Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

Degag

Vaccinated30 wrote: »

So you are calling people idiots because they are refusing a vaccine or is your issue the process in which they can refuse the vaccine dosnt exist.
You said they should take what they're given yet you accept they can refuse, so your issue is that the process didn't exist. But that has only become the problem since you have been told over and over thatits expert advice people in this age catagory can refuse and wait for an mrna.

My problem is that most people don’t have a valid reason for wanting to change vaccine. The one you have been offered for your age bracket is as safe as any other vaccine, all told.

Therefore by refusing the vaccine, for no good reason mostly, you are creating inefficiencies in the system, as a good enough process doesn’t currently exist apparently.

Which ultimately affects us all.

If a process comes in that allows easy choice between vaccines then all well and good.

RavenBea17b

Sky King wrote: »

Where did you get this information?

Goldengirl wrote: »

Yes.
I have no problem with any of the vaccines, once risks are known and there is a continuous flow of new data re effects and efficacy coming through, from all over the world .
No matter what people say about them we are lucky that NIAC are independent and not going to be pushed into doing what is expedient rather than what is safe .

Obviously UK studies will be different as they have chosen their own path .
Good luck to them and hope it continues to work for them .
Their studies are very reliable once you factor for differing rollout and accept that reporting in their media will show some bias towards AZ and spreading the doses, because they cannot be seen to be critical now about it .
When you read the actual research instead of the media blurb there is little between the vaccines and with further tweaks we will probably end up with much the same results in the first world with boosters and dose intervals .

(My concern would be the poorer countries with larger young or difficult to reach populations , and the risk that due to costs or inefficiencies they may end up under vaccinated with vaccine escape , and a high level endemic disease . )
But that is a negative thought , so let's not discuss it ! [/QUOTE

Errm, I understood the spacing of both AZ and Pfizer was based on the medics and not the media.

RavenBea17b

dominatinMC wrote: »

Using the Seychelles as an example of a vaccination programme is a bit like referring to Anglo Irish Bank as an exemplar of economic prudence. Why would you focus on the worst? But then again, we have been accustomed to the media's portrayal of events throughout the last 15 months. Reminds me of the study which concluded that AZ was more-or-less ineffective against the SA variant (remember that) which was quickly dismissed by everyone other than "journalists" and their celebrity "scientific compatriots".
Have to say, I'm a bit surprised by Kingston Mills though. I didn't hear his comments tonight, but he's usually one of the more balanced contributors

Think I read somewhere that the Seychelles were sing Sinopharm... I could be wrong

lastusername

Goldengirl wrote: »

Medicines sent from Western countries all the time , to poorer countries , no change there .
Better than wasting them tbh.

It is disappointing though . I know a lot of young people more scared of needles than Covid who would have loved a one shot dose of JJ and their freedom to travel back .

Everyone has the freedom to travel once they have a negative Covid test.

Red Silurian

Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »

A new study about household transmission shows promising results that indicate that vaccination does indeed reduce transmission significantly.


Quote:
"These results show that the likelihood of household transmission is 40-50% lower for households in which the index cases are vaccinated 21 days or more prior to testing positive (compared to no vaccination), with similar effects for both ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 vaccines."



Data and studies about how vaccines affect transmission are only just starting to come in, the picture will become clearer with time. But, as of now, first signs look pretty positive.

It's known that transmission is cut in Israel which suggests pfizer does it and Luke O'Neill was on NT this morning saying that household transmission was cut hugely in the UK so that's further proof for OX/AZ

revelman wrote: »

Does anyone know if Moderna has been delivering according to its contract? Is the problem not for us that we have not contracted for enough Moderna doses?

As far as I am aware Moderna didn't sign up to supply many doses to the EU last year when all these contracts were being negotiated but they have met the contractual obligations that they signed up to at the time. Pfizer had a small issue with early deliveries back in January as they were modifying a plant to improve output and have more than made up for it. AZ were being cowboys but have improved recently and J&J might be going down the same way

The EU had a lot of pre-orders with Sanofi but that candidate failed in their phase 2 trials so is unlikely to get to the market before christmas (this year)

iguana

Degag wrote: »

What legitimate reasons?

I’d imagine that any legitimate reason that would result in such rationale as changing vaccine would mean that the person in question should have been vaccinated well before now.

Remember, these vaccines are extremely similar when it comes to efficacy and % chance of side affects.

If someone has legitimate reasons than that is fine, i’d expect that to be extremely rare though.

I have a medical history of Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension. That makes me high risk for CVST. If A/Z was the only vaccine available I would only take it under monitoring. I am not high risk for Covid however so was not eligible for an early vaccine. The disease and the worst vaccine side effects are not the same thing.

Goldengirl

revelman wrote: »

I think you are almost touching on philosophical questions here! If you take your broad definition of pressure or duress, you might ask whether there is genuine consent for Pfizer. There is such a buzz everywhere about it being the “golden ticket” that people are rolling up their sleeves without even thinking about it. Is this a form of social influence affecting an individual’s consent under your definition?

No its the definition of consent that most health professionals are guided by, morally, and would be what would be considered in a legal challenge as what is standard understanding of consent in reasonable circumstances.
Obviously it would change if circumstances were even more pressurised as I have said in a post just there for example, if we were to have a surge in cases.
Then society and health needs would have a greater weight in decision making.

xboxdad

BTW Ms Annie Lynch, the 1st person who got the vaccine in Ireland (29 Dec) is due to be revaccinated by the 29th of June (in a months time) I reckon.
Going by the mainstream (old?) info on the 6 months of immunity vaccines are proven to provide.
Will revaccinations commence in a few weeks or the 6 months is now outdated / proven wrong?

Vaccinated30

Degag wrote: »

My problem is that most people don’t have a valid reason for wanting to change vaccine. The one you have been offered for your age bracket is as safe as any other vaccine, all told.

Therefore by refusing the vaccine, for no good reason mostly, you are creating inefficiencies in the system, as a good enough process doesn’t currently exist apparently.

Which ultimately affects us all.

If a process comes in that allows easy choice between vaccines then all well and good.

OK so you are changing back to your original argument. People are refusing for their own good reason and they have the experts supporting their own choice.
So mind your own business.

Goldengirl

RavenBea17b wrote: »

Goldengirl wrote: »

Yes.
I have no problem with any of the vaccines, once risks are known and there is a continuous flow of new data re effects and efficacy coming through, from all over the world .
No matter what people say about them we are lucky that NIAC are independent and not going to be pushed into doing what is expedient rather than what is safe .

Obviously UK studies will be different as they have chosen their own path .
Good luck to them and hope it continues to work for them .
Their studies are very reliable once you factor for differing rollout and accept that reporting in their media will show some bias towards AZ and spreading the doses, because they cannot be seen to be critical now about it .
When you read the actual research instead of the media blurb there is little between the vaccines and with further tweaks we will probably end up with much the same results in the first world with boosters and dose intervals .

(My concern would be the poorer countries with larger young or difficult to reach populations , and the risk that due to costs or inefficiencies they may end up under vaccinated with vaccine escape , and a high level endemic disease . )
But that is a negative thought , so let's not discuss it ! [/QUOTE

Errm, I understood the spacing of both AZ and Pfizer was based on the medics and not the media.

I don't understand your post there?
I never said decisions were made by the media. On the contrary I was saying that the articles quoted by the op had a media bias.
Best to just read the studies rather than the media blurb.

revelman

Goldengirl wrote: »

No its the definition of consent that most health professionals are guided by, morally, and would be what would be considered in a legal challenge as what is standard understanding of consent in reasonable circumstances.
Obviously it would change if circumstances were even more pressurised as I have said in a post just there for example, if we were to have a surge in cases.
Then society and health needs would have a greater weight in decision making.

I really don’t see the issue of duress or pressure here. Is the law in Ireland really that different to other countries that are allowing people to receive AZ or J&J on the basis of informed consent? Informed consent surely means being told about the risks and then deciding nonetheless to take the vaccine. As soon as we go down the path of analysing issues such as “societal pressure”, we go down a rabbit hole. Just my opinion.

questionmark?

xboxdad wrote: »

BTW Ms Annie Lynch, the 1st person who got the vaccine in Ireland (29 Dec) is due to be revaccinated by the 29th of June (in a months time) I reckon.
Going by the mainstream (old?) info on the 6 months of immunity vaccines are proven to provide.
Will revaccinations commence in a few weeks or the 6 months is now outdated / proven wrong?

Outdated info. Like all things subject to change. At worst potentially a booster shoot to take account of new variants for those in the at risk categories hence EU mega deal with Pfizer for supply next year just in case.

Degag

Vaccinated30 wrote: »

OK so you are changing back to your original argument. People are refusing for their own good reason and they have the experts supporting their own choice.
So mind your own business.

Ha!

Unfortunately when they refuse for no reason it very much is my business.

Vaccinated30

Degag wrote: »

Ha!

Unfortunately when they refuse for no reason it very much is my business.

Why would it be your business?
They're not refusing for no reason, the reason they are refusing is because NIAC said they could. That is a perfectly good reason. And again, why is it your business what vaccine another person chooses to put in their body. Would you like to know the reason I chose to have Mirena coil inserted into my cervix and the reasons why I refused to have the Jaydess. No you don't want to know why I chose but I had a choice so I picked the best for me
None of this is anyone's business.

Degag

Degag wrote: »

Ha!

Unfortunately when they refuse for no reason it very much is my business.

Who exactly are you talking about here?

This is going round in circles.

In any case, under 50s are being given mRNAs anyway, so the question of choice is moot.

Wolf359f

questionmark? wrote: »

Outdated info. Like all things subject to change. At worst potentially a booster shoot to take account of new variants for those in the at risk categories hence EU mega deal with Pfizer for supply next year just in case.

Also to add to your valid point, in relation to long term immunity, those who were in the phase 3 trials, will once again be our canary in the coal mine.
Their immunity will fade well in advance of the general public and they are closely monitored, so it should be flagged early.

Degag

Vaccinated30 wrote: »

Why would it be your business?
They're not refusing for no reason, the reason they are refusing is because NIAC said they could. That is a perfectly good reason. And again, why is it your business what vaccine another person chooses to put in their body. Would you like to know the reason I chose to have Mirena coil inserted into my cervix and the reasons why I refused to have the Jaydess. No you don't want to know why I chose but I had a choice so I picked the best for me
None of this is anyone's business.

There are plenty of people refusing for no reason. I would say the vast majority who are, don’t have a valid reason. Not all, but most.

If there isn’t a process in place to easily change vaccine then someone shouldn’t. It’s as simple as that.

If you’re called for a vaccine, take what you’re given, walk out the door and be thankful.

Vaccinated30

Degag wrote: »

There are plenty of people refusing for no reason.

If there isn’t a process in place to easily change vaccine then someone shouldn’t. It’s as simple as that.

If you’re called for a vaccine, take what you’re given, walk out the door and be thankful.

Again no reason or just not a reason that's good enough for you. Your post seems to have a Morally superior twang to it.
The only reason they need is because they can.

And as has been pointed out to you under 50s are getting MRNA so there will be no choice.

Degag

Degag wrote: »

There are plenty of people refusing for no reason.

Got anything to back up that claim?

There have been some no shows at the MVCs but that's mainly because some people didn't receive the text they were supposed to get, and didn't know they had an appointment.

Some people reschedule and their appointment goes to someone else, what's wrong with that?

questionmark?

Interesting numbers from Paul Reid as reported by RTE.

They say 2.2m vaccines but then mention the weekly figure doesn't include figures from the Doctors due to the ongoing hack. Potentially that overall figure isn't true reflection and its in reality higher.
Also 56k in one day is good going especially if its only MVC's!!


""Overall more than 2.2 million vaccines have been administered in this country up to yesterday, according to Mr Reid.

More than 1.6 million people have now received their first dose, 43% of the adult population, with Thursday of last week seeing the highest number of vaccines administered to date - 56,000.

There were 250,000 vaccines given out last week but that does not include data from GPs which could not be included because of the cyber-attack on the HSE, Mr Reid said.""

Degag

Vaccinated30 wrote: »

Again no reason or just not a reason that's good enough for you. Your post seems to have a Morally superior twang to it.
The only reason they need is because they can.

And as has been pointed out to you under 50s are getting MRNA so there will be no choice.

Sigh, it’s not a valid reason. You can do any kind of law breaking activity in the morning and a judge won’t accept the fact that you had a choice as a valid reason.

And before you get excited, i’m not comparing this to breaking the law just pointing out the absurdity of your view regarding ‘choice’

Anyway, i’m done.

Russman

Degag wrote: »

Ha!

Unfortunately when they refuse for no reason it very much is my business.

Are you suggesting that fear or concern about the clotting issues is not a good reason ?
If it’s good enough for NIAC to issue guidance for I think I’d consider it a good reason.

Someone refusing because they don’t want to wait the 16, now 12, weeks for AZ is different and I’d agree with you there.

Vaccinated30

Degag wrote: »

Sigh, it’s not a valid reason. You can do any kind of law breaking activity in the morning and a judge won’t accept the fact that you had a choice as a valid reason.

And before you get excited, i’m not comparing this to breaking the law just pointing out the absurdity of your view regarding ‘choice’

Anyway, i’m done.

If the law says a person can do something and they do it then they won't even see a judge.

Degag

Degag wrote: »

Sigh, it’s not a valid reason. You can do any kind of law breaking activity in the morning and a judge won’t accept the fact that you had a choice as a valid reason.

And before you get excited, i’m not comparing this to breaking the law just pointing out the absurdity of your view regarding ‘choice’

Anyway, i’m done.

What are you talking about?

Degag

Russman wrote: »

Are you suggesting that fear or concern about the clotting issues is not a good reason ?
If it’s good enough for NIAC to issue guidance for I think I’d consider it a good reason.

Someone refusing because they don’t want to wait the 16, now 12, weeks for AZ is different and I’d agree with you there.

Both but moreso the latter yes.

Clotting affects such a tiny percentile that it shouldn’t enter the thinking of someone who is healthy.

Terrible if it does affect you but the benefits outweigh the risks.

Vaccinated30

Flying Fox wrote: »

What are you talking about?

I think the poster believes it's morally wrong to refuse a vaccine no matter what.

hmmm

xboxdad wrote: »

Will revaccinations commence in a few weeks or the 6 months is now outdated / proven wrong?

I don't think any country has decided on 3rd doses yet, who should receive them and when. The EU & UK are signing deals for boosters if they are required.

I wouldn't say the previous estimate was "wrong", this is a very fast-moving situation as new variants emerge and as testing gives us more information on how well the vaccines are working (apparently very well). Some scientists think we will have long-lasting protection against variants, others think it will be shorter.

Degag

Degag wrote: »

Clotting affects such a tiny percentile that it shouldn’t enter the thinking of someone who is healthy.

Terrible if it does affect you but the benefits outweigh the risks.

Except that they don't for a significant number of people. This has been explained many times on this thread. The data is all out there.

Vaccinated30

Vaccinated30 wrote: »

I think the poster believes it's morally wrong to refuse a vaccine no matter what.

It's the comparison to being up in front of a judge that I find bizarre...

Has no relevance whatsoever.

Vaccinated30

Degag wrote: »

Both but moreso the latter yes.

Clotting affects such a tiny percentile that it shouldn’t enter the thinking of someone who is healthy.

Terrible if it does affect you but the benefits outweigh the risks.

OK so you haven't mentioned the wait between doses as a reason until now.
NIAC seem to believe there's a higher risk and so aren't offering them.