Vaccine Megathread No 2 - Read OP before posting

ClosedAccountFuzzy

We’ll have already reached 40 - there are people born in 1981 now getting vaccinated. So this becomes a bit of a moot point at this stage.

It’s really an argument between going though the 20s or the 30s first at this point.

A lot of those who are vulnerable and delayed at present is due to having been given AstraZeneca which had a longer interval spacing, which is now reduced a bit.

Wolf359f

lucernarian wrote: »

I could say that, but I haven't and I wouldn't. The rest of your post seems irrelevant after that. Not. All. Vulnerable. Groups. Are. Vaccinated. The problem is that we are purely relying on age for registration eligibility when we going to offer it up to 30-somethings who are unvaccinated soon. And in doing so, we are ignoring risk of transmission while risk of hospitalisation is not really established in the cohorts we are reaching soon. To date, under 40 year olds are highly unlikely to die from the disease, but are most likely to spread the virus (as NIAC have noted).

I'm sorry I can't understand what you're saying.
Vaccinate those most likely to spread Covid, but are least at risk, while the older people (who seemly have no social life) remain at risk. I seriously doubt 40+ people and 18+ people don't meet day to day. Or do 40+ people all socialize in the same social circle and none have kids which could spread it to the 40+ people and then in turn that 40+ person spreads it within their social circle?

Anyways, in Germany they have or may change their vaccine rollout to be in demand-led, what does that mean? The more vocal group get's it first?

ClosedAccountFuzzy

It mostly means that they’re having serious issues with vaccine reticence.

This is one area where I think we can probably do a lot better than Germany, France etc. I wouldn’t be getting too focused on what they’re doing as being particularly relevant here right now. It’s the same with the US too. They’re trying very hard with incentives like lotteries and so on to get past huge anti vaxxer issues.

They’re moving to demand led because they can’t get enough people to come forward or that’s where they’re about to get to.

Ireland has the opposite issue. We’ve huge demand and the system is trying to meet it. You’ve people turning up at vaccine centres who don’t even have appointments and people getting very antsy about not being able to het a vaccine NOW and checking the portal multiple times a day.

If we went demand led right now we’d swamp the system as it seems almost everyone wants a vaccine. So we we more in queue management mode than trying to drive demand.

lucernarian

FuzzyThinking wrote: »

Basically you’re arguing that we should abandon the middle aged people say 30-50 and put all the focus on 18-30?

That was discussed and it’s really making a lot of assumptions about the 30 somethings having no social lives or risks. They’re also more likely to be at work, more likely to have children at school who will be unvaccinated and could bring it home etc etc

The key metric is whether cases are causing bad outcomes. Case numbers are only one measure of what’s going on. Given our pattern of immunisation, the higher risk groups are covered and we’re working our way down the mid/low risk now. What way you organise that starts to matter less and less and reverse chronological order seems as sensible as anything else.

The figures for 65+ here were close to 100%. Bear in mind though our population bulge is 35-45 year olds. The demographics in some other continental countries is much more weighted towards older cohorts.

Every strategy for allocation of doses will have pros and cons. The issue at the moment is we’ve enough doses to plough on and get through the full pop.

Spain is probably very comparable as they’ve also got huge uptake and very little vaccine hesitancy. Same I’m Scandinavia.

Germany, France, Austria and some eastern EU members are having bigger challenges.

It's a bit of a simplification but at least a reasonable response. I disagree with the 30-40 cohort being more likely to be "at work", but I think the other points are very relevant. Based on the data, <40 year olds do not face a significant risk from covid when pre-existing conditions are excluded, and age profile is not easy to characterise as the older one gets, the more likely they are to have some of the risky conditions that also makes them vulnerable to begin with.

What I'm trying to say is that when we reach the point of having medically-vulnerable folks vaccinated or given some level of protection, we should look towards providing vaccines for those who want it most after that. Germany allows anyone who's recommended by a doctor to get the Janssen vaccine currently. These people may be at low-risk personally but can understand they may be likely to spread the disease to a lot of folks.

Wolf359f

FuzzyThinking wrote: »

It mostly means that they’re having serious issues with vaccine reticence.

This is one area where I think we can probably do a lot better than Germany, France etc. I wouldn’t be getting too focused on what they’re doing as being particularly relevant here right now. It’s the same with the US too. They’re trying very hard with incentives like lotteries and so on to get past huge anti vaxxer issues.

They’re moving to demand led because they can’t get enough people to come forward or that’s where they’re about to get to.

Ireland has the opposite issue. We’ve huge demand and the system is trying to meet it. You’ve people turning up at vaccine centres who don’t even have appointments and people getting very antsy about not being able to het a vaccine NOW and checking the portal multiple times a day.

If we went demand led right now we’d swamp the system as it seems almost everyone wants a vaccine. So we we more in queue management mode than trying to drive demand.

I agree, I was trying to get that posted to admit that.
After demand-led comes reward-led, like the USA.
I'd hate if Ireland got there that soon.

People seem to see a vaccine rollout as efficient when they fly through the years, but they forget the update % is an extremely important factor!

ClosedAccountFuzzy

We’ve also got a VERY different legal culture here to most of Europe when it comes to medical claims.
I would suspect the viral vector age limits here will be fairly rigid as a result of that. There’s a very legal risk driven risk aversion in what will be approved.

I suspect we’re looking at mostly finishing this out with mRNA jabs.

Wolf359f

lucernarian wrote: »

It's a bit of a simplification but at least a reasonable response. I disagree with the 30-40 cohort being more likely to be "at work", but I think the other points are very relevant. Based on the data, <40 year olds do not face a significant risk from covid when pre-existing conditions are excluded, and age profile is not easy to characterise as the older one gets, the more likely they are to have some of the risky conditions that also makes them vulnerable to begin with.

What I'm trying to say is that when we reach the point of having medically-vulnerable folks vaccinated or given some level of protection, we should look towards providing vaccines for those who want it most after that. Germany allows anyone who's recommended by a doctor to get the Janssen vaccine currently. These people may be at low-risk personally but can understand they may be likely to spread the disease to a lot of folks.

Highest employment rate in the country is 35-44 year old at 83.1% employed.

lucernarian

Wolf359f wrote: »

Highest employment rate in the country is 35-44 year old at 83.1% employed.

Do you have any statistics to back up the risk to age groups who are more likely to be exposed because of their profession and living situation, as opposed to their age?

lucernarian

FuzzyThinking wrote: »

It mostly means that they’re having serious issues with vaccine reticence.

This is one area where I think we can probably do a lot better than Germany, France etc. I wouldn’t be getting too focused on what they’re doing as being particularly relevant here right now. It’s the same with the US too. They’re trying very hard with incentives like lotteries and so on to get past huge anti vaxxer issues.

They’re moving to demand led because they can’t get enough people to come forward or that’s where they’re about to get to.

Ireland has the opposite issue. We’ve huge demand and the system is trying to meet it. You’ve people turning up at vaccine centres who don’t even have appointments and people getting very antsy about not being able to het a vaccine NOW and checking the portal multiple times a day.

If we went demand led right now we’d swamp the system as it seems almost everyone wants a vaccine. So we we more in queue management mode than trying to drive demand.

Fair points, well made. I still think the avenue of getting a vaccine via medical recommendation, at least for the Janssen vaccine, should be looked at (to cut a long story short).

ClosedAccountFuzzy

lucernarian wrote: »

Do you have any statistics to back up age groups who are more likely to be exposed because of their profession, as opposed to their age?

Other than for healthcare & the meat industry, I haven’t seen anything very detailed beyond that published.

Healthcare should be a lot safer now due to both vaccination of staff and far fewer cases preventing due to vaccination of vulnerable cohorts.

Wolf359f

lucernarian wrote: »

I disagree with the 30-40 cohort being more likely to be "at work",

Wolf359f wrote: »

Highest employment rate in the country is 35-44 year old at 83.1% employed.

lucernarian wrote: »

Do you have any statistics to back up the risk to age groups who are more likely to be exposed because of their profession and living situation, as opposed to their age?

Moving the goalposts now. Can you provide proof that 30-40 year olds are less likely to be working than other age groups?

lucernarian

FuzzyThinking wrote: »

Other than for healthcare & the meat industry, I haven’t seen anything very detailed beyond that published.

Healthcare should be a lot safer now due to both vaccination of staff and far fewer cases preventing due to vaccination of vulnerable cohorts.

I'm curious about the recommendation 7 months ago from NIAC that 16-29 year olds may be prioritised after a certain point, due to the disproportionate risks from transmission of the virus. It's a simplification in itself, but one that begs the question of why that was suggested if case numbers were not relevant compared to hospitalisation numbers. And thanks again for the considered responses so far.

lucernarian

Wolf359f wrote: »

Moving the goalposts now. Can you provide proof that 30-40 year olds are less likely to be working than other age groups?

Working from home as opposed to working, or being at risk due to the nature of their work. Jesus wept. I specified working from home however many eons ago

Wolf359f

lucernarian wrote: »

Working from home as opposed to working, or being at risk due to the nature of their work. Jesus wept. I specified working from home however many eons ago

So you have the data to back that up? Not just some gut feeling?
There's plenty of people who are working at home and are considered 'at work'
It's clearly obvious you want teenagers vaccinated before 40+ people though.
Or going by your posts, teenagers vaccinated right after HCS's and anyone with underlying conditions, regardless of their age.

lucernarian

Wolf359f wrote: »

So you have the data to back that up? Not just some gut feeling?
There's plenty of people who are working at home and are considered 'at work'
It's clearly obvious you want teenagers vaccinated before 40+ people though.
Or going by your posts, teenagers vaccinated right after HCS's and anyone with underlying conditions, regardless of their age.

What a ridiculous post. I literally specified multiple times that evidence-based findings suggest UNDER 40 year olds with no pre-existing conditions are unlikely to die from covid, and NIAC acknowledged that younger cohorts were more likely to spread the disease (never mind common sense). Wtf is HCS or that other abbreviation I saw?

Vaccinated30

Vaccinated30 wrote: »

Family member of mine, 2 Pfizer doses, 2nd in Feb (HCW) became quite ill last week. He tested positive for covid. All close contacts tested negative for test 1, even those who live with him. It did give me a bit of a wobble but I suppose imagine how sick he would be without the vaccine

Wanted to add that he has the Indian Variant as does a Colleague who was also double jabbed.

SJFly

As posters have suggested, maybe the slow decline in numbers is due to extra testing or behaviour and nothing to do with the rollout. I think the age based rollout has served us really well. Deaths and hospitalizations have fallen through the floor. The final hurdle is to stop the virus circulating. I don't think the age based rollout should be abandoned, but I think additional vaccine allocated to areas with high incidence rates could serve us all well. The delta variant is more transmissible and we are in a race to get ahead of it with the vaccines.

is_that_so

lucernarian wrote: »

I'm curious about the recommendation 7 months ago from NIAC that 16-29 year olds may be prioritised after a certain point, due to the disproportionate risks from transmission of the virus. It's a simplification in itself, but one that begs the question of why that was suggested if case numbers were not relevant compared to hospitalisation numbers. And thanks again for the considered responses so far.

7 months ago we were heading into the teeth of the post Christmas surge. As many of the cases were in far younger cohorts the proposal reasoned that by doing that group first, the far more at risk group could be protected by reducing the level of infection and therefore cases in that lower group. In the absence of a vaccination programme it was worth proposing and considering as a way to speed up the reduction of the prevalence of the disease.

iamwhoiam

I will be interested to see if the 60-69 cohort will start getting the second dose soon .The first group 65-69 would be now heading into the 8th week so if its changed to 8 weeks we might see some now getting it hopefully

timsey tiger

Vaccinated30 wrote: »

Family member of mine, 2 Pfizer doses, 2nd in Feb (HCW) became quite ill last week. He tested positive for covid. All close contacts tested negative for test 1, even those who live with him. It did give me a bit of a wobble but I suppose imagine how sick he would be without the vaccine

Was he hospitalised?

Valhallapt

I’m getting my first Pfizer later this week, any idea how consistent times are for the second jab? I have to do a business trip and want to plan around my second jab, would it be safe to assume 28 or 30 days after the first?

cameramonkey

Valhallapt wrote: »

I’m getting my first Pfizer later this week, any idea how consistent times are for the second jab? I have to do a business trip and want to plan around my second jab, would it be safe to assume 28 or 30 days after the first?

I think most people have experienced pretty similar times. I got the first jab on a Saturday and the second 4 weeks later on a Saturday. many of my friends had the same experience.

average_runner

Valhallapt wrote: »

I’m getting my first Pfizer later this week, any idea how consistent times are for the second jab? I have to do a business trip and want to plan around my second jab, would it be safe to assume 28 or 30 days after the first?

Talk to the person who gives you the injection. Found them very helpful, figured out my date there and gave me an email address in case i needed to change it. Email address was for the person in charge of that env.


Won't give it to you before the 4 weeks are up

astrofool

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Who was crying to be vaccinated first ? So you think the older age groups were crying out ? The age group most at risk ?

You'll see them around and in the news, got AZ way before others, now complaining that those on the 4 week Pfizer/Moderna dosing schedule are fully vaccinated ahead of them all while half the country hasn't got 1 jab yet. I'm not going to name names

astrofool

is_that_so wrote: »

7 months ago we were heading into the teeth of the post Christmas surge. As many of the cases were in far younger cohorts the proposal reasoned that by doing that group first, the far more at risk group could be protected by reducing the level of infection and therefore cases in that lower group. In the absence of a vaccination programme it was worth proposing and considering as a way to speed up the reduction of the prevalence of the disease.

It would probably have had a greater effect on case rates but less effect on death rates.

1huge1

Valhallapt wrote: »

I’m getting my first Pfizer later this week, any idea how consistent times are for the second jab? I have to do a business trip and want to plan around my second jab, would it be safe to assume 28 or 30 days after the first?

Mine was 4 weeks to the day.

fun loving criminal

Vaccinated30 wrote: »

Wanted to add that he has the Indian Variant as does a Colleague who was also double jabbed.

How's the colleague and the rest of the family so far?

mossie

Valhallapt wrote: »

I’m getting my first Pfizer later this week, any idea how consistent times are for the second jab? I have to do a business trip and want to plan around my second jab, would it be safe to assume 28 or 30 days after the first?

Getting mine today exactly 4 weeks on from first. Two colleagues getting their second 9n Weds, 29 days for them so like like 28 or 29 days is the norm

fun loving criminal

Watching the days with excitement as my time to register gets closer. It is like buying a concert ticket.

Hoping I don't have a problem registering as out of frustration I already registered a few weeks ago and added an extra year to my age but somebody said it was probably not a good idea in case I need to show proof in future and it has the wrong date of birth. I have another email address and number I can use for registering, but slightly worried about the ppsn part of it.

Evil_g

fun loving criminal wrote: »

Watching the days with excitement as my time to register gets closer. It is like buying a concert ticket.

Hoping I don't have a problem registering as out of frustration I already registered a few weeks ago and added an extra year to my age but somebody said it was probably not a good idea in case I need to show proof in future and it has the wrong date of birth. I have another email address and number I can use for registering, but slightly worried about the ppsn part of it.

If I was in my thirties with no underlying health condition; and had lied to skip the vaccine queue, in a way that's likely to slow down the process for everyone else, I'd probably keep it to myself.