Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

josip

VG31 wrote: »

We should be doing everything we can to encourage high uptake. Simply having a fixed date/time and if you miss it, tough luck attitude is completely counterproductive. Of course there will be people who forget or don't have their priorities right but there are plenty of legitimate reasons also.

I would happily take a vaccine at 3 or 4 am if offered but I still couldn't absolutely guarantee that I would be able to go if given a fixed date and time.

True, some European countries who are struggling with vaccine uptake, will set up mobile vaccination points in shopping centres.

is_that_so

Health11 wrote: »

I just did. They said they will announcing a new healthcare portal in the coming weeks. I am just wondering if I can contact my GP and arrange one?

Unless you're in the over 60s or in Group 4, the healthcare one will probably happen faster.

Godot.

We should query the UK to ask if they fancy swapping some of their Pfizer supply for our AstraZeneca stockpile. .

Transport will be an issue for people who can't drive, so I think there should be some flexibility given on venue (as the UK does).

Someone on the outskirts of Dublin who can't drive can probably get to Croke Park or the Aviva easily enough on public transport. Might not be so easy if they're sent to Citywest.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not desirable, it's essential.

For example in Galway there is one MVC (at the racecourse). This is where the 60s to 69s will be done. For people in some parts of Connemara this will mean a 100+ mile round trip. They won't all have cars/drive. There is very limited public transport, any public transport will drop someone in the city and there's another 30 min trip out to the racecourse. You can't just tell these people, here's your slot, take it or leave it. As another poster said that kind of attitude is completely counterproductive.

Having only one centre in Galway county is the problem given the size of the county.

Connemara folk generally have no problem finding their way to the racecourse in July however:p

IRISHSPORTSGUY

stephenjmcd wrote: »

"CureVac currently anticipates completing data submission in time to file for conditional approval of CVnCoV in Q2 2021"

https://www.curevac.com/en/2021/04/15/curevac-announces-financial-results-and-business-updates-for-the-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-of-2020/

Will they be able to hit the ground running though?

They have been signing up a lot of new partners recently eg: Bayer and Novartis, but will they be able to deliver in good quantities straight away or will the pandemic be as good as over in this country by the time they are delivering at scale?

Economics101

For the AZ vaccine there exists some information on clotting which gives us a rough estimation of incidence and risk. It would appear that this might be an issue for females under 50 (and even that is taking a very risk-averse view of the vaccine). For those not in this category, the incidence is vanishingly small, and is even more trivial if you consider that the excess over non-vaccinated people is what matters.

But for the over-70s what evidence is there of increased risk or reduced effectiveness? Forget the stupid assertions made in a certain German newspaper or the ridiculous comments of Emmanuel Macron. Then main problem a couple of months ago was absence of evidence, mainly due to bad sampling design for the stage 3 trials. Over 65s appear to have been under-represented in the samples to the extent that statistically significant results for this age group were absent. However subsequent experience would appear to indicate robust effectiveness for older people, and there is no emerging evidence of enhanced risk, as far as I am aware.

Why then is the AZ vaccine not part of the rollout for over 70s? Are we supposed to have evidence-based policies? Maybe at this stage the over 70s are pretty well catered for anyhow, but we seem to have an age-related restriction for which there is no evidence.

Is it all so that those who make these decisions might seem to lose face if they change things? I'd like a rational explanation.

ACitizenErased

Economics101 wrote: »

For the AZ vaccine there exists some information on clotting which gives us a rough estimation of incidence and risk. It would appear that this might be an issue for females under 50 (and even that is taking a very risk-averse view of the vaccine). For those not in this category, the incidence is vanishingly small, and is even more trivial if you consider that the excess over non-vaccinated people is what matters.

But for the over-70s what evidence is there of increased risk or reduced effectiveness? Forget the stupid assertions made in a certain German newspaper or the ridiculous comments of Emmanuel Macron. Then main problem a couple of months ago was absence of evidence, mainly due to bad sampling design for the stage 3 trials. Over 65s appear to have been under-represented in the samples to the extent that statistically significant results for this age group were absent. However subsequent experience would appear to indicate robust effectiveness for older people, and there is no emerging evidence of enhanced risk, as far as I am aware.

Why then is the AZ vaccine not part of the rollout for over 70s? Are we supposed to have evidence-based policies? Maybe at this stage the over 70s are pretty well catered for anyhow, but we seem to have an age-related restriction for which there is no evidence.

Is it all so that those who make these decisions might seem to lose face if they change things? I'd like a rational explanation.

AZ is approved for all over 60.

lukas8888

ACitizenErased wrote: »

AZ is approved for all over 60.

Yes but is not given to the over 70s

josip

Economics101 wrote: »

For the AZ vaccine there exists some information on clotting which gives us a rough estimation of incidence and risk. It would appear that this might be an issue for females under 50 (and even that is taking a very risk-averse view of the vaccine). For those not in this category, the incidence is vanishingly small, and is even more trivial if you consider that the excess over non-vaccinated people is what matters.

But for the over-70s what evidence is there of increased risk or reduced effectiveness? Forget the stupid assertions made in a certain German newspaper or the ridiculous comments of Emmanuel Macron. Then main problem a couple of months ago was absence of evidence, mainly due to bad sampling design for the stage 3 trials. Over 65s appear to have been under-represented in the samples to the extent that statistically significant results for this age group were absent. However subsequent experience would appear to indicate robust effectiveness for older people, and there is no emerging evidence of enhanced risk, as far as I am aware.

Why then is the AZ vaccine not part of the rollout for over 70s? Are we supposed to have evidence-based policies? Maybe at this stage the over 70s are pretty well catered for anyhow, but we seem to have an age-related restriction for which there is no evidence.

Is it all so that those who make these decisions might seem to lose face if they change things? I'd like a rational explanation.

I think you answered your own question there.
The evidence that AZ was effective for over 70s only emerged after their program was well under way using Pfizer.

ACitizenErased

lukas8888 wrote: »

Yes but is not given to the over 70s

No reason why it shouldn't be or won't in the next week or two

Stark

ACitizenErased wrote: »

No reason why it shouldn't be or won't in the next week or two

Likely they'll all be first dosed by then (and they won't mix second doses).

If they were to start giving the ones who haven't been first dosed yet AZ immediately, I think things would overall balance out and the roadmap wouldn't be delayed by the AZ restrictions (other than over 70s having to wait 12 weeks for second dose).

JP Liz V1

Tánaiste Leo Varadkar has warned that anyone who refuses an AstraZeneca vaccine will have to go to the back of the queue and wait until the entire population is vaccinated to be offered an alternative.

ACitizenErased

Stark wrote: »

Likely they'll all be first dosed by then (and they won't mix second doses).

If they were to start giving the ones who haven't been first dosed yet AZ immediately, I think things would overall balance out and the roadmap wouldn't be delayed by the AZ restrictions (other than over 70s having to wait 12 weeks for second dose).

Fairly certain some over 70s particularly housebound have gotten AZ already

Stark

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Fairly certain some over 70s particularly housebound have gotten AZ already

That's good.

Leftwaffe

Just listening to Drivetime, how true is it that the AstraZeneca vaccine is only 10% effective against the SA variant? I refuse to believe that. It’s been taken as fact on the radio just now.

ACitizenErased

Leftwaffe wrote: »

Just listening to Drivetime, how true is it that the AstraZeneca vaccine is only 10% effective against the SA variant? I refuse to believe that. It’s been taken as fact on the radio just now.

It's taken from a bogus study. Who said it?

Degag

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Tánaiste Leo Varadkar has warned that anyone who refuses an AstraZeneca vaccine will have to go to the back of the queue and wait until the entire population is vaccinated to be offered an alternative.

Rightfully so too.

Turtwig

Leftwaffe wrote: »

Just listening to Drivetime, how true is it that the AstraZeneca vaccine is only 10% effective against the SA variant? I refuse to believe that. It’s been taken as fact on the radio just now.

It's an estimate with a ridiculous degree of uncertainty. Kingston Mills, Staines and a few others have quoted it without an context or explanation.

For example, the authors intended to preliminary analyse AZ in South Africa. Due to the urgency of the pandemic they accelerated the dosing intervals. For the purposes of what they wished to study this was fine. The problem is people reporting on it rarely mention it. By analogy you want to study how effective a drug is but never give anyone the regular prescribed dose. Then your results show the drug doesn't work. Do you suddenly start telling everyone the drug is useless?

Degag

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not desirable, it's essential.

For example in Galway there is one MVC (at the racecourse). This is where the 60s to 69s will be done. For people in some parts of Connemara this will mean a 100+ mile round trip. They won't all have cars/drive. There is very limited public transport, any public transport will drop someone in the city and there's another 30 min trip out to the racecourse. You can't just tell these people, here's your slot, take it or leave it. As another poster said that kind of attitude is completely counterproductive.

I don't particularly think that it's essential but it would obviously be good to have a certain amount of flexibility alright. Certainly in relation to isolated people that you mentioned.

However the vaccine should be everyone's priority bar pretty much anything else. If someone can't make it because they are booked to go out to the Canaries for the week they should go to the bottom of the list IMO.

darem93

My Mam got a last minute call from her GP this afternoon asking can she go and get the vaccine. I'm so happy for her, she was delighted.

josip

Degag wrote: »

I don't particularly think that it's essential but it would obviously be good to have a certain amount of flexibility alright. Certainly in relation to isolated people that you mentioned.

However the vaccine should be everyone's priority bar pretty much anything else. If someone can't make it because they are booked to go out to the Canaries for the week they should go to the bottom of the list IMO.

There's a lot more going on in people's lives than a week in the Canaries.
Many people may not be able to make an appointment due to work or family commitments.

Degag

josip wrote: »

There's a lot more going on in people's lives than a week in the Canaries.
Many people may not be able to make an appointment due to work or family commitments.

It should come before the majority of work or family commitments IMO.

lukas8888

Degag wrote: »

Rightfully so too.

Says all the under sixties and over seventies.

is_that_so

Degag wrote: »

Rightfully so too.

Coveney repeated it again later on the COVID Show(Claire Byrne).

astrofool

Godot. wrote: »

We should query the UK to ask if they fancy swapping some of their Pfizer supply for our AstraZeneca stockpile. .

We should ask Boris if he'll take some of the "British" vaccine in a swap for the "German" vaccine and see if he refuses :pac:

Jim Gazebo

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Tánaiste Leo Varadkar has warned that anyone who refuses an AstraZeneca vaccine will have to go to the back of the queue and wait until the entire population is vaccinated to be offered an alternative.

Is that not the equivalent of forcing a vaccine on someone? I don't think people should be refusing but no one should have to be uncomfortable getting it for fear of some punishment, like being put to last in the queue.

is_that_so

Jim Gazebo wrote: »

Is that not the equivalent of forcing a vaccine on someone? I don't think people should be refusing but no one should have to be uncomfortable getting it for fear of some punishment, like being put to last in the queue.

Nobody can choose their vaccine, that's a HSE call. Most people seem happy to take what they are offered. A national programme can't wait for people to make up their minds and it needs to move on to the next person. If people don't want it now when might they want it?

ACitizenErased

Pfizer CEO told CNBC people will likely need a third dose of a COVID19 vaccine within 12 months of getting fully vaccinated.

ACitizenErased

26,000 69 year olds registered today so far