Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

amandstu

MrStuffins wrote: »

....... What?

Thought they just reduced symptoms.You can ,as far as I know still catch and transmit the virus even after vaccination.

But I am unsure as to whether or not there is a small section of the population that
is completely unaffected by the vaccine. If you develop antibodies either from the vaccine or via normal transmission does it automatically follow that you are protected to some degree?

firemansam4

Both my parents are in the 75 - 80 group and have not been called for there first jab yet. When they contacted the doctors a few days ago they were told it could be another 10 days and they would contact them to let them know

JTMan

WSJ on the latest here on the J&J pause ...

- What drove the J&J pause was not the clots but rather doctors incorrectly treating to clots. The CDC wanted to be able to issue the right advise to the medical profession on how to deal with the clots. Traditional clot treatments may not work. In 4/6 cases, doctors gave heparin which may have made the clots even worse.
- In one case, what worked was blood thinner called argatroban, along with intravenous immune globulin.
- The two most likely options, for Friday's CDC verdict, are restricting the shot to an age group such as men and women over 50 years, or allowing a return to widespread use but with added a warning about the benefits and risks of the shot.

Seems like the CDC will resume J&J with new clot treatment advise or restrict to 50+. With the EMA working with the FDA, it would seem likely that the EMA might do something similar tomorrow but even if the EMA give a green light (with new clot treatment advise) it is obviously plausible that NIAC will restrict J&J to 50+.

Szero

Does anyone have an opinion on how long the interval between doses should be extended too for Pfizer and Moderna?

The media are saying that the extension will be from 4 weeks to 8 weeks or 12 weeks.

It seems like there is more medical evidence supporting 8 weeks, so maybe 8 weeks is the better interval?

SJFly

[Deleted User] wrote: »

My mother is in her early 70s, a slightly nervous diabetic. You're spot on with respect to fortnightly delivery, GP confirmed it will be at end of month. It would seem rational to complete first doses for this cohort before moving on to the 65-69 age group. Anyway, the system is imperfect and I can't begrudge anyone in their sixties receiving jab promptly. What I will begrudge are teachers who haven't reached middle age/under 30s getting anything more than zero consideration. Young and healthy? Back of the line.

It seems that scheduling deliveries is the bottleneck for the over 70s. I guess the logistics are quite complex. I know it's frustrating, but it really wouldn't make sense to delay the under 70s in the MVCs until every last gp has finished their over 70s. Hopefully they'll all be sorted in the next couple of weeks.

Lumen

SJFly wrote: »

It seems that scheduling deliveries is the bottleneck for the over 70s. I guess the logistics are quite complex. I know it's frustrating, but it really wouldn't make sense to delay the under 70s in the MVCs until every last gp has finished their over 70s. Hopefully they'll all be sorted in the next couple of weeks.

There's no reason in principle that many over 70s can't be done in the MVCs the same as other age groups. That's what the UK have done.

If they'd planned this properly months ago (as soon as the vaccines had been ordered) there would have been a central registration system in place where you could specify whether you were happy making your own way to an MVC or needed it closer to/at home.

I'm not really moaning and it'll all work out in time but it's not hard to see how it could have been done better, at least from my armchair.

PhoenixParker

Lumen wrote: »

There's no reason in principle that many over 70s can't be done in the MVCs the same as other age groups. That's what the UK have done.

If they'd planned this properly months ago (as soon as the vaccines had been ordered) there would have been a central registration system in place where you could specify whether you were happy making your own way to an MVC or needed it closer to/at home.

I'm not really moaning and it'll all work out in time but it's not hard to see how it could have been done better, at least from my armchair.

The original plan was AZ to the gps for the over 70s so planning deliveries etc would have been trivial.

When you're under pressure deadline wise, you're not going to waste time adding features that are unlikely to be used.

Hindsight is 20:20

is_that_so

Lumen wrote: »

There's no reason in principle that many over 70s can't be done in the MVCs the same as other age groups. That's what the UK have done.

If they'd planned this properly months ago (as soon as the vaccines had been ordered) there would have been a central registration system in place where you could specify whether you were happy making your own way to an MVC or needed it closer to/at home.

I'm not really moaning and it'll all work out in time but it's not hard to see how it could have been done better, at least from my armchair.

A plan without a reliable supply is not really going to work that well anyway. Some shortfalls were expected in advance but the programme has had to adjust a couple of dozen times since we started, because of supplies.

Elessar

JTMan wrote: »

WSJ on the latest here on the J&J pause ...

- What drove the J&J pause was not the clots but rather doctors incorrectly treating to clots. The CDC wanted to be able to issue the right advise to the medical profession on how to deal with the clots. Traditional clot treatments may not work. In 4/6 cases, doctors gave heparin which may have made the clots even worse.
- In one case, what worked was blood thinner called argatroban, along with intravenous immune globulin.
- The two most likely options, for Friday's CDC verdict, are restricting the shot to an age group such as men and women over 50 years, or allowing a return to widespread use but with added a warning about the benefits and risks of the shot.

Seems like the CDC will resume J&J with new clot treatment advise or restrict to 50+. With the EMA working with the FDA, it would seem likely that the EMA might do something similar tomorrow but even if the EMA give a green light (with new clot treatment advise) it is obviously plausible that NIAC will restrict J&J to 50+.

The f*cking ultra conservative NIAC will undoubtedly limit its use if the FDA do it, which will make it practically useless for us. If the FDA say 50+, NIAC will say 60+. Our only hope is that there are no restrictions recommended by the FDA and EMA, which might put pressure on NIAC but I'm not holding my breath.

As a 30-something I would happily take J&J, but it seems I'm not allowed to make that decision for myself.

is_that_so

Elessar wrote: »

The f*cking ultra conservative NIAC will undoubtedly limit its use if the FDA do it, which will make it practically useless for us. If the FDA say 50+, NIAC will say 60+. Our only hope is that there are no restrictions recommended by the FDA and EMA, which might put pressure on NIAC but I'm not holding my breath.

As a 30-something I would happily take J&J, but it seems I'm not allowed to make that decision for myself.

That's fine for you but medicines still need to be trusted overall and that's how they'll make that call. TBF they've been less extreme than the UK on AZ.

vienne86

[Deleted User] wrote: »

My mother is in her early 70s, a slightly nervous diabetic. You're spot on with respect to fortnightly delivery, GP confirmed it will be at end of month. It would seem rational to complete first doses for this cohort before moving on to the 65-69 age group. Anyway, the system is imperfect and I can't begrudge anyone in their sixties receiving jab promptly. What I will begrudge are teachers who haven't reached middle age/under 30s getting anything more than zero consideration. Young and healthy? Back of the line.

If it's any comfort, there are many in the 65-69 cohort who would happily wait another couple of weeks to get Pfizer instead of getting Astrazeneca tomorrow. As someone quipped over the weekend, it feels like 60-69 year olds are not old to be vulnerable and not young enough to be valuable!

is_that_so

vienne86 wrote: »

If it's any comfort, there are many in the 65-69 cohort who would happily wait another couple of weeks to get Pfizer instead of getting Astrazeneca tomorrow. As someone quipped over the weekend, it feels like 60-69 year olds are not old to be vulnerable and not young enough to be valuable!

The position on AZ may change in the future but it is an effective vaccine and we just can't run a system where people pick and choose.

Johnboy1951

Deleted User wrote: »

Has anyone who got vaccinated considered doing a covid antibody test afterwards?

Double edged sword, if it was positive it could give you extra assurance. If negative it could make you anxious when you may well have immunity/t cells etc.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

None of the vaccines prevent you from contracting the virus, so yes of course you can become positive at any time before or after the jab.

They do not even prevent you from developing Covid.

People seem to have unreasonable expectations from the jab.

Goldengirl wrote: »

Do you really want people to try to explain to you how the vaccines do work ...at this stage ....or are you just on a wind up ?

No, I am quite well informed on that subject, but what you could do is explain what prompted your post above, as I gave no indication I do not understand how vaccines work.
I repeat

People seem to have unreasonable expectations from the jab.

vienne86

is_that_so wrote: »

The position on AZ may change in the future but it is an effective vaccine and we just can't run a system where people pick and choose.

And I agree with that policy.

stephenjmcd

JTMan wrote: »

WSJ on the latest here on the J&J pause ...

- What drove the J&J pause was not the clots but rather doctors incorrectly treating to clots. The CDC wanted to be able to issue the right advise to the medical profession on how to deal with the clots. Traditional clot treatments may not work. In 4/6 cases, doctors gave heparin which may have made the clots even worse.
- In one case, what worked was blood thinner called argatroban, along with intravenous immune globulin.
- The two most likely options, for Friday's CDC verdict, are restricting the shot to an age group such as men and women over 50 years, or allowing a return to widespread use but with added a warning about the benefits and risks of the shot.

Seems like the CDC will resume J&J with new clot treatment advise or restrict to 50+. With the EMA working with the FDA, it would seem likely that the EMA might do something similar tomorrow but even if the EMA give a green light (with new clot treatment advise) it is obviously plausible that NIAC will restrict J&J to 50+.

Anyone who watched the first FDA press conference (as posted on here) knew it was to advise clinicians on treatment. The FDA said through the whole press conference multiple times that they needed to pause to update guidance regarding treatment

stephenjmcd

Just finished registered my father on the portal. All very straight forward and took less than 5 minutes once you have the details to hand.

Now we wait for the appointment

Zipppy

firemansam4 wrote: »

Both my parents are in the 75 - 80 group and have not been called for there first jab yet. When they contacted the doctors a few days ago they were told it could be another 10 days and they would contact them to let them know

My parents in law..79 and 83 have both had BOTH doses at this stage

namloc1980

I registered my mother in law on Thursday the 15th (she's 69) and she got her appointment confirmation on Saturday afternoon (17th) by text with the appointment on Wednesday coming (21st). All pretty slick so far.

Zipppy

Szero wrote: »

Does anyone have an opinion on how long the interval between doses should be extended too for Pfizer and Moderna?

The media are saying that the extension will be from 4 weeks to 8 weeks or 12 weeks.

It seems like there is more medical evidence supporting 8 weeks, so maybe 8 weeks is the better interval?

I think they'll stretch to 8 weeks and maybe longer again at a later stage.
I do think though that they'll give guidance that the vulnerable/extremely vulnerable should be left at 4 weeks...which it should be!

is_that_so

namloc1980 wrote: »

I registered my mother in law on Thursday the 15th (she's 69) and she got her appointment confirmation on Saturday afternoon (17th) by text with the appointment on Wednesday coming (21st). All pretty slick so far.

By all accounts the MVCs are very smooth and well-oiled setups.

sd1999

vienne86 wrote: »

If it's any comfort, there are many in the 65-69 cohort who would happily wait another couple of weeks to get Pfizer instead of getting Astrazeneca tomorrow. As someone quipped over the weekend, it feels like 60-69 year olds are not old to be vulnerable and not young enough to be valuable!

It would be a few months before they could get a Pfizer one though. There’s younger people who’d kill to be in the position of the 65-69s and be able to get any vaccine in the next two weeks. It just comes across as extremely entitled to feel that you have the luxury of being able to wait for the one you want. I understand there’s some hesitancy around AZ but it is safe for them and they are at a much higher risk of covid for much longer if they wait for a different vaccine. I do wonder if the reluctance to take AZ could be in part due to the three month wait to be fully vaccinated, in which case they would probably still be fully vaccinated with AZ before they get offered a different vaccine.

majo

namloc1980 wrote: »

I registered my mother in law on Thursday the 15th (she's 69) and she got her appointment confirmation on Saturday afternoon (17th) by text with the appointment on Wednesday coming (21st). All pretty slick so far.

That’s great to hear. Is it for one of the Dublin MVCs?

namloc1980

majo wrote: »

That’s great to hear. Is it for one of the Dublin MVCs?

Cork City Hall.

Lumen

PhoenixParker wrote: »

The original plan was AZ to the gps for the over 70s so planning deliveries etc would have been trivial.

When you're under pressure deadline wise, you're not going to waste time adding features that are unlikely to be used.

Hindsight is 20:20

Ah, I see. So the issue is the Pfizer storage requirements? Fair enough.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Does anyone know when 69s year olds will be offered an appointment.

My mother has a minor medical procedure scheduled for Friday. She doesn't want to reject an appointment but at the same time she doesn't want to experience the side effects while fasting or recovering from the procedure.

vienne86

sd1999 wrote: »

It would be a few months before they could get a Pfizer one though. There’s younger people who’d kill to be in the position of the 65-69s and be able to get any vaccine in the next two weeks. It just comes across as extremely entitled to feel that you have the luxury of being able to wait for the one you want. I understand there’s some hesitancy around AZ but it is safe for them and they are at a much higher risk of covid for much longer if they wait for a different vaccine. I do wonder if the reluctance to take AZ could be in part due to the three month wait to be fully vaccinated, in which case they would probably still be fully vaccinated with AZ before they get offered a different vaccine.

I think the hesitancy minor given the numbers registered already......which is great to see.

seamus

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Does anyone know when 69s year olds will be offered an appointment.

My mother has a minor medical procedure scheduled for Friday. She doesn't want to reject an appointment but at the same time she doesn't want to experience the side effects while fasting or recovering from the procedure.

Some of the first people to register reported getting an appointment to be vaccinated the next day, but if you take namloc's experience above, she can probably expect to have an appointment within a week of registering on the portal.

vienne86

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Does anyone know when 69s year olds will be offered an appointment.

My mother has a minor medical procedure scheduled for Friday. She doesn't want to reject an appointment but at the same time she doesn't want to experience the side effects while fasting or recovering from the procedure.

When you register you are told you will get at least three days notice, so maybe just delay registration until the end of the week.

Russman

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Does anyone know when 69s year olds will be offered an appointment.

FWIW my 69 year old mother was registered on the portal on Thursday morning, got a text Friday evening for an appointment tomorrow (Tuesday) afternoon. Anecdotally there's plenty of similar stories so it does seem to be a fairly quick and smooth process which is great to see.

PMBC

Good news it seems on the possibility of achieving 80% by end June, or at least being offered an appointment by that date. According to Prof Luke O'Neill this morning that target might be reached by end of May. I think it depends on increasing the interval between shots.
I am being cautious here -- 'it seems' and 'might'. But even thinking in those terms is heartening.
Also despite the forecasts, of the portal crashing or not working well, the opposite seems to be the case reading users posts here.