COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 3 - Read OP

lucernarian

political analyst wrote: »

How can any CF sufferer not be regarded as a severe case?

As I said earlier: With 1100 sufferers of CF in Ireland, I think it's nuts that that any of those would not be in cohort 4.

I don't know why, it's something the NIAC and HSE would have to explain. And some people here are allergic to any criticism of them.

Sanjuro

Why would the government have one target for the public, and one internal target that's significantly lower? Even if it's a PR thing, shouldn't you always under promise and over achieve rather than the other way round?

is_that_so

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

But does that include what Sanofi will produce or will their production be in addition to that figure?

Probably included, they agreed it with Pfizer. It's from July anyway. I believe they will do the same for J&J, but not sure what stage that's at.

titan18

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Full European commission press release here

https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/1369591200093732864?s=19

Pfizer is now able to deliver additional doses as a result of the January/February manufacturing expansion which has resulted in 4 million more doses becoming available within 2 weeks.

Member states can purchase pro rata.

Bodes well that Pfizer can deliver on their projections and the commissioning on new facilties along with the recent upgrades have quite clearly gone well and to plan hence the additional output now available.

Interesting that it's state can purchase pro rate. If a country doesn't take that up, hopefully we'll be in for that this time.

BringBackMick

If it wasn't for Pfizer we really would be goosed!

There would be no chance of a summer!

Hopefully we can still get the 60+ and HCW, vulnerable done by June.

That'll be 95% of the problem fixed.

Pete_Cavan

Sanjuro wrote: »

Why would the government have one target for the public, and one internal target that's significantly lower? Even if it's a PR thing, shouldn't you always under promise and over achieve rather than the other way round?

I think people are taking the internal target thing too literally. The article linked above doesn't actually give the quote from Donnelly so we don't have the overall context in which he said it. I think it's a case of the target getting adjusted in line with delivery estimates from the suppliers, rather than having two separate parallel targets.

Sanjuro

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I think people are taking the internal target thing too literally. The article linked above doesn't actually give the quote from Donnelly so we don't have the overall context in which he said it. I think it's a case of the target getting adjusted in line with delivery estimates from the suppliers, rather than having two separate parallel targets.

Adjusted targets certainly makes more sense than internal and external targets.

Dressoutlet

is_that_so wrote: »

Well, I've heard about a few times but they can't communicate anything more than big pictures until they see supplies.

I would say the list is based on how the group is categorized.

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/39038-provisional-vaccine-allocation-groups/#aged-16-69-and-at-very-high-risk-of-severe-covid-19-disease

That list is in alphabetical order only.

is_that_so

Dressoutlet wrote: »

That list is in alphabetical order only.

It still looks like a largely logical order. Henry also mentioned cancer patients and that ties in with hospitals being involved.

lucernarian

titan18 wrote: »

Interesting that it's state can purchase pro rate. If a country doesn't take that up, hopefully we'll be in for that this time.

I would be amazed if any country doesn't take up their extra allocation.

Dressoutlet

is_that_so wrote: »

It still looks like a largely logical order. Henry also mentioned cancer patients and that ties in with hospitals being involved.

My GP said it was people with Intellectual Disabilities in care homes being done this week, which is way down on the Alphabetical list. Also aware that's my GP and not necessarily true.

is_that_so

Dressoutlet wrote: »

My GP said it was people with Intellectual Disabilities in care homes being done this week, which is way down on the Alphabetical list. Also aware that's my GP and not necessarily true.

Care homes do make sense for more rapid progress. I've also heard of someone with cancer who has got a date! TBH if we get the supplies they can be done as a group inside of three weeks. That timeline has been mentioned as a target.

Sconsey

Probes wrote: »

It’s in this article, Donnelly saying we’d miss the 1.7m but we are only just missing the internal target of 1.2m.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40241066.html?utm_campaign=40241228&utm_medium=readmore&utm_source=irishexaminer

Also, great photo on the article

What he said in an interview on the news last night about the 1.7m figure was that (I'm paraphrasing) the 1.7m figure was a very short lived estimate that was changed before it was ever even announced (indicating a leak I guess). The 1.7m was an early estimate that was corrected very quickly. It was 'internal' because they never even got a chance to announce it before they realised it would not be achievable.

Sconsey

lucernarian wrote: »

As I said earlier: With 1100 sufferers of CF in Ireland, I think it's nuts that that any of those would not be in cohort 4.

I don't know why, it's something the NIAC and HSE would have to explain. And some people here are allergic to any criticism of them.

They appear to be splitting CF into two cohorts based an severity...people with stable CF are in group 5, people with more severe CF are group 4. I have no idea clinically of the difference and how the risk level changes, but given the relatively low number of CF patientes overall you would think it would be easier to have them all in group 4.

Dressoutlet

is_that_so wrote: »

Care homes do make sense for more rapid progress. I've also heard of someone with cancer who has got a date! TBH if we get the supplies they can be done as a group inside of three weeks. That timeline has been mentioned as a target.

Fingers crossed, that's all we can do now

Micky 32

My parents 78/73 have got word for their vaccines. March 27th/April 10th.

Of course the dreaded “ subject to supply” was mentioned.

jackryan34

BringBackMick wrote: »

If it wasn't for Pfizer we really would be goosed!

There would be no chance of a summer!

Hopefully we can still get the 60+ and HCW, vulnerable done by June.

That'll be 95% of the problem fixed.

No we wouldnt

We had a Summer last year and will have a summer this year

All of Europe will be have a summer regardless of vaccinations given

We are half way through spring now and should just concentrate on the Autumn/Winter supply

Summer aint an issue

titan18

lucernarian wrote: »

I would be amazed if any country doesn't take up their extra allocation.

So would I but some countries already didn't at the start cos of the cost of the Pfizer vaccine, so they might choose not to again. Denmark and Germany got extra doses then as a result, so hopefully we're in with them if that happens this time.

Amirani

Sconsey wrote: »

They appear to be splitting CF into two cohorts based an severity...people with stable CF are in group 5, people with more severe CF are group 4. I have no idea clinically of the difference and how the risk level changes, but given the relatively low number of CF patientes overall you would think it would be easier to have them all in group 4.

But you could say this for lots of conditions, and relatively low numbers in each of them might start to add up to to high numbers.

Like you, I don't understand the clinical differences between "severe" risk and "high" risk, but their approach is based on this severity difference alright. It does make sense to do the severe risk groupings ahead of the high risk groupings anyway if it is logistically straightforward enough.

I think certain groups calling for "equality" in rollout to all sufferers of a condition are being a little unreasonable, when the likely outcomes of catching Covid aren't equal between them.

lucernarian

Amirani wrote: »

But you could say this for lots of conditions, and relatively low numbers in each of them might start to add up to to high numbers.

Like you, I don't understand the clinical differences between "severe" risk and "high" risk, but their approach is based on this severity difference alright. It does make sense to do the severe risk groupings ahead of the high risk groupings anyway if it is logistically straightforward enough.

I think certain groups calling for "equality" in rollout to all sufferers of a condition are being a little unreasonable, when the likely outcomes of catching Covid aren't equal between them.

This kinda ignores the practical realities applied to other conditions, such as the threshold given for uncontrolled diabetes or obesity, far more prevalent conditions that have a threshold written in black and white, and affects far more people.

1100 patients across a small number of clinics have to be sorted manually based on a complete overview by a consultant's team and there will need to be two rounds of doses supplied to these clinics, along with setting up the place 4 times in total to provide them. How is this a sensible approach for this group of vulnerable patients?

Additionally there is not much in the literature about the effects of covid-19 based on clinical presentation of CF. It doesn't appear to be in the HSE's own guidance, correct me if I'm wrong: https://hselibrary.ie/what-are-the-outcomes-for-people-with-cystic-fibrosis-who-contract-covid-19/

political analyst

Deleted User wrote: »

At this point their conservatism indicates either incompetence or malice.
The death toll for under 65s is below 200 in a year. Once the 65+ are done we'll be down to single digit deaths weekly and getting properly into the summer when the seasonality with also represses it. Over 65s and vulnerable should be done by the end of April (if they ever get the vaccines they're meant to) so just open up. Not this nonsense of 3 weeks at each level, the danger will be gone so ****ing get on with it.

For what it's worth, Tracey O'Mahony has launched a legal challenge.

https://gript.ie/barrister-tracey-omahony-launches-lockdown-challenge/

Beautiful charts showing what the vaccine is doing for us in healthcare environments

is_that_so

political analyst wrote: »

For what it's worth, Tracey O'Mahony has launched a legal challenge.

https://gript.ie/barrister-tracey-omahony-launches-lockdown-challenge/

Regulations versus laws. The 1947 Health Act has always had that option of doing whatever is required for public health anyway. The recent amendments are really tweaks to cover what we've had to do. She's a bit late to the party, too.

seamus

Let me guess, she has a GoFundMe running to finance this legal challenge?

She is a qualified barrister, and any qualified barrister knows the difference between Acts and Regulations. If the supreme court were to find that legislation at variance with the constitution, then vast swathes of Irish law would equally need to be thrown out.

This is a showpiece from her. If she doesn't come up with some vague reason to take a legal challenge, then she can't raise funds for one.

No doubt she will be "billing" for her "expenses" from the GoFundMe pot.

Wolf359f

Deleted User wrote: »

Beautiful charts showing what the vaccine is doing for us in healthcare environments

I think they need to show a more clearer picture.
Last year week 32-46: 6.8% of all cases were in HCW (2.3% of which where hospitalized)
Week 48-8: 10.2% of all cases were in HCW (2.8% of which were hospitalized)

Filtering out week 7-8 this year, it looks to be 9.2% of all cases are in HCW's.
I could be completely wrong and reading reports wrong, all evidence worldwide points to the vaccine having a massive impact. I would just have thought we'd see a bigger drop in HCW's as a % of the general population.

noplacehere

SusanC10 wrote: »

I think communication has been lacking. My sister is Group 4. She hasn't been in a hospital since she was a child although she does also have other conditions which are controlled medically. GP says that they have no info. They are only finishing 85+ this week and moving to 80-84 then.
Hopefully they will get to my elderly Mum (80+) soon at least as she is my sister's Carer.

I’m in a group of very high risk teachers who have been working from home. One of us has been contacted by a hospital with a date. The rest of us are in limbo. GPs know nothing. Some of us are in private hospitals which apparently aren’t covered in this regard. But again this is us just trying to figure it all out. Clear information would be great. It’s all good and well saying sit tight but if the GPS don’t know what’s going on and the hospitals aren’t sure either and are trying to find us based on paper based files it seems very scattered

Edit: make that two of us! Some day soon for me too hopefully.... cannot wait

Deathofcool

1.1 million confirmed by Leo by end of q1.

https://twitter.com/RTENewsAtOne/status/1369639343279792138?s=19

ACitizenErased

Deathofcool wrote: »

1.1 million confirmed by Leo by end of q1.

https://twitter.com/RTENewsAtOne/status/1369639343279792138?s=19

So the Irish Times article pushed by a specific person on here yesterday is complete BS, as proven at the time

brickster69

So in other words just political bollox


https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1369643211837300740

Elessar

Deathofcool wrote: »

1.1 million confirmed by Leo by end of q1.

https://twitter.com/RTENewsAtOne/status/1369639343279792138?s=19

Wait, that's 1.1m total I assume as has been discussed recently?

Not 1.1m extra vaccines on top of what we already got for q1?