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

eoinbn

Deleted User wrote: »

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

How many people have gotten a second dose? Nobody outside of the UK. Probably not many in the lower age groups in the UK.

crossman47

titan18 wrote: »

Just prefer it's not me.

I'm afraid most people don't understand risk. The risk from getting Covid is way higher then that from AZ. Its the same lack of understanding that led to children dying from measles when a vaccine was available but people listened to a charlatan.

lbj666

lbj666 wrote: »

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.

The approach being taken is very cautious. If at a later date the rules are relaxed again this shows there is very high confidence in the safety of the vaccine.

Some of the drugs below also known to trigger thrombocytopenia

Furosemide
Gold, used to treat arthritis
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)
Penicillin
Quinidine
Quinine
Ranitidine
Sulfonamides
Linezolid and other antibiotics
Statins

titan18

crossman47 wrote: »

I'm afraid most people don't understand risk. The risk from getting Covid is way higher then that from AZ. Its the same lack of understanding that led to children dying from measles when a vaccine was available but people listened to a charlatan.

Sure, but there's less risk with a different vaccine, so if my options are AZ now or Pfizer in 3 months, I'd prefer to wait. The options aren't just risk of side effects from AZ or risk of covid, there's more there.

greenerie

I received a text to come for my vaccine (:))but have had to reschedule due to another appointment. Sent the requested reply of 'Reschedule' but received nothing back - anyone else experienced this?

crossman47

crossman47 wrote: »

I'm afraid most people don't understand risk. The risk from getting Covid is way higher then that from AZ. Its the same lack of understanding that led to children dying from measles when a vaccine was available but people listened to a charlatan.

1. This assumes a binary choice of AZ v Covid. But AZ only makes up 20% of our supply. We have other vaccines.

2. The risk of covid is not higher than the risk of AZ for everyone. The younger you are, the higher the risk from AZ in comparison to the benefit, as highlighted by the MHRA last week.

seamus

Euch, what a mess.

All is not lost though.

If AZ can only be used on the 60+ cohort, then it will be used as a matter of priority on them, and other vaccines only used to fill the gaps.

This means an overavailability of the other vaccines, which means that we should be able to clean up the 70+ cohort a bit faster, AND move on to the younger age groups faster too. We'll likely be doing 50-59 age group in parallel with the 60-69.

While the AZ dosing regime in use is 12 weeks, that's a maximum. The second dose can be provided after 4 weeks, and if we have "too much" AZ, then it's likely the dosing schedule will be tightened up to 4/5 weeks. The biggest issue (IMO) with AZ is the 3-month window. We can't have the most vulnerable cohorts sitting half-vaccinated until August/September. So hopefully we can abandon that now.

It'll make things tricky in the vaccination centres though. There'll need to be separate areas set up for AZ and non-AZ vaccinations.

sd1999

I do think RTÉ announcing it early is a bad move because I imagine NIAC/HSE will be providing more details about the rollout going forward in the actual announcement. As of right now, we know AZ is only for over 60s but we don’t know anything else.

lbj666

Deleted User wrote: »

The approach being taken is very cautious. If at a later date the rules are relaxed again this shows there is very high confidence in the safety of the vaccine.

Some of the drugs below also known to trigger thrombocytopenia

Furosemide
Gold, used to treat arthritis
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)
Penicillin
Quinidine
Quinine
Ranitidine
Sulfonamides
Linezolid and other antibiotics
Statins

Not the question I asked, i know its very rare but is the likelyhood less in 60+ based on the data so far, because thats worth emphasising to the 60-69 group if it is.

Or is it only the likelyhood of severe covid or death that increases the risk ratio's enough for it to still be recommended.

stephenjmcd

GPs are out having their say,

"Dr Denis McAuley, the chair of the Irish Medical Organisation’s GP committee, said the impact of the anticipated change on the vaccine rollout will be significant. "

"If AstraZeneca cannot be given to younger groups, it effectively means “there’s less vaccine available and more people to vaccinate”.

namloc1980

Should have used AZ on the over 70s also. Why was Pfizer and Moderna ringfenced to that cohort?

Turtwig

AZ on shorter dosing schedules is not recommended. The immune response in the initial clinical trials was not very good.

Mix and match would effectively be making people guinea pigs without affording them the protections they'd get in a clinical trial.

Imo it has to be the option to continue with AZ for those already dosed. Or a full vaccination from MRNA.

I've a feeling, J & J will have the same issue as AZ.

Multipass

titan18 wrote: »

Sure, but there's less risk with a different vaccine, so if my options are AZ now or Pfizer in 3 months, I'd prefer to wait. The options aren't just risk of side effects from AZ or risk of covid, there's more there.

That’s fine to say you want to wait, just don’t expect to stay in lockdown while you wait. The lunacy of all of this - we need to use whatever vaccines are available. Pronto. And open the country.

AlekSmart

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.

Jeepers I'd save you a walk,I'm 60+ and I'd happily allow you to slip in front of me in the Queue.

AlekSmart

Turtwig wrote: »

AZ on shorter dosing schedules is not recommended. The immune response in the initial clinical trials was not very good.

Mix and match would effectively be making people guinea pigs without affording them the protections they'd get in a clinical trial.

Imo it has to be the option to continue with AZ for those already dosed. Or a full vaccination from MRNA.

I've a feeling, J & J will have the same issue as AZ.

Probably one very good reason for having that State indemnification against Liability all the same ?

Stark

namloc1980 wrote: »

Should have used AZ on the over 70s also. Why was Pfizer and Moderna ringfenced to that cohort?

They didn't have data on over 65s when they started on them. (They do now though, although they'll probably be too thick skulled to change the policy and will end up wasting all the mRNA vaccines on them leaving us with stockpiles of AZ and J&J we can't use)

lbj666

lbj666 wrote: »

Not the question I asked, i know its very rare but is the likelyhood less in 60+ based on the data so far, because thats worth emphasising to the 60-69 group if it is.

Or is it only the likelyhood of severe covid or death that increases the risk ratio's enough for it to still be recommended.

I read your post as a statement and not a question and as such agreed with it. My response was to highlight the other products where we accept a risk and as an aside you can point out to 60-69 year olds that it is safer for them rather than more dangerous for others, and also they are likely yo have taken multiple other drugs that have similar risks

ACitizenErased

I reckon if this does come to pass they'll have to demand AZ only for anyone 60 plus. Won't work otherwise

marno21

The reports on the Janssen vaccine to date of blood clots suggest it’s an issue with the adenovirus viral vector which would mean it’ll likely be an issue with Janssen too.

Over 60 restrictions is exactly the type of ultra conservative approach we continue to see in this country. Apart from the blanket ban for a short period, those aged 60-69 are the only ones in this country who haven’t been not advised to take this vaccine.

The risk balance for those aged 45+ and those under 60 with underlying conditions makes this a very very poor decision. Way too conservative (as usual).

Stark

seamus wrote: »

Euch, what a mess.

All is not lost though.

If AZ can only be used on the 60+ cohort, then it will be used as a matter of priority on them, and other vaccines only used to fill the gaps.

This means an overavailability of the other vaccines, which means that we should be able to clean up the 70+ cohort a bit faster, AND move on to the younger age groups faster too. We'll likely be doing 50-59 age group in parallel with the 60-69.

While the AZ dosing regime in use is 12 weeks, that's a maximum. The second dose can be provided after 4 weeks, and if we have "too much" AZ, then it's likely the dosing schedule will be tightened up to 4/5 weeks. The biggest issue (IMO) with AZ is the 3-month window. We can't have the most vulnerable cohorts sitting half-vaccinated until August/September. So hopefully we can abandon that now.

It'll make things tricky in the vaccination centres though. There'll need to be separate areas set up for AZ and non-AZ vaccinations.

If only you were the one running the country.

I've a sad feeling the way it'll play out is they'll stick with their current approach of vaccinating over 70s with Pfizer/Moderna then continuing through the priority list as it stands with a mix of vaccines, leaving us with stockpiles of J&J and AZ in June.

Frank Bullitt

My Da got his first jab yesterday, small steps will get us there.

funnydoggy

Afraid to think of a virtual start to my second year of MTU in September.. I can't do another fúcking semester sitting down in my room looking at a screen :pac:

eoinbn

Turtwig wrote: »

AZ on shorter dosing schedules is not recommended. The immune response in the initial clinical trials was not very good.

Mix and match would effectively be making people guinea pigs without affording them the protections they'd get in a clinical trial.

Imo it has to be the option to continue with AZ for those already dosed. Or a full vaccination from MRNA.

I've a feeling, J & J will have the same issue as AZ.

The US trials used 4 weeks and had good efficacy. AZ trial data is a mess. No rhyme or reason to it.
AZ is a setback but J&J would be a hammer blow. We would need to find another 2m doses to account for what we would lose out on Q2 and July.

leahyl

I know of a 35 year old female who got the pfizer vaccine today - didn't think they were giving the pfizer to the younger population?

Update: My mother got her 5th offer for a first vaccine yesterday.
That's 4 lists she's been on in error. Likely won't be the last either.

ACitizenErased

leahyl wrote: »

I know of a 35 year old female who got the pfizer vaccine today - didn't think they were giving the pfizer to the younger population?

What group?

leahyl

ACitizenErased wrote: »

What group?

Have no idea - I assume group 4 seeing as she is 35? Isn't group 4 for people aged 16-69 with underlying conditions?

Micky 32

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)

Just looked at the leaflet with my chol tabs rare side effects:

Breast enlargement in men

Hepatitis.

Damage to the nerves of your arms and legs

Memory loss

:pac:

namloc1980

If AZ is now off the table then that sets back the vaccination programme massively.

ddarcy

eoinbn wrote: »

The US trials used 4 weeks and had good efficacy. AZ trial data is a mess. No rhyme or reason to it.
AZ is a setback but J&J would be a hammer blow. We would need to find another 2m doses to account for what we would lose out on Q2 and July.

Novovax has a high efficacy and are mass producing now. They should be submitting in the next few weeks to the FDA/ EMA. FDA is an issue as they, like AZ, have used non approved FDA sites to run the trial for results. They do however have another US trial wrapping up as well. I’d expect the efficacy to drop like AZ as the FDA is far mor rigorous in testing, but even dropping from 89% to probably high 70’s isn’t bad.