Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

km79

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Don't worry when supply ramps up in March and April it won't really matter

Of 2022?


I’ve lost all faith now. They are incapable of putting together and sticking with a coherent plan .
I understand the vaccine supply has been bumpy and cut them slack for that until now.
No longer . It’s shambolic. All of it

Turtwig

km79 wrote: »

We were told just a few weeks ago that the medical advice had changed and that the science said it must be age based and that the science must be followed

What has changed ?

Haven't a clue what's changed. I hope NIAC don't recommend any changes. My issue is with posters ruling this option out permanently. We should be reviewing these options every week as data on transmission impact comes in both locally and internationally. Maybe 18 to 30 years for physiological reasons are better spreaders. If something like that was to emerge or they'd on average more contacts not just through socialisation per se, then you would have to consider it.

km79

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

Agree with most here. Even flying this kite is nuts. Completely goes against the aged based logic we were fed not 3 weeks ago. Even if this plan goes nowhere the fact they were thinking of doing this just 3 weeks after saying the diametric opposite is further damaging to the government's credibility.

I can also say as someone in my mid forties I would be furious. It would be the worst of all worlds for people of my age group. Bad enough to be last in the queue for arbitrary reasons, but would be the most vulnerable age group not vaccinated when the rest of society would open up completely (and then some, it'll be like VE day with everyone socialising) so the risk of getting covid will actually be pretty high. People in their forties will end up in full lockdown with everyone else partying all round them.

Can you imagine how a 49 year old garda might feel about this idea?

If it is indeed kite flying he should just resign now .
As is evidenced on here it is going to lead to a lot of anger, frustration and confusion amongst a large group of complaint people . That will end up in less compliance . I think the tipping point in that regard has probably been reached anyways as people look enviously over the border to the North .....

Sweet.Science

km79 wrote: »

Of 2022?


I’ve lost all faith now. They are incapable of putting together and sticking with a coherent plan .
I understand the vaccine supply has been bumpy and cut them slack for that until now.
No longer . It’s shambolic. All of it

For what it's worth I don't think it'll happen .

km79

Sweet.Science wrote: »

For what it's worth I don't think it'll happen .

Me either but it’s very damaging
Completely undermines their message from the last few weeks

blackcard

km79 wrote: »

Last year
Months ago

We were told a few weeks ago that medical advice has changed and MUST be followed

Has it changed again ?
Simple question for Donnelly and Martin to clarify

Highly likely that the Government are flying a kite to determine public reaction to changing vaccination sequencing. Once they became aware that there will be a generally negative reaction, they will revert to vaccinating the 30-50 age group before the 18-30 age group

km79

blackcard wrote: »

Highly likely that the Government are flying a kite to determine public reaction to changing vaccination sequencing. Once they became aware that there will be a generally negative reaction, they will revert to vaccinating the 30-50 age group before the 18-30 age group

It completely weakens their message again though
Can’t believe a word they say any longer

Turtwig

km79 wrote: »

Last year
Months ago

We were told a few weeks ago that medical advice has changed and MUST be followed

Has it changed again ?
Simple question for Donnelly and Martin to clarify

I don't know what the medical advice currently is. I do know however that with covid, various guidances have been updated daily, weekly monthly etc since this pandemic began.

The medical advice on anything including vaccines could very well change again several more times. To overuse the phrase: It's an evolving situation. We'd be foolish to try to keep everything static if best evidence no longer supports that.

hmmm

Turtwig wrote: »

The original NIAC publication last year, the UKs JCVI equivalent all had mentioned this possibility. If transmission can be suppressed at a faster rate you have to consider it.

The decision was made months ago to keep this option on the table - in many countries.

I understand and I remember that. However this is either a kite being flown which would be someone thinking they are smarter than they actually area, or a very late decision being made which would contradict a decision made only 2 or 3 weeks ago. Whatever about the medical benefits, it is both a political nightmare and damaging to the credibility of the rollout.

They should have made this decision and announced it. Now we're going to have the discussion play out on Joe Duffy over the next week.

This probably only changes things for most people by a few weeks, but it's another unnecessary controversy in my opinion.

Rebelbrowser

blackcard wrote: »

Highly likely that the Government are flying a kite to determine public reaction to changing vaccination sequencing. Once they became aware that there will be a generally negative reaction, they will revert to vaccinating the 30-50 age group before the 18-30 age group

Agree, but such kite flying has consequences - when will this government get this into their thick heads? In a pandemic, confidence in those in charge is pretty damn important. This kind of messing erodes it every single time (and God knows there have been enough of these daft ideas floated).

Neamhshuntasach

Any move to do 18-30 first after over 60s done would have me in some of the last groups of people to get done. But I don't mind one bit if there is evidence that it can help from a holistic point of view which includes protection from covid in terms of serious illness or death, mental health and economy/personal finance.

If there is data to suggest that adults younger than 30 are a primary source of transmission, then it makes perfect sense to me that this source is transmission is targeted which can have a direct impact on protecting those that are not yet vaccinated and in the 31-59 age bracket. The vulnerable with underlying conditions would already be done in that age bracket so it's not like they would have been skipped over in favor of younger people.

Evidence shows that the vaccines are highly effective at reducing transmission of the virus. The primary approach was to reduce serious illness and death. But now real world data shows that transmission is also a feature of the vaccines. At this stage, I don't think it's true to say the sole function of the vaccines is to prevent illness and death. It's now also to reduce spread of Covid.

km79

Turtwig wrote: »

I don't know what the medical advice currently is. I do know however that with covid, various guidances have been updated daily, weekly monthly etc since this pandemic began.

The medical advice on anything including vaccines could very well change again several more times. To overuse the phrase: It's an evolving situation. We'd be foolish to try to keep everything static if best evidence no longer supports that.

Have any other countries suggested changing from age based list this weekend ?
All the countries that were given as evidence of why we should change to that approach just a few weeks ago?
I don’t think so........

Jinglejangle69

Neamhshuntasach wrote: »

Any move to do 18-30 first after over 60s done would have me in some of the last groups of people to get done. But I don't mind one bit if there is evidence that it can help from a holistic point of view which includes protection from covid in terms of serious illness or death, mental health and economy/personal finance.

If there is data to suggest that adults younger than 30 are a primary source of transmission, then it makes perfect sense to me that this source is transmission is targeted which can have a direct impact on protecting those that are not yet vaccinated and in the 31-59 age bracket. The vulnerable with underlying conditions would already be done in that age bracket so it's not like they would have been skipped over in favor of younger people.

Evidence shows that the vaccines are highly effective at reducing transmission of the virus. The primary approach was to reduce serious illness and death. But now real world data shows that transmission is also a feature of the vaccines. At this stage, I don't think it's true to say the sole function of the vaccines is to prevent illness and death. It's now also to reduce spread of Covid.

But the majority of cases are under 45s.

So why is it mentioning 18-30 age group?

JPA

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

But the majority of cases are under 45s.

So why is it mentioning 18-30 age group?

18-30 age group is under 45.

Eggs For Dinner

Lumen wrote: »

Why would it be unfair? Young adults have sacrificed the most relative to their risk. They've been locked up to protect older generations. This would be payback.

Sacrificed the most my hairy hole. On top of the inconveniences we all endure, I haven't been able to visit my 93 yr old father-in-law who is on his last legs in a nursing home. He's in there alone and scared. I can't visit my mother as she lives in another county. My son's wedding was cancelled and rearranged with tiny numbers attending, which didn't include my other son who is abroad and prohibited from travelling. My income has been affected. Because of health conditions, I need regular use of a pool to exercise and I'll never be able to recover the damage as a result of the pool being closed. Despite of all this, I've got away lightly because I've lost nobody to the disease.

I'm of the belief that (generally), the younger generation were less civic minded that their older counterparts. You can't reward that, or the whole thing is a shambles. Vaccinate on the basis of medical grounds and the science points towards the current revised plan

Turtwig

hmmm wrote: »

I understand and I remember that. However this is either a kite being flown which would be someone thinking they are smarter than they actually area, or a very late decision being made which would contradict a decision made only 2 or 3 weeks ago. Whatever about the medical benefits, it is both a political nightmare and damaging to the credibility of the rollout.

They should have made this decision and announced it. Now we're going to have the discussion play out on Joe Duffy over the next week.

This probably only changes things for most people by a few weeks, but it's another unnecessary controversy in my opinion.

It's kite flying. The bigger concern I have is what the Minister's opinion is on it. If he has requested a dept assessment how likely are they to be objective? NIAC are an advisory body. They like NPHET will likely try to maintain the coherence of communicatiom even if it is as odds with the position they have adapted internally.

I'm very interested to see how NIAC respond to this.

Your point about weeks is a very salient one. If supply was low a change like this may be relevant but considering everyone will be given a first dose by June or July I think it's a largely an interesting academic problem. Little more.
Unless they plan to prioritise full vaccination of a certain cohort?

SJFly

The majority of the cases are now in under 45s, but the majority of the unvaccinated population is also under 45.
We have consistently been told that the main source of transmission and outbreaks is the home.
While this possibly could reduce numbers of infections I am sceptical whether it will reduce serious illness and deaths. All the middle aged parents with children and teenagers too young to be vaccinated are going to be the most vulnerable now, and are much more likely to die than the young adults being moved to the top of the list.

Rebelbrowser

Turtwig wrote: »

It's kite flying. The bigger concern I have is what the Minister's opinion is on it. If he has requested a dept assessment how likely are they to be objective? NIAC are an advisory body. They like NPHET will likely try to maintain the coherence of communicatiom even if it is as odds with the position they have adapted internally.

I'm very interested to see how NIAC respond to this.

Your point about weeks is a very salient one. If supply was low a change like this may be relevant but considering everyone will be given a first dose by June or July I think it's a largely an interesting academic problem. Little more.
Unless they plan to prioritise full vaccination of a certain cohort?

If this happens, I can't see how people in 30 to 50s will be vaccinated by July, let alone June.

The cohort this will hit hardest are families with kids. Because of school, these families hope to have staycations in July and August. Crazy not to get them vaccinated before they move all around the country. The younger cohort can at least holiday in September.

Mrs OBumble

No one really knows.

Pension records would likely be the most accurate record of over 70s, but even they won't have some people. And they aren't managed by people who can vaccinate, or understand other medical information which may contra-indicate vaccination.

Micky 32

A bit of info coming out of Chile :

https://twitter.com/rufussg/status/1383051802174746626?s=21

hmmm

Turtwig wrote: »

It's kite flying. The bigger concern I have is what the Minister's opinion is on it. If he has requested a dept assessment how likely are they to be objective? NIAC are an advisory body. They like NPHET will likely try to maintain the coherence of communicatiom even if it is as odds with the position they have adapted internally.

With all the criticism they get, NPHET and NIAC have done a fantastic job of avoiding any internal disagreements in their discussions from becoming public. The media would have loved to talk about "splits", and there's been none I've seen - that's hard to do with big committees in very stressful and rapidly moving environments.

In saying that I don't think the government are doing them a favour by lobbing this particular grenade over to them now. My tuppence - If the choice is much of the muchness, then it's really a political decision as to which group to prioritise and a simpler to understand rollout is better. If NIAC think it's probably slightly better to prioritise one cohort over another then they get dragged into difficult and unnecessarily controversial media conversations. If it's clearly beneficial to start with younger groups then the decision could have been made weeks ago and didn't need to wait until now.

lbj666

There is an obvious reason why this is on the table again. And it's nothing to do with transmission, my own belief is that younger first route is just the long way round approach to prevent severe illness. I imagine NiAC are not going to find any solid conclusions in this.

Why this is on the table again? we have a steady supply of Pfizer jabs til mid June, which has been increased by another 50k a week.

We have a AZ jab not recommend for 60 or less. With
JJ don't want to speculate but there could be an age restriction ( hopefully nowhere near 60). 400k of JJs supply is coming June, 200k before that.

There is a big risk that once the over 60s are done, that if they continue 60 down with Pfizer ( possibly JJ) that by the time it gets to younger cohorts where you might not be able to use JJ or AZ there may not be enough Pfizer to give out, and there would be a surplus of JJ that gets even worse following July's supply.

They may aswell come out and say this insted of the trying to hide under a bit of ropey science.

EDIT: I am almost begging you to read this, because the ploticising talk is getting a bit much not saying that there isn't any.

seamus

I think this is a solo run by Donnelly. We already know that he's arrogant and obsessed with his own ego.

He's a complete joke with younger voters, so I suspect this is his idea of "giving something back" to them to make him more popular.

I would have thought that if someone is in the age group for vaccination and that they hadn’t been called, that they would contact their GP themselves.

Neamhshuntasach

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

But the majority of cases are under 45s.

So why is it mentioning 18-30 age group?

I don't know if spread is even throughout different subsets in under 45s or if there is a higher proportion of cases in the 18-30s. I haven't looked at the figures. That's why I said if there is evidence to support it.

From my own personal view, I'd see under 30s being the more socially active. A lot of part time workers in businesses that may not be open, college students, groups of people that will mix regardless of restrictions and will probably visit family. Obviously 31 to 45 year olds can be involved in the same activity. But I'd associate it more with younger people.

I don't care if it's "rewarding" those that are most likely to spread the virus due to not following restrictions. We need to look at what is actually happening and react to it to address all aspects of the covid impact across the board. And not just do what is maybe more moral or ideal. So if vaccinating the younger age groups first after everyone that is deemed vulnerable is done reduces the number of cases in the community, where we all live, then I think it's a sound approach.

Just to add, I'm not advocating for this tactic or approach. I just mean I understand why they may change and I'd have no problem with it.

ebbsy

So they nail their colours to the mast regarding age the other week.

Now they want to do something else.

Which means the first time they were talking out of their arse.

Look at what is happening on the other side of the border............Its the same ****ing island.

Happydays2020

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Why would there be war ?

It's in the original vaccine plan from December. Should enough evidence on the reduction of transmission become available that the rollout could be changed to go from youngest up. There's alot of logic behind it

Consideration of it was in the plan. It was not a decision. Plus that plan has changed.

iamwhoiam

I heard Paul Reid say ages ago that the HSE would be sending the GPs their lists of over 70's as the vast majority have an Over 70 GP visit card and registered with the HSE .

Happydays2020

seamus wrote: »

I think this is a solo run by Donnelly. We already know that he's arrogant and obsessed with his own ego.

He's a complete joke with younger voters, so I suspect this is his idea of "giving something back" to them to make him more popular.

Is he secure in his constituency?

I had misgivings last summer when Harris was moved from Health. He had surprised me as a good communicator.

Russman

Plans should always be open the change imo, but the messaging from this is disastrous. It’s completely flying in the face of medical advice from two weeks ago when it was said that no occupation was more prone to severe outcomes than another, and age was the biggest factor in having a bad outcome from COVID. Which would be worse for society - 1,000 cases in people in their 20s, or 1,000 cases in people in their 40s ?

That’s before the totally subjective arguments that it’s essentially rewarding bad behaviour of a cohort who have largely given two fingers to restrictions (there’s a reason most cases are under 45), and assuming people in their 40s/50s don’t go out or socialise.

Hopefully it’s just SD thinking he’s cleverer than, I dunno, his dog or something.