Vaccine Megathread No 2 - Read OP before posting

It makes no sense for vaccine hesitancy to be correlated with age.

The obvious thing that's correlated with age is risk.

Consequently I theorise that the only thing stopping the remaining 17% of 18-29 year olds from getting vaccinated is that they can't be arsed because they're not scared of Covid, and I suspect that they are equally not scared of the vaccine.

It's a little disappointing.

It also means that the real anti-vaxxers are less than 1% of the population in Ireland.

In the US it looks about 1/10:

U.S. COVID-19 vaccine tracker: See your state’s progress - Mayo Clinic

That is called a balance of risk and that makes sense:

• There is a risk of issue when taking the vaccine (myocarditis, Guillain Barre syndrome..) and it is very low, more or less constant across the age groups.
• There is a risk catching the virus and it is correlated with age.

So at some point, and this is very personal, some people reckon that the risk of the vaccine is equal or higher than the risk of the virus and they don't take the vaccine. In Ireland most of the people think that the risk of the vaccine is super low, proved by science and that everybody should take the vaccine, but risk assessment is personal.

Why is there more hesitancy in France for example? It is not that they are more lazy, it is because there have been a number of issues/scandals/trials with some drugs that shifted the perception of people and their risk assessment.

Should people really be scared and why? Let's not forget that at the beginning of the COVID in 2020, it was largely accepted in the society that most of the people would not be at high risk of severe forms and death, and that the restrictions were to protect the vulnerable people, until a better protection exists. "We are in this together" and all this. In Ireland for a reason the messaging has shifted towards "everyone is at risk, you should all be scared" and then "if you are not scared, a bit of blackmailing: you'll get no fun/pint/restaurant if you don't get the vaccine". But did the virus really change that much since march 2020?

How many people in the 18/29yo group with no underlying restriction will have a severe form ? If vulnerable people are vaccinated and vaccines work, what is the interest to have all the 18-29 yo vaccinated ? To stop transmission or to protect the people who can't get a vaccine ? To release pressure on a healthcare system that had 700 people on trolleys precovid ? Then we should all get a flu jabs every year, and we don't because it is accepted that as long as vulnerable people have a way to protect themselves, it is grand.

Note that I am not antivax, I have happily taken the vaccine and I am pushing for people to take it if they can and want. But please let's stop the shaming and talking as if it would change the face of the world if there is there is 50k more or 50k less young people vaccinated.

They should really make it mandatory, shouldn't they? If the "vaccine" is the only way out, if the "vaccine" the only effective way to suppress a deadly pandemic and is 100% safe why they don't make it mandatory instead of coercing people into it, with the release of a green pass and placing the responsibility and the possible consequences on the public?

Whether or not Covid is endemic, more vaccination will still moderate it's impact. It does not follow that a third Biotech vaccine will wane at the same rate as the second shot and there are multiple other vaccines under development.

Most young healthy people do have respect for others and do not wish to give them Covid, they aren't all Më Fëiners.

Can I ask you why do you think getting people vaccinated will give us a better change of suppressing the virus?

Data from yesterday showed that Ireland was the second (after Malta) country in Europe as vaccines uptake.

At the same time it was the one with the worst 14 days infection rate (in Europe).

I don't think vaccines are very helpful in reducing the spread of the virus, not with the Delta variant anyway.

I guess you're referring to the study that says that vaccinated spread the same amount but for a shorter time.

At the same time a vaccinated person has probably more contacts in closed spaces. If you add that these persons will most likely have less symptoms than unvaccinated ones, it's fair to think that they might spread the same or more. This probably explains why the rate of infection in Ireland is so high.

Normally to slow growth of the virus we have to curb social interactions. This time we've increased them considerably. Yet, infections and hopefully in a few weeks serious illness, may actually have plateaued.

That's the effect of the vaccines.

This idea they don't make a substantial difference is rubbish.

it depends, if you're sitting on your driveway without a seatbelt you're safer than driving on a motorway using it but I don't understand the reference. I think we both agree that being vaccinated is safer than being unvaccinated. My point was more on infection/transmission to suppress the virus, not about hospitalization/freedoms/etc...

Lumen correctly pointed out that vaccine reduce infection and transmission. It is just not corroborated by one of the worse (the worst?) infection rates in Europe despite the high level of vaccines uptake here in Ireland. But then it might just be a temporary thing. Hopefully the levels will go down soon

But as you mentioned before - close contacts and risk taken have changed drastically between now and December. December was Christmas season, house visits, big meals, parties galore. Now its the end of summer, people meeting mostly outdoors in the good weather etc.

When it comes to December 21, then we can find out the impact of vaccines on transmission at a population level. But right now, human behaviour in the summer/early autumn is totally different to mid winter. The two are not comparable.

OurWorldInData has R number estimates.

Boosters announced for care homes and over 80's.

Can't believe they are not including the immunocompromised in Cohort 4.

Heavily immunocompromised aren't getting boosters. They're getting an additional dose. Their initial dosing was sub optimal.

They may get boosters at a later date.

People getting boosters are anticipated to have had a good response to the vaccine. The response has waned. People immunocompromised may not have had a sufficient response to begin with.

Not sure I understand. My OH is in cohort 4 with two separate lifelong conditions that make her immunocompromised (one is no spleen). Donnelly's announcement make no mention of such people - whether you call them "boosters" or something else.

I thought with the plentiful supplies we now have, we'd pick up those that are highly likely to have had a sub optimal immune response to their 1st two doses.