Off Topic Thread 5.0

irishbucsfan

ClanofLams wrote: »

15,000 appointments were cancelled yesterday due to AstraZeneca, this is absolutely slowing down process. For a one in a million risk per NIAC. Vaccine hesitancy isn’t an issue just in America, confidence across Europe in vaccines has already dropped per polling.

Complete madness for such a low level of risk. Government have given far too much power to NPHET, need to include other expertise - what’s the economic impact, what’s the impact on confidence in vaccines, etc.

If COVID is such an incredibly serious disease that it justifies shutting down economy, shutting down schools, life essentially (which I absolutely agree with) then vaccines shouldn’t be paused/stopped due to an such an infinitesimal level of risk.

15,000 appointments were cancelled but those vaccines didn’t just vanish into thin air, and those appointments will be rescheduled.

15,000 doses being administered a few days later is not going to move the needle to any great degree at all, and it may have saved someone’s life.

Zzippy

ClanofLams wrote: »

15,000 appointments were cancelled yesterday due to AstraZeneca, this is absolutely slowing down process. For a one in a million risk per NIAC. Vaccine hesitancy isn’t an issue just in America, confidence across Europe in vaccines has already dropped per polling.

Complete madness for such a low level of risk. Government have given far too much power to NPHET, need to include other expertise - what’s the economic impact, what’s the impact on confidence in vaccines, etc.

If COVID is such an incredibly serious disease that it justifies shutting down economy, shutting down schools, life essentially (which I absolutely agree with) then vaccines shouldn’t be paused/stopped due to an such an infinitesimal level of risk.

This is standard practice though, it's actually closer to 11 per million for 25 year olds, 4 per million at 55, but while rare it is a serious side effect (death). They are actually following protocols here, serious (lethal) side effects mandate a pause to evaluate.

ClanofLams

ClanofLams wrote: »

15,000 appointments were cancelled yesterday due to AstraZeneca, this is absolutely slowing down process. For a one in a million risk per NIAC. Vaccine hesitancy isn’t an issue just in America, confidence across Europe in vaccines has already dropped per polling.

Complete madness for such a low level of risk. Government have given far too much power to NPHET, need to include other expertise - what’s the economic impact, what’s the impact on confidence in vaccines, etc.

If COVID is such an incredibly serious disease that it justifies shutting down economy, shutting down schools, life essentially (which I absolutely agree with) then vaccines shouldn’t be paused/stopped due to an such an infinitesimal level of risk.

What metric are you using to give these qualitative statements?

Consider my thought experiment above at 2x level of risk for specific cohorts, there's (albeit limited thus far) evidence of a 5x increased level of risk of clotting for 20-30 year olds so far.

At what level do you think it would be acceptable to pause the rollout of the vaccine to those specific cohorts? It simply can't be "there is no level", can it?

ClanofLams

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What metric are you using to give these qualitative statements?

Consider my thought experiment above at 2x level of risk for specific cohorts, there's (albeit limited thus far) evidence of a 5x increased level of risk of clotting for 20-30 year olds so far.

At what level do you think it would be acceptable to pause the rollout of the vaccine to those specific cohorts? It simply can't be "there is no level", can it?

It has been described as infinitesimal by various Heath experts in recent days, including NIAC chair Professor Butler and Professor Luke O’Neill today.

Maybe you specified I’m not sure what you’re referring to with 5x,5x compared to what? I’m not doubting accuracy to be clear.

The UK has the same data we have and have allowed over 30s to continue receiving vaccine. Per Roman Glynn they could have set age younger and been happy but are using “abundance of caution”.

The abundance isn’t justified in the face of a disease that has shut down our way of life for over a year, completely crazy.

Podge_irl

Restricting it from under 60s does not make a massive material difference at the moment given we are mostly working on the 70s age bracket. It'll be an issue in the coming weeks though if it is not sorted.

The communication is also poor. Raising doubts about the safety has an impact that can not be ignored.

stephen_n

mfceiling wrote: »

I'm getting the AZ vaccine on Thursday. Genuinely couldn't care if it came in a bucket and I had to drink it like a suck calf.

I got it a week ago. Absolutely no side effects at all apart from feeling like someone punched me in the arm.

stephen_n

Deleted User wrote: »

Looks like the US is set to ban J&J vaccine over blood clot risk.

Banning it for a 1 in a million instance of clotting would be completely insane. Never going to happen.

Bayes is rolling in his grave

ClanofLams

If Johnson & Johnson is delayed for a long time, given how dependent Ireland are on it, we will have to row back on AZ and tell people no actually the risk doesn't outweigh benefit. Already hearing people in their 30s saying they are not gonna take it and few people saying they won't take any vaccine. This could turn into a major ****show and completely derail rollout.

Burkie1203

ClanofLams wrote: »

If Johnson & Johnson is delayed for a long time, given how dependent Ireland are on it, we will have to row back on AZ and tell people no actually the risk doesn't outweigh benefit. Already hearing people in their 30s saying they are not gonna take it and few people saying they won't take any vaccine. This could turn into a major ****show and completely derail rollout.

If one person dies after taking AZ then it will result in "they knew there was a risk and they still used it so we want money"


Hard to disagree with this tweet

https://twitter.com/GregCantyFuzion/status/1381881337653649409?s=19

irishbucsfan

ClanofLams wrote: »

If Johnson & Johnson is delayed for a long time, given how dependent Ireland are on it, we will have to row back on AZ and tell people no actually the risk doesn't outweigh benefit. Already hearing people in their 30s saying they are not gonna take it and few people saying they won't take any vaccine. This could turn into a major ****show and completely derail rollout.

The risk outweighs the benefit given there are other vaccines available that don't present that same risk.

Ultimately the goal is to get everyone vaccinated and we're still getting the same number of vaccines delivered, that hasn't changed (except that pause in J&J which seems very similar).

Anti-vax people have always existed and probably always will.

The Inbetween is mine

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The risk outweighs the benefit given there are other vaccines available that don't present that same risk.

Ultimately the goal is to get everyone vaccinated and we're still getting the same number of vaccines delivered, that hasn't changed (except that pause in J&J which seems very similar).

Anti-vax people have always existed and probably always will.

You want to inject cowpox into me?....
Witch!! Witch I say!!

Former Former Former

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Bayes is rolling in his grave

<reviews data>

Yes, there's a good probability of it.

errlloyd

On Friday I posted in my mates WhatsApp group.

"around 450 people a day are arriving from destinations we've added to MHQ. They spend a minimum of ten days there. That means we need around 4,500 beds capacity and it seems we only have 650".

Does anyone know the actual plan here? Are they hoping the number of arrivals drop significantly? At most I've seen them say they'll get 1,600 rooms.

The Inbetween is mine

errlloyd wrote: »

On Friday I posted in my mates WhatsApp group.

"around 450 people a day are arriving from destinations we've added to MHQ. They spend a minimum of ten days there. That means we need around 4,500 beds capacity and it seems we only have 650".

Does anyone know the actual plan here? Are they hoping the number of arrivals drop significantly? At most I've seen them say they'll get 1,600 rooms.

They've already stated they don't have enough rooms..most likely looking for new hotels to come onboard....also, it seems a bit daft to ship Shannon & Cork arrivals to isolate in Dublin

irishbucsfan

errlloyd wrote: »

On Friday I posted in my mates WhatsApp group.

"around 450 people a day are arriving from destinations we've added to MHQ. They spend a minimum of ten days there. That means we need around 4,500 beds capacity and it seems we only have 650".

Does anyone know the actual plan here? Are they hoping the number of arrivals drop significantly? At most I've seen them say they'll get 1,600 rooms.

They were hoping demand would drop further from what I could tell. But no matter how grim they make it, people still need to travel in larger numbers than they bargained for unfortunately it seems.

Also it’s 11 days in practice. You get the test on day 10 and won’t get the result until 24 hours later, so even more beds needed!

OldRio

If only the government had had more time to organise this.

Zzippy

OldRio wrote: »

If only the government had had more time to organise this.

Ah come on Rio, they've only had *checks notes* 13 months! :pac:

Former Former Former

errlloyd wrote: »

On Friday I posted in my mates WhatsApp group.

"around 450 people a day are arriving from destinations we've added to MHQ. They spend a minimum of ten days there. That means we need around 4,500 beds capacity and it seems we only have 650".

Does anyone know the actual plan here? Are they hoping the number of arrivals drop significantly? At most I've seen them say they'll get 1,600 rooms.

This isn't correct though.

1. Not everyone will need a room to themselves.
2. After an initial surge in capacity required, new people arriving will just be replacing those leaving. If 450 arrive per day, then after ten days the capacity needed will equilibrate at 450.

Tomtom364

Former Former Former wrote: »

This isn't correct though.

1. Not everyone will need a room to themselves.
2. After an initial surge in capacity required, new people arriving will just be replacing those leaving. If 450 arrive per day, then after ten days the capacity needed will equilibrate at 450.

Eh... that's not how Math works... will balance out at needing 4,500 cant just use the same 450 rooms when people have to stay 10 days (or 4,950 if its 11)

Paul Smeenus

Tomtom364 wrote: »

Eh... that's not how Math works... will balance out at needing 4,500 cant just use the same 450 rooms when people have to stay 10 days (or 4,950 if its 11)

It's "maths".

irishbucsfan

Former Former Former wrote: »

This isn't correct though.

1. Not everyone will need a room to themselves.
2. After an initial surge in capacity required, new people arriving will just be replacing those leaving. If 450 arrive per day, then after ten days the capacity needed will equilibrate at 450.

Assuming it’s 450 needed per day

It’s 11*450 + the extra days needed for anyone who tests positive until they test negative. If testing capacity then becomes an issue, it could delay test results by a day increasing room numbers required as well.

I don’t think it is 450 rooms needed a day though.... although who knows now they’re adding far more countries to that list. If they hadn’t considered that before adding the new countries to the list then that is just embarrassing levels of incompetence, surely they did?

Former Former Former

Tomtom364 wrote: »

Eh... that's not how Math works... will balance out at needing 4,500 cant just use the same 450 rooms when people have to stay 10 days (or 4,950 if its 11)

True, true.

More coffee, then a revised plan.

Tomtom364

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

It's "maths".

Well, it's mathematics, but you do you kid.

Podge_irl

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Hard to disagree with this tweet

https://twitter.com/GregCantyFuzion/status/1381881337653649409?s=19

NZ also get to go about their lives as normal so the trade off is different. That was never realistically an option here so the benefit is minimal and the cost to certain people is potentially large.

Interested Observer

We were never going to be NZ but we're just lurching from one farce to another these days it feels. I'm getting seriously fed up at this point.

Podge_irl

Interested Observer wrote: »

We were never going to be NZ but we're just lurching from one farce to another these days it feels. I'm getting seriously fed up at this point.

Ireland is still doing fairly well on a global scale by pretty much any metric, which is worth remembering.


There is certainly a chaotic aspect to handling, though it is driven in part by the not inconsiderable portion of society who refuse to acknowledge we were never going to be NZ and that it would all be "so simple" to just bring in mandatory quarantine and open the country up.

mfceiling

BBC had some professor lad on this morning from Imperial college London. Jist of it was the risk of getting covid versus the miniscule risk from the vaccine was basically a no brainer.

Was hoping the host would say "sorry to cut across you professor, but I've Sharon from Facebook here, who studied at the school of hard knocks and went to the university of life and it seems like she has a different theory"

irishbucsfan

Podge_irl wrote: »

Ireland is still doing fairly well on a global scale by pretty much any metric, which is worth remembering.


There is certainly a chaotic aspect to handling, though it is driven in part by the not inconsiderable portion of society who refuse to acknowledge we were never going to be NZ and that it would all be "so simple" to just bring in mandatory quarantine and open the country up.

To be fair I think that portion of society are pretty inconsiderable, they’ve just had a lot of amplification. I don’t think most people in Ireland cared about travel, they just wanted and still want much more clarity on what the government are planning for them

Interested Observer

Podge_irl wrote: »

Ireland is still doing fairly well on a global scale by pretty much any metric, which is worth remembering.


There is certainly a chaotic aspect to handling, though it is driven in part by the not inconsiderable portion of society who refuse to acknowledge we were never going to be NZ and that it would all be "so simple" to just bring in mandatory quarantine and open the country up.

We're doing OK in terms of cases/deaths etc at the moment on a global scale which is fine, but it does not feel like we're doing OK in terms of getting our lives back to some type of normality, we're still under fairly strict restrictions, we're spending billions upon billions of public money on PUP and other things, virtually every shop/pub/bar/restaurant in the country is closed, and we don't have a minister for health who can multiply two numbers together it seems. I have been fairly sanguine about all this for about the past year but I'm tipping over the edge now tbh.