Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

ACitizenErased

Strazdas wrote: »

Does the current estimate of 80% by end of June now factor out J & J? Do they think this is doable with just Pfizer, Moderna and AZ?

Yes.

JPup

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Seems bizarre when the over 70s first jab still hasn't been completed yet.

Anyway not surprising.

Over 70s are getting Biontech through the GP network. Over 60s are getting AstraZeneca through the vaccination centres. Two separate processes. Would make no sense to postpone one until the other is finished when there is no need.

Godot.

TomOnBoard wrote: »

It was the LACK of an abundance of caution that characterised the worst failures of past vaccination programmes!

I love to see an abundance of caution figuring hugely in current vaccine roll-out.

I'd like to see an abundance of common sense. Large parts of the economy didn't shut down for previous vaccination programmes. The risks are tiny and more people die from not getting a vaccine.

Age restrictions for J&J would be a huge blow.

TomOnBoard

Godot. wrote: »

I'd like to see an abundance of common sense. Large parts of the economy didn't shut down for previous vaccination programmes. The risks are tiny and more people die from not getting a vaccine.

Age restrictions for J&J would be a huge blow.

The economies have largely shut down as a result of societal quarantine measures designed to limit the worst effects of a pandemic with greater air-borne viral transmissability than had been known for over a century. A year ago, the world feared massive death and injury from Covid and many countries chose to protect the life and limbs of their peoples by lockdowns. Others did not!

A year ago, a Covid vaccine was but a dream... a four year horizon was predicted... Now, just a year in, we have one/many and it/they are being rolled out. The risks from Covid are still huge, and will only materially decline as more ppl get vaccinated, which is a process that is ongoing.

Stay the course! We're close to a reasonable outcome! Lets not relent on the cautious approach! In a year's time, we'll consider it as heroism!

Turtwig

ACitizenErased wrote: »

EMA won't issue age restrictions. If they didn't with AZ, they won't with J&J.

No guarantee of that. Depends on what the data tells them.

Wolf359f

Turtwig wrote: »

No guarantee of that. Depends on what the data tells them.

EMA already approved J&J. What you're suggesting is them changing that by limiting it by age. They haven't done that with AZ despite the higher incidence in clots. This is all on US data which is already out there. If they make any decision or suggestion (based on US data) they will more likely need to change the AZ decision.

TomOnBoard

Wolf359f wrote: »

EMA already approved J&J. What you're suggesting is them changing that by limiting it by age. They haven't done that with AZ despite the higher incidence in clots. This is all on US data which is already out there. If they make any decision or suggestion (based on US data) they will more likely need to change the AZ decision.

While I understand that EMA approval is crucial in terms of marketing vaccines in EU, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to see its approval mechanisms as much more than rubber-stamping of the work of others by politically motivat bureaucratic processes. Its quite disappointing to see the agency that is charged with ensuring the stuff put into my body is safe is being double-judged all over the EU!

The Biden-era FDA has become the leading arbiter of vaccine safety IMO...MHRA and EMA are political pawns right now!

Wolf359f

TomOnBoard wrote: »

While I understand that EMA approval is crucial in terms of marketing vaccines in EU, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to see its approval mechanisms as much more than rubber-stamping of the work of others by politically motivat bureaucratic processes. Its quite disappointing to see the agency that is charged with ensuring the stuff put into my body is safe is being double-judged all over the EU!

The Biden-era FDA has become the leading arbiter of vaccine safety IMO...MHRA and EMA are political pawns right now!

There's you're problem, you assume all medicine is safe.
There's plenty of medicines approved by the EMA which are not approved in member states and vice versa. The Eu does not control health as they do finances etc... That can be a good thing as much as a bad thing.

Can you explain whose the 'others' are? I don't seem to get what you mean.

JTMan

Irish Times reporting that those aged 18-30 age would get shots before those aged 30-50 under new plan. (I assume they mean 16-30).

There will be war over this.

The logic given seems to be that the younger party and socialise more. This does not sit well with me from a fairness perspective.

Those aged 30-50 are at significant more risk than the younger groups. All other countries, that I am aware of, are doing vaccinations by descending age group.

Lumen

Why would it be unfair? Young adults have sacrificed the most relative to their risk. They've been locked up to protect older generations. This would be payback.

ianobrien

Lumen wrote: »

Why would it be unfair? Young adults have sacrificed the most relative to their risk. They've been locked up to protect older generations. This would be payback.

Ya, the younger people who couldn't be bothered to follow the advice get a benefit for their non compliance while the older people who followed the advice suffer from the delay?

If they change they would have to have strong medical and scientific logic otherwise there will be chaos with every civil service union shouting for priority.

JTMan

Lumen wrote: »

Why would it be unfair?

Because simply vaccines should be given on a 'risk of death' prioritisation basis. The risk of someone dying from Covid in their 40's is 130 times a teenager and about 1,300 times with someone in their 50's versus a teenager. More people will die if younger people are given vaccines before older people.

JacksonHeightsOwn

JTMan wrote: »

Irish Times reporting that those aged 18-30 age would get shots before those aged 30-50 under new plan. (I assume they mean 16-30).

There will be war over this.

The logic given seems to be that the younger party and socialise more. This does not sit well with me from a fairness perspective.

Those aged 30-50 are at significant more risk than the younger groups. All other countries, that I am aware of, are doing vaccinations by descending age group.

I'm 39, so pretty much, smack bang in the middle of the are cohorts if that goes ahead.

As annoying as it will be, it does tend to make a bit of sense though.

Lumen

JTMan wrote: »

Because simply vaccines should be given on a 'risk of death' prioritisation basis. The risk of someone dying from Covid in their 40's is 130 times a teenager and about 1,300 times with someone in their 50's versus a teenager. More people will die if younger people are given vaccines before older people.

We don't simply vaccinate on a risk of death basis. Young HCW have been vaccinated despite a very low risk of death.

noplacehere

Lumen wrote: »

Why would it be unfair? Young adults have sacrificed the most relative to their risk. They've been locked up to protect older generations. This would be payback.

Someone aged 30 has really sacrificed just as much as someone aged 29 comparative to risk to be honest.

Once they decided not to jab front line workers because they were going with age profile I’d have an issue with changing it again to be honest. I can see the logic in giving it to young gardai, teachers, meat factory workers, creche workers etc due the additional risk in their work environments but prioritising someone just because they are more likely to socialise against the rules....? Yeah that sticks a bit

The HorsesMouth

Lumen wrote: »

We don't simply vaccinate on a risk of death basis. Young HCW have been vaccinated despite a very low risk of death.

Well sure then why aren't we vaccinating gardaí and teachers like they said they would at the start? The reason they were given is that a 50 year old working from home is far likely to die or get very sick from coronavirus than a 35 year old teacher. There would be mayhem if the age based roll out is changed again.

noplacehere

The HorsesMouth wrote: »

Well sure then why aren't we vaccinating gardaí and teachers like they said they would at the start? The reason they were given is that a 50 year old working from home is far likely to die or get very sick from coronavirus than a 35 year old teacher. There would be mayhem if the age based roll out is changed again.

Absolutely. My other half just pointed out that we’d all like to socialise ffs and that parents who would largely be in the 30-50 age group have been trying to homeschool their kids and work from home (generalisation). Don’t they deserve to be vaccinated so they can socialise?

This would cause war

Lumen

The HorsesMouth wrote: »

There would be mayhem if the age based roll out is changed again.

I agree, I was just pointing out that as soon as you introduce "fairness" into any debate you get people arguing that it's fair that the system is skewed in their favour, because fairness can be argued from any number of angles.

prunudo

At this stage, as someone in their 40s, once they don't introduce the need for domestic vaccination passports I don't care what order they vaccinate the sub 50yr olds.

The HorsesMouth

prunudo wrote: »

At this stage, as someone in their 40s, once they don't introduce the need for domestic vaccination passports I don't care what order they vaccinate the sub 50yr olds.

As someone in their early thirties I kind of agree with this. Having had covid I don't fear it one bit. However when it comes to travel around europe it would seriously irk me if it opens up in July/August/September and I am at the very back of the queue.

Happydays2020

ianobrien wrote: »

Ya, the younger people who couldn't be bothered to follow the advice get a benefit for their non compliance while the older people who followed the advice suffer from the delay?

If they change they would have to have strong medical and scientific logic otherwise there will be chaos with every civil service union shouting for priority.

I am not sure what civil service unions have been shouting for priority? There was the teachers but who else?

Aside from that, I expect there will be serious push back from a cohort of people who are more at risk and have been doing the heavy lifting for the economy. They are more likely to have kids who are back in schools and potentially can spread.

Is this Donnelly looking for votes?

prunudo

The HorsesMouth wrote: »

As someone in their early thirties I kind of agree with this. Having had covid I don't fear it one bit. However when it comes to travel around europe it would seriously irk me if it opens up in July/August/September and I am at the very back of the queue.

Thats true, have something in the pipeline for September but unfortunately the EU vaccine passports is further out of our control than the ability to get haircut or a pint unvaccinated.

leahyl

noplacehere wrote: »

Absolutely. My other half just pointed out that we’d all like to socialise ffs and that parents who would largely be in the 30-50 age group have been trying to homeschool their kids and work from home (generalisation). Don’t they deserve to be vaccinated so they can socialise?

This would cause war

And also, believe it or not, there are still single people over 30 (myself included) but sure we wouldn’t be socialising or anything!....if this is true then I honestly don’t know what to say at this stage.

ianobrien

Happydays2020 wrote: »

I am not sure what civil service unions have been shouting for priority? There was the teachers but who else?

Garda were shouting and the prison officers went on a work to rule over the past few days.

SJFly

Carers for medically vulnerable children and teenagers will mainly be in the 30-50 age bracket. Another summer locked away. Brilliant

noplacehere

leahyl wrote: »

And also, believe it or not, there are still single people over 30 (myself included) but sure we wouldn’t be socialising or anything!....if this is true then I honestly don’t know what to say at this stage.

Totally, that’s why I said generalisation. Kids or no kids the whole country wants to socialise regardless of age!

Leftwaffe

So, what about this Indian variant that George Lee and co. are frothing from the mouth about? Anything to actually be concerned about?

I’m gone past the variant scare mongering tbh.

I’m not sure why they can’t just leave it alone at this stage, age is apparently the biggest risk after vaccinating the vulnerable so just go through down through the ages, it really should not be that difficult.

Jim Gazebo

JTMan wrote: »

Irish Times reporting that those aged 18-30 age would get shots before those aged 30-50 under new plan. (I assume they mean 16-30).

There will be war over this.

The logic given seems to be that the younger party and socialise more. This does not sit well with me from a fairness perspective.

Those aged 30-50 are at significant more risk than the younger groups. All other countries, that I am aware of, are doing vaccinations by descending age group.

I am in that bracket. I do not want it ahead of older more vulnerable people. Silly imo.

leahyl

noplacehere wrote: »

Totally, that’s why I said generalisation. Kids or no kids the whole country wants to socialise regardless of age!

I agree! Sorry, hope it didn’t come across that I was being smart - didn’t mean it that way at all! Just saying that it’s a laugh that they are cutting it off at 30 as the “younger generation” and assuming that they would do all the socialising - the assumption that the majority of people over 30 are married and/or have kids so there’s no way they’d have time for any socialising...it just pisses me off!