Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

Rebelbrowser

Neamhshuntasach wrote: »

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.

In fairness your position is very logical and devoid of the emotion some of us feel this morning. But I do think it overlooks the extent to which we unveiled a new policy which is the diametric opposite of this new suggestion in the last 3 weeks. That's why this is nuts.

irishlad.

Degag wrote: »

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!

250k first doses gone into cohort 2, the frontline healthcare workers. Thats a big chunk of our 814k first doses given out. All these people would be under 65

TheDoctor

irishlad. wrote: »

Thursday 15th: 33,386

Not bad, not bad at all

What sort of number are we looking at now for the week?

JTMan

"Evidence not there to support vaccinating younger people first" ...

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1383369941647192064?s=19

irishlad.

TheDoctor wrote: »

What sort of number are we looking at now for the week?

Aim is 130-140k

Another big day tomorrow of 35k tomorrow would put us well on track to hit target

Polar101

I thought the idea behind the vaccination policy was to vaccinate the vulnerable, to prevent deaths and hospitalisations. If the order is switched to younger people first, that is going to change. We weren't supposed to care about case numbers once the vulnerable are vaccinated. I'm not too convinced about the science and logic behind the proposed change.

ACitizenErased

JTMan wrote: »

"Evidence not there to support vaccinating younger people first" ...

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1383369941647192064?s=19

End of the day its up to NIAC and if theres any inkling of evidence against it (as there was for AZ) then they won’t agree to it

ACitizenErased

Polar101 wrote: »

I thought the idea behind the vaccination policy was to vaccinate the vulnerable, to prevent deaths and hospitalisations. If the order is switched to younger people first, that is going to change. We weren't supposed to care about case numbers once the vulnerable are vaccinated. I'm not too convinced about the science and logic behind the proposed change.

It was in the original rollout plan all along, it’s not a new thing

headtheball14

The idea behind this is to try to change the conversation from the ****show of mhq implementation.

This is completely plucked from the sky from what I can see .

lbj666

Polar101 wrote: »

I thought the idea behind the vaccination policy was to vaccinate the vulnerable, to prevent deaths and hospitalisations. If the order is switched to younger people first, that is going to change. We weren't supposed to care about case numbers once the vulnerable are vaccinated. I'm not too convinced about the science and logic behind the proposed change.

It's been put forward because there could be a lack of elegible vacine available by the time they get to younger groups pending what happens with JJ, especially if they use every eligible vacine on older cohorts until they get to them.

Seems like I am the lone wolf on this this morning.

Bubbaclaus

headtheball14 wrote: »

The idea behind this is to try to change the conversation from the ****show of mhq implementation.

This is completely plucked from the sky from what I can see .

"Plucked from the sky"? The fact that it would be examined was in the original vaccine rollout document published early December. Seems like they are following through with the examination.

KrustyUCC

Stephen Donnelly the gift that keeps giving

Kinda goes against the age based risk model they were selling only 2 weeks ago

It's all about folks not occupation

Sell that get people to move on

Now it's about transmission lol

So let's vaccinate the youngest cohort

The mixed messaging is brilliant

ACitizenErased

headtheball14 wrote: »

The idea behind this is to try to change the conversation from the ****show of mhq implementation.

This is completely plucked from the sky from what I can see .

NIAC recommended it in the original rollout plan if vaccines prevent transmission

Probes

JTMan wrote: »

"Evidence not there to support vaccinating younger people first" ...

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1383369941647192064?s=19

This idea is daft. I agree that there may be some benefit to vaccinating the most mobile in society, however this should be provided to those in positions where they have mix with society due to their work. Think teachers, public service employees, opticians etc. To vaccinate all 20 year olds because they are going to have a social life is mad.

sd1999

A few here have mentioned potential vaccine hesitancy in the younger cohorts and I know this obviously isn’t representative of the country but in my own experience (I’m 21 btw), all of the 20 or so people I’ve been in semi-regular contact with over this lockdown are all extremely eager to get a vaccine. It generally isn’t younger groups that spread anti-vaxxer stuff online either. Also just want to note, I have no stake in this as I’m in Cohort 7 anyway. I do think this is a good idea though as reducing overall transmission protects everyone whereas starting with 50-30s mostly protects 50-30s. Vaccinating 18-30s will have a bigger impact on transmission. And by that point everyone over 60 and every other medically vulnerable person will have had at least one dose. It also means colleges can go back as normal in September so we don’t have to pay thousands in fees and rent for college that’s mostly online. The impact online lectures has had is significant and I know many that are seriously struggling with it who wouldn’t have been if the lectures were in person. Younger people are also the ones who mostly work in the restaurants and pubs so I don’t know who you think is going to serve you if they’re not vaccinated. Finally, viewing things in terms of “rewards” or “punishments” is ridiculous be it younger people being “rewarded” for breaking restrictions (I haven’t seen anyone other than my family since November btw. Most of my friends are the same) or over 60s being “punished” with AZ. They’re just pragmatic decisions. There’s no emotion behind how these things are allocated.

Hurrache

He's a nut with this hair brained suggestion, a worldwide outlier with his ideas. The cabinet will have him slapped down before NIAC/NPHET gets a chance.

sd1999

Also, given that non vulnerable under 60s won’t get a vaccine until June, the argument about vaccinating secondary school teachers is redundant as secondary schools are closed from June onwards. Primary school teachers tend to be younger and if they were prioritised would only have had one dose a few weeks before the primary school year ends.

SusanC10

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 not afraid of losing votes in the 30-50 cohort ?

The HorsesMouth

I'd say stephen donnelly just mused about it and asked his officials to look into and someone saw how big a story that would be and leaked it. I highly doubt it will or would have happened anyways, too much political investment into the age based scenario. Just another news story getting us all into a frenzy for no reason!

Deeper Blue

Why has this been leaked? All it's done is piss everyone off. Bunch of clowns.

I don't agree with it btw

Polar101

lbj666 wrote: »

It's been put forward because there could be a lack of elegible vacine available by the time they get to younger groups pending what happens with JJ, especially if they use every eligible vacine on older cohorts until they get to them.

Curevac could be approved in June. I'm not sure if "no vaccines for younger groups" is going to be a thing at all, even if AZ/JJ isn't an option - there's plenty of others.

PhilOssophy

sd1999 wrote: »

A few here have mentioned potential vaccine hesitancy in the younger cohorts and I know this obviously isn’t representative of the country but in my own experience (I’m 21 btw), all of the 20 or so people I’ve been in semi-regular contact with over this lockdown are all extremely eager to get a vaccine. It generally isn’t younger groups that spread anti-vaxxer stuff online either. Also just want to note, I have no stake in this as I’m in Cohort 7 anyway. I do think this is a good idea though as reducing overall transmission protects everyone whereas starting with 50-30s mostly protects 50-30s. Vaccinating 18-30s will have a bigger impact on transmission. And by that point everyone over 60 and every other medically vulnerable person will have had at least one dose. It also means colleges can go back as normal in September so we don’t have to pay thousands in fees and rent for college that’s mostly online. The impact online lectures has had is significant and I know many that are seriously struggling with it who wouldn’t have been if the lectures were in person. Younger people are also the ones who mostly work in the restaurants and pubs so I don’t know who you think is going to serve you if they’re not vaccinated. Finally, viewing things in terms of “rewards” or “punishments” is ridiculous be it younger people being “rewarded” for breaking restrictions (I haven’t seen anyone other than my family since November btw. Most of my friends are the same) or over 60s being “punished” with AZ. They’re just pragmatic decisions. There’s no emotion behind how these things are allocated.

Agree, and if people really think it is only this age group who were responsible for the spread over Christmas, etc they are deluded.
Also how many 18-25 year old were at Golfgate, giving vaccines to people out of turn, etc?

Tyrone212

I thought the old plan was 18 to 35. Under this if you're 30 you'll be last to be vaccinated. Great for them..

Rebelbrowser

I hope someone is rolled out by the Government for the 1pm news to put an end to this story. Even politically it's crazy stuff for FF and FG in particular. The 18 to 30 cohort not exactly their bedrock support

sd1999

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Agree, and if people really think it is only this age group who were responsible for the spread over Christmas, etc they are deluded.
Also how many 18-25 year old were at Golfgate, giving vaccines to people out of turn, etc?

Exactly, again this only anecdotal but the vast majority of my friends and I didn't meet up with extended relatives over Christmas because we knew it was a terrible idea and would mean college would be pretty much guaranteed to be online for the rest of the 20/21 year.

EDIT: And yeah, this was the old plan from December until March. No-one complained about it then.

Russman

lbj666 wrote: »

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.

I’m not 100% sure I follow. Even if J&J and AZ were capped, I doubt we’d run out of Pfizer and Moderna once we’ve done the 40-60s. Potentially it might mean we don’t end up using our J&J I guess, but so what ?

lbj666

Polar101 wrote: »

Curevac could be approved in June. I'm not sure if "no vaccines for younger groups" is going to be a thing at all, even if AZ/JJ isn't an option - there's plenty of others.

Given expected early supplies it might not be worth bringing into the equation.

Of course there won't be no vacine, there will still be steady supply of pfizer it's just there's risk thats the only eligible one in plenty supply then another 400k of JJ comes in in July that cant be used due to a possible age restriction and older cohorts are already done.

noserider

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Stephen Donnelly the gift that keeps giving

Kinda goes against the age based risk model they were selling only 2 weeks ago

It's all about folks not occupation

Sell that get people to move on

Now it's about transmission lol

So let's vaccinate the youngest cohort

The mixed messaging is brilliant

But who is going to hold him to account?
Absolutely nobody. He continues to make howlers in a manner of a man who has no grip on reality or modicum of humility

Russman

I know it was in the original plan (it was silly then too), but take all the noise out of it and you have a virus that’s progressively more dangerous/lethal the older you are - why would you suggest vaccinating the younger people ahead of the middle aged ?
I really don’t buy that the potential knock on effect of doing this might also protect the middle aged - why opt for protection as a “by product” of something when we have enough vaccine to protect them directly ? Someone is trying to be too clever.

iamwhoiam

Surely NIAC will advise Donnely to shut his trap and wait for the professionals to advise ? I am sure they can think of a nice way to put it