Vaccine Megathread No 2 - Read OP before posting

schmoo2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117774493#Comment_117774493

While it has been "approved", we will still need to wait for the studies to come in on what will be the "optimal" period of time before we need a booster - hopefully in the order of years and not months.

xboxdad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117774499#Comment_117774499

I'm not even addressing boosters. 23.8% 8 months in, that's the number that ultimately matters in my view.

CruelSummer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117774480#Comment_117774480

I’m talking about countries in the EU such as Spain and Italy which have good vaccination rates while other countries outside of EU not far from them struggle with no supply. Easy to cherry pick Romania - do you think Ireland, EU & Western countries should donate more vaccines to those countries in need or let more people die there while starting boosters here when there’s no exact science to their benefit as yet?

I don't buy the ‘Pfizer waning’ storyline until I see more details such as T cell and other memory cell responses. I have only seen brief summaries of the Israeli data. U.K. data re Pfizer protection from Delta is very good. Antibodies always wane naturally, that is not a cause for concern.

is_that_so

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117774106#Comment_117774106

It is playing out as expected and hoped and the vaccine rollouts are excellent in some places. Less happy personally with the unseemly rush to boosters when 70% of the world still has no access to vaccines and would rather a more concerted effort there first.

xboxdad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117774587#Comment_117774587

What about Bulgaria then? Also in Europe, closer than Africa, 15.5% fully vaccinated. Also not about donations probably.

As for donating to outside of Europe, I think the entire manufacturing/rollout was totally mismanaged from the start on the global scale.

Since it's clear from day #1 this isn't over until it's over everywhere, I expected the 1st effective vaccine will be manufactured in all countries at multiple locations and Pfizer's involvement would end with inventing the vaccine, training appointed technicians globally and getting their license fee from each dose as their invention is manufactured at a much larger scale than they ever could have managed to do themselves. It'd also make them huge profits much quicker, so there would only be winners.

This shouldn't even be about donations or individual countries / individual manufacturers. Complete mismanagement in my view.

Lumen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117774696#Comment_117774696

You are demonstrating a lot of confidence in second-guessing Pfizer's commercial strategy for someone who apparently doesn't know that Pfizer didn't invent the vaccine they are producing. 😀

xboxdad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117774844#Comment_117774844

Ok, the Hungarian lady did, as far as I know from reading a few articles. ...but I can't put it in a better way.

Don't let the manufacturing capacity of Pfizer determine if we're doomed or not. Manufacture globally, at 100x more locations and yes, we all have to pay for that. It won't save us money if this goes on forever. We only had one shot at getting this right and it didn't happen that way...

Not sure about the rest, I might not be clever enough to understand the finer details.

Lumen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117774907#Comment_117774907

That analysis doesn't account for several important factors:

1. The original "plan" (if I can call it that) was that Pfizer and Moderna's market would be countries with highly developed healthcare infrastructure that were able to afford the price premium for mRNA vaccines and able to handle the extreme cold chain. Whilst there has been some easing of the storage requirements, this was not a given (i.e. not foreseeable) a few months ago, and the price premium is still a barrier in many countries.
2. There's nothing wrong with the non-mRNA vaccines like AZ and Janssen, which are cheaper and easier to store and transport. Sure, there were reports of (rare!) clotting and crappy 1-dose efficacy against Delta, but it we don't yet know the long-term efficacy of any of these vaccines, or what the relative immune response or side effects are from boosters, so it is definitely too early to call mRNA a winner.
3. Given the above, it would be a risk to invest disproportionately in production facilities for a vaccine that is fundamentally more expensive to manufacture and awkward to distribute. If AZ, Janssen or any of the other non-mRNA vaccine prove to be decently effective over long periods, or to have a comparable to superior safety profiles, Pfizer and Moderna's vaccines would be dead in the water.

I don't know enough about vaccine development to have confident opinions about this stuff, but claiming that you "expected the 1st effective vaccine would be manufactured in all countries at multiple locations and Pfizer's involvement would end with inventing the vaccine" is a bit strong. Pfizer only beat AZ to approval by a few weeks (I may have that wrong, it varies by jurisdiction). If we were going all in for one vaccine to rule them all for the world, wouldn't it have made sense to go with the one that was cheapest and easiest to distribute?

This is proving to be more of a marathon that a sprint. We need to keep as many runners in the race as possible.

xboxdad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775053#Comment_117775053

I understand your points and I even agree to most details.

I can only hope it won't - in the end - just boil down to vaccinating 24% in 8 months just wasn't enough and the ship has sailed.

There are a few cases in life when you only have one shot at something and you absolutely have to throw everything at it that you have.

You seem to assume we have the time to keep refining the situation for months/maybe years. I hope you're absolutely correct.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117775419#Comment_117775419

I think the sad thing is that we won't see the same "rapid" uptake in the next 8 months as we had in the previous even with extra supply, a lot of countries aren't using the vaccines being given, the saving grace is that China is motoring through rollout and will be efficient at getting a fair whack of the global population done, but even with supplies, there's a lot of Asian and African countries that are seeing very low vaccine uptake. Those countries also won't be willing to pay for the treatments available (which means lots of opportunity for grifters).

is_that_so

Paper on how the levels of neutralising antibodies post-vaccination might identify those least protected. At mentioned in the piece there is a need for a measure of a 'correlate of protection' of current and future vaccines.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02237-8

 

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117767504#Comment_117767504

Have to laugh because I am essentially a glass half full person. But neither am I an unquestioning compliant citizen. This is a thread to discuss vaccines and vaccine programmes. I think it is entirely appropriate to look at the decisions that have been made and implemented and to query the logic behind them. The public servants making these decisions and designing these systems no doubt have been acting in what they thought/ think are the best interests of the public. But that doesn't mean they are beyond criticism and shouldn't be queried. The AZ vaccine programme is a case in point, it is being quietly shelved now and there have to be good reasons for this. Personally I'm happy to accept that AZ is/was of similar effectiveness as mRNA vaccines, clearly the gap between doses had pluses and minuses. Though I note recent reports from the UK that used AZ widely that fully vaccinated people are carrying high virus loads even if not very ill. That shouldn't prevent us though from querying why the only general age cohort targeted with AZ and no choice were those 60-69.

From the very outset, I thought having a variety of vaccines was not good politically. There were/are some benefits in not having all eggs in one basket but politically the HSE/Government should have either a) had one vaccine applied across whole population or b) with multiple vaccines, offered a choice. They failed miserably on this and did neither one nor the other. And therefore should be held to account.

And yes as far as the citizen is concerned NIAC/HSE/Goverment are all one entity. It's the oldest trick in the book to appoint separate committees to make decisions and allows other agencies/ committees to avoid taking responsibility by claiming the decision is outside their hands and they're just following xyz advice etc. Doesn't wash.

stephenjmcd

Update on uptake from the HSE

12-15: 25% (0% fully vaccinated)

16-17: 65% (8% fully vaccinated)

18 - 29: 79%

30 - 39: 87%

40 - 49: 90%

50 - 59: 95%

60 - 69: 97%

70 - 79: 99%

80+: 99%

Cork2021

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117776363#Comment_117776363

You’d assume a good few stragglers will get the vaccine from 18 years up once colleges and workplaces start to open up again! Our take up of the vaccine has been phenomenal

DebDynamite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117776172#Comment_117776172

Do you think you’ll ever be able to let your gripe with AZ go?

airy fairy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117776172#Comment_117776172

You should have been involved in the rollout, you would have sorted shortages during the time that the 60 to 69 cohort needed to get any vaccine at all. You should have demanded something else. Definitely, it was all a conspiracy 🙄 against that age group.

For someone your age, you are acting mighty thick. There was a mass shortage of vaccines just before the 60 to 69 cohort were eligible. There was only one vaccine being delivered. It was AZ.

But you know that.

Your issue is that you feel short changed that you got an 'inferior' vaccine. (inferior in you mind) You wanted Pfizer. You're sulking since.

You need to catch a grip on reality and see that you were, and still are, in a privileged position to even be offered any vaccine.

It's been said many times to you, build a bridge, get over it.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117777878#Comment_117777878

"There was only one vaccine being delivered. It was AZ"

This is risible - the one vaccine that had serious issues in terms of delivery was AstraZeneca. Unless you were asleep, you couldn't have missed the wrangling and rows over supplies of AZ. We have regularly been told on the other hand that supplies of Pfizer etc have been stable & reliable.

I don't care particularly which vaccine is better than the other. BUT I do seriously question the decision to use an AZ vaccine with known supply problems on an age cohort that is/was supposedly more at risk. I have the HSE booklet here given with AZ first dose advising of a three month gap between doses. Some will say that gap is/was based on optimum benefit from vaccine, the manufacturer was happy with 4 weeks though. The real reason it is apparent, is that the HSE planned a three month gap because of the poor supply schedule of AZ. But wasn't that a reckless decision??? They knowingly left an age cohort of people aged 60-69 partially vaccinated and exposed for longer than was needed.

AdamD

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117779608#Comment_117779608

Change the **** record

airy fairy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117779608#Comment_117779608

Do you know what, I'm delighted you got AZ. A Pfizer would have been wasted as you'd find issue with that aswell. You're in your 60s. I'd advise you to let this go and move on with the years you've left rather than going on and on about vaccines you feel you should have been entitled to choose from.

You got vaccinated.

End of.

charlie_says

Kidney transplants to be denied to unvaccinated until "crisis has passed"?

is_that_so

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117779978#Comment_117779978

That seems more like concern about people who are likely to be immunocompromised undergoing hospital procedures.

jm08

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117777878#Comment_117777878

I'm in the 60-69 age cohort. That is not what happened. There was a plentiful supply of AZ vaccine at the time, but the problem was with its efficacy and the clotting issue. It was decided to give all the over 70s the Pfizer because they were the most vulnerable health wise and the under 60s were also given the Pfizer due to a risk of clotting. Thats why the 60-69 year olds got the AZ. My neighbour who is a few years younger than me, but under 60 got his jab of Pfizer about a week after me and was fully facinated within a month while I had to wait over 2 months to be offered the 2nd jab of AZ. My neigbours partner who is in her 40s was fully vaccinated before I was.

What really pisses me off though now because of the huge supply of AZ vaccine that is only being used on the 60-69 year olds, instead of giving a 2nd jab of Pfizer/Moderna to those in that age group who were not fully jabbed, they insist on giving the AZ unlike other countries (like Germany, Canada, Spain). Angela Merkel got AZ & Moderna to improve the efficacy.

Personally, when I see how ineffective the AZ is with Delta in the UK, I feel very vulnerable with my AZ jabs and so continue to live as if in lockdown. I would also be very concerned with the frontline/medical staff who all got AZ and will definately need a booster now as cases rise.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117780037#Comment_117780037

I would say your concerns re AZ are groundless.

Astrazeneca is effective against delta variant. Initially pfizer provides more protection but over time it evens out and AZ may even provide longer lasting protection than pfizer.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58257863

Single dose johnson is one I would think need a booster far more than double doses az

charlie_says

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117780016#Comment_117780016

Yes, that is what they are saying. At the same time the new EMA saftey documents specific to kidney problems with vaccine.

covid_19_vaccine_safety_update_comirnaty_11_august_2021_en_2.pdf

The list letter is being reported on now, they seemed to have decided that people can remain on the list as active, it's not entirely clear to me

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40363202.html

airy fairy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117780037#Comment_117780037

There was a rush to keep rolling vaccines, the blood clot issue was primarily to younger cohorts. Alongside the 60+ being rolled out, the younger very high risk cohorts needed vaccination, if the older, lower risk to blood clots got Pfizer, there would have been a shortage for younger very high risk people. I know, I had a very high risk 17 year old at the time and was waiting on a Pfizer which had been passed for u18.

The fact there was recommended spacing between doses wasn't a conspiracy, though some posters here seem adamant there were other reasons. The government didn't decide to space vaccines out, it was recommended vaccines be spaced out so that everyone would get at least one dose rather than nothing at all. Since then, advisories have given ever changing advice as the virus has been ever changing, as studies were and are ever changing.

Some people seem to think they were hard done by over AZ. But the fact is, hindsight is a great thing, decisions were based on what the professionals deemed the best at the time and what vaccine suited certain cohorts.

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117780037#Comment_117780037

Latest suggestions are that AZ might even be 'more' effective against the Delta variant three months after the second dose compared to Pfizer, so you have no particular need to feel vulnerable or not properly vaccinated.

i.e. after four or five months, the person who has had AZ may actually now have the better protection than one who had Pfizer.

jm08

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117780310#Comment_117780310

It was decided to give anyone under the age of 60 Pfizer. I know because my healthy next door neighbour got Pfizer not too long after I did. The 60-69 year olds were told they could get to the end of the queue if they didn't take the pfizer at the time. I was particularly concerned as there has been an incidence of blood clotting in my family and I was very nervous taking it at the time (but I took it and thankfully with no serious side effects).

I understand the issue of there not being enough pfizer to go around at that time for younger people and I would have been happy to wait behind all those vulnerable people like your daughter to get the Pfizer. What I think is discriminatory now is that while there was a plentiful supply of Pfizer, the 60s age group could have been given their 2nd jab Pfizer like what Germany, Spain and Canada.

As for spacing out, initially I was told it would be 16 weeks before I'd get my send jab, then 12 weeks and then reduced to 8 weeks which makes the AZ vaccine makers/Nepht look like total amateurs or else they are not being totally honest in what they say about the efficacy of the vaccines. Thats why I have no trust in AZ and why I feel hard done by.

jm08

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117780566#Comment_117780566

Last week there were suggestions that Pfizer could be a lifelong jab, so I'd take any such suggestions with a grain of salt until they have the results of trials.Anyway, it doesn't explain why there are so many cases in NI & GB who are in the main jabbed with AZ. From what I hear from the experts is that the best vaccine is AZ/J&J followed by Pfizer. Think its about 5 or 6 times more effective than sticking to the one vaccine.

airy fairy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117781096#Comment_117781096

But they decreased spacings because of advice given and also because of the oncoming Delta.

If people in their 60s were told to wait for a Pfizer, it wouldn't have been ethical due to the higher risk of Covid to older people, and can you imagine a cohort being passed by so as to vaccinate a younger cohort?

Unfortunately, I do think the it is safe, not safe, is safe mantra carry on was damaging to confidence.

Similar instances have happened with the age of the Janssen being lowered to 18+ here when the UK wouldn't allow it to under 30. At the time, it has to be done due to the speed of the Delta. Any vaccine would do.

Similar has happened with the fight to register online for vaccines, now you can walk in and get a first and now second, whenever you want.

It's evolving the whole time.

I'm glad both mRNA vaccines are only available now in Ireland. Less decision making, less debating, less guilt, less anxiety.

jm08

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117781173#Comment_117781173

All sorts of stories were spun (mainly emenating from the UK with our crowd latching onto them) such as better efficacy if you wait 16 weeks for your 2nd jab 🙄. I got my first jab in April and was called for my 2nd jab 10 weeks later. Thats a lot of 60 year olds out and about only half vaccinated with a vaccine that isn't as effective as the mRNA vaccines. If I knew what I know now, I would have refused it and gone to a pharmacy to get one of the other vaccines.

If you are bringing ethics into it, the proper thing to have done is jabbed 60 year old with AZ, but improve its efficacy by giving them Pfizer for their 2nd shot - just like what the Germans, Spanish and Canadians did.

Its evolving the whole time, but they are still stalling on giving people in their 60s a 2nd jab of Pfizer. The only reason I can see why they are doing this is because they have all this stock of AZ and they want to get rid of it.

To do the right thing now (particularly for frontline staff who all got AZ) is start doing a booster shot for all those people asap.