Provisional Vaccine Allocation - updated 31/03/21

"If evidence demonstrates the vaccine(s) prevent transmission, those aged 18-34 should be prioritised due to their increased level of social contact and role in transmission."

I have to say I think the above is frankly ridiculous. Current evidence strongly indicates that the single greatest risk of mortality from COVID-19 is increasing age. So Tony and co. are thinking it is likely a good idea to vaccinate an 18 year old before a 54 year old. He told this group throughout that covid is a very dangerous illness to everyone but now saying 34-54 years olds are not at risk at all. His argument seems to be vaccinate the vulnerable groups etc. (older population,sick and hcw) and then protect this group further by vaccinating younger people (18-34) as this will reduce spread greater to further protect vulnerable people etc. who have already been vaccinated, but who may not be protected from vaccine. From an economic and health point of view I feel this is totally inequitable and unfair to the 35-54 population. This group is a major cohort in its own right. Their risk to ill health/death from covid is much higher than an 18 year old and will now have to restrict their life longer than 18-34 year olds to further protect already vaccinated persons.. I personally am in this group (41) and have led a very restricted life for the last 9 months, have now lost my job during this (first time unemployed in my life). I was told by Tony in his briefings that increasing age is the main risk factor in covid and that it could kill anyone. Now he has changed the goal posts and is saying we want to protect the over 55's etc. even more and that 34-54 is at no real material risk from covid now at all. I personally think I have taken a big enough hit mentally, financially and general well being to protect the more vulnerable. I now feel effectively at the bottom of the queue with regards to vaccine. Luke O'Neill had suggested going down the age groups 80-70-60-50-40-30 etc. which I felt was fair. Even in the UK it is open to all below 50. I would settle
for UK model of less than 55 open to all (first come first served). Tony and co are trying to be "Too Smart". My view once every person gets the vaccine, it effectively turns covid into a common cold/flu like disease and that the states major role in protecting the population against covid is complete. This is not good enough for Tony and wants to protect already vaccinated people further in the short term at the expense of 35-54 year olds. Everyone should receive vaccine based on the perceived risk. I wonder would Tony and Co be waiting on their teenage sons and daughters to be vaccinated before themselves? At that stage all of NPHET will likely be vaccinated. So in a household you could have an 18 year son receiving the vaccine before his parents in their early 50's to protect his 80 year old grandmother further, while mum and dad are left to take their chances with covid. This is a bizarre idea and contradicts what NPHET have told us to date about risks etc. Tony and co have lost my vote to even suggest this might happen. Hopefully government will intervene and this will not actually happen as it comes across as Tony and Co. pulling up the drawbridge on this cohort (35-54 year olds).

Strumms

7. People aged 18-64 with certain medical conditions

Is there a comprehensive list anywhere of these medical conditions which enable you to be prioritized..? I’m about 85 - 90% recovered from an issue but unsure if I’d qualify because of the advanced stage of recovery firstly and secondly because of the nature of the problem....

Jim_Hodge

Strumms wrote: »

7. People aged 18-64 with certain medical conditions

Is there a comprehensive list anywhere of these medical conditions which enable you to be prioritized..? I’m about 85 - 90% recovered from an issue but unsure if I’d qualify because of the advanced stage of recovery firstly and secondly because of the nature of the problem....

Chronic heart disease, cardiac respiratory disease including asthma requiring continuous use of systemic steroids, diabetes type 1 or 2, chronic neurological disease, chronic kidney disease, body mass index >40, chronic liver disease, or immunosuppression due to disease or treatment.

PhoenixParker

Deleted User wrote: »

"If evidence demonstrates the vaccine(s) prevent transmission, those aged 18-34 should be prioritised due to their increased level of social contact and role in transmission."

I have to say I think the above is frankly ridiculous. Current evidence strongly indicates that the single greatest risk of mortality from COVID-19 is increasing age. So Tony and co. are thinking it is likely a good idea to vaccinate an 18 year old before a 54 year old. He told this group throughout that covid is a very dangerous illness to everyone but now saying 34-54 years olds are not at risk at all. His argument seems to be vaccinate the vulnerable groups etc. (older population,sick and hcw) and then protect this group further by vaccinating younger people (18-34) as this will reduce spread greater to further protect vulnerable people etc. who have already been vaccinated, but who may not be protected from vaccine. From an economic and health point of view I feel this is totally inequitable and unfair to the 35-54 population. This group is a major cohort in its own right. Their risk to ill health/death from covid is much higher than an 18 year old and will now have to restrict their life longer than 18-34 year olds to further protect already vaccinated persons.. I personally am in this group (41) and have led a very restricted life for the last 9 months, have now lost my job during this (first time unemployed in my life). I was told by Tony in his briefings that increasing age is the main risk factor in covid and that it could kill anyone. Now he has changed the goal posts and is saying we want to protect the over 55's etc. even more and that 34-54 is at no real material risk from covid now at all. I personally think I have taken a big enough hit mentally, financially and general well being to protect the more vulnerable. I now feel effectively at the bottom of the queue with regards to vaccine. Luke O'Neill had suggested going down the age groups 80-70-60-50-40-30 etc. which I felt was fair. Even in the UK it is open to all below 50. I would settle
for UK model of less than 55 open to all (first come first served). Tony and co are trying to be "Too Smart". My view once every person gets the vaccine, it effectively turns covid into a common cold/flu like disease and that the states major role in protecting the population against covid is complete. This is not good enough for Tony and wants to protect already vaccinated people further in the short term at the expense of 35-54 year olds. Everyone should receive vaccine based on the perceived risk. I wonder would Tony and Co be waiting on their teenage sons and daughters to be vaccinated before themselves? At that stage all of NPHET will likely be vaccinated. So in a household you could have an 18 year son receiving the vaccine before his parents in their early 50's to protect his 80 year old grandmother further, while mum and dad are left to take their chances with covid. This is a bizarre idea and contradicts what NPHET have told us to date about risks etc. Tony and co have lost my vote to even suggest this might happen. Hopefully government will intervene and this will not actually happen as it comes across as Tony and Co. pulling up the drawbridge on this cohort (35-54 year olds).

I’d disagree. There’s considerable evidence that much of Covid’s spread happens due to superspreader events. Those superspreading events are driven by people with high numbers of contacts, ie much of the 18-34 age group. If they’re not spreading it then vulnerable people won’t catch Covid either. If the vaccine prevents you spreading covid then the fastest protection for the largest number of the population, especially the most vulnerable, may well be achieved by targeting the spreaders not the vulnerable.

SouthWesterly

I'm 7 or 14. Think I'll give it at least 6 months to see what side effects there are first

PhoenixParker

PhoenixParker wrote: »

I’d disagree. There’s considerable evidence that much of Covid’s spread happens due to superspreader events. Those superspreading events are driven by people with high numbers of contacts, ie much of the 18-34 age group. If they’re not spreading it then vulnerable people won’t catch Covid either. If the vaccine prevents you spreading covid then the fastest protection for the largest number of the population, especially the most vulnerable, may well be achieved by targeting the spreaders not the vulnerable.

Are you in the 35-54 group (second last group)?

If you are I will accept your comment as this decision will affect you directly(waiting longer for a vaccine), otherwise not so much.

Some people don't mind "decisions for the greater good" as long as it does'nt adversely affect them directly.

PhoenixParker

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you in the 35-54 group (second last group)?

If you are I will accept your comment as this decision will affect you directly(waiting longer for a vaccine), otherwise not so much.

Some people don't mind "decisions for the greater good" as long as it does'nt adversely affect them directly.

Yes I am. I’m late 30s.

A big chunk of the 18-34 group are in education and that seems to be a super high contact setting. Big lectures, communal living, boyfriends & girlfriends moving between households, often working high contact casual jobs and with high contact social lives and limited ability to contact trace those contacts.

They’re a huge driver of community spread vs someone like me , married with two kids and an office job who barely goes out once every 3 months in a normal year. There are those 18-34 who lead quieter lives and those over 34 who don’t, but on average I’d say the 18-34 group are much higher sources of community spread then my age group.

eagle eye

ceegee wrote: »

A prison outbreak is highly likely to spread due to close conditions, taking up hospital resources. It's also pretty much impossible for prison guards to social distance from prisoners.

The aim of the list is to minimise the strain on our health system, not a list of who you like.

If you can't isolate prisoners who have the virus in a prison then where in the world can you?

PhoenixParker

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Yes I am.

Fair enough.

I wonder will this cohort of well in excess of a million people be as
altruistic as you?

They will lobby government and rightly so.

That lower age cohort will be less inclined to take vaccine as risk is lower.

Open all up to vaccination below 55 is the most equitable.

Let people decide themselves their own risk.

This after all is a democracy, not a totalitarian state.

PhoenixParker

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair enough.

I wonder will this cohort of well in excess of a million people be as
altruistic as you?

Once the HCW and most vulnerable are vaccinated the hospitals will be able to cope with the remaining cases since a smaller % will need treatment and treating staff won’t be as vulnerable. Waiting a bit longer will be somewhat academic. I’ll be less worried about catching it if I know I’m not going to infect the staff treating me or my parents.

There’s a significant chance, depending on uptake levels and availability that it’ll be open to 35+ within weeks of 18-24. It’s not worth stressing about now.

SOPHIE THE DOG

How long will it take to vaccinate 4 million people?
If its 50,000 a day x 80 days = 4 million and then a further 80 days for the second injection.
Thats 160 days + 21 days for everyone to be in the clear = 181 days plus 10% contingency = say 200 days.
30 weeks in round terms.
Starting at the beginning of Feb, thats towards the end of August.
Has anyone info from anyone who knows something of how these things work?

astrofool

SOPHIE THE DOG wrote: »

How long will it take to vaccinate 4 million people?
If its 50,000 a day x 80 days = 4 million and then a further 80 days for the second injection.
Thats 160 days + 21 days for everyone to be in the clear = 181 days plus 10% contingency = say 200 days.
30 weeks in round terms.
Starting at the beginning of Feb, thats towards the end of August.
Has anyone info from anyone who knows something of how these things work?

It will depend on supply, they should be able to ramp well beyond 50,000/day once the supply is there.

astrofool

eagle eye wrote: »

If you can't isolate prisoners who have the virus in a prison then where in the world can you?

The problem is that you don't know who has the virus until it's well too late and everyone in the prison then has it.

is_that_so

astrofool wrote: »

The problem is that you don't know who has the virus until it's well too late and everyone in the prison then has it.

I think we've had one case here and that was a prison officer. They had a TB issue, in 2017 I believe, and they applied those same TB protocols with COVID very successfully.

SusanC10

I have asked this on other threads but hopefully may get an answer here.

Which Category do Adults with Special Needs ie Down Syndrome or Cerebral Palsy fall into ?

odyssey06

SusanC10 wrote: »

I have asked this on other threads but hopefully may get an answer here.

Which Category do Adults with Special Needs ie Down Syndrome or Cerebral Palsy fall into ?

At the moment, I presume they would fall into their age category ranking as those conditions are not specified in the 'certain medical conditions' for ranking #7.

speckle

SusanC10 wrote: »

I have asked this on other threads but hopefully may get an answer here.

Which Category do Adults with Special Needs ie Down Syndrome or Cerebral Palsy fall into ?

It would be handy to have their medical history and look through eg if a they are family members living at home.. some people with Down Syndrome may have allied heart issues that might fall under catorgory 7? And I presume if in a residential insititute then catorgory 8. Maybe that will end up encompassing those you go to day centers. If not they are next level down at 9....
Aged 18-64 years living working in crowded accommodation where self-isolation and social distancing is difficult to maintain

Rationale

Disadvantaged sociodemographic groups more likely to experience a higher burden of infection.

Ethical Principles

The principles of moral equality, minimising harm (especially in the context of multi-generational households) and fairness are relevant. Prioritising this group recognises that structural inequalities make some people more vulnerable than others to COVID-19
It is a provisional schedule

Important for people to note...people with Down Syndrome and possibly other conditions have a shorter life expectancy. And it can be much harder for them to follow public health guidelines or self isolate etc and if they end up in hospital even with the best will in the world it can be much more difficult for both staff and patient.

speckle

the provisional schedule link

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/39038-provisional-vaccine-allocation-groups/

SusanC10

Thanks for that.

Finding it hard to believe that they would be same category as me (mid-40s, no health issues).
They were classed as High Risk by HSE for Covid.

speckle

SusanC10 wrote: »

Thanks for that.

Finding it hard to believe that they would be same category as me (mid-40s, no health issues).
They were classed as High Risk by HSE for Covid.

I agree but I think that the HSE originally wasnt clear enough on their website re high or very high risk of having a serious disease infection ie ending up in ICU versus.... being highly vulnerable to the risk of catching/transmiting it due to not necessarily having the capacity to follow public health guidelines.

Some people would fall into both the above catorgories and there is a spectrum of people with Downs Syndrome...

Been a stressful year for all carers and frustrating for those with DS who are normally active and out an about and who love meeting, talking to people. Wishing you all well and good health.

ShineOn7

speckle wrote: »

the provisional schedule link

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/39038-provisional-vaccine-allocation-groups/

I'm glad this says "provisional"


Because if people with Downs Syndrome and other conditions don't get it before people with "body mass index >40" (PC speak for "people who didn't look after themselves") then there'll be fúcking uproar

astrofool

ShineOn7 wrote: »

I'm glad this says "provisional"


Because if people with Downs Syndrome and other conditions don't get it before people with "body mass index >40" (PC speak for "people who didn't look after themselves") then there'll be fúcking uproar

Why would we give it sooner to people less at risk of the disease? The goal is to prevent deaths, not to decide who is worthy or not to receive a medicine that will save their life.

ShineOn7

astrofool wrote: »

Why would we give it sooner to people less at risk of the disease? The goal is to prevent deaths, not to decide who is worthy or not to receive a medicine that will save their life.

So the Government are right to give it to those overweight before those with Downs Syndrome?

Nonsense.

There will be ructions over this

CIARAN_BOYLE

ShineOn7 wrote: »

So the Government are right to give it to those overweight before those with Downs Syndrome?

Nonsense.

There will be ructions over this

Who is at higher risk of death if infected?

The obese or those with downs syndrome? Genuine question.

Also did the trials include people with downs syndrome?

average_runner

ShineOn7 wrote: »

I'm glad this says "provisional"


Because if people with Downs Syndrome and other conditions don't get it before people with "body mass index >40" (PC speak for "people who didn't look after themselves") then there'll be fúcking uproar

But there is people with body mass that size due to medical reasons also

average_runner

ShineOn7 wrote: »

So the Government are right to give it to those overweight before those with Downs Syndrome?

Nonsense.

There will be ructions over this

In fairness it depends on the science. Which category is at more risk with the virus? I don't know.

bush

Are down syndrome people high risk?

Sconsey

Beasty wrote: »

One of the interesting questions is how many people fall into each Group. I suspect the age categories will be relatively easy to establish based on Census data. I wonder if the HSE or Government will provide estimates of each Group

637,000 over 65 years of age (2016 census)
210,000 total HCW from HSA in 2006...I would up this to about 250,000 today on the assumption that it does not include care home workers and some increase in HSE numbers.


So ballpark figure of 887,000 to cover the first 5 groups on the list.

Who knows how many key workers there are really. Very difficult to figure numbers out based on statistics after the groups 6 and 7.

Amirani

ShineOn7 wrote: »

So the Government are right to give it to those overweight before those with Downs Syndrome?

Nonsense.

There will be ructions over this

No there won't. Vaccinating higher risk individuals sooner is not going to cause any ructions, because it's the sensible and ethical thing to do. It's also the same thing most of the developed world has indicated that they're going to be doing.

Amirani

touts wrote: »

Its a fairly meaningless PR stunt of a list. They need to share the plan to vaccinate 4.5 million people if they even have such a plan Where will the vaccines be administered. what capacity is there weekly, monthly etc. How will they track who got it and who didn't. They just have not shared any details and that is very worrying.

Knowing you're 13th/14th on the list isn't so bad if you can also see that they expect to get to those people in say February or March. But it's a right kick in the bollocks if it turns out to be next October or November. Given the lack of ANY details of the rollout plan and the track record of the HSE I suspect I will be vaccinated closer to the latter than the former.

Given there hasn't been a single vaccine approved by the EMA yet, then giving a date for each group would be ridiculous and basically lying to people.

They haven't shared details yet because they don't know yet.