Covid 19 Part XXXV-956,720 ROI (5,952 deaths) 452,946 NI (3,002 deaths) (08/01) Read OP

Jim_Hodge

OwenM wrote: »

Last year there were no excess deaths in Ireland averaged over the year.

Really. Six days ago the CSO said

There were up to 2,300 excess deaths between March 2020 and February 2021 compared to previous years according to early analysis

.

Happydays2020

Happydays2020 wrote: »

I also find that hard to believe. We will know next year on a look back on excess deaths what was the real figure.

If I recall correctly the data on rip.ie showed that there was excess deaths last April and May and then until October it was a little below profile. There was a big spike as expected in Jan and Feb correlating broadly to the HSE data, and I expect we may see it under profile now until end year.

I think the methodology of the IHME applied a general model to every country by the looks of things

techdiver

is_that_so wrote: »

It is bad behaviour but it was proposed to look at that group of 32K for vaccination before that happened. And no you won't get done faster you'll just get Gardai shutting you down and probably fining you!

Putting the Longford incident aside, the proposal to put them to the top of the queue is still rewarding people for not following restrictions.

timsey tiger

techdiver wrote: »

Putting the Longford incident aside, the proposal to put them to the top of the queue is still rewarding people for not following restrictions.

Rewarding? I don't think you are looking at the vaccination process as a whole.

The idea is to get everybody done asap. Much better to get a good uptake in the hard to reach groups early on and be done with them. Than wait until later when we have a flood of vaccines and are constrained by the numbers of staff.

techdiver

timsey tiger wrote: »

Rewarding? I don't think you are looking at the vaccination process as a whole.

The idea is to get everybody done asap. Much better to get a good uptake in the hard to reach groups early on and be done with them. Than wait until later when we have a flood of vaccines and are constrained by the numbers of staff.

We still don't have all the older and vulnerable groups vaccinated. Until this happens there should be no talk of letting a single group skip the queue due to them not giving a toss about the restrictions everyone else (to a large extent) have been been following.

timsey tiger

techdiver wrote: »

We still don't have all the older and vulnerable groups vaccinated. Until this happens there should be no talk of letting a single group skip the queue due to them not giving a toss about the restrictions everyone else (to a large extent) have been been following.

Well if your goal is punishing those you consider underseving fine.

I guess you would be including the those with a BMI over 40 in groups not allowed skip the queue.

What about those with copd or lung cancer, would whether they got it from smoking or having open fires in their houses make a difference?

The goal is to get everybody done as quickly as possible, not reward or punish people.

is_that_so

techdiver wrote: »

Putting the Longford incident aside, the proposal to put them to the top of the queue is still rewarding people for not following restrictions.

It's actually a proposal to assign a specific vaccine to them as part of a vulnerable group. If we do them with J&J then that group, which includes homeless, those with addiction issues and Roma, will be done.

is_that_so

techdiver wrote: »

We still don't have all the older and vulnerable groups vaccinated. Until this happens there should be no talk of letting a single group skip the queue due to them not giving a toss about the restrictions everyone else (to a large extent) have been been following.

That is a separate ongoing process to the MVCs, as this grouping are likely to be.

niamh247

What's the reason for the rule "AZ for over 50 and pfizer for below 50"? Is it just because government has to use those AZ stocks somehow?

Turtwig

niamh247 wrote: »

What's the reason for the rule "AZ for over 50 and pfizer for below 50"? Is it just because government has to use those AZ stocks somehow?

The incidence rate of the adverse events associated with AZ reported by the EMA were 1 in 50,000 for those between 20 and 49 and 1 in 90,000 or lower for those over 49. NIAC then decided that the risk of 1 in 50,000 did not outweigh the benefits for those 49 or younger given the current profile of the disease in Ireland and that these younger demographics have alternative options available.

mohawk

niamh247 wrote: »

What's the reason for the rule "AZ for over 50 and pfizer for below 50"? Is it just because government has to use those AZ stocks somehow?

Probably shouldn’t be any age restrictions on AZ to be honest. I like many women have taken the contraceptive pill for years plus been pregnant. All put me at higher risk of a blood clot then the AZ vaccine. For a person over 50 the risk of covid is higher then risk of vaccine side effects.

is_that_so

niamh247 wrote: »

What's the reason for the rule "AZ for over 50 and pfizer for below 50"? Is it just because government has to use those AZ stocks somehow?

It's the age group where the majority of the adverse clotting effects of AZ have been reported.

Igotadose

niamh247 wrote: »

What's the reason for the rule "AZ for over 50 and pfizer for below 50"? Is it just because government has to use those AZ stocks somehow?

Do you think if we were drowning in AZ this would be a problem? The risk of clots due to the vaccine per the HSE's own materials is 3-4 per million doses. We're unlikely to administer that many in Ireland.

niamh247

is_that_so wrote: »

It's the age group where the majority of the adverse clotting effects of AZ have been reported.

But why not give pfzier to everyone? Isn't that a better option?

Ficheall

OwenM wrote: »

The CSO and the society of actuaries both conclude that the HSE have significantly overreported deaths. Last year there were no excess deaths in Ireland averaged over the year.

Have you something resembling a link to back this up?

is_that_so

niamh247 wrote: »

But why not give pfzier to everyone? Isn't that a better option?

Not enough of it and it would delay the programme.

podgeandrodge

is_that_so wrote: »

Not enough of it and it would delay the programme.

Delay by how much I wonder? At some point we're going to have shítloads of Pfizer presumably, and also too much AZ. Some are keen to get vaccinated as soon as possible, others who perhaps are not mixing much, may prefer to wait.

If we were told by Govt. that we would delay the return to normality by 1 month if we avoided AZ (that was the delay in Denmark, don't know what it would be here), and that this action would save potentially 2 lives, (or as someone else pointed out, avoid a greater number of clotting issues which don't cause death, but are pretty serious at the same time) what would people say?

Dr. Em

mohawk wrote: »

Probably shouldn’t be any age restrictions on AZ to be honest. I like many women have taken the contraceptive pill for years plus been pregnant. All put me at higher risk of a blood clot then the AZ vaccine. For a person over 50 the risk of covid is higher then risk of vaccine side effects.

Personally, the comparison with the pill feels a bit weak to me, because the pill is promoted as safe in comparison to pregnancy and the risk of blood clots from AstraZeneca is an additional risk, not a substitution. And AstraZeneca, alas, will not prevent pregnancy.

That said, I like the idea of making AstraZeneca available to anyone who wants it, with a choice offered to younger age groups.

I can't find the page now, but the MRHA had some lovely graphs showing how the balance of risk for all age groups changes in different epidemiological settings. (Yes, I'm a graph nerd.) Basically, if there was a full-blown spike in cases, they would recommend giving AstraZeneca to all age-groups.

crossman47

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Delay by how much I wonder? At some point we're going to have shítloads of Pfizer presumably, and also too much AZ. Some are keen to get vaccinated as soon as possible, others who perhaps are not mixing much, may prefer to wait.

If we were told by Govt. that we would delay the return to normality by 1 month if we avoided AZ (that was the delay in Denmark, don't know what it would be here), and that this action would save potentially 2 lives, (or as someone else pointed out, avoid a greater number of clotting issues which don't cause death, but are pretty serious at the same time) what would people say?

Delaying by a month would also cause more cases, some serious illness and perhaps deaths. No - go ahead as quickly as possible.

Turtwig

mohawk wrote: »

Probably shouldn’t be any age restrictions on AZ to be honest. I like many women have taken the contraceptive pill for years plus been pregnant. All put me at higher risk of a blood clot then the AZ vaccine. For a person over 50 the risk of covid is higher then risk of vaccine side effects.

It's not the same type of 'blood clot'. The ones associated with the pill form in the legs typically, are usually easily treated and the prognosis is generally good. The clots associated with AZ vaccine form in the abdomen or brain. They require extensive medical treatment, need prompt timely intervention and the prognosis is not as favourable.

KrustyUCC

434 new confirmed cases.

4 further deaths.

wadacrack

Press conference on atm, might interest some here.

https://twitter.com/ZaraKing/status/1390659239824269314

Lucas Hood

Swabs

https://twitter.com/COVID19DataIE/status/1390662208363839492?s=20

JP Liz V1

Of today’s 434 cases, half are under 31 and 80% are under 45

podgeandrodge

crossman47 wrote: »

Delaying by a month would also cause more cases, some serious illness and perhaps deaths. No - go ahead as quickly as possible.

Yeah look, not necessarily disagreeing with you. But I don't think it's black and white.

Someone maintaining a reasonably 'safe' lifestyle, i.e. working from home, not mixing, just the odd shop, could reasonably say that getting AZ right now would pose a bigger risk than their unlikely chance of covid + risk of serious ilness.

It wouldn't be unreasonable for people in that position to say it's not worth it, wait for a vaccine that poses less risk.

Maybe this goes back to the point of "offering" certain vaccines - to those that want/need them most.

bennyineire

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Yeah look, not necessarily disagreeing with you. But I don't think it's black and white.

Someone maintaining a reasonably 'safe' lifestyle, i.e. working from home, not mixing, just the odd shop, could reasonably say that getting AZ right now would pose a bigger risk than their unlikely chance of covid + risk of serious ilness.

It wouldn't be unreasonable for people in that position to say it's not worth it, wait for a vaccine that poses less risk.

Maybe this goes back to the point of "offering" certain vaccines - to those that want/need them most.

So by the same logic these people should never take a long haul airplane flight again?

Turtwig

bennyineire wrote: »

So by the same logic these people should never take a long haul airplane flight again?

How you are making this inference???

Turtwig

Turtwig wrote: »

How you are making this inference???

Blood clotting risk on a long haul flight is far higher than AZ blood clotting risk

mohawk

Turtwig wrote: »

It's not the same type of 'blood clot'. The ones associated with the pill form in the legs typically, are usually easily treated and the prognosis is generally good. The clots associated with AZ vaccine form in the abdomen or brain. They require extensive medical treatment, need prompt timely intervention and the prognosis is not as favourable.

Different type of clot but it’s all about risk. Pill is an example of acceptable risk. The clot risk in AZ is so low that it appears that we are being over cautious regarding the vaccine especially when blood clots happen more frequently with Covid infection then with the vaccine.

Turtwig

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Blood clotting risk on a long haul flight is far higher than AZ blood clotting risk

I presume then you have evidence to show the clotting disorder that occurs from AZ also occurs from long haul flights?