Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

Lumen

Russman wrote: »

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.

I think it's one of those things where the mathematically optimal answer doesn't necessarily correlate with common sense, which is why we have epidemiologists and behavioural psychologists to model it, but also where the public health policy benefits from being simple and stable and not fcking changing every three days.

ACitizenErased

Stephen, Stephen, Stephen.......

https://twitter.com/micheallehane/status/1383382755245924355?s=21

titan18

It being in the original plan is a moot point imo as the original plan had lots of cohorts ahead of it getting vaccinated that worked on the principle of breaking transmission (teachers, guards, meat factory workers etc). It now does not and the justification was age is the main risk so we're tearing this plan up and going age based.

They can't turn around and go no we want to break transmission and do it by age when occupation has a far likelier effect on transmission than age. We all want to have social activity but a guard deals with far more people day to day than a 26 year old working in IT and home working.

SusanC10

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Stephen, Stephen, Stephen.......

https://twitter.com/micheallehane/status/1383382755245924355?s=21

Oh ffs !

ACitizenErased

In epi terms its not a bad idea but like these Donnelly solo runs have to stop

hatrickpatrick

As someone who only turned 31 last summer (and I'm not counting it as a year, because of quarantine ) this honestly just makes me feel soooo old I'm one of those people who literally cannot wait to get back to getting suited up, going to a predrinks and then literally dancing my ass off all night long on a packed dancefloor once this is all over, but all this talk of the cut off for "young, socially mobile people" being age 30 is making me feel personally called out as something of a man child :pac:

They see me rollin', they hatin'...

Rebelbrowser

sd1999 wrote: »

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

They really did! Depends on your age I suppose but me and my peers in our 40s were very unhappy about this then too, believe me.

I have sympathy with university students. It's ruining that experience, no doubt. But bottom line is people in 40s and 50s die from this thing so they must be vaccinated first.

iamwhoiam

ACitizenErased wrote: »

In epi terms its not a bad idea but like these Donnelly solo runs have to stop

He is completely out of his depth and thats a scary thought in the middle of a pandemic

lbj666

Russman wrote: »

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 ?

Ok We wont run out, but hypothecically the pace of the rollout at that point can only go as fast the MRNAs being delivered when progress goes below the age cap for JJ (again hypothetical hopefully there isnt one). Meanwhile JJ is still coming in in July in big numbers with no candidates for them.

timsey tiger

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.

Good luck getting back to college, without lecturing staff. If the teachers lose out again I can't see them going back, without a vaccine to students who can still transmit at lower levels and no incentive to practice social distancing.

Rebelbrowser

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Stephen, Stephen, Stephen.......

https://twitter.com/micheallehane/status/1383382755245924355?s=21

Thought so. He has to go. To call him an idiot would be to insult idiots everywhere

Speak Now

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

They really did! Depends on your age I suppose but me and my peers in our 40s were very unhappy about this then too, believe me.

I have sympathy with university students. It's ruining that experience, no doubt. But bottom line is people in 40s and 50s die from this thing so they must be vaccinated first.

Imagine being in your 40s with school going children and reading the latest mad cap thoughts from Donnelly. If this happened it would be the end of any good will regarding restrictions. Total slap in the face.

KrustyUCC

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Stephen, Stephen, Stephen.......

https://twitter.com/micheallehane/status/1383382755245924355?s=21

He's an absolute tool lol

Serious solo run from him

PaulJoseph22

iamwhoiam wrote: »

He is completely out of his depth and thats a scary thought in the middle of a pandemic

It’s all to get his Twitter mentions up. He’s an egomaniac and this announcement just adds more uncertainty to an already peeved of population. He needs to go...,

Russman

ACitizenErased wrote: »

In epi terms its not a bad idea but like these Donnelly solo runs have to stop

Yeah this exactly. I can see the thinking behind it, I disagree with it but can see where he’s coming from. As Lumen says above, public health policy needs to simple and stable and not change every few days. Given the change to age based only happened two weeks ago, another change would need to show a massive benefit rather than maybe a bit of a marginal gain in numbers, to be justified. It’s likely to be only a couple of weeks either way anyway, leave well enough alone.

I mean, IF, they hope to have 80% of adults offered a jab by end of June, isn’t it better to have the 20% shortfall made up of people in their 20s rather than their 50s while we’re catching up ?

hatrickpatrick

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Stephen, Stephen, Stephen.......

Anyone else read this in the voice of Maria Bailey?

stephenjmcd

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

Thought so. He has to go. To call him an idiot would be to insult idiots everywhere

Hes gone about it the wrong way but the logic behind it is pretty solid to be fair to him. I'm no fan of his but there's scope for it to be looked at. Ultimately NIAC can say no so can the vaccine task force but I can absolutely see why it would be looked into.

The logic behind it isn't idiotic, the manner of which he's gone about it is

VG31

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.

Same here, I'm also early 20s and I don't know anyone my age that is hesitant to get the vaccine. Like you I can't claim that the people I know are representative of my age group, but I still really don't think vaccine hesitancy is a problem in < 30s.

All the people I know of who are reluctant to take the vaccine or are anti-vaxxers are people around my parents' age (50s/60s).

sd1999 wrote: »

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.

Again, I agree fully. I'm tired of seeing these generalisations about young people in the media. You wouldn't get any with making similar generalisations about travellers or black people for instance.

darem93

Even people who initially told me they were reluctant to get the vaccine are now more than willing to take it. I think the vast majority of people are just so desperate to get back to normality at the minute that they'll do whatever it takes.

expectationlost

https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1383382755245924355 did they not read https://twitter.com/lostexpectation/status/1383390606605504517

amandstu

What level of protection is afforded by the first jab of either the Pfizer or Astrazeneca vaccines?

What would be the respective levels of protection against moderate to serious symptoms?

ACitizenErased

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Hes gone about it the wrong way but the logic behind it is pretty solid to be fair to him. I'm no fan of his but there's scope for it to be looked at. Ultimately NIAC can say no so can the vaccine task force but I can absolutely see why it would be looked into.

The logic behind it isn't idiotic, the manner of which he's gone about it is

This exactly

Strazdas

Russman wrote: »

Yeah this exactly. I can see the thinking behind it, I disagree with it but can see where he’s coming from. As Lumen says above, public health policy needs to simple and stable and not change every few days. Given the change to age based only happened two weeks ago, another change would need to show a massive benefit rather than maybe a bit of a marginal gain in numbers, to be justified. It’s likely to be only a couple of weeks either way anyway, leave well enough alone.

I mean, IF, they hope to have 80% of adults offered a jab by end of June, isn’t it better to have the 20% shortfall made up of people in their 20s rather than their 50s while we’re catching up ?

I don't know know how they could possibly justify vaccinating 18 and 19 year olds ahead of 58 and 59 year olds.....it's a really strange one. It stands to reason that the latter group are far more at risk from Covid-19. The numbers of fit and healthy teenagers who ended up in hospital or dying from the virus must be miniscule.

ACitizenErased

Opposition lapping this up now
https://twitter.com/micheallehane/status/1383391800455405573?s=21

Strazdas

Apparently a Government spokesman has just denied the story and says there is no plan to change the age cohorts (RTE).

More busywork nonsense to make it seem more complicated than it is and make it look like they're working ever so hard.
Sure why wouldn't they keep running nonsense like this, sure there's no consequences for them.

km79

So damaging to the Govts messaging
He has to go now
So obviously and dangerously out of his depth
Nobody will listen to a word he has to say now

A Shaved Duck?

noserider wrote: »

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

Vincent brown called him out for the self serving charlatan he is when he jumped from the independent to try and get a ministerial position.

Since then donnelly has proved every statement brown made on it completely true.

Russman

Russman wrote: »

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 ?

Now that deaths are way down and in a month or so will be even further down (and we will be able to open up) the government has been gradually moving to "But muh case numbers" as the scary metric. They won't admit that 1000 cases a day with zero deaths and 2 hospitalisations means we should be fully re-opening. So with cases up among younger people that's the next "target" that we must address. Apparently.:rolleyes:

expectationlost

Strazdas wrote: »

Apparently a Government spokesman has just denied the story and says there is no plan to change the age cohorts (RTE).

there is no plan but it has been considered