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

eagle eye

Micky 32 wrote:

It’s like trying to convince someone who’s afraid of flying how safe it is but they’ll drive all day in a car with no issues where you’re most likely to die.

No it's nothing like that, it's risk assessment. I'm confident I can avoid contracting the virus and I'm not risking my health taking a vaccine that the EMA have admitted is related to blood clotting and which they are still studying to decide if it's still safer to take it than not.

Micky 32

eagle eye wrote: »

Well it's quite easy to avoid covid for me, just keep doing all the necessary. I always carry hand sanitizer and goggles, I social distance, wear a mask, and goggles if necessary, I wash my hands as soon as I get an opportunity. My family hasn't had any difficulty with being stuck together during this. I take vitamin d every morning, I eat oranges everyday so get loads of vitamin c too.
I'm pretty confident I can avoid contracting covid for as long as is necessary. I'd consider my chances of contracting it as very low, probably as low as that of having issues with AZ.
I'm not going to take the chance of being one of the unlucky ones.
If I contract covid it's my own fault for not being cateful, if I take this drug and have serious complications then it's my fault for taking it.
I like my chances better staying safe and waiting it out.

I know some people, like you who did everything by the book and still caught the virus. To this day they are stumped ( including myself had me wondering) how they caught it.

nocoverart

Sweet Jesus, I'm all for adhering to social distancing and taking the necessary precautions but fookin goggles? haven't seen a person yet wearing them.

eagle eye

Cork2021 wrote:

So let’s say you don’t get a choice in the future after saying no the the AZ vaccine? Are you going to live like a hermit forever? Just being hypothetical here!

I've no intention of staying vaccine free forever.
I'll get it one way or the other. In time AZ may sort out these issues.
I'm willing to wait for now. Nothing much is going to change in the next six months.

Goldengirl

mollser wrote: »

Cool - haven't seen it mentioned. It does make a lot of sense though, would be great if they could understand more and quickly

The Norwegians have said it is due to an anyibody response that occurs in some women ,which does not appear to have anything to do with HRT or contraceptive pill.
It is an extremely rare occurrence to have a sagittal sinus thrombosis in everyday medicine , not the usual type of thrombosis that happens with any form of hormone treatment, and certainly not with reduced platelets also .
Common clot formations are pulmonary embolism (lung )or in the lower leg .
Whatever this is , it is not a common thrombosis, and there is some sort of inflammatory response triggering it , like vasculitis. , or other autoimmune disease .

Micky 32

Micky 32 wrote: »

I know some people, like you who did everything by the book and still caught the virus. To this day they are stumped ( including myself had me wondering) how they caught it.

Exactly your probability of catching this is not a moral one. Good people who obey rules dont catch virus. Bad people who have house parties do. Its just science/risk/luck/circumstances and being sensible thrown in there too. I think it is a mistake for anyone to say I cant catch covid. I try not to judge if i hear of someone i know catches it. It could be me next week and other people simply have to accept much higher risk. HCW before vaccination. You hope you wont and being sensible obviously helps. Given governments policy of vaccination anyone over 20 in my book should take a vaccine. If people under 30 or women under 50 are advised not to take Astra unless non other available so be it. Personally I would take Astra in the morning. Risk of advserse outcome of taking it for me in my view miniscule.As ema say the risk ratio of taking is very much in your favour.

josip

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Just because Pfizer has done a trial doesn't mean others just stop. Likely to need multiple suppliers in younger age groups as well.

I've no doubt the trials will continue when regulators allow.

As for the vaccine not being critical, that's just silly, of course it's going to be a crucial vaccine (why wouldn't it be ) for multiple countries and continents, not to mention COVAX when rolling out to adults and in time children

ACitizenErased wrote: »

AstraZeneca is arguably THE most critical vaccine. COVAX forecasts 300 million AZ doses vs 1 million Pfizer doses this year alone.

Deleted User wrote: »

Pfizer for a number of reasons isn't very practical for much of the world. Price, storage and transport requirements all will cause issues. AZ have their problems but they're the only ones supplying at cost, is easily stored and they are currently carrying most of the burden for the COVAX programme. Regulators decide when trials become unsafe or that the risk outweighs the benefit.

I've no problem with AZ being used for older people and for all males.
But the reasons you give above read like, "the trials will resume because the vaccine is needed".
Almost as if the reasons for the pause are irrelevant.

stephenjmcd

josip wrote: »

I've no problem with AZ being used for older people and for all males.
But the reasons you give above read like, "the trials will resume because the vaccine is needed".
Almost as if the reasons for the pause are irrelevant.

Trials resume when the regulators say so it's as simple as that really.

If they say yes go ahead then the trial of 200 that is running on Children goes ahead.

You've claimed AZ isn't a critical vaccine for younger cohorts because Pfizer already have conducted a trial when it clearly is for the multiple reasons pointed out. Hence why trials are very important & the sooner they're allowed to resume (once regulators are satisfied) the better

ACitizenErased

josip wrote: »

I've no problem with AZ being used for older people and for all males.
But the reasons you give above read like, "the trials will resume because the vaccine is needed".
Almost as if the reasons for the pause are irrelevant.

The trials will resume because the benefits will still outweigh the risks

Micky 32

https://twitter.com/paulreiddublin/status/1379505103498002433?s=21

lukas8888

nocoverart wrote: »

Sweet Jesus, I'm all for adhering to social distancing and taking the necessary precautions but fookin goggles? haven't seen a person yet wearing them.

Got to hand it to Eagle he is unique.

josip

ACitizenErased wrote: »

The trials will resume because the benefits will still outweigh the risks

Would you be ok with it if you had a teenage daughter taking part in the trial?

ACitizenErased

josip wrote: »

Would you be ok with it if you had a teenage daughter taking part in the trial?

I would to be honest

ShyMets

lukas8888 wrote: »

Got to hand it to Eagle he is unique.

Reminds of another poster who is shell we say away with the fairies

hynesie08

josip wrote: »

Would you be ok with it if you had a teenage daughter taking part in the trial?

You should probably look into what can cause blood clots in teenage girls, you'd never let them out of their room. (which could cause blood clots due to lack of activity)

VG31

nocoverart wrote: »

Sweet Jesus, I'm all for adhering to social distancing and taking the necessary precautions but fookin goggles? haven't seen a person yet wearing them.

I've never seen anyone in goggles. I'd imagine everyone you meet would stare at you, I certainly would!

irishgeo

This thread is going to downhill it's about vaccines and not about medical advice or guessing what's causing blood clots or people asking what happens if I don't want this vaccine. Talk to your doctor or the expert at the vaccine centre not boards.ie

Goldengirl

ACitizenErased wrote: »

The trials will resume because the benefits will still outweigh the risks

That maybe so .
But there are increasingly more worried about AZ ,mainly women, as these seem to be more affected proportionately than men .
It would have been infinitely more reassuring if the EMA had come out with an advisory about using this vaccine in those under a certain age , instead of the very quick reaffirmation , a few weeks ago .
It has been unhelpful for those who are educating patients as to risks and side effects.
I know some of the group 4 patients are worried getting it now and staff are finding it more difficult to credibly advise these patients to go ahead with their AZ shots .

Most have no problem with it and are delighted to be getting vaccinated , but I do sympathise with those who are concerned about the risks which although they maybe small are nonetheless now a valid concern .
And these patients would have been thrilled to be getting vaccinated prior to this as they have been cocooning for the last year .

hmmm

Goldengirl wrote: »

Most have no problem with it and are delighted to be getting vaccinated , but I do sympathise with those who are concerned about the risks which although they maybe small are nonetheless now a valid concern .

I hate to sound harsh, but there's only so much we can do for people. They're in group 4 because they are at high risk and they're being offered a vaccine. The stats are convincing that they are at much more danger from Covid than any possible risk from the vaccine, and there's only so much our medical staff can be expected to do to convince them.

Where I think it gets more difficult is when we get into the "non-vulnerable" groups and you start trying to vaccinate people who have a risk of Covid which may be similar to risk of blood clots from a vaccine. You perhaps start weighing up risk of long-Covid? There may be an ethical issue at that point, and hopefully more information.

Hococop

Still no word for my dad, his gp still seems to be doing 75+ and maybe a still 80's based off a status , not sure if they are just slow or lacking the vaccines, hopefully him and my mam (65+) get the call soon

How much further on with over 70s would they be if they were allowed astra zeneca and given to gps? Thats what happened throughout UK.

Given its low risk to older patients and higher risk to younger, have we got strategy wrong in ireland considering we are vaccinating the exact opposite as to the risks?

We can thank superman tony holihan for that one. He went further than niac recommendations to get his way.

Strazdas

Interesting stats on Prime Time just now - they think 4m doses in Q2 is a possibility, with 1.8m coming in June (that would equate to over 400k doses a week during the month of June).

Stephen Donnelly says those figures look "pretty accurate".

Apogee

Apogee wrote: »

This is his slide on vaccine supply but the source is not clear, so hard to know how reliable these projections are.



Eyeballing them:
April 900K
May 1,250K
June 1,750K
Total of 3.9M (average of 1.3M per month)

That fits with the number of doses required to reach 80% population having had dose 1 at end of June.

For comparison, Prime Time's prediction. Donnelly said these numbers were broadly accurate.

Strazdas

^^ RTE extrapolated their figures from the Swedish rollout, who in theory should be getting identical numbers per capita as us.

Goldengirl

hmmm wrote: »

I hate to sound harsh, but there's only so much we can do for people. They're in group 4 because they are at high risk and they're being offered a vaccine. The stats are convincing that they are at much more danger from Covid than any possible risk from the vaccine, and there's only so much our medical staff can be expected to do to convince them.

Where I think it gets more difficult is when we get into the "non-vulnerable" groups and you start trying to vaccinate people who have a risk of Covid which may be similar to risk of blood clots from a vaccine. You perhaps start weighing up risk of long-Covid? There may be an ethical issue at that point, and hopefully more information.

I agree as regards the latter groups.

I appreciate that everyone's patience is running low , but we cannot say to people "there is a very low risk that this may seriously disable or even kill you but it's this jab , or you go back to cocooning until we can give you another vaccine , or you go to the bottom of the queue , and risk dying from Covid " .
Some of these people may be risk adverse as a result of their conditions and having to take much more care than others on a continual basis . .
I know colleagues doing vaccination and the lack of cohesion in the different EU countries around the AZ vaccine is being picked up on by patients who need the jab most .

A lot would have a better awareness of what is going on than most and are conflicted, to say the least .

hmmm

I wish they'd find a way to separate out the J&J one dose from the others as it doesn't make much sense conflating the two. By the time June comes, J&J alone will be fully vaccinating nearly half a million people a month.

Also, why are AstraZeneca deliveries going backwards?

3mom4

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How much further on with over 70s would they be if they were allowed astra zeneca and given to gps? Thats what happened throughout UK.

Given its low risk to older patients and higher risk to younger, have we got strategy wrong in ireland considering we are vaccinating the exact opposite as to the risks?

We can thank superman tony holihan for that one. He went further than niac recommendations to get his way.

I think you are correct for the most part;

NIAC recommended that very/high risk cohorts under 70 be given mrna vaccines as a priority. We have done the opposite based on outdated evidence that AstraZeneca is less suited to the elderly than the at risk under 70s. Opposite is now true.

Some people under 70 in high risk cohorts (including many females under 50 like myself) are at a higher risk of blood clotting. This is ignored.

The choice is that there is none. Suck up the high risk or get covid.

Why are those most at risk with the AZ vaccine being the ones only offered it?

Those least at risk are being offered the others?

This makes no sense. Why are we still continuing with this stupid strategy? It's convenient.

stephenjmcd

Hococop wrote: »

Still no word for my dad, his gp still seems to be doing 75+ and maybe a still 80's based off a status , not sure if they are just slow or lacking the vaccines, hopefully him and my mam (65+) get the call soon

Not sure what age group your folks are in but if they're 65-69 it won't be the GP doing it. They'll register on the portal when it's launched and then attend a vaccination centre.

LLMMLL

3mom4 wrote: »

I think you are correct for the most part;

NIAC recommended that very/high risk cohorts under 70 be given mrna vaccines as a priority. We have done the opposite based on outdated evidence that AstraZeneca is less suited to the elderly than the at risk under 70s. Opposite is now true.

Some people under 70 in high risk cohorts (including many females under 50 like myself) are at a higher risk of blood clotting. This is ignored.

The choice is that there is none. Suck up the high risk or get covid.

Why are those most at risk with the AZ vaccine being the ones only offered it?

Those least at risk are being offered the others?

This makes no sense. Why are we still continuing with this stupid strategy? It's convenient.

I think for many people they prioritise the group they are in themselves as the most “at risk” in their head.

Over 70s are most at risk overall. Why not give them the most effective vaccine? Because there is a very low risk for certain groups of an adverse event?

Goldengirl

3mom4 wrote: »

I think you are correct for the most part;

NIAC recommended that very/high risk cohorts under 70 be given mrna vaccines as a priority. We have done the opposite based on outdated evidence that AstraZeneca is less suited to the elderly than the at risk under 70s. Opposite is now true.

Some people under 70 in high risk cohorts (including many females under 50 like myself) are at a higher risk of blood clotting. This is ignored.

The choice is that there is none. Suck up the high risk or get covid.

Why are those most at risk with the AZ vaccine being the ones only offered it?

Those least at risk are being offered the others?

This makes no sense. Why are we still continuing with this stupid strategy? It's convenient.

It's the fastest route , basically .
But you have just highlighted what I have been saying beautifully., thank you .!
Those at risk should not be given the most convenient vaccine ,but the one most suited to their age , conditions and risk profile ..
Less speedy but safer .