Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

iamwhoiam

stephenjmcd wrote: »

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

No , he is 70 so the GP rang him

km79

The medical advice and science that Martin and Donnelly were preaching about to the nation just a few weeks ago when moving to age based prioritization must have changed so ? Right ?

They are going to lose a large proportion of very complaint people now. Many of whom are back to work already mixing with others in the 30-50 age bracket

odyssey06

Uptake could be lower in 18-30 group as many could see themselves as low risk and without carrot of vaccine passport why bother.
The risks of covid are higher to 40 and 50 somethings... seems a risky move.

Jinglejangle69

Turtwig wrote: »

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.

Well yes I have misunderstood.

Because now we're suggesting vaccines are been given because they stop transmission.

Here I was thinking I heard for months they were to protect the old and vulnerable.

ressem

Are there other cases encountered by boardsies of GPs having inaccurate patient databases?

The HSE appears to be relying on GP practices to use their databases to contact patients in the age group for a vaccination.

A family member in the 75+ group received a phonecall from the GP practice where he's been a patient for almost 40 years; only to find that it was a vaccination appointment for a different person.
Then when he asked about his own, they didn't find him and asked for his details.

So obviously I've only one case, (sort of two cases) to go on.
It does raise the question whether the minister should announce that "all over 7x's that they have records for have now been vaccinated; if you've been missed then contact your GP and as a fallback the HSE number xxx."

Most likely is that the GPs staff have fecked up an excel copy, or typos over the years. But also a chance that a small number of GP practices out of the thousands could act stupidly or badly.

(edit: checked and it wasn't a fraud call)

castletownman

If moving around the cohorts is all about kick-starting the hospitality sector, would there not be more disposable income to spend in restaurants etc among the 30-50 age-group?

Sure students are notorious for spending as little as they can on a night out, and pre-drinks are still a thing, especially in the summer months.

There is no way an 18-20 year old is going to be going to the local restuarant for a two-course meal and a few drinks over an an older couple for example.

Turtwig

TheValeyard wrote: »

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

Any lame excuse to justify one's own actions. I guess. Do you people not want the quickest and most effective way out of this mess or not? No apparently we can't consider changing anything for the better if evidence supports it.

Bizarre fcking logic

stephenjmcd

iamwhoiam wrote: »

No , he is 70 so the GP rang him

Good to hear. No doubt you'll get your appointment shortly

hmmm

It's impossible to support this government any more, they are staggering from one unnecessary crisis to another. All those government spokespersons sent out last week to explain why a 45 year old shop worker should be prioritised over a 20 year old teacher will now be asked this weekend to justify the reverse.

This decision could have been made months ago. On a political level it's pretty staggering incompetence to alienate the public sector unions, businesses who export, every foreign worker in the country and the entire 30 to 50 year old cohort in the space of two weeks.

Turtwig

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Well yes I have misunderstood.

Because now we're suggesting vaccines are been given because they stop transmission.

Here I was thinking I heard for months they were to protect the old and vulnerable.

They can be both these things.

vienne86

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 stuff! I hope you get your text soon. My text was resent two hours after the first. On the portal my status is 'Awaiting appointment'.

km79

Turtwig wrote: »

Any lame excuse to justify one's own actions. I guess. Do you people not want the quickest and most effective way out of this mess or not? No apparently we can't consider changing anything for the better of evidence supports it.

Bizarre fcking logic

We were told just a few weeks ago that the medical advice had changed and that the science said it must be age based and that the science must be followed

What has changed ?

TheValeyard

Turtwig wrote: »

Any lame excuse to justify one's own actions. I guess. Do you people not want the quickest and most effective way out of this mess or not? No apparently we can't consider changing anything for the better of evidence supports it.

Bizarre fcking logic

Yeah Bizarre logic. Where the plan keeps changing.
There is no quick or effective way out of this. Whole thing has turned into a shambles.

odyssey06

Turtwig wrote: »

Any lame excuse to justify one's own actions. I guess. Do you people not want the quickest and most effective way out of this mess or not? No apparently we can't consider changing anything for the better if evidence supports it.

Bizarre fcking logic

No evidence has changed from a couple of weeks ago when we shifted to age based rollout by risk instead of high exposure groups.

A change of course here has no scientific credibility.

Turtwig

hmmm wrote: »

It's impossible to support this government any more, they are staggering from one unnecessary crisis to another. All those government spokespersons sent out last week to explain why a 45 year old shop worker should be prioritised over a 20 year old teacher will now be asked this weekend to justify the reverse.

This decision could have been made months ago. On a political level it's pretty staggering incompetence to alienate the public sector unions, businesses who export, every foreign worker in the country and the entire 30 to 50 year old cohort in the space of two weeks.

The original NIAC publication last year, the UKs JCVI equivalent all had mentioned this possibility. If transmission can be suppressed at a faster rate you have to consider it.

The decision was made months ago to keep this option on the table - in many countries.

km79

Turtwig wrote: »

The original NIAC publication last year, the UKs JCVI equivalent all had mentioned this possibility. If transmission can be suppressed at a faster rate you have to consider it.

The decision was made months ago to keep this option on the table - in many countries.

Last year
Months ago

We were told a few weeks ago that medical advice has changed and MUST be followed

Has it changed again ?
Simple question for Donnelly and Martin to clarify

Sweet.Science

km79 wrote: »

Last year
Months ago

We were told a few weeks ago that medical advice has changed and MUST be followed

Has it changed again ?
Simple question for Donnelly and Martin to clarify

Don't worry when supply ramps up in March and April it won't really matter

Rebelbrowser

Agree with most here. Even flying this kite is nuts. Completely goes against the aged based logic we were fed not 3 weeks ago. Even if this plan goes nowhere the fact they were thinking of doing this just 3 weeks after saying the diametric opposite is further damaging to the government's credibility.

I can also say as someone in my mid forties I would be furious. It would be the worst of all worlds for people of my age group. Bad enough to be last in the queue for arbitrary reasons, but would be the most vulnerable age group not vaccinated when the rest of society would open up completely (and then some, it'll be like VE day with everyone socialising) so the risk of getting covid will actually be pretty high. People in their forties will end up in full lockdown with everyone else partying all round them.

Can you imagine how a 49 year old garda might feel about this idea?

km79

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Don't worry when supply ramps up in March and April it won't really matter

Of 2022?


I’ve lost all faith now. They are incapable of putting together and sticking with a coherent plan .
I understand the vaccine supply has been bumpy and cut them slack for that until now.
No longer . It’s shambolic. All of it

Turtwig

km79 wrote: »

We were told just a few weeks ago that the medical advice had changed and that the science said it must be age based and that the science must be followed

What has changed ?

Haven't a clue what's changed. I hope NIAC don't recommend any changes. My issue is with posters ruling this option out permanently. We should be reviewing these options every week as data on transmission impact comes in both locally and internationally. Maybe 18 to 30 years for physiological reasons are better spreaders. If something like that was to emerge or they'd on average more contacts not just through socialisation per se, then you would have to consider it.

km79

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

Agree with most here. Even flying this kite is nuts. Completely goes against the aged based logic we were fed not 3 weeks ago. Even if this plan goes nowhere the fact they were thinking of doing this just 3 weeks after saying the diametric opposite is further damaging to the government's credibility.

I can also say as someone in my mid forties I would be furious. It would be the worst of all worlds for people of my age group. Bad enough to be last in the queue for arbitrary reasons, but would be the most vulnerable age group not vaccinated when the rest of society would open up completely (and then some, it'll be like VE day with everyone socialising) so the risk of getting covid will actually be pretty high. People in their forties will end up in full lockdown with everyone else partying all round them.

Can you imagine how a 49 year old garda might feel about this idea?

If it is indeed kite flying he should just resign now .
As is evidenced on here it is going to lead to a lot of anger, frustration and confusion amongst a large group of complaint people . That will end up in less compliance . I think the tipping point in that regard has probably been reached anyways as people look enviously over the border to the North .....

Sweet.Science

km79 wrote: »

Of 2022?


I’ve lost all faith now. They are incapable of putting together and sticking with a coherent plan .
I understand the vaccine supply has been bumpy and cut them slack for that until now.
No longer . It’s shambolic. All of it

For what it's worth I don't think it'll happen .

km79

Sweet.Science wrote: »

For what it's worth I don't think it'll happen .

Me either but it’s very damaging
Completely undermines their message from the last few weeks

blackcard

km79 wrote: »

Last year
Months ago

We were told a few weeks ago that medical advice has changed and MUST be followed

Has it changed again ?
Simple question for Donnelly and Martin to clarify

Highly likely that the Government are flying a kite to determine public reaction to changing vaccination sequencing. Once they became aware that there will be a generally negative reaction, they will revert to vaccinating the 30-50 age group before the 18-30 age group

km79

blackcard wrote: »

Highly likely that the Government are flying a kite to determine public reaction to changing vaccination sequencing. Once they became aware that there will be a generally negative reaction, they will revert to vaccinating the 30-50 age group before the 18-30 age group

It completely weakens their message again though
Can’t believe a word they say any longer

Turtwig

km79 wrote: »

Last year
Months ago

We were told a few weeks ago that medical advice has changed and MUST be followed

Has it changed again ?
Simple question for Donnelly and Martin to clarify

I don't know what the medical advice currently is. I do know however that with covid, various guidances have been updated daily, weekly monthly etc since this pandemic began.

The medical advice on anything including vaccines could very well change again several more times. To overuse the phrase: It's an evolving situation. We'd be foolish to try to keep everything static if best evidence no longer supports that.

hmmm

Turtwig wrote: »

The original NIAC publication last year, the UKs JCVI equivalent all had mentioned this possibility. If transmission can be suppressed at a faster rate you have to consider it.

The decision was made months ago to keep this option on the table - in many countries.

I understand and I remember that. However this is either a kite being flown which would be someone thinking they are smarter than they actually area, or a very late decision being made which would contradict a decision made only 2 or 3 weeks ago. Whatever about the medical benefits, it is both a political nightmare and damaging to the credibility of the rollout.

They should have made this decision and announced it. Now we're going to have the discussion play out on Joe Duffy over the next week.

This probably only changes things for most people by a few weeks, but it's another unnecessary controversy in my opinion.

Rebelbrowser

blackcard wrote: »

Highly likely that the Government are flying a kite to determine public reaction to changing vaccination sequencing. Once they became aware that there will be a generally negative reaction, they will revert to vaccinating the 30-50 age group before the 18-30 age group

Agree, but such kite flying has consequences - when will this government get this into their thick heads? In a pandemic, confidence in those in charge is pretty damn important. This kind of messing erodes it every single time (and God knows there have been enough of these daft ideas floated).

Neamhshuntasach

Any move to do 18-30 first after over 60s done would have me in some of the last groups of people to get done. But I don't mind one bit if there is evidence that it can help from a holistic point of view which includes protection from covid in terms of serious illness or death, mental health and economy/personal finance.

If there is data to suggest that adults younger than 30 are a primary source of transmission, then it makes perfect sense to me that this source is transmission is targeted which can have a direct impact on protecting those that are not yet vaccinated and in the 31-59 age bracket. The vulnerable with underlying conditions would already be done in that age bracket so it's not like they would have been skipped over in favor of younger people.

Evidence shows that the vaccines are highly effective at reducing transmission of the virus. The primary approach was to reduce serious illness and death. But now real world data shows that transmission is also a feature of the vaccines. At this stage, I don't think it's true to say the sole function of the vaccines is to prevent illness and death. It's now also to reduce spread of Covid.

km79

Turtwig wrote: »

I don't know what the medical advice currently is. I do know however that with covid, various guidances have been updated daily, weekly monthly etc since this pandemic began.

The medical advice on anything including vaccines could very well change again several more times. To overuse the phrase: It's an evolving situation. We'd be foolish to try to keep everything static if best evidence no longer supports that.

Have any other countries suggested changing from age based list this weekend ?
All the countries that were given as evidence of why we should change to that approach just a few weeks ago?
I don’t think so........