccine related death in Ireland so far? Even a wait of a few short weeks would see literally thousands, not hundreds, of people newly infected with the virus.

True, but extrapolating from our falling ICU numbers over the past 2 months, very few if any, of those will suffer serious effects.

Strazdas

josip wrote: »

True, but extrapolating from our falling ICU numbers over the past 2 months, very few if any, of those will suffer serious effects.

For sure, but the point is there are no easy answers. You can understand the reasoning behind the ultra cautious approach but also behind the 'get the population vaccinated as quickly as possible' one. This is why we are seeing big variations in how countries are handling their rollout.

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

Younger people are still 'far' more at risk of contracting Covid-19 than of dying from taking a vaccine. Have we even had a single vaccine related death in Ireland so far? Even a wait of a few short weeks would see literally thousands, not hundreds, of people newly infected with the virus.

The Winton Centre (Cambridge) has been publishing graphics showing the benefit v risk of AZ across various age groups. This is the same data the MHRA is using to update their advice. Their latest figures show that the risk from AZ outweighs the benefit quite significantly for all under 40s. For women in their 40s, the risk v benefit is equal, while for men the benefit outweighs the risk.

https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/latest-data-mhra-blood-clots-associated-astra-zeneca-covid-19-vaccine/

The lowest exposure graph is the one that's relevant at the moment.

It's simply not true to say that people under 50 are far more at risk from covid than from the AZ vaccine. Are they more likely to contract covid than get a clot? Yes. But the vast majority of those covid cases are mild. They are more likely to suffer serious harm from the AZ vaccine than covid, as the data shows.

Strazdas

Flying Fox wrote: »

The Winton Centre (Cambridge) has been publishing graphics showing the benefit v risk of AZ across various age groups. This is the same data the MHRA is using to update their advice. Their latest figures show that the risk from AZ outweighs the benefit quite significantly for all under 40s. For women in their 40s, the risk v benefit is equal, while for men the benefit outweighs the risk.

https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/latest-data-mhra-blood-clots-associated-astra-zeneca-covid-19-vaccine/

The lowest exposure graph is the one that's relevant at the moment.

It's simply not true to say that people under 50 are far more at risk from covid than from the AZ vaccine. Are they more likely to contract covid than get a clot? Yes. But the vast majority of those covid cases are mild. They are more likely to suffer serious harm from the AZ vaccine than covid, as the data shows.

But as I mentioned above, I don't think we've seen even a single vaccine related death in Ireland so far. Also, the focus seems to be far more on authorising J & J for younger people rather than AZ.

hopgirl

Can a GP vaccinate their patient that is in the 60 -69 bracket, if they are not able to travel to the MVC?

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

But as I mentioned above, I don't think we've seen even a single vaccine related death in Ireland so far. Also, the focus seems to be far more on authorising J & J for younger people rather than AZ.

Yes because we restricted AZ pretty quickly once the risk emerged.

The fact that we haven't had a death yet doesn't mean we just ignore the risk. If we did that, we would certainly have multiple deaths.

Also it's worth bearing in mind that we only heard about the case in the Mater because the family went to the media.

J&J risks are also significant, as per the latest CDC data released yesterday.

Russman

Strazdas wrote: »

For sure, but the point is there are no easy answers. You can understand the reasoning behind the ultra cautious approach but also behind the 'get the population vaccinated as quickly as possible' one. This is why we are seeing big variations in how countries are handling their rollout.

True, no easy answers, that’s for sure.
I think a lot of it is cultural. A conservative govt in the UK or, indeed, any govt in the US, is always far more likely to put the economic argument to the fore and accept more deaths, whereas somewhere like the Nordic countries would generally be seen as being at the opposite end of the spectrum. Where we lie is probably open to debate.

I think for me, the key thing is choice. We can approve the vaccines for everyone if there’s a degree of choice, but when the option is “take what you’re offered or it’s the back of the line” we should be more cautious I think.

Happydays2020

Flying Fox wrote: »

Yes because we restricted AZ pretty quickly once the risk emerged.

The fact that we haven't had a death yet doesn't mean we just ignore the risk. If we did that, we would certainly have multiple deaths.

Also it's worth bearing in mind that we only heard about the case in the Mater because the family went to the media.

J&J risks are also significant, as per the latest CDC data released yesterday.

What is significant?

Van.Bosch

The HSE has just shut down it’s IT systems due to a ransomwere attack - doesn’t sound good for being able to make appointments etc or track stats.

revelman

Flying Fox wrote: »

The Winton Centre (Cambridge) has been publishing graphics showing the benefit v risk of AZ across various age groups. This is the same data the MHRA is using to update their advice. Their latest figures show that the risk from AZ outweighs the benefit quite significantly for all under 40s. For women in their 40s, the risk v benefit is equal, while for men the benefit outweighs the risk.

https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/latest-data-mhra-blood-clots-associated-astra-zeneca-covid-19-vaccine/

The lowest exposure graph is the one that's relevant at the moment.

It's simply not true to say that people under 50 are far more at risk from covid than from the AZ vaccine. Are they more likely to contract covid than get a clot? Yes. But the vast majority of those covid cases are mild. They are more likely to suffer serious harm from the AZ vaccine than covid, as the data shows.

Hang on. I usually agree with your posts. But there are different graphs depending on how much virus is circulating in the community. You are pointing to the scenario where there is very low exposure of risk. Compared to the U.K., we still have quite a bit of virus in the community and, with less than 40% of people with a first vaccine, this could easily spread even more with any further loosening of restrictions. If there is a medium risk of exposure to the virus, the potential benefits of AZ vaccine outweigh potential harms for all age groups. If there is a high or very high risk, then the benefits far outweigh the harms.

Dempo1

Van.Bosch wrote: »

The HSE has just shut down it’s IT systems due to a ransomwere attack - doesn’t sound good for being able to make appointments etc or track stats.

They have said vacinne roll out not affected but if the HSE is using the same registration system as they use in Hospitals, this has to be a concern.

The lowest of the low attacking a hospital IT systems, just disgusting.

km79

Van.Bosch wrote: »

The HSE has just shut down it’s IT systems due to a ransomwere attack - doesn’t sound good for being able to make appointments etc or track stats.

We don’t deserve to live on this planet anymore !
What is actually wrong with people like that FFS

Van.Bosch

Dempo1 wrote: »

They have said vacinne roll out not affected but if the HSE is using the same registration system as they use in Hospitals, this has to be a concern.

The lowest of the low attacking a hospital IT systems, just disgusting.

Vaccines which have been scheduled will prob be okay for a few days but tracking and making new ones will be slower.

Hopefully it is just a precaution, the initial reports were the rotunda so either the HSE is being safe or the whole system is compromised.

Garmin we’re attacked last year and they were down for a few weeks!!

stephenjmcd

Van.Bosch wrote: »

The HSE has just shut down it’s IT systems due to a ransomwere attack - doesn’t sound good for being able to make appointments etc or track stats.

Vaccine.hse.ie is a cloud platform and thankfully the HSE IT systems are that disjointed that many aren't linked. Sounds like this is limited to the rotunda at the moment.

Now if its spread then shutting down the whole system would be the first step as a pre caution. I'd be surprised if there wasn't more than 1 hospitals system impact.

I work in IT so trying to find out a bit more from different people

CruelSummer

Dempo1 wrote: »

They have said vacinne roll out not affected but if the HSE is using the same registration system as they use in Hospitals, this has to be a concern.

The lowest of the low attacking a hospital IT systems, just disgusting.

I came on here to post re HSE IT systems attack. I hope the Government / HSE can wheel in some expertise on this issue promptly - we have plenty of it in Ireland from the private sector and see can they figure out the source of the attack.
Anyone who would do such a thing needs to be brought to justice & any country who engages in this kind of attack need to be named and shamed.
Hope it doesn’t disrupt the vaccination roll out or hospitals too much today.

Dempo1

CruelSummer wrote: »

I came on here to post re HSE IT systems attack. I hope the Government / HSE can wheel in some expertise on this issue promptly - we have plenty of it in Ireland from the private sector and see can they figure out the source of the attack.
Anyone who would do such a thing needs to be brought to justice & any country who engages in this kind of attack need to be named and shamed.
Hope it doesn’t disrupt the vaccination roll out or hospitals too much today.

Not a day after that oil pipeline company actually paid a substantial ransom in the states, just shocking.

Dempo1

Paul Reid on morning Ireland now giving an update, Vacinne roll out not impacted, seperate system so thankfully that's positive

stephenjmcd

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Vaccine.hse.ie is a cloud platform and thankfully the HSE IT systems are that disjointed that many aren't linked. Sounds like this is limited to the rotunda at the moment.

Now if its spread then shutting down the whole system would be the first step as a pre caution. I'd be surprised if there wasn't more than 1 hospitals system impact.

I work in IT so trying to find out a bit more from different people

Literally just got a text from someone involved with the HSE via one of their contractors.

It's a bad one, defence forces cyber security are involved & talk of GCHQ giving assistance

Vaccine rollout not impacted

Van.Bosch

Thankfully not having a integrated system for everything might help with this.

stephenjmcd

Van.Bosch wrote: »

Thankfully not having a integrated system for everything might help with this.

Yeah I've said for long enough that they should have one and the contractors that I know who do work for them have said the same. This time they're blessing themselves that systems are separated.

It's still bad but could have been a hell of alot worse

Flinty997

Van.Bosch wrote: »

Thankfully not having a integrated system for everything might help with this.

What generally helps is having a good backup system, and to regularly test that backup that it works. Though if the system was compromised for a long time before activated. It can be backups going back a long time.

The problem these people are hard to catch and put in jail.

iguana

Strazdas wrote: »

But as I mentioned above, I don't think we've seen even a single vaccine related death in Ireland so far. Also, the focus seems to be far more on authorising J & J for younger people rather than AZ.

Do we have to see a death? The sister of the first woman to have an AZ related clot described her condition and it sounds like she will have a long road to recovery. I was fairly debilitated for months last year with post-viral chest issues and I still have lingering symptoms. But that sounds like a walk in the park compared to the recovery from a stoke. I'd choose months of inflammation over a stroke, tbh, I think most people would.

Van.Bosch

Flinty997 wrote: »

What generally helps is having a good backup system, and to regularly test that backup that it works. Though if the system was compromised for a long time before activated. It can be backups going back a long time.

The problem these people are hard to catch and put in jail.

Website seems to be still working. What system do they use for tracking cases I wonder?