Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

plodder

SusanC10 wrote: »

Just 2 weeks ago the Government were saying that vaccination of older ages first was based on medical advice. Has that advice changed ?

Husband and I are mid-late 40s so would be end of the queue with this.

I presume it has finally sunk in that vaccination reduces virus transmission which is what they are looking for here.

Skygord

70 year-old family member getting their jab today - rural village in the midlands.
It's taken a while but the 70+ cohort must be getting close to being complete. Perhaps another week or two?

Great to read above about 65-69's starting via MVC's next week.

Klonker

I think it would be s disastrous move to vaccinate the 18-30s first. It would be over complicating something that doesn't need to be and nobodies calling for. When they moved away from vaccinating teachers/guards etc. they stressed that age was the largest factor to severe covid and now they'd be rowing back again.

I wouldnt be one to appease the unions for the sake of it but there would be a huge backlash from them if this was implemented. Very little teachers and guards would fall into the 18-30 group than the 30-50 group. After the government said on NIAC advise that even though these professions have to deal with large numbers of students/the public as part of their job we will vaccinate by age as they are at more risk to severe covid. Now they're thinking of vaccinating this other lower risk group first that have higher case rates for no obvious reason apart from they don't follow the covid guidelines as well as the rest of the population.

is_that_so

Skygord wrote: »

70 year-old family member getting their jab today - rural village in the midlands.
It's taken a while but the 70+ cohort must be getting close to being complete. Perhaps another week or two?

Great to read above about 65-69's starting via MVC's next week.

That could mean the 60-64 group starting in early May and the under sixties by the end of May.

is_that_so

Klonker wrote: »

I think it would be s disastrous move to vaccinate the 18-30s first. It would be over complicating something that doesn't need to be and nobodies calling for. When they moved away from vaccinating teachers/guards etc. they stressed that age was the largest factor to severe covid and now they'd be rowing back again.

I wouldnt be one to appease the unions for the sake of it but there would be a huge backlash from them if this was implemented. Very little teachers and guards would fall into the 18-30 group than the 30-50 group. After the government said on NIAC advise that even though these professions have to deal with large numbers of students/the public as part of their job we will vaccinate this other lower risk group first that have higher case rates for no obvious reason apart from they don't follow the covid guidelines as well as the rest of the population.

The portal records age so there's really no big deal in setting it up if they want to. There are other considerations at work in the suggestion.

namloc1980

More tinkering with the cohorts is just getting annoying at this stage. Plenty of 30-50 year old going to be very pissed off with this proposal.

greenheep

This would be seen as rewarding people breaking the rules. How will 49 year olds feel when they see 18 year olds getting done weeks before them when their risk is much lower just because the government are worried they will be going out to party and socialise

Van.Bosch

Red Silurian wrote: »

You joke yet 75% of our new cases every day are in the under-45 age group... So theoretically if we vaccinate that age group then our figures should drop 75%

That’s true but I think the motivation is more economic, get them done and open up quicker.

Maybe they should just do everyone under 60 by a lottery, bit of both approaches. Everyone applies and the portal generates your appointment over the next 2 months randomly!

kave2

Pentagon unveils microchip that senses Covid in the body
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pentagon-covid-microchip-blood-virus-b1830372.html%3famp

is_that_so

kave2 wrote: »

Pentagon unveils microchip that senses Covid in the body
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pentagon-covid-microchip-blood-virus-b1830372.html%3famp

Hmm.

https://www.newsweek.com/covid-microchip-inject-pentagon-fact-check-real-hoax-1583532

1huge1

Skygord wrote: »

70 year-old family member getting their jab today - rural village in the midlands.
It's taken a while but the 70+ cohort must be getting close to being complete. Perhaps another week or two?

Great to read above about 65-69's starting via MVC's next week.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cUZy6AMCwuA2zhtRuKK7cqMVgmhdDsGsZrFWJTkw9DY/edit#gid=502588836

According to the above, there is still c. 100k of over 70s still due to get their first dose, great to see that there are some GPs (as in your case) that are already down at the 70 yr olds, but presumably if there are that many left to vaccinate, many other GPs still must still be in the 75-80yr old range.

stephenjmcd

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.

Why would there be war ?

It's in the original vaccine plan from December. Should enough evidence on the reduction of transmission become available that the rollout could be changed to go from youngest up. There's alot of logic behind it

Jinglejangle69

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Why would there be war ?

It's in the original vaccine plan from December. Should enough evidence on the reduction of transmission become available that the rollout could be changed to go from youngest up. There's alot of logic behind it

There's also a logic behind vaccinating people based on age.

sd1999

Vaccinating younger cohorts will have a bigger impact on case numbers than vaccinating 30-50s. Lowers case numbers means the economy can open up faster. Is that not what people have been crying out for for ages?

Skygord

1huge1 wrote: »

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cUZy6AMCwuA2zhtRuKK7cqMVgmhdDsGsZrFWJTkw9DY/edit#gid=502588836

According to the above, there is still c. 100k of over 70s still due to get their first dose, great to see that there are some GPs (as in your case) that are already down at the 70 yr olds, but presumably if there are that many left to vaccinate, many other GPs still must still be in the 75-80yr old range.

Thanks, yes I check that spreadsheet daily (many thanks to whoever is doing it, very useful). That's why I guessed 1 - 2 weeks, but then again there are still dose 1's being given to cohort 1 using the same MRNA stock. Also, I assume cohort 4 under 60's are now switched over from AZ to MRNA, so maybe I was too optimistic. Thanks.

is_that_so

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

There's also a logic behind vaccinating people based on age.

There is but there's an argument being made with this proposal that vaccinating the 18-30 cohort first may bring about a faster reduction in cases.

stephenjmcd

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

There's also a logic behind vaccinating people based on age.

There is but it was always in the original plan that should sufficient evidence on transmission come to light that the rollout could be pivoted to go up the age groups instead of down.

The reason being primarily younger people in low paid customer facing jobs with long hours of multiple interactions & contacts in said jobs, more young people in shared housing and cramped conditions.

The vast majority of cases now are in the U45 age bracket so this is where transmission is taking place. It makes sense to root it out. If you stop transmission from vaccinating the younger you start protecting the older anyway.

Jinglejangle69

stephenjmcd wrote: »

There is but it was always in the original plan that should sufficient evidence on transmission come to light that the rollout could be pivoted to go up the age groups instead of down.

The reason being primarily younger people in low paid customer facing jobs with long hours of multiple interactions & contacts in said jobs, more young people in shared housing and cramped conditions.

The vast majority of cases now are in the U45 age bracket so this is where transmission is taking place. It makes sense to root it out. If you stop transmission from vaccinating the younger you start protecting the older anyway.

So you're suggesting because some young people work in supermarkets they are accounting for the majority of cases???

And under 45 isn't 18-30.

Ohmeha

It must be said aswell if the government really mean to pursue this controversial 18-30 vaccination strategy then vaccination passports surely must happen

They would be seriously naive to think the cohort of 18-30s who have breaching public health regulations having house parties are all going volunteer to get vaccinated. If a large amount of 18-30 refuse to get vaccinated this won't work but a carrot and stick approach might

noserider

namloc1980 wrote: »

More tinkering with the cohorts is just getting annoying at this stage. Plenty of 30-50 year old going to be very pissed off with this proposal.

All this tinkering with the cohorts is just another example of how clueless our Government are when it comes to roll out.
Did they not consider this age group when plan was first devised? Both that age cohort and opening of the economic should of been considerations at initial planning stage. It’s called project management.
Apparently they’ve heard of it in the civil service.
Instead what we have is indecisiveness leading to more stress in the population and downright anger in this shambles of a Government

greenheep

is_that_so wrote: »

There is but there's an argument being made with this proposal that vaccinating the 18-30 cohort first may bring about a faster reduction in cases.

I thought we didn't care so much about cases anymore, I thought hospitalisations and deaths were the main issue when the vulnerable are covered ?

Turtwig

Stephen Donnelly's office likely got a lot public representations requesting this. He's just fulfilling his obligations as minister and following up. This may go nowhere.

The proposal may have its advantages in reducing transmission and reopening the economy. Trouble is aside from Israel, data on transmission is very limited.

Strongly disagree with folks here who think you should not change plans. Plans should always be adaptable and flexible. Nothing wrong with changing them if the data shows a strong benefit.

FWIW, I think the current age cohorts priority is the most effective way to go. Let's see what NIAC say.

stephenjmcd

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

So you're suggesting because some young people work in supermarkets they are accounting for the majority of cases???

And under 45 isn't 18-30.

Your missing the point here.

Younger age groups are currently driving the level of transmission here. Very solid data is now emerging on the impact of vaccination on transmission. By targeting where the transmission is you also protect more older people also.

There is also the economic benefit too which I'm not surprised is probably being considered.

You can read the vaccination strategy document yourself. Its been in there since day 1.

"If evidence demonstrates the vaccine(s) prevent
transmission, those aged 18-34 should be
prioritised due to their increased level of social
contact and role in transmission."

There is advantages and disadvantages should they go down this route but its definitely worth exploring as the logic behind it is quite strong. It's worth getting an opinion on from NIAC, NPHET etc

is_that_so

greenheep wrote: »

I thought we didn't care so much about cases anymore, I thought hospitalisations and deaths were the main issue when the vulnerable are covered ?

They are one element. 5 day, 7 day, 14 day data of cases is what they focus on more. Thankfully, the hospitalisations and deaths are now of less concern with 180 or so in hospital and about 50 in ICU and falling.

Jinglejangle69

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Your missing the point here.

Younger age groups are currently driving the level of transmission here. Very solid data is now emerging on the impact of vaccination on transmission. By targeting where the transmission is you also protect more older people also.

There is also the economic benefit too which I'm not surprised is probably being considered.

You can read the vaccination strategy document yourself. Its been in there since day 1.

"If evidence demonstrates the vaccine(s) prevent
transmission, those aged 18-34 should be
prioritised due to their increased level of social
contact and role in transmission."

So vaccines are now about stopping the spread of transmission?

And I'm not missing the point about young people working in shops like you suggested.

Are you saying shops and young people are the reason for high cases?

I've worked in many places over the last few weeks and all of them have people mostly over 40 working in close proximity with no masks etc.

I don't know why you think most young people are working in these places and are more likely to catch covid.

iamwhoiam

I just registered via the portal .As other posters said it is user friendly and easy to manage .I did double check and triple check and check my PPS again .But thats more my issue than theirs ! I am excited now to get an appointment .My husband will be done today and they just rang to confirm that , our hearts stopped when we saw the number come up but all is well .
They are firing ahead with the 65-69 and its great to see .I now know so many neighbours ages as we are all due it and the conversations are " what age are you "? which we would never have asked before !!!!

is_that_so

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

So vaccines are now about stopping the spread of transmission?

At that stage of the programme, they might well be. We are talking about well into June anyway, not next week.

stephenjmcd

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I just registered via the portal .As other posters said it is user friendly and easy to manage .I did double check and triple check and check my PPS again .But thats more my issue than theirs ! I am excited now to get an appointment .My husband will be done today and they just rang to confirm that , our hearts stopped when we saw the number come up but all is well .
They are firing ahead with the 65-69 and its great to see .I now know so many neighbours ages as we are all due it and the conversations are " what age are you "? which we would never have asked before !!!!

Great news.

Did your husband register on the portal as well when it opened?

They really do seem to be turning around with appointments very quickly

Turtwig

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

So vaccines are now about stopping the spread of transmission?

When someone starts a question with so... They've nearly always misunderstood the other person's position.

That poster you are replying to is not say vaccines are exclusively for one purpose or the other. They're saying if they impact cases by a reduction in transmission then that benefit has to be considered. It's not that the other benefits are now considered obsolete.

TheValeyard

namloc1980 wrote: »

More tinkering with the cohorts is just getting annoying at this stage. Plenty of 30-50 year old going to be very pissed off with this proposal.

If this happens. Any sense of obeying restrictions or following rules is gone. If it's not already.