Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

Jinglejangle69

Neamhshuntasach wrote: »

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.

But the majority of cases are under 45s.

So why is it mentioning 18-30 age group?

JPA

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

But the majority of cases are under 45s.

So why is it mentioning 18-30 age group?

18-30 age group is under 45.

Eggs For Dinner

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.

Sacrificed the most my hairy hole. On top of the inconveniences we all endure, I haven't been able to visit my 93 yr old father-in-law who is on his last legs in a nursing home. He's in there alone and scared. I can't visit my mother as she lives in another county. My son's wedding was cancelled and rearranged with tiny numbers attending, which didn't include my other son who is abroad and prohibited from travelling. My income has been affected. Because of health conditions, I need regular use of a pool to exercise and I'll never be able to recover the damage as a result of the pool being closed. Despite of all this, I've got away lightly because I've lost nobody to the disease.

I'm of the belief that (generally), the younger generation were less civic minded that their older counterparts. You can't reward that, or the whole thing is a shambles. Vaccinate on the basis of medical grounds and the science points towards the current revised plan

Turtwig

hmmm wrote: »

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.

It's kite flying. The bigger concern I have is what the Minister's opinion is on it. If he has requested a dept assessment how likely are they to be objective? NIAC are an advisory body. They like NPHET will likely try to maintain the coherence of communicatiom even if it is as odds with the position they have adapted internally.

I'm very interested to see how NIAC respond to this.

Your point about weeks is a very salient one. If supply was low a change like this may be relevant but considering everyone will be given a first dose by June or July I think it's a largely an interesting academic problem. Little more.
Unless they plan to prioritise full vaccination of a certain cohort?

SJFly

The majority of the cases are now in under 45s, but the majority of the unvaccinated population is also under 45.
We have consistently been told that the main source of transmission and outbreaks is the home.
While this possibly could reduce numbers of infections I am sceptical whether it will reduce serious illness and deaths. All the middle aged parents with children and teenagers too young to be vaccinated are going to be the most vulnerable now, and are much more likely to die than the young adults being moved to the top of the list.

Rebelbrowser

Turtwig wrote: »

It's kite flying. The bigger concern I have is what the Minister's opinion is on it. If he has requested a dept assessment how likely are they to be objective? NIAC are an advisory body. They like NPHET will likely try to maintain the coherence of communicatiom even if it is as odds with the position they have adapted internally.

I'm very interested to see how NIAC respond to this.

Your point about weeks is a very salient one. If supply was low a change like this may be relevant but considering everyone will be given a first dose by June or July I think it's a largely an interesting academic problem. Little more.
Unless they plan to prioritise full vaccination of a certain cohort?

If this happens, I can't see how people in 30 to 50s will be vaccinated by July, let alone June.

The cohort this will hit hardest are families with kids. Because of school, these families hope to have staycations in July and August. Crazy not to get them vaccinated before they move all around the country. The younger cohort can at least holiday in September.

Mrs OBumble

No one really knows.

Pension records would likely be the most accurate record of over 70s, but even they won't have some people. And they aren't managed by people who can vaccinate, or understand other medical information which may contra-indicate vaccination.

Micky 32

A bit of info coming out of Chile :

https://twitter.com/rufussg/status/1383051802174746626?s=21

hmmm

Turtwig wrote: »

It's kite flying. The bigger concern I have is what the Minister's opinion is on it. If he has requested a dept assessment how likely are they to be objective? NIAC are an advisory body. They like NPHET will likely try to maintain the coherence of communicatiom even if it is as odds with the position they have adapted internally.

With all the criticism they get, NPHET and NIAC have done a fantastic job of avoiding any internal disagreements in their discussions from becoming public. The media would have loved to talk about "splits", and there's been none I've seen - that's hard to do with big committees in very stressful and rapidly moving environments.

In saying that I don't think the government are doing them a favour by lobbing this particular grenade over to them now. My tuppence - If the choice is much of the muchness, then it's really a political decision as to which group to prioritise and a simpler to understand rollout is better. If NIAC think it's probably slightly better to prioritise one cohort over another then they get dragged into difficult and unnecessarily controversial media conversations. If it's clearly beneficial to start with younger groups then the decision could have been made weeks ago and didn't need to wait until now.

lbj666

There is an obvious reason why this is on the table again. And it's nothing to do with transmission, my own belief is that younger first route is just the long way round approach to prevent severe illness. I imagine NiAC are not going to find any solid conclusions in this.

Why this is on the table again? we have a steady supply of Pfizer jabs til mid June, which has been increased by another 50k a week.

We have a AZ jab not recommend for 60 or less. With
JJ don't want to speculate but there could be an age restriction ( hopefully nowhere near 60). 400k of JJs supply is coming June, 200k before that.

There is a big risk that once the over 60s are done, that if they continue 60 down with Pfizer ( possibly JJ) that by the time it gets to younger cohorts where you might not be able to use JJ or AZ there may not be enough Pfizer to give out, and there would be a surplus of JJ that gets even worse following July's supply.

They may aswell come out and say this insted of the trying to hide under a bit of ropey science.

EDIT: I am almost begging you to read this, because the ploticising talk is getting a bit much not saying that there isn't any.

seamus

I think this is a solo run by Donnelly. We already know that he's arrogant and obsessed with his own ego.

He's a complete joke with younger voters, so I suspect this is his idea of "giving something back" to them to make him more popular.

I would have thought that if someone is in the age group for vaccination and that they hadn’t been called, that they would contact their GP themselves.

Neamhshuntasach

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

But the majority of cases are under 45s.

So why is it mentioning 18-30 age group?

I don't know if spread is even throughout different subsets in under 45s or if there is a higher proportion of cases in the 18-30s. I haven't looked at the figures. That's why I said if there is evidence to support it.

From my own personal view, I'd see under 30s being the more socially active. A lot of part time workers in businesses that may not be open, college students, groups of people that will mix regardless of restrictions and will probably visit family. Obviously 31 to 45 year olds can be involved in the same activity. But I'd associate it more with younger people.

I don't care if it's "rewarding" those that are most likely to spread the virus due to not following restrictions. We need to look at what is actually happening and react to it to address all aspects of the covid impact across the board. And not just do what is maybe more moral or ideal. So if vaccinating the younger age groups first after everyone that is deemed vulnerable is done reduces the number of cases in the community, where we all live, then I think it's a sound approach.

Just to add, I'm not advocating for this tactic or approach. I just mean I understand why they may change and I'd have no problem with it.

ebbsy

So they nail their colours to the mast regarding age the other week.

Now they want to do something else.

Which means the first time they were talking out of their arse.

Look at what is happening on the other side of the border............Its the same ****ing island.

Happydays2020

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

Consideration of it was in the plan. It was not a decision. Plus that plan has changed.

iamwhoiam

I heard Paul Reid say ages ago that the HSE would be sending the GPs their lists of over 70's as the vast majority have an Over 70 GP visit card and registered with the HSE .

Happydays2020

seamus wrote: »

I think this is a solo run by Donnelly. We already know that he's arrogant and obsessed with his own ego.

He's a complete joke with younger voters, so I suspect this is his idea of "giving something back" to them to make him more popular.

Is he secure in his constituency?

I had misgivings last summer when Harris was moved from Health. He had surprised me as a good communicator.

Russman

Plans should always be open the change imo, but the messaging from this is disastrous. It’s completely flying in the face of medical advice from two weeks ago when it was said that no occupation was more prone to severe outcomes than another, and age was the biggest factor in having a bad outcome from COVID. Which would be worse for society - 1,000 cases in people in their 20s, or 1,000 cases in people in their 40s ?

That’s before the totally subjective arguments that it’s essentially rewarding bad behaviour of a cohort who have largely given two fingers to restrictions (there’s a reason most cases are under 45), and assuming people in their 40s/50s don’t go out or socialise.

Hopefully it’s just SD thinking he’s cleverer than, I dunno, his dog or something.

ixoy

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

But the majority of cases are under 45s.

So why is it mentioning 18-30 age group?

Yep and that would mean 30-44 should be prioritised as they're definitely more at risk. In addition they're probably more likely to be the patrons of restaurants, for example, where they'd be unmasked rather than the masked servers so you'd be better targeting transmission.
Or just keep as is.

PhilOssophy

Calm down everyone, it is just a thing they are going to look at. They aren't saying that they will be doing it.

Now maybe I'm a 30 something with young children whose life hasn't been altered massively by this pandemic, but I think the college going age group, students at home with parents, etc, are missing out big time due to the pandemic.

I think of my life to date and think "when would I have been most content with such a pandemic" and I reckon the worst time would be 18-25 and stuck at home with mammy and daddy. Those are years these people won't get back, e.g. college is 3-4 years for most people.

By the time the rollout reaches these age cohorts, it will probably be splitting hairs. It will be weeks rather than months I expect.

But I have great sympathy for this age group because they are missing out on more than I am.

ACitizenErased

I’m in my early 20s - I completely agree with the fact that this would stop transmission etc but I would feel ridiculously uncomfortable getting the vaccine before my mother.

irishlad.

Thursday 15th: 33,386

Not bad, not bad at all

ACitizenErased

irishlad. wrote: »

Thursday 15th: 33,386

Not bad, not bad at all

“It ShOulD bE hIgHeR SHAMBLES” etc etc

Rebelbrowser

seamus wrote: »

I think this is a solo run by Donnelly. We already know that he's arrogant and obsessed with his own ego.

He's a complete joke with younger voters, so I suspect this is his idea of "giving something back" to them to make him more popular.

That's my guess too. I suspect (and hope) that his cabinet colleagues are apoplectic this morning. Whatever you think of Norma Foley, imagine what she is thinking this morning. Think of the grief she got selling the age only priority ranking for vaccines to the teachers. But in fairness she and the government stuck with it and essentially got everyone to accept the age based roll out. And they did it by saying it was all about vaccinating the most vulnerable first. They went out of their way to emphasise that a 20 something had nothing to fear from covid. And now that idiot Donnelly is undoing everything in one feel swoop. This idea is going nowhere but the damage is done. If this is a solo run by Donnelly I'd say its curtains for him. And good riddance.

Qrt

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Calm down everyone, it is just a thing they are going to look at. They aren't saying that they will be doing it.

Now maybe I'm a 30 something with young children whose life hasn't been altered massively by this pandemic, but I think the college going age group, students at home with parents, etc, are missing out big time due to the pandemic.

I think of my life to date and think "when would I have been most content with such a pandemic" and I reckon the worst time would be 18-25 and stuck at home with mammy and daddy. Those are years these people won't get back, e.g. college is 3-4 years for most people.

By the time the rollout reaches these age cohorts, it will probably be splitting hairs. It will be weeks rather than months I expect.

But I have great sympathy for this age group because they are missing out on more than I am.

I agree. Not sold on prioritising the 18-30s, but that age group are also where the most development takes place. Your college experience, and the friends you make in your early adulthood tend to shape the rest of your life. I know my own experience has been messed up with online college and it’ll be a fair while before I get back on track. Just my thoughts.

SJFly

I have really tried to get behind the roll-out and been understanding of the very difficult decisions that have had to be made. But I cannot get behind this. They cannot vaccinate healthy 18 year-olds before 49 year-old garda, teachers, carers, who do not have an insignificant risk of serious complications from covid. It's insane.

Turtwig

I would love to be a fly on the wall in their next cabinet meeting.

lbj666

Russman wrote: »

Plans should always be open the change imo, but the messaging from this is disastrous. It’s completely flying in the face of medical advice from two weeks ago when it was said that no occupation was more prone to severe outcomes than another, and age was the biggest factor in having a bad outcome from COVID. Which would be worse for society - 1,000 cases in people in their 20s, or 1,000 cases in people in their 40s ?

That’s before the totally subjective arguments that it’s essentially rewarding bad behaviour of a cohort who have largely given two fingers to restrictions (there’s a reason most cases are under 45), and assuming people in their 40s/50s don’t go out or socialise.

Hopefully it’s just SD thinking he’s cleverer than, I dunno, his dog or something.

The AZ and JJ news were massive curve balls,

Say it was a +40 cap was put on and JJ and Pfizer was given to 40-60s as it arrived, we would be facing a potential shortage of Pfizer and surplus of JJ by the time we get to under 40 or under 30 around.
While if Pfizer had to be stocked for younger cohorts ,no point leaving them stocked just get going on them.

irishlad.

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

Great progress with cohort 3, more than likely there aren't 475k in the cohort. I decided to overestimate to be safe.

Degag

Does anyone find it kinda mad that they've given a jab to 22% of the population yet any normal 69 year old hasn't received a vaccine yet?

Like, both my parents are in their 60s and if you told me they'd be outside of the top 22% of adults i wouldn't have believed you.

Obviously, frontline workers and those with underlying illnesses precede them but with the cohort behind them - 18-59 year olds - my brain is still telling me that they should be in the 22%

Obviously not the case though!