Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

12357332

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,355 ✭✭✭Jim Gazebo


    What vaccine is the city hall in cork doing?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭HBC08


    What an absolute sh!tshow was due to get my 2nd AZ dose early next month (12weeks)
    Are they recommending people wait until the 16weeks as that brings us to June- aren’t the U.K. results out then from the case studies they did with the mixed dosing?
    As a hcw with a high risk medical condition this announcement is so upsetting but my condition is manageable I cannot imagine how others in cohort 4 feel hearing this news this evening
    These people who are extremely vulnerable to the effects of Covid and who have been cocooning for the best part of a year now won’t even be fully vaccinated until July if even at all now

    Im in the same boat in that im a HCW and was due my 2nd jab in 3 weeks.
    However if im reading it right then you should have your second still on the 12 week mark as you say you have a high risk medical condition?


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    What an absolute sh!tshow was due to get my 2nd AZ dose early next month (12weeks)
    Are they recommending people wait until the 16weeks as that brings us to June- aren’t the U.K. results out then from the case studies they did with the mixed dosing?
    As a hcw with a high risk medical condition this announcement is so upsetting but my condition is manageable I cannot imagine how others in cohort 4 feel hearing this news this evening
    These people who are extremely vulnerable to the effects of Covid and who have been cocooning for the best part of a year now won’t even be fully vaccinated until July if even at all now

    Their guidance at them moment is that if you've got a high risk medical condition and are under 60 you get the second dose per the normal 12 week schedule. Only those under 60 without high risk medical conditions are on the extended 16 week hiatus.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭funnydoggy


    Dr. Lorraine Nolan looked kinda offended answering the vaccine choice question


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,618 ✭✭✭Qrt


    Won't CureVac likely be introduced during the summer months? Lads, we'll be grand like.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,535 ✭✭✭JTMan


    Someone I know is under 60, already received their first dose of AZ, got the dose because they are a healthcare worker BUT also has a high-risk medical condition.

    She was due to get their second dose in around 2 weeks time (12 weeks) but will probably now get pushed to 16 weeks.

    She was not registered under "high risk medical condition", she was are registered under "healthcare worker". i.e. the HSE do not have a record of the condition.

    Who does one contact, in these circumstances, to ensure they do not get moved from 12 weeks to 16 weeks?

    Thanks.


  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,113 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Rather than stretching the second dose to 16 weeks, could we consider one dose of AZ to be fully vaccinated?

    There are 2 angles to this

    Your 1st dose provides 80% or so protection. Hence there remains a residual risk that the 2nd dose covers (and we know none will be 100% effective, but getting to say 95% on illness and as near as dammit to 100% on preventing death is a pretty robust position)

    However does pushing out the 2nd dose actually provide more cover overall? Does it act as a "booster" and give you an additional 12 weeks (versus a 4 week 2nd dose) of "protection"? I do not know the answers but getting to that 80% or so quite quickly and hopefully nearly 100% 4 months later with a longer lasting protection is not necessarily a bad outcome


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭funnydoggy


    Qrt wrote: »
    Won't CureVac likely be introduced during the summer months? Lads, we'll be grand like.


    We need to get the country back up and running as soon as possible. I know we'll be fine in the end but this stuff is just a complete pain in the hole.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,618 ✭✭✭Qrt


    funnydoggy wrote: »
    We need to get the country back up and running as soon as possible. I know we'll be fine in the end but this stuff is just a complete pain in the hole.

    Oh well aware, imo everything should be open by June, bar offices and other stuff that can be done from home. The idea that non-essential retail and hospitality has to remain closed until everybody is vaccinated is stupid. Once the over 50s are done, open on up!


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,199 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    JTMan wrote: »
    Someone I know is under 60, already received their first dose of AZ, got the dose because they are a healthcare worker BUT also has a high-risk medical condition.

    She was due to get their second dose in around 2 weeks time (12 weeks) but will probably now get pushed to 16 weeks.

    She was not registered under "high risk medical condition", she was are registered under "healthcare worker". i.e. the HSE do not have a record of the condition.

    Who does one contact, in these circumstances, to ensure they do not get moved from 12 weeks to 16 weeks?

    Thanks.

    Nobody I think. The HSE will contact people regarding scheduling


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,018 ✭✭✭Bridge93


    What’s the likelihood we get a roadmap reboot. Start vaccinating under 60s with the supply of other vaccines now and continue the over 60s with AZ. Otherwise by the time we reach the under 60s we’ll have used a whole heap of Pfizer etc and still have a mountain of AZ on hand


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭Miike


    JTMan wrote: »
    Someone I know is under 60, already received their first dose of AZ, got the dose because they are a healthcare worker BUT also has a high-risk medical condition.

    She was due to get their second dose in around 2 weeks time (12 weeks) but will probably now get pushed to 16 weeks.

    She was not registered under "high risk medical condition", she was are registered under "healthcare worker". i.e. the HSE do not have a record of the condition.

    Who does one contact, in these circumstances, to ensure they do not get moved from 12 weeks to 16 weeks?

    Thanks.

    If HSE; contact line manager who will inform the local vaccination coordinator who will advise further on what actions need to be taken. I would imagine she will need a doctor letter stating she fits under the at-risk category.


  • Registered Users Posts: 580 ✭✭✭ddarcy


    Beasty wrote: »
    There are 2 angles to this

    Your 1st dose provides 80% or so protection. Hence there remains a residual risk that the 2nd dose covers (and we know none will be 100% effective, but getting to say 95% on illness and as near as dammit to 100% on preventing death is a pretty robust position)

    However does pushing out the 2nd dose actually provide more cover overall? Does it act as a "booster" and give you an additional 12 weeks (versus a 4 week 2nd dose) of "protection"? I do not know the answers but getting to that 80% or so quite quickly and hopefully nearly 100% 4 months later with a longer lasting protection is not necessarily a bad outcome

    Ok need some correction to this. When AZ actually did a competent/ rigorous trial, two doses had 76% efficacy (btw that is still dropping as the US finds more things wrong with the data). From what I’ve read one/two doses don’t have a major difference at all in efficacy. You’re looking high 60’s% for one and potentially up to 76% (and falling) for 2 doses. The US is no longer going to use it going forward as well. Albeit they have loads of Pfizer and Moderna.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭Miike


    ddarcy wrote: »
    Ok need some correction to this. When AZ actually did a competent/ rigorous trial, two doses had 76% efficacy (btw that is still dropping as the US finds more things wrong with the data). From what I’ve read one/two doses don’t have a major difference at all in efficacy. You’re looking high 60’s% for one and potentially up to 76% (and falling) for 2 doses. The US is no longer going to use it going forward as well. Albeit they have loads of Pfizer and Moderna.

    It's worth noting the dominant variants during each of the clinical trials also and where they were conducted, and how this effects the efficacy values. As much as I detest VOX please watch the following video which is extremely succinct in explaining this, far better than I could even try.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3odScka55A


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    Beasty wrote: »
    There are 2 angles to this

    Your 1st dose provides 80% or so protection. Hence there remains a residual risk that the 2nd dose covers (and we know none will be 100% effective, but getting to say 95% on illness and as near as dammit to 100% on preventing death is a pretty robust position)

    However does pushing out the 2nd dose actually provide more cover overall? Does it act as a "booster" and give you an additional 12 weeks (versus a 4 week 2nd dose) of "protection"? I do not know the answers but getting to that 80% or so quite quickly and hopefully nearly 100% 4 months later with a longer lasting protection is not necessarily a bad outcome
    I think that was the HSE game plan all along. I posted a couple of weeks ago that there would be a disruption in the Astrazeneca vaccination rollout due to the clotting issues; it was inevitable, and the HSE knew that this day was coming. But still they kept pushing it out because of the protection that the first dose provides. It is probably another reason why they went with 2 full doses rather than a partial and then full dose, which produced better results in clinical trials. They wanted that 80% or so protection. It's all a numbers game, but I understand why, as it brings us closer to the goal of herd immunity/community protection.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Miike wrote: »
    It's worth noting the dominant variants during each of the clinical trials also and where they were conducted, and how this effects the efficacy values. As much as I detest VOX please watch the following video which is extremely succinct in explaining this, far better than I could even try.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3odScka55A

    Completely off topic but why do you detest Vox?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭ACitizenErased


    Worth noting the HPRA just confirmed at the conference that they haven't actually fully established what type of clot the case in Ireland was. Paul Cullen asked about this and the HPRA said they're still investigating and it's still 'a case of special interest'


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭funnydoggy


    Worth noting the HPRA just confirmed at the conference that they haven't actually fully established what type of clot the case in Ireland was. Paul Cullen asked about this and the HPRA said they're still investigating and it's still 'a case of special interest'

    So it might not have been that super dangerous one?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭Miike


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Completely off topic but why do you detest Vox?

    I often find to be sensationalist on a lot of topics. Well, I did anyway. I haven't really given them much attention following a spate of sensationalist reporting.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭ACitizenErased


    funnydoggy wrote: »
    So it might not have been that super dangerous one?
    Theres a few dangerous ones they just don't know which


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 4,727 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    I have seen this discussed on several threads and thought it probably deserves a thread of its own.

    When we have high numbers vaccinated, do you think that ALL restrictions will be removed? No masks, no distancing. Pubs, clubs, hotels buzzing. Croke Park sold out etc.

    If not, why not? What else can we do once people are vaccinated? We can’t afford to keep locking down forever.

    And yet, I don’t get the feeling at all that we’re coming towards the end. I’ve not heard anybody from government, NPHET, media, experts say that normality will return soon.

    All I’ve really heard is talk of new variants, another 20 weeks, maybe outdoor hospitality later in summer and a “degree” of normality returning.

    I remember a year ago thinking it was ridiculous to keep locking down and waiting on a vaccine. Now I’m not even so sure that vaccines will end this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭funnydoggy


    Theres a few dangerous ones they just don't know which

    Ah okay.

    This is all a clusterfûck. I might step away from this thread for a while


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    ddarcy wrote: »
    Ok need some correction to this. When AZ actually did a competent/ rigorous trial, two doses had 76% efficacy (btw that is still dropping as the US finds more things wrong with the data). From what I’ve read one/two doses don’t have a major difference at all in efficacy. You’re looking high 60’s% for one and potentially up to 76% (and falling) for 2 doses. The US is no longer going to use it going forward as well. Albeit they have loads of Pfizer and Moderna.

    I think we need to define what the 76% number actually means. This percentage is how effective it is at preventing any kind of symptomatic Covid. We need to realise that Astrazeneca remains 100% effective against severe Covid and/or death (except for side effects). This is important to remember.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    Bridge93 wrote: »
    What’s the likelihood we get a roadmap reboot. Start vaccinating under 60s with the supply of other vaccines now and continue the over 60s with AZ. Otherwise by the time we reach the under 60s we’ll have used a whole heap of Pfizer etc and still have a mountain of AZ on hand
    That's what I don't quite understand about those saying this won't impact on the rollout.

    If we are keeping AZ for the 60-70 year old group, isn't that going to delay them getting a vaccine? Will people be happy if (say) the 50 year olds have their vaccinations finished before the 60 year olds.

    And if we do use all available vaccines for the 60 year old groups, we're going to be left with deliveries of a vaccine we can't use.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭ACitizenErased


    hmmm wrote: »
    That's what I don't quite understand about those saying this won't impact on the rollout.

    If we are keeping AZ for the 60-70 year old group, isn't that going to delay them getting a vaccine? Will people be happy if (say) the 50 year olds have their vaccinations finished before the 60 year olds.

    And if we do use all available vaccines for the 60 year old groups, we're going to be left with deliveries of a vaccine we can't use.
    They haven't taken it into account. Going by what Glynn said it's now a HSE problem.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    They haven't taken it into account. Going by what Glynn said it's now a HSE problem.
    Slap a warning label on it and make it open access for anyone who wants it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    They haven't taken it into account. Going by what Glynn said it's now a HSE problem.

    Feel a bit for the HSE here. Their various helplines and contact points are going to get hammered this week with queries in relation to all these changes. All of which they won't have the answers to worked out for a while.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,462 ✭✭✭✭WoollyRedHat


    From watching the conference it seems there may be provision for those under 60 to take AZ vaccine still, once they accept the risk as outlined to them individually, relative to their age group, that was my interpretation anyway. Presumably a waiver like that of which was previously alluded to in this thread would have to be devised in such an eventuality.

    They also stated this decision was being made out of abundance of caution and is tied in to the current epidemiological situation i.e. if rates of Covid were higher, they would have in all likelihood have gone lower in terms of age recommendation to take AZ vaccine, weighing up the current risk of getting Covid relative to the age groups and risk of this rare severe adverse reaction to taking AZ vaccine and working off the relative data available to them currently


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,447 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    I'm just hoping they adjust the rollout cohorts quickly and get started with mRNA for under 60's and have a slower pace with AZ for the over 60's (and not keep using Pfizer and Moderna on them).


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭ACitizenErased


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Feel a bit for the HSE here. Their various helplines and contact points are going to get hammered this week with queries in relation to all these changes. All of which they won't have the answers to worked out for a while.
    Completely agree with you. This is going to take a while to figure out.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement