Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

odyssey06

adam240610 wrote: »

"End of us useful life for is" is simply just not true, firstly an age limit hasn't been confirmed, and NIAC said it would be acceptable if no other options are available, these aren't just gonna end up in the trash.

NIAC didn't say how long was acceptable to wait for other options to become available, is my concern.

is_that_so

duffman13 wrote: »

The talk is coming through the IPU in relation to pharmacies potentially administrating J&J. Otherwise pharmacies will play no part in the roll out. IPU potentially clinging on to hope rather than expectation as the industry has done a lot in terms of preparation to administer vaccinations

If that 450K vaccinations a week in June is true they will definitely be part of that. J&J, based on current advice, will probably not play a very large part in the programme past June and could be used over a very short window of 3-4 weeks.

SJFly

0.5 million unused doses of j&j would be a terrible mistake. Staying locked down for an extra couple of weeks to make up for that short fall would be so damaging. So many sectors are relying on a viable summer season. On a personal level, a lot of people may be able to cope with an extra couple of weeks. As a society we need to get people vaccinated an open up.

Gael23

Can they not just skip healthy 50-59 year olds until J&J comes on stream?

duffman13

is_that_so wrote: »

If that 450K vaccinations a week in June is true they will definitely be part of that. J&J, based on current advice, will probably not play a very large part in the programme past June and could be used over a very short window of 3-4 weeks.

They can only be part of it if one of two things happen:

A) HSE go down this route of skipping 50-60s until J&J comes fully on stream

They reduce the age or use a well written clause into the recommendations to administer to younger cohorts.

Pharmacies can only play a part in either J&J or AZ. mRNA vaccines will not be suitable. Logistically J&J makes sense and the "no other vaccine available" clause may allow younger people to get it. One way or the other, pharmacies will be out by July but they can comfortably do 100k a week and more if needed

I cannot see them skipping the over 50s, politically its a huge own goal.

Strazdas

adam240610 wrote: »

"End of us useful life for is" is simply just not true, firstly an age limit hasn't been confirmed, and NIAC said it would be acceptable if no other options are available, these aren't just gonna end up in the trash.

If we had, say, a million people left to be vaccinated in mid June and around 450k J & J doses ready to go, J & J would definitely come into play for all age groups. They would not dramatically slow down the final part of the rollout just because of something NIAC had said back in April : at that point, practicalities and realism would take over.

is_that_so

SJFly wrote: »

0.5 million unused doses of j&j would be a terrible mistake. Staying locked down for an extra couple of weeks to make up for that short fall would be so damaging. So many sectors are relying on a viable summer season. On a personal level, a lot of people may be able to cope with an extra couple of weeks. As a society we need to get people vaccinated an open up.

Complete back of the envelope guess on this. 1-2 more weeks of 65-69 , then 3 weeks of 60-64 bringing us to about the end of May, when they could start on the 55-59 with J&J and possibly AZ. The 50-54 could then be done late June early July with the remainder. In the meantime there would have to be concurrent younger groups getting jabs but 450K a week would fly through people.

adam240610

Strazdas wrote: »

If we had, say, a million people left to be vaccinated in mid June and around 450k J & J doses ready to go, J & J would definitely come into play for all age groups. They would not dramatically slow down the final part of the rollout just because of something NIAC had said back in April : at that point, practicalities and realism would take over.

This is my hope, I'd love if you were able to register for a J&J in a pharmacy or something regardless of age at that point

LimerickGray

brighterspark wrote: »

Are there many Cohort 4 still waiting? I am now 2 weeks on from my cancelled appt (astra zeneca "abundance of caution" week) 2 weeks working in overcrowded second level school and no protection and now if they ever get round to me I have now aged enough to qualify for the injection I would have got in the first place! This 'caution' they apply I have to wonder is to protect what party? the vaccinated ( or Potentially vaccinated) or those making decisions ( and potentially those who can be held to account/sued)?

Same situation. We seem to have been forgotten about.

is_that_so

duffman13 wrote: »

They can only be part of it if one of two things happen:

A) HSE go down this route of skipping 50-60s until J&J comes fully on stream

They reduce the age or use a well written clause into the recommendations to administer to younger cohorts.

Pharmacies can only play a part in either J&J or AZ. mRNA vaccines will not be suitable. Logistically J&J makes sense and the "no other vaccine available" clause may allow younger people to get it. One way or the other, pharmacies will be out by July but they can comfortably do 100k a week and more if needed

I cannot see them skipping the over 50s, politically its a huge own goal.

What happens I think depends on Pfizer. If we have enough of that they can still follow the age first approach. Otherwise, they may make the over 50s a special group in their own right but there will certainly be under 50s being done at the same time as some of them.

Strazdas

adam240610 wrote: »

This is my hope, I'd love if you were able to register for a J&J in a pharmacy or something regardless of age at that point

The aim at this point would be to get the vaccination programme finished as soon as possible. Given that vaccinations would be flying along in early June, I don't think people would be happy at all with with a sudden slowdown later that month.

That's why I think they should go with the scenario of giving every vaccine available to the 50s and 40s and then deal with the surplus J & J situation if and when it arises.

PhilOssophy

SJFly wrote: »

0.5 million unused doses of j&j would be a terrible mistake. Staying locked down for an extra couple of weeks to make up for that short fall would be so damaging. So many sectors are relying on a viable summer season. On a personal level, a lot of people may be able to cope with an extra couple of weeks. As a society we need to get people vaccinated an open up.

Completely agree, we are talking about weeks as though it is just time. Every week longer we are closed up, has an enormous cost both in terms of PUP and loss of VAT, etc.

There is no reason why 14k J&J should be sitting unused for the past few weeks. Get them in to somebody's arm and get through the backlog.

PhilOssophy

Strazdas wrote: »

If we had, say, a million people left to be vaccinated in mid June and around 450k J & J doses ready to go, J & J would definitely come into play for all age groups. They would not dramatically slow down the final part of the rollout just because of something NIAC had said back in April : at that point, practicalities and realism would take over.

But this is why NIAC's decision the other day was a terrible one. Even the wording of it was so loose - either the vaccine is safe for everybody or it is not.

It seemed more like "yeah, we have X supply, there's approx X in this group, lets leave it at that".

The changing of the age cohorts and going against EMA or FDA authorisations is absolutely ridiculous.

If they were saying "there is overwhelming evidence that under 50s have a bad reaction to this vaccine, hence we can't authorise its use in under 50s", fair enough. But this wasn't the case.

It was an absolutely terrible decision and didn't seem to be based on any irrefutable data from what I have read.

is_that_so

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Completely agree, we are talking about weeks as though it is just time. Every week longer we are closed up, has an enormous cost both in terms of PUP and loss of VAT, etc.

There is no reason why 14k J&J should be sitting unused for the past few weeks. Get them in to somebody's arm and get through the backlog.

They have people in mind for that now 26K.

PhilOssophy

is_that_so wrote: »

They have people in mind for that now 26K.

Is it 26k now?

Tyrone212

Uk to decide tomorrow on whether to restrict Oxford-AstraZeneca for under 40s.

is_that_so

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Is it 26k now?

Was supposed to be 40K this month but yeah up to that total this week.

Strazdas

PhilOssophy wrote: »

But this is why NIAC's decision the other day was a terrible one. Even the wording of it was so loose - either the vaccine is safe for everybody or it is not.

It seemed more like "yeah, we have X supply, there's approx X in this group, lets leave it at that".

The changing of the age cohorts and going against EMA or FDA authorisations is absolutely ridiculous.

If they were saying "there is overwhelming evidence that under 50s have a bad reaction to this vaccine, hence we can't authorise its use in under 50s", fair enough. But this wasn't the case.

It was an absolutely terrible decision and didn't seem to be based on any irrefutable data from what I have read.

Which is why I think NIAC may be forced to do a u-turn eventually (and especially if the US etc are still vaccinating away with it with no major issues).

People might be willing to accept delays in the programme at the moment but I don't think the mood will be there for it in mid to late June.

hmmm

Strazdas wrote: »

That's why I think they should go with the scenario of giving every vaccine available to the 50s and 40s and then deal with the surplus J & J situation if and when it arises.

The problem with that (and same issue with the AZ) is you end up with a surplus of these vaccines and the group remaining are the younger groups which are more likely to have worse side-effects. Ethically I couldn't give a 20 year-old female the AZ vaccine, when we won't give it to a 40 year-old.

We're backed into a corner at that point - it's why a lower age limit, or something like allowing males of any age to get the J&J vaccine would have been better just in my non-expert opinion. I think we will end up wasting hundreds of thousands of one-dose vaccines which could have gone to the 40 year old and up group, and it costing us a few extra weeks as a consequence.

Russman

is_that_so wrote: »

What happens I think depends on Pfizer. If we have enough of that they can still follow the age first approach. Otherwise, they may make the over 50s a special group in their own right but there will certainly be under 50s being done at the same time as some of them.

The more I think about it, I'm beginning to wonder if it really would be such a "hard sell" to start the 40s with mRNA shots once groups 4 & 7 are complete ? Once the 60s are finished with AZ, you could also start the higher 50s with whatever AZ and small amounts of J&J we'd have, whilst awaiting the bigger J&J deliveries to arrive.
Everyone knows the schedule has been messed around a few times, all govt would really have to say is the medical advice changed and the roll out subsequently changed in order to get the quickest possible result in accordance with NIAC recommendations. I dunno....

One thing I really can't see happening though is NIAC changing advice based on economic factors. That's just not going to happen IMHO.

Russman

duffman13 wrote: »

I cannot see them skipping the over 50s, politically its a huge own goal.

The 50s would still be fully vaccinated before the 40s had their second doses though, if they were made wait for J&J. A tricky one I agree.

Strazdas

hmmm wrote: »

The problem with that (and same issue with the AZ) is you end up with a surplus of these vaccines and the group remaining are the younger groups which are more likely to have worse side-effects. Ethically I couldn't give a 20 year-old female the AZ vaccine, when we won't give it to a 40 year-old.

We're backed into a corner at that point - it's why a lower age limit, or something like allowing males of any age to get the J&J vaccine would have been better just in my non-expert opinion. I think we will end up wasting hundreds of thousands of one-dose vaccines which could have gone to the 40 year old and up group, and it costing us a few extra weeks as a consequence.

Yes, you make some good points, but others would say that the risks from J & J seem to be extremely low, even lower than AstraZeneca and a rollout to younger people may be justified.

By the same token, it doesn't look like AZ will be given to the under 50s, no matter what happens in the meantime.

is_that_so

Russman wrote: »

The more I think about it, I'm beginning to wonder if it really would be such a "hard sell" to start the 40s with mRNA shots once groups 4 & 7 are complete ? Once the 60s are finished with AZ, you could also start the higher 50s with whatever AZ and small amounts of J&J we'd have, whilst awaiting the bigger J&J deliveries to arrive.
Everyone knows the schedule has been messed around a few times, all govt would really have to say is the medical advice changed and the roll out subsequently changed in order to get the quickest possible result in accordance with NIAC recommendations. I dunno....

One thing I really can't see happening though is NIAC changing advice based on economic factors. That's just not going to happen IMHO.

We'd really need to see that promised massive scaling up of deliveries and the HSE hitting above 300K a shots a week. Once that happens people will wait for a week or two more.

is_that_so

is_that_so wrote: »

Complete back of the envelope guess on this. 1-2 more weeks of 65-69 , then 3 weeks of 60-64 bringing us to about the end of May, when they could start on the 55-59 with J&J and possibly AZ. The 50-54 could then be done late June early July with the remainder. In the meantime there would have to be concurrent younger groups getting jabs but 450K a week would fly through people.

Gp's are already doing appointments for over 50's
My brother got a text today
He is getting his 1st jab next week
He has an appointment for the 2nd one in the text too,so its not the johnson

Charles Babbage

hmmm wrote: »

The problem with that (and same issue with the AZ) is you end up with a surplus of these vaccines and the group remaining are the younger groups which are more likely to have worse side-effects. Ethically I couldn't give a 20 year-old female the AZ vaccine, when we won't give it to a 40 year-old.

We're backed into a corner at that point - it's why a lower age limit, or something like allowing males of any age to get the J&J vaccine would have been better just in my non-expert opinion. I think we will end up wasting hundreds of thousands of one-dose vaccines which could have gone to the 40 year old and up group, and it costing us a few extra weeks as a consequence.

Make the J&J available in June on an elective waiver basis, perhaps in pharmacies. The one shot aspect would be popular and perhaps men would mostly avail of it, but it would still be used.

is_that_so

Marine Layer wrote: »

Gp's are already doing appointments for over 50's
My brother got a text today
He is getting his 1st jab next week
He has an appointment for the 2nd one in the text too,so its not the johnson

Good for him! Is he Group 4 or 7 by any chance?

Valhallapt

It's all in the messaging. Telling those 50-59 they have to wait until June, but 40-49 can start now won't go down well. But if it was explained as the two groups are to be merged into one 40-59 age single group, with AZ + J&J the preferred vaccine for those over 50 and over Pfizer + Moderna preferred for those under 50, that sounds much more palatable..

stephenjmcd

Marine Layer wrote: »

Gp's are already doing appointments for over 50's
My brother got a text today
He is getting his 1st jab next week
He has an appointment for the 2nd one in the text too,so its not the johnson

They've been doing high risk for a while regardless of age using Pfizer or Moderna as per NIAC guidance since AZ was ruled out

Russman

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Make the J&J available in June on an elective waiver basis, perhaps in pharmacies. The one shot aspect would be popular and perhaps men would mostly avail of it, but it would still be used.

Not arguing with you, but what does the waiver actually mean in practical terms ? What would you be waiving ?

I'd imagine it would put NIAC in a bind ethically - probably ok if a few hundred did it, but you could have thousands trying to get it that way, and I'd assume NIAC would be of a mind that they gave their advice for a reason, and a few exceptions were allowed but not a free for all.

Call me Al

Gael23 wrote: »

Can they not just skip healthy 50-59 year olds until J&J comes on stream?

I can't see how they can.
They justified the move to age based rollout by saying there was a risk of poor outcomes the older you were.

They can't really turn around now and give a lie to the whole process by skipping over these age groups and going straight to the 45-49 year olds.