Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

Lumen

iamwhoiam wrote: »

It's scandalous what is happening with cohort 7

What is scandalous? That a few 60-64 year olds have been vaccinated before a slightly higher risk group?

revelman

seamus wrote: »

That's not really the case. We just don't know yet because the original clinical trials administered the second dose between 2 and 6 weeks after the first. So the effectiveness of the first dose beyond six weeks is unproven.

More recent trials suggest that it is effective way past 6 weeks, but this data has not been formally submitted, so the original guidance stands.

AZ in their clinical trials tested out a much wider dosing interval, giving us the ability to delay the second dose by much longer.

The reason NPHET advised that people can be considered fully vaccinated after one dose was more sociology than immunology. They reasoned (correctly, IMO), that if you needed two doses to be considered "fully vaxxed" with AZ, then people might start refusing it. And since the second dose only boosts immunity by a few %, then the greater good is served by treating AZ patients as fully vaxxed after 4 weeks.

I was thinking of the Scottish study in the Lancet which seemed to suggest that Pfizer protection dropped off a few weeks after the first dose, unlike AZ. But I agree that we probably don’t know enough yet.

odyssey06

Lumen wrote: »

What is scandalous? That a few 60-64 year olds have been vaccinated before a slightly higher risk group?

That Cohort 7 where the GP isn't vaccinating have been left in total limbo for one.

seamus

I feel like even at this stage if they straight-up paused vaccinations on cohort 7, there'd be less stress and worry and vulnerable people would get vaccinated more quickly.

is_that_so

revelman wrote: »

True but I don’t think we should be in a place where GPs in rural areas have more vaccines than they need and Cohort 4 people can’t get vaccinated in urban areas. You’d think the HSE would a handle on the demographics.

Again, I’m not one of these perpetually outraged people so I don’t want to press this point. It is great that people are being vaccinated.

On this I wouldn't blame them too much. Nobody has ever counted and classified such groups before. It is largely a GP process and not all of them are necessarily able to do so efficiently.

ShineOn7

Flying Fox wrote: »

You should have a read of the UK update from yesterday, specifically the part in Section 3 on thrombo-embolic events with concurrent low platelets:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting

Those 49 deaths are linked to the vaccine.

There were 242 cases of blood clots out of how many AZ vaccinations in the UK?

That way we can work out the %

I don't think there's any point of working out the death via AZ percentages because a blood clot in itself can be life changing

Up to 28 April 2021, the MHRA had received Yellow Card reports of 242 cases of major thromboembolic events (blood clots) with concurrent thrombocytopenia (low platelet counts) in the UK following vaccination with COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca

Van.Bosch

seamus wrote: »

I feel like even at this stage if they straight-up paused vaccinations on cohort 7, there'd be less stress and worry and vulnerable people would get vaccinated more quickly.

Cohort 7 was done via GPs I imagine as you need the GP to define which patients are in that group. If GPs don’t want to do it, it sounds like it’s the decision process they want out of due to pressure, then the whole thing doesn’t really work.

I suspect C4 will be the new C2 where it just grows and grows.

is_that_so

Van.Bosch wrote: »

Cohort 7 was done via GPs I imagine as you need the GP to define which patients are in that group. If GPs don’t want to do it, it sounds like it’s the decision process they want out of due to pressure, then the whole thing doesn’t really work.

I suspect C4 will be the new C2 where it just grows and grows.

If some of these groups are redirected into the portal that should be less of a problem. Anyone over 50 should be looking to do that anyway, just in case.

ShineOn7

ShineOn7 wrote: »

There were 242 cases of blood clots out of how many AZ vaccinations in the UK?

That way we can work out the %

I don't think there's any point of working out the death via AZ percentages because a blood clot in itself can be life changing

It's 10.5 per million based on the latest data. That's overall, the risk is higher for younger age groups.

Yes it's low odds, but the point is that there are alternative vaccines available that don't carry this risk.

The UK JCVI (their equivalent of NIAC) is holding a briefing at noon where they are expected to announce that the age cut off for AZ will increase to 40.

This isn't happening for no reason.

Badly Drunk Boy

TimberTones wrote: »

I feel like a sucker waiting for my turn when others, typical Ireland, get it through a close connection.

Sounds like you're just a bit jealous that you don't know the right people who can give you the vaccine out of turn...

PhilOssophy

Flying Fox wrote: »

You should have a read of the UK update from yesterday, specifically the part in Section 3 on thrombo-embolic events with concurrent low platelets:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting

Those 49 deaths are linked to the vaccine.

The fatality rate for these CVST clots is still around 20%. There is some treatment, which is why 80% survive, but it's not the case that someone who gets this type of clotting can be guaranteed a quick cure. There's still a high chance of death or life changing injury.

Luke O'Neill seems to be coming from a position of benefits outweighing risks overall (which is true for the population as a whole, if not on an individual level). He seems to be playing down this issue in order to avoid spooking people, but he's being far too dismissive IMO.

The data is out there for anyone who wants to read up further about the risks.

Interesting. While 49 deaths is significant, is there any further break-down of the ages of these deaths? Of course a vaccine shouldn't be killing anybody but car accidents shouldn't either and the statistics are still in the 1 in 461k if they've administered 22.6m doses which is probably comparable to these equally rare events.

I am by no means trivialising the death of anybody but searching for a 0% death rate for anything of this magnitude is probably expecting too much. At the moment, on that basis the death rate is 0.0002%.

Van.Bosch

is_that_so wrote: »

If some of these groups are redirected into the portal that should be less of a problem. Anyone over 50 should be looking to do that anyway, just in case.

Yes but how do you decide who under 50 is C7?

Zipppy

Flying Fox wrote: »

You should have a read of the UK update from yesterday, specifically the part in Section 3 on thrombo-embolic events with concurrent low platelets:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting

Those 49 deaths are linked to the vaccine.

The fatality rate for these CVST clots is still around 20%. There is some treatment, which is why 80% survive, but it's not the case that someone who gets this type of clotting can be guaranteed a quick cure. There's still a high chance of death or life changing injury.

Luke O'Neill seems to be coming from a position of benefits outweighing risks overall (which is true for the population as a whole, if not on an individual level). He seems to be playing down this issue in order to avoid spooking people, but he's being far too dismissive IMO.

The data is out there for anyone who wants to read up further about the risks.

Interesting report!

I see age cohort 50-59 had more deaths that other age groups...

Lumen

One would hope that once the dust has settled, some serious questions would be asked about how Ireland has managed to have such a fragmented healthcare system in a country of only 5 million people.

GPs using paper-based records is just pitiful in 2021. It's not like they don't have the time for data entry; every GP surgery I've been into in Ireland has a receptionist who spends most of the day doing fck all despite protestations to the contrary.

iamwhoiam

Van.Bosch wrote: »

Yes but how do you decide who under 50 is C7?

by this from HSE

Cancer
Haematological - within 1 year.

Haematological - within 1 - 5 years.

Non-haematological - within 1 year.

All other cancers on non-hormonal treatment.

Chronic heart (and vascular) disease
Chronic heart disease, for example: heart failure, hypertensive cardiac disease.

Chronic kidney disease
Chronic kidney disease with eGFR <30ml/min.

Chronic liver disease
Chronic liver disease, for example: cirrhosis or fibrosis.

Chronic neurological disease or condition
Chronic neurological disease or condition significantly compromising respiratory function and/or the ability to clear secretions, for example: Parkinson's disease, cerebral palsy.

Chronic respiratory disease
Other chronic respiratory disease, for example: stable cystic fibrosis, severe asthma (continuous or repeated use of systemic corticosteroids), moderate COPD.

Diabetes
All other diabetes (Type 1 and 2).

Immunocompromised
Immunocompromise due to disease or treatment, for example: high dose systemic steroids (as defined in Immunisation Guidelines for Ireland Chapter 3), persons living with HIV.

Inherited metabolic diseases*
Disorders of intermediary metabolism not fulfilling criteria for very high risk.

Intellectual disability*
Intellectual disability*** excluding Down Syndrome.

Obesity

Marcusm

Van.Bosch wrote: »

Yes but how do you decide who under 50 is C7?

By reference to the vaccine criteria set out by the HSE! I hve copied them below. Many are conditions which involve regular GP or consultant service. Others such as obesity may not involve any regular healthcare in which case you hve to identify a GP locally who is doing the vaccinating and contact them for a vaccine.



People aged 16-64 who have an underlying condition that puts them at high risk of severe disease and death
Cancer
Haematological - within 1 year.

Haematological - within 1 - 5 years.

Non-haematological - within 1 year.

All other cancers on non-hormonal treatment.

Chronic heart (and vascular) disease
Chronic heart disease, for example: heart failure, hypertensive cardiac disease.

Chronic kidney disease
Chronic kidney disease with eGFR <30ml/min.

Chronic liver disease
Chronic liver disease, for example: cirrhosis or fibrosis.

Chronic neurological disease or condition
Chronic neurological disease or condition significantly compromising respiratory function and/or the ability to clear secretions, for example: Parkinson's disease, cerebral palsy.

Chronic respiratory disease
Other chronic respiratory disease, for example: stable cystic fibrosis, severe asthma (continuous or repeated use of systemic corticosteroids), moderate COPD.

Diabetes
All other diabetes (Type 1 and 2).

Immunocompromised
Immunocompromise due to disease or treatment, for example: high dose systemic steroids (as defined in Immunisation Guidelines for Ireland Chapter 3), persons living with HIV.

Inherited metabolic diseases*
Disorders of intermediary metabolism not fulfilling criteria for very high risk.

Intellectual disability*
Intellectual disability*** excluding Down Syndrome.

Obesity
BMI >35 Kg/m2.

Severe mental illness*
Severe mental illness, for example: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, severe depression.

*additional or updated medical conditions

** APECED - autoimmune polyendocrinopathy candidiasis ecto- dermal dystrophy

*** WHO definition of intellectual disability as “impairments in adaptive, social, and intellectual functioning (IQ<70), requiring daily support, with onset in the developmental phase (<18 years)”

PhilOssophy

Zipppy wrote: »

Interesting report!

I see age cohort 50-59 had more deaths that other age groups...

Check the rate, not the basic figure. Probably more people in this age group vaccinated than other age groups? So the rate might be even more miniscule.

ShineOn7

Flying Fox wrote: »

It's 10.5 per million based on the latest data. That's overall, the risk is higher for younger age groups.

Yes it's low odds, but the point is that there are alternative vaccines available that don't carry this risk.

I have that as 0.002 % chance of getting a clot with AZ

I thought it was "1 in 100,000" as per the "experts", or am I reading the % wrong?

The UK JCVI (their equivalent of NIAC) is holding a briefing at noon where they are expected to announce that the age cut off for AZ will increase to 40.

This isn't happening for no reason.

Exactly

I simply don't want AZ or J&J, based on Denmark's analysis alone*

Would I take them if they're what's offered? Probably

But reluctantly



* This isn't a cue for the usual "the best vaccine is what's offered to you!!1" regulars on here

AZ and J&J are seeing issues just a few months in, what are the stats with them going to look like a few years in?

Also, AZ are just a messy b@stard of a company in general

Lumen

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

Sounds like you're just a bit jealous that you don't know the right people who can give you the vaccine out of turn...

This attitude really pisses me off, people defending corruption because they think they can turn it to their advantage.

is_that_so

Van.Bosch wrote: »

Yes but how do you decide who under 50 is C7?

Unless their GP does it they are probably better off going through the portal.

stephenjmcd

ShineOn7 wrote: »

I have that as 0.002 % chance of getting a clot with AZ

I thought it was "1 in 100,000" as per the "experts", or am I reading the % wrong?




Exactly

I simply don't want AZ or J&J, based on Denmark's analysis alone*

Would I take them if they're what's offered? Probably

But reluctantly



* This isn't a cue for the usual "the best vaccine is what's offered to you!!1" regulars on here

AZ and J&J are seeing issues just a few months in, what are the stats with them going to look like a few years in?

Also, AZ are just a messy b@stard of a company in general

Except that's public health advice, not as if people are making it up now is it ?

Slightly disingenuous to other posters who are going on the public health advice, or as you refer to them "regulars"

odyssey06

Marcusm wrote: »

By reference to the vaccine criteria set out by the HSE! I hve copied them below. Many are conditions which involve regular GP or consultant service. Others such as obesity may not involve any regular healthcare in which case you hve to identify a GP locally who is doing the vaccinating and contact them for a vaccine.

How does this other GP establish you have one of these conditions?
Assuming you can even find one who will vaccinate non patients.

revelman

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Check the rate, not the basic figure. Probably more people in this age group vaccinated than other age groups? So the rate might be even more miniscule.

This has to be the explanation. They are still vaccinating people in their forties in the U.K.

Many elderly people initially got Pfizer a few months ago.

So it is probably the case that age 50-59 have received more AZ than any other group.

I’ve not seen the figures but this is the most likely explanation.

Badly Drunk Boy

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

Sounds like you're just a bit jealous that you don't know the right people who can give you the vaccine out of turn...

Sounds like someone is vaccinated to the nines through unconventional ways;).


Honestly, the disruption that COVID has caused and will continue to cause for quiet some time is not laughable, but then again us Irish don't take stuff seriousness publicly. Instead, we lounge around and become the laughing stock of Europe:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:.



By right, anyway carrying out such practices should be named and shamed, and then hit with a nice fine. Discourage the activity and bring back a somewhat fair society, especially during the most disruptive incident since the last recession.

Scuid Mhór

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Re: Cohort 7

https://www2.hse.ie/screening-and-vaccinations/covid-19-vaccine/rollout/#group5




There's nothing in there about what to do when your GP isn't vaccinating Cohort 7 or if they're also not referring this Cohort to another GP

So it's the usual "write to all your Local TDs and make a lot of noise" craic for people in this situation

They need to fix this

Well, is anyone contacting their TDs? If a tree falls in a forest etc.

quokula

Is there any substance to this rumour or is it just made up? Every time there is uproar about this kind of thing, it comes out of the fact that the clinic in question has done a good job in maximising doses from a batch, has some spares at the end of the day, and makes use of them rather than throwing them in the bin as they’d have to otherwise.

Unfortunately, the bad publicity that this kind of pragmatic decision making has produced, has just made it more likely that spare shots get binned now as healthcare workers are concerned about the repercussions for vaccinating extra people, which is such an utterly crazy situation to be in.

Russman

Flying Fox wrote: »

It's 10.5 per million based on the latest data. That's overall, the risk is higher for younger age groups.

Yes it's low odds, but the point is that there are alternative vaccines available that don't carry this risk.

The UK JCVI (their equivalent of NIAC) is holding a briefing at noon where they are expected to announce that the age cut off for AZ will increase to 40.

This isn't happening for no reason.

I agree with this. For younger people, on an individual level, covid isn't the plague. Granted, if let rip it would cause mayhem eventually. If those 49 deaths in the UK translated to, say 5 deaths here - yes its a tiny amount in the bigger picture, but if they could be saved by shuffling the logistics of the rollout, isn't it worth it ? Have the UK even started with their 30s yet ? Would that rate be likely to increase if they went down the ages with AZ ? Presumably so.

Have we reached the point with vaccinations of the older groups that a couple of weeks delay won't mean 5 more covid deaths ? I don't know tbh. Is it even possible to know ?
The last thing we want to do if we're aiming for herd immunity, is to push anyone, young or old, who's maybe a bit hesitant on getting a shot, over the edge into thinking "I'm not taking AZ/J&J, sure I've a better chance with covid......" We need as many as we can to get a vaccine.

Its a fine balance they have to find imo.

PhilOssophy

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Interesting. While 49 deaths is significant, is there any further break-down of the ages of these deaths? Of course a vaccine shouldn't be killing anybody but car accidents shouldn't either and the statistics are still in the 1 in 461k if they've administered 22.6m doses which is probably comparable to these equally rare events.

I am by no means trivialising the death of anybody but searching for a 0% death rate for anything of this magnitude is probably expecting too much. At the moment, on that basis the death rate is 0.0002%.

There is a breakdown for age groupings in blocks of 10 years.

With cars, there often isn't any alternative option if you want to get from A to B. Or if there is, it's slower and has its own level of risk too. With the vaccines, there are alternatives.

revelman

revelman wrote: »

This has to be the explanation. They are still vaccinating people in their forties in the U.K.

Many elderly people initially got Pfizer a few months ago.

So it is probably the case that age 50-59 have received more AZ than any other group.

I’ve not seen the figures but this is the most likely explanation.

Yes, that appears to be the case. Unfortunately there will probably be even more reported in the 40s group once the data catches up for them.

ShineOn7

ShineOn7 wrote: »

I have that as 0.002 % chance of getting a clot with AZ

I thought it was "1 in 100,000" as per the "experts", or am I reading the % wrong?




Exactly

I simply don't want AZ or J&J, based on Denmark's analysis alone*

Would I take them if they're what's offered? Probably

But reluctantly



* This isn't a cue for the usual "the best vaccine is what's offered to you!!1" regulars on here

AZ and J&J are seeing issues just a few months in, what are the stats with them going to look like a few years in?

Also, AZ are just a messy b@stard of a company in general

10.5 per million = 1 in 95,238 or 0.00105%