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

SusanC10

funnydoggy wrote: »

Fergal Bowers usually does, to be fair

Oh OK. I got an RTE alert on my phone.

Sofa King Great

ACitizenErased wrote: »

This could be Fergal Bowers jumping the gun, wouldn't be the first time he has done it. Hope he's wrong.

Its fairly reckless if that is the case as it will have a real impact on vaccine take up

hmmm

I'd take AZ in a heartbeat if it meant I could get a vaccine sooner.

I know that Captain Hindsights will be all over these decisions in time and NIAC will be in the firing line, but we are in a pandemic. We can't afford to have unused vaccines, even if they have rare side-effects. The Government need to give them some cover here if they need it.

ddarcy

Turtwig wrote: »

We need the official statement. I'd be stunned if cohort 4 and 7 are restricted from AZ. It may be RTÉ getting the lines crossed.

Disagree. If the healthy population is not fit to take it, neither is the vulnerable. A massive lawsuit(s) is lurking if they do. You can’t say a vulnerable group more prone to serious adverse events from the vaccine are grand whereas the normal healthy population are not. If they go this route Solicitors / Barristers will be creaming themselves.

eoinbn

Deleted User wrote: »

300k 60-69 year old - 600k doses
233k already administered as first doses - bulk of these have not received 2nd dose - that's most of the 813k used up.

And its likely that guidance will be refined at some stage as more is understood about the potential adverse effects and the subsets of the population potentially impacted

It is very likely that the people that have gotten the first dose will get something else for the second - unless they are over 60.
You are assuming that we will do all the over 60s with AZ - some won't.
They will be done with what ever is available as they are at a relatively high risk. However the 12 week gap does help.
We should start the 65-69 asap. Use as many AZ for the next month. After that it will just be used for second doses.
If the same thing happens with J&J it will be a big blow.

Klonker

hmmm wrote: »

I'd take AZ in a heartbeat if it meant I could get a vaccine sooner.

I know that Captain Hindsights will be all over these decisions in time and NIAC will be in the firing line, but we are in a pandemic. We can't afford to have unused vaccines, even if they have rare side-effects. The Government need to give them some cover here if they need it.

NIAC and NPHET certainly haven't been trying to make things easy for the government.

Rebelbrowser

SusanC10 wrote: »

Why are you thinking that RTE jumped the gun ?

The report says this "...The group met this morning for a lengthy meeting and a further meeting is under way to agree and sign off on the issue...." which to my mind means no decision has been actually made yet.

Russman

So, if the figures in post #8606 are correct, there are 483,100 people between 60 & 69 in the country. That would mean 966k doses required.
We've already administered 233k AZ - presumably they're mostly first doses, would there be much overlap with the 966k above ?
We'll still probably need around a million AZ shots in total, give or take.

Klonker

Klonker wrote: »

So you're saying we should not give any 60-69 any other vaccines? This would mean a lot of people under 60 will be vaccinated before this group as the 60-69 group will be waiting on the Astra supply.

I'm not disagreeing but this is the tough decision now that government or however will have to make. Either what I outlined above or give out doses as they come in, meaning we'll have a load of Astra left over pushing our overall timeline out.

They will widen the bracket it is available for once more data narrows down the most susceptible groups.

NIAC will be looking at this from the the viewpoint of doing the most good - so restricting in to the younger groups less impacted by covid and using it in the groups most impacted by covid is understandable.
From the publicly available data they could have left it at 50 i think. They could also possibly have delayed any decision for 2 weeks as only the older groups and those at high risk were going to be getting it any way in that time period. I two weeks time a lot more will be known. In the absence of a decision however, hysteria would fill the gap, so is understandable why they moved on this.

stephenjmcd

hmmm wrote: »

I'd take AZ in a heartbeat if it meant I could get a vaccine sooner.

I know that Captain Hindsights will be all over these decisions in time and NIAC will be in the firing line, but we are in a pandemic. We can't afford to have unused vaccines, even if they have rare side-effects. The Government need to give them some cover here if they need it.

Its a very very rare side effect and a very small number of cases relative to the amount of AZ used.

I fail to see how they've come up with this recommendation to be honest.

None of us would take any medication or vaccine if we knew the very very rare side effects to each one.

(queue the replies of this isn't any other medication - they all come with a list of rare side effects)

Turtwig

ddarcy wrote: »

Disagree. If the heavy population is not fit to take it, neither is the vulnerable. A massive lawsuit(s) is lurking if they do. You can’t say a vulnerable group more prone to serious adverse events from the vaccine are grand whereas the normal healthy population are not. If they go this route Solicitors / Barristers will be creaming themselves.

The calculus of risk is notoriously different for the vulnerable groups to the larger population. There is also no data at this time to suggest vulnerable cohorts are more at risk of this adverse event. These groups aren't naive either. Many of them will be on medications with risk of very severe side effects that include death. They should at least be given the option because I suspect most would opt to be vaccinated as soon as possible vs risking covid.

Solicitors will take any case. Doesn't mean it has merit.

eoinbn

eoinbn wrote: »

It is very likely that the people that have gotten the first dose will get something else for the second - unless they are over 60.
You are assuming that we will do all the over 60s with AZ - some won't.
They will be done with what ever is available as they are at a relatively high risk. However the 12 week gap does help.
We should start the 65-69 asap. Use as many AZ for the next month. After that it will just be used for second doses.
If the same thing happens with J&J it will be a big blow.

Would not be so sure - no cases after 2nd dose I believe. The heightened immune response that triggers the issue seems to follow the initial dose within 2 weeks

Rebelbrowser

Turtwig wrote: »

Solicitors will take any case. Doesn't mean it has merit.

Well certain solicitors will if they see sufficient upside, most solicitors wouldn't touch this kind of thing with a barge pole. As we don't (yet) have class actions per se in Ireland we are less of a litigation risk than, say, the US.

RavenBea17b

Sanjuro wrote: »

My mam's friend has a GP who has never computerised. Does everything with paper and pencil. Real old school type. Unsurprisingly, it's been absolute chaos trying to get his patients vaccinated. Said friend is 75. Not a sign of getting even the first dose so far.

brendanwalsh wrote: »

Anyone who got their first Az shot would rightly refuse the second shot at this point too

Why would that be ? Risk of blood clots are being monitored. Notification of signs too for each person vaccinated. Does that mean women who take the contraceptive pill refuse now.

How about people start refusing the Johnson Jansen one as well, due similar type of blood clots ongoing investigations. I understand that the type of clot is rare.

I would look at the balance of catching COVID vs risk of clot.
If at some point maybe we get asked to take an aspirin or anti clot medication of some sort for a month or so after a jab,(any jab) then so be it. (IMHO). I am not a medic, but having seen the damage that long Covid is doing, I will take a chance.
I think I read somewhere that there is research about the platelet impact - related to if you have already had Covid. Many Covid sufferers have increased blood clot risks and have been impacted by clots. Each day more is being learnt about the ongoing effects of the virus and the impact of vaccines.

noplacehere

Ah ffs. I would have preferred a different one but I still danced up to get my first dose (cohort 4). Now what the **** do they do. I don’t want a mix and match jabs? Sod that. Either finish me properly or give me a fill proper mRNA vaccine schedule. This is a mess of a recommendation

iamwhoiam

So the only people now getting AZ are age 60-70 ?

lbj666

Russman wrote: »

So, if the figures in post #8606 are correct, there are 483,100 people between 60 & 69 in the country. That would mean 966k doses required.
We've already administered 233k AZ - presumably they're mostly first doses, would there be much overlap with the 966k above ?
We'll still probably need around a million AZ shots in total, give or take.

Ya i thinking this may not significantly effect rollout on a broader level than we might think. 233k you say will be getting their 2nd dose in June. 483k 60-69s will get theirs before that, so thats your AZ allocation til end of June used up more or less.

Problem is do you really ring fence AZ and AZ only for one of the last remaining real at risk groups and how much it would prolongue things. NIAC have advised already about oldest first regardless, so they might stay out of the logistical bit of that.


I'll say again, broadening the dosing interval for pfizer when we get to less risk groups would ease the burden big time.

funnydoggy

Hmm.. My 30 year old other half is due to get her vaccine tomorrow in Parc Uí Chaoimh too but my mammy's GP said they're only doing AZ down there. What's the craic then I wonder. Guess I'll wait for an official announcement.

stephenjmcd

Can't see 180-190k being reached this week now to be honest. They'll have to change things up in terms of logistics etc, that'll take a little bit of time to do.

iamwhoiam

So will under 60 now get their 2nd dose of AZ ?

stephenjmcd

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Its a very very rare side effect and a very small number of cases relative to the amount of AZ used.

I fail to see how they've come up with this recommendation to be honest.

None of us would take any medication or vaccine if we knew the very very rare side effects to each one.

(queue the replies of this isn't any other medication - they all come with a list of rare side effects)

Because even if the risk is very low, this vaccine has caused a fairly significant number of deaths (32 across the UK, Germany and Norway alone). Many of those deaths were in young people who would be at a very low risk from covid. And that's only the deaths, the other 75% of people who developed CVST and survived could be dealing with after effects for some time.

When there are other vaccines available that are not causing otherwise healthy people to die from a blood clot, it's sensible to use them. Especially when they make up 80% of our supply.

vienne86

iamwhoiam wrote: »

So the only people now getting AZ are age 60-70 ?

Yep. They've loads of it, so we'll probably get offered one in each arm!

vienne86

iamwhoiam wrote: »

So will under 60 now get their 2nd dose of AZ ?

Good question.

Dressoutlet

I'm a very optimistic person. And I always say everything happens for a reason.
I now believe AZ not delivering the promised vaccines in Q1 was a blessing In disguise. I'm cohort 4 and in my 30s, but high risk for blood clots so I don't think my GP will recommend me to take AZ.

Russman

The response when the online portal opens up for the 65-69 year olds will be very telling IMO. I suppose that's likely to change to the 60-69 year olds now, assuming the recommendation is accepted.

I dunno, I really thought they go with 40s or 50s, rather than 60s. I'll preface this by saying I'd take AZ tomorrow, but its such a bad look that only one 10 year block of elderly people are being given the vaccine that, rightly or wrongly, is perceived as being unsafe or inferior. I know the risk of covid Vs vaccine etc etc, but just from a layman's perspective of how it looks.

Not a lot they could do and its not anyone's fault, but still. Won't take much for AZ to be relegated to COVAX donations by wealthier countries.

Stheno

Russman wrote: »

The response when the online portal opens up for the 65-69 year olds will be very telling IMO. I suppose that's likely to change to the 60-69 year olds now, assuming the recommendation is accepted.

I dunno, I really thought they go with 40s or 50s, rather than 60s. I'll preface this by saying I'd take AZ tomorrow, but its such a bad look that only one 10 year block of elderly people are being given the vaccine that, rightly or wrongly, is perceived as being unsafe or inferior. I know the risk of covid Vs vaccine etc etc, but just from a layman's perspective of how it looks.

Not a lot they could do and its not anyone's fault, but still. Won't take much for AZ to be relegated to COVAX donations by wealthier countries.

I think the one adverse reaction here so far was a woman in their 40s so that may have guided this new rationale somewhat?

titan18

Surprised they went 60+, thought they'd at least go 50. It shouldn't make any impact really (bar logistically) until another 3 weeks so maybe by then things will be clearer. As someone in their 30s in group 7, I'd much rather Pfizer over AZ at this stage. I'd be close to rejecting AZ and just waiting tbh.

Wonder will they start giving AZ to over 70s or are they just going to limit to 60-69.

lbj666

Russman wrote: »

The response when the online portal opens up for the 65-69 year olds will be very telling IMO. I suppose that's likely to change to the 60-69 year olds now, assuming the recommendation is accepted.

I dunno, I really thought they go with 40s or 50s, rather than 60s. I'll preface this by saying I'd take AZ tomorrow, but its such a bad look that only one 10 year block of elderly people are being given the vaccine that, rightly or wrongly, is perceived as being unsafe or inferior. I know the risk of covid Vs vaccine etc etc, but just from a layman's perspective of how it looks.

Not a lot they could do and its not anyone's fault, but still. Won't take much for AZ to be relegated to COVAX donations by wealthier countries.

Correct me if am wrong but I understood that the CST was an issue with 50 and younger and there was not as elevated levels in say 60+.

So as such it isnt really a risk vs benefit call in that cohort, more that it is simply "safer" in older groups.

Doctor Jimbob

titan18 wrote: »

Surprised they went 60+, thought they'd at least go 50. It shouldn't make any impact really (bar logistically) until another 3 weeks so maybe by then things will be clearer. As someone in their 30s in group 7, I'd much rather Pfizer over AZ at this stage. I'd be close to rejecting AZ and just waiting tbh.

Wonder will they start giving AZ to over 70s or are they just going to limit to 60-69.

I'm also in my 30s, no underlying conditions, and I'd walk to the other side of the country for an AZ vaccine.

titan18

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm also in my 30s, no underlying conditions, and I'd walk to the other side of the country for an AZ vaccine.

Ya, some will and some won't want to risk it. Someone said earlier about maybe asking people to sign waivers for AZ if they want it, and whilst I doubt they will do that, if people want it and we have supply, I'm all for anyone taking the chance. Just prefer it's not me.