Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

The HorsesMouth

I'd say stephen donnelly just mused about it and asked his officials to look into and someone saw how big a story that would be and leaked it. I highly doubt it will or would have happened anyways, too much political investment into the age based scenario. Just another news story getting us all into a frenzy for no reason!

Deeper Blue

Why has this been leaked? All it's done is piss everyone off. Bunch of clowns.

I don't agree with it btw

Polar101

lbj666 wrote: »

It's been put forward because there could be a lack of elegible vacine available by the time they get to younger groups pending what happens with JJ, especially if they use every eligible vacine on older cohorts until they get to them.

Curevac could be approved in June. I'm not sure if "no vaccines for younger groups" is going to be a thing at all, even if AZ/JJ isn't an option - there's plenty of others.

PhilOssophy

sd1999 wrote: »

A few here have mentioned potential vaccine hesitancy in the younger cohorts and I know this obviously isn’t representative of the country but in my own experience (I’m 21 btw), all of the 20 or so people I’ve been in semi-regular contact with over this lockdown are all extremely eager to get a vaccine. It generally isn’t younger groups that spread anti-vaxxer stuff online either. Also just want to note, I have no stake in this as I’m in Cohort 7 anyway. I do think this is a good idea though as reducing overall transmission protects everyone whereas starting with 50-30s mostly protects 50-30s. Vaccinating 18-30s will have a bigger impact on transmission. And by that point everyone over 60 and every other medically vulnerable person will have had at least one dose. It also means colleges can go back as normal in September so we don’t have to pay thousands in fees and rent for college that’s mostly online. The impact online lectures has had is significant and I know many that are seriously struggling with it who wouldn’t have been if the lectures were in person. Younger people are also the ones who mostly work in the restaurants and pubs so I don’t know who you think is going to serve you if they’re not vaccinated. Finally, viewing things in terms of “rewards” or “punishments” is ridiculous be it younger people being “rewarded” for breaking restrictions (I haven’t seen anyone other than my family since November btw. Most of my friends are the same) or over 60s being “punished” with AZ. They’re just pragmatic decisions. There’s no emotion behind how these things are allocated.

Agree, and if people really think it is only this age group who were responsible for the spread over Christmas, etc they are deluded.
Also how many 18-25 year old were at Golfgate, giving vaccines to people out of turn, etc?

Tyrone212

I thought the old plan was 18 to 35. Under this if you're 30 you'll be last to be vaccinated. Great for them..

Rebelbrowser

I hope someone is rolled out by the Government for the 1pm news to put an end to this story. Even politically it's crazy stuff for FF and FG in particular. The 18 to 30 cohort not exactly their bedrock support

sd1999

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Agree, and if people really think it is only this age group who were responsible for the spread over Christmas, etc they are deluded.
Also how many 18-25 year old were at Golfgate, giving vaccines to people out of turn, etc?

Exactly, again this only anecdotal but the vast majority of my friends and I didn't meet up with extended relatives over Christmas because we knew it was a terrible idea and would mean college would be pretty much guaranteed to be online for the rest of the 20/21 year.

EDIT: And yeah, this was the old plan from December until March. No-one complained about it then.

Russman

lbj666 wrote: »

The AZ and JJ news were massive curve balls,

Say it was a +40 cap was put on and JJ and Pfizer was given to 40-60s as it arrived, we would be facing a potential shortage of Pfizer and surplus of JJ by the time we get to under 40 or under 30 around.
While if Pfizer had to be stocked for younger cohorts ,no point leaving them stocked just get going on them.

I’m not 100% sure I follow. Even if J&J and AZ were capped, I doubt we’d run out of Pfizer and Moderna once we’ve done the 40-60s. Potentially it might mean we don’t end up using our J&J I guess, but so what ?

lbj666

Polar101 wrote: »

Curevac could be approved in June. I'm not sure if "no vaccines for younger groups" is going to be a thing at all, even if AZ/JJ isn't an option - there's plenty of others.

Given expected early supplies it might not be worth bringing into the equation.

Of course there won't be no vacine, there will still be steady supply of pfizer it's just there's risk thats the only eligible one in plenty supply then another 400k of JJ comes in in July that cant be used due to a possible age restriction and older cohorts are already done.

noserider

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Stephen Donnelly the gift that keeps giving

Kinda goes against the age based risk model they were selling only 2 weeks ago

It's all about folks not occupation

Sell that get people to move on

Now it's about transmission lol

So let's vaccinate the youngest cohort

The mixed messaging is brilliant

But who is going to hold him to account?
Absolutely nobody. He continues to make howlers in a manner of a man who has no grip on reality or modicum of humility

Russman

I know it was in the original plan (it was silly then too), but take all the noise out of it and you have a virus that’s progressively more dangerous/lethal the older you are - why would you suggest vaccinating the younger people ahead of the middle aged ?
I really don’t buy that the potential knock on effect of doing this might also protect the middle aged - why opt for protection as a “by product” of something when we have enough vaccine to protect them directly ? Someone is trying to be too clever.

iamwhoiam

Surely NIAC will advise Donnely to shut his trap and wait for the professionals to advise ? I am sure they can think of a nice way to put it

Lumen

Russman wrote: »

I know it was in the original plan (it was silly then too), but take all the noise out of it and you have a virus that’s progressively more dangerous/lethal the older you are - why would you suggest vaccinating the younger people ahead of the middle aged ?
I really don’t buy that the potential knock on effect of doing this might also protect the middle aged - why opt for protection as a “by product” of something when we have enough vaccine to protect them directly ? Someone is trying to be too clever.

I think it's one of those things where the mathematically optimal answer doesn't necessarily correlate with common sense, which is why we have epidemiologists and behavioural psychologists to model it, but also where the public health policy benefits from being simple and stable and not fcking changing every three days.

ACitizenErased

Stephen, Stephen, Stephen.......

https://twitter.com/micheallehane/status/1383382755245924355?s=21

titan18

It being in the original plan is a moot point imo as the original plan had lots of cohorts ahead of it getting vaccinated that worked on the principle of breaking transmission (teachers, guards, meat factory workers etc). It now does not and the justification was age is the main risk so we're tearing this plan up and going age based.

They can't turn around and go no we want to break transmission and do it by age when occupation has a far likelier effect on transmission than age. We all want to have social activity but a guard deals with far more people day to day than a 26 year old working in IT and home working.

SusanC10

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Stephen, Stephen, Stephen.......

https://twitter.com/micheallehane/status/1383382755245924355?s=21

Oh ffs !

ACitizenErased

In epi terms its not a bad idea but like these Donnelly solo runs have to stop

hatrickpatrick

As someone who only turned 31 last summer (and I'm not counting it as a year, because of quarantine ) this honestly just makes me feel soooo old I'm one of those people who literally cannot wait to get back to getting suited up, going to a predrinks and then literally dancing my ass off all night long on a packed dancefloor once this is all over, but all this talk of the cut off for "young, socially mobile people" being age 30 is making me feel personally called out as something of a man child :pac:

They see me rollin', they hatin'...

Rebelbrowser

sd1999 wrote: »

EDIT: And yeah, this was the old plan from December until March. No-one complained about it then.

They really did! Depends on your age I suppose but me and my peers in our 40s were very unhappy about this then too, believe me.

I have sympathy with university students. It's ruining that experience, no doubt. But bottom line is people in 40s and 50s die from this thing so they must be vaccinated first.

iamwhoiam

ACitizenErased wrote: »

In epi terms its not a bad idea but like these Donnelly solo runs have to stop

He is completely out of his depth and thats a scary thought in the middle of a pandemic

lbj666

Russman wrote: »

I’m not 100% sure I follow. Even if J&J and AZ were capped, I doubt we’d run out of Pfizer and Moderna once we’ve done the 40-60s. Potentially it might mean we don’t end up using our J&J I guess, but so what ?

Ok We wont run out, but hypothecically the pace of the rollout at that point can only go as fast the MRNAs being delivered when progress goes below the age cap for JJ (again hypothetical hopefully there isnt one). Meanwhile JJ is still coming in in July in big numbers with no candidates for them.

timsey tiger

sd1999 wrote: »

A few here have mentioned potential vaccine hesitancy in the younger cohorts and I know this obviously isn’t representative of the country but in my own experience (I’m 21 btw), all of the 20 or so people I’ve been in semi-regular contact with over this lockdown are all extremely eager to get a vaccine. It generally isn’t younger groups that spread anti-vaxxer stuff online either. Also just want to note, I have no stake in this as I’m in Cohort 7 anyway. I do think this is a good idea though as reducing overall transmission protects everyone whereas starting with 50-30s mostly protects 50-30s. Vaccinating 18-30s will have a bigger impact on transmission. And by that point everyone over 60 and every other medically vulnerable person will have had at least one dose. It also means colleges can go back as normal in September so we don’t have to pay thousands in fees and rent for college that’s mostly online. The impact online lectures has had is significant and I know many that are seriously struggling with it who wouldn’t have been if the lectures were in person. Younger people are also the ones who mostly work in the restaurants and pubs so I don’t know who you think is going to serve you if they’re not vaccinated. Finally, viewing things in terms of “rewards” or “punishments” is ridiculous be it younger people being “rewarded” for breaking restrictions (I haven’t seen anyone other than my family since November btw. Most of my friends are the same) or over 60s being “punished” with AZ. They’re just pragmatic decisions. There’s no emotion behind how these things are allocated.

Good luck getting back to college, without lecturing staff. If the teachers lose out again I can't see them going back, without a vaccine to students who can still transmit at lower levels and no incentive to practice social distancing.

Rebelbrowser

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Stephen, Stephen, Stephen.......

https://twitter.com/micheallehane/status/1383382755245924355?s=21

Thought so. He has to go. To call him an idiot would be to insult idiots everywhere

Speak Now

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

They really did! Depends on your age I suppose but me and my peers in our 40s were very unhappy about this then too, believe me.

I have sympathy with university students. It's ruining that experience, no doubt. But bottom line is people in 40s and 50s die from this thing so they must be vaccinated first.

Imagine being in your 40s with school going children and reading the latest mad cap thoughts from Donnelly. If this happened it would be the end of any good will regarding restrictions. Total slap in the face.

KrustyUCC

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Stephen, Stephen, Stephen.......

https://twitter.com/micheallehane/status/1383382755245924355?s=21

He's an absolute tool lol

Serious solo run from him

PaulJoseph22

iamwhoiam wrote: »

He is completely out of his depth and thats a scary thought in the middle of a pandemic

It’s all to get his Twitter mentions up. He’s an egomaniac and this announcement just adds more uncertainty to an already peeved of population. He needs to go...,

Russman

ACitizenErased wrote: »

In epi terms its not a bad idea but like these Donnelly solo runs have to stop

Yeah this exactly. I can see the thinking behind it, I disagree with it but can see where he’s coming from. As Lumen says above, public health policy needs to simple and stable and not change every few days. Given the change to age based only happened two weeks ago, another change would need to show a massive benefit rather than maybe a bit of a marginal gain in numbers, to be justified. It’s likely to be only a couple of weeks either way anyway, leave well enough alone.

I mean, IF, they hope to have 80% of adults offered a jab by end of June, isn’t it better to have the 20% shortfall made up of people in their 20s rather than their 50s while we’re catching up ?

hatrickpatrick

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Stephen, Stephen, Stephen.......

Anyone else read this in the voice of Maria Bailey?

stephenjmcd

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

Thought so. He has to go. To call him an idiot would be to insult idiots everywhere

Hes gone about it the wrong way but the logic behind it is pretty solid to be fair to him. I'm no fan of his but there's scope for it to be looked at. Ultimately NIAC can say no so can the vaccine task force but I can absolutely see why it would be looked into.

The logic behind it isn't idiotic, the manner of which he's gone about it is

VG31

sd1999 wrote: »

A few here have mentioned potential vaccine hesitancy in the younger cohorts and I know this obviously isn’t representative of the country but in my own experience (I’m 21 btw), all of the 20 or so people I’ve been in semi-regular contact with over this lockdown are all extremely eager to get a vaccine. It generally isn’t younger groups that spread anti-vaxxer stuff online either.

Same here, I'm also early 20s and I don't know anyone my age that is hesitant to get the vaccine. Like you I can't claim that the people I know are representative of my age group, but I still really don't think vaccine hesitancy is a problem in < 30s.

All the people I know of who are reluctant to take the vaccine or are anti-vaxxers are people around my parents' age (50s/60s).

sd1999 wrote: »

Finally, viewing things in terms of “rewards” or “punishments” is ridiculous be it younger people being “rewarded” for breaking restrictions (I haven’t seen anyone other than my family since November btw. Most of my friends are the same) or over 60s being “punished” with AZ. They’re just pragmatic decisions. There’s no emotion behind how these things are allocated.

Again, I agree fully. I'm tired of seeing these generalisations about young people in the media. You wouldn't get any with making similar generalisations about travellers or black people for instance.