Vaccine Megathread No 2 - Read OP before posting

missmelo

missmelo wrote: »

Has anybody here seen the studies on the animal trials for this vaccine?

Do you know if you have antibodies if you are protected without the vaccine? As in if you already had covid.

Are we in a live trial as per what luke o Neill stated?
I know 2 people who have died from this vaccine and I'm not willing to go into a trial without full and informed consent.

You know 2 people dead out of 100s of millions vaccinated..
2
And you know them personally

xboxdad

marno21 wrote: »

There is little point in testing vaccinated people for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in their noses if we have a high level of confidence that a) the risk of infection is low and b) the risk of transmission is low.

The article actually agrees with this. 8 of the 9 “cases” were asymptomatic, and secondly, they had been vaccinated with the Janssen vaccine which is the least efficacious and the trials showed it takes more than 14 days to reach full efficacy.

I read the article and it seems to be focusing on what happens to the vaccinated individual.
For me the question/issue is very different:

After all restrictions are lifted, vaccinated teacher walks into a room with 40 unvaccinated children.

What happens to the children?

If the adult was vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine:
Numbers indicate that there's a 5% chance he'll spread the virus to the 40 children. (if I understand correctly)

What if the adult was vaccinated with AZ/J&J?
What is that number?


(this is just one example of course, the same could be asked between different groups of adults)

ClosedAccountFuzzy

So, do we think that the 40-44 window will open before Friday?

is_that_so

FuzzyThinking wrote: »

So, do we think that the 40-44 window will open before Friday?

IT article says next week.

Furze99

Widescreen wrote: »

Re Astra Zeneca vaccine.

I heard efficacy of this is not good enough against Indian variant.

I think UK or possibly somewhere else are suggesting that the 2nd dose for anyone who has had first dose of AZ should be pfizer biontech.

Anyone verify this, thanks.

The issue seems not to be so much the relative effectiveness of the mRNA and AZ vaccines but that two doses are needed plus time for them to bed in. One dose is reported as not good enough against newer variants which threaten to spread here.

The weakness that Alan Kelly has pointed out is the gap between the doses of the respective vaccines, a few weeks for Pfizer etc and 3 months for AZ. When you further take into account that the longer gap has been allocated to an older age group, it doesn't make sense from the stated public health policy.

It was a bad idea from the start to have significantly differing vaccines for different parts of the population. We should have ditched the AZ for general population use and donated elsewhere. It's looking likely that those who got AZ will have a shortened gap between doses and then be called back in time for Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. This is poor vaccination policy IMHO - bound to be met by hesitancy.

Necro

missmelo wrote: »

Has anybody here seen the studies on the animal trials for this vaccine?

Do you know if you have antibodies if you are protected without the vaccine? As in if you already had covid.

Are we in a live trial as per what luke o Neill stated?
I know 2 people who have died from this vaccine and I'm not willing to go into a trial without full and informed consent.

You can provide me of proof of the claims you are making via PM

Until then don't post in this thread again

drunkmonkey

Furze99 wrote: »

This is poor vaccination policy IMHO - bound to be met by hesitancy.

Impossible to do proper due diligence on, mixing and matching vaccines with variants at play with no data to back up any medium to long term results, even short term there's no peer reviewed sizable study data to my knowledge saying this is a good idea.

LuckyLloyd

xboxdad wrote: »

How do the numbers look like for AZ & J&J, do you know?

AZ is 82% (CI 63 - 92%)
J and J is 72% in the US

They all offer near 100% protection against severe illness, hospitalisation and death.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It' has to be more than 5% now, the positivity in close contacts increased from 12% to 35% with the UK variant by February, I'm seeing figures the indian strain is possibly 20% more transmissible than the UK variant, wouldn't logic dictate that the 5% chance in the vaccinated has now shifted above the pre February odds in the unvaccinated of catching it via a close contact taking into account increased transmission and slightly increased vaccine evasion.

If it is is born out in statistics then Public Health guidelines can change. For the moment, we can only work on the data we have.

RavenBea17b

Tyrone212 wrote: »

Strange. A link has been found between AstraZeneca and blood clots. No link has been found between Pfizer and myocarditis. A load of rubbish.

A statement from the US CDC Advisory group (17th May)announced an investigation and further study into events of myocarditis in teens and young adults (mainly men) for Pfizer. Whilst not clear yet, members of the advisory committee for vaccinations felt that healthcare providers should be made aware of the reports and aware of potential events and monitor- so not quite "a load of rubbish" as you say.

I'd prefer that these events are given due diligence and continuously monitored, - there have been other events including in the US army, France and in Israel.

And this continued monitoring for all vaccines.

drunkmonkey

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

AZ is 82% (CI 63 - 92%)
J and J is 72% in the US

They all offer near 100% protection against severe illness, hospitalisation and death.

If it is is born out in statistics then Public Health guidelines can change. For the moment, we can only work on the data we have.

I think the suggestion is they offer no protection for anyone without a vaccine yet we know they still spread it.
If we're not testing vaccinated for symptomatic, asymptomatic, presymtomatic you can't have reliable data, the statistics can only go one way in that cohort.

If you tell me asymptomatic or presymtomatic spread isn't really a thing it should apply to both groups.

LuckyLloyd

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I think the suggestion is they offer no protection for anyone without a vaccine yet we know they still spread it.
If we're not testing vaccinated for symptomatic, asymptomatic, presymtomatic you can't have reliable data, the statistics can only go one way in that cohort.

If you tell me asymptomatic or presymtomatic spread isn't really a thing it should apply to both groups.

Your posting history on this forum is imo a continued rhetorical game to try and poke holes in Public Health responses and vaccine efficacy.

The big picture here is:

- The Vaccines have high efficacy against contracting Covid
- The Vaccines appear to dramatically reduce transmission
- All of the vaccines are nearly fully effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalisation and death
- Our overriding goal is to distribute vaccines to a high enough percentage of the population that we start to see case suppression via population protection / immunity
- And we are prioritising the rollout in such a way that we get to the part of the population most at risk of severe illness, hospitalisation and death first

This is a sound approach. The end objective of all of this is that every adult (and eventually every adolescent) have been offered the ability to make Covid 19 (and all variants are variants of Covid 19) no longer novel to their immune systems.

Once Covid 19 is no longer novel to our immune systems we can move on. Absolutely we will track variants, data and vaccine effects (if any) and continue to research into the disease. We may even ultimately produce MRNA booster vaccines that focus on specific variants. But at a certain point it will become akin to the flu or the common cold.

Given that is the end game, the suggestion that we will continue testing and isolating and contact tracing vaccinated individuals is preposterous. We may employ the full range of Public Health tools to localised outbreaks, etc. But fundamentally once people are vaccinated their immune systems are no longer naive and once we have protected against immune naivety on a population basis we can move on.

Eyes on the prize.

Unicorn Milk Latte

Vaccinated30 wrote: »

Well the experts have said this Is the case so this is the case. No point to ask me if its wise. Vaccines work. There's breakthrough cases of disease from all vaccines all the time. But vaccinated people aren't asked to isolate on those cases either. The pandemic is done.

Not so fast.

My own assumption was that, assuming vaccination reduces transmission (which seems likely, but is not confirmed yet), having enough vaccinated people will break transmission chains enough so that 'the pandemic is done'.


But: last week I heard a statement from a virologist, explaining that, when there are no more restrictions, and over time (months to years), every single person who is not vaccinated will get Covid.


So I guess we will have to wait and see. A lot will depend on the people who refuse to get vaccinated.

xboxdad

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

AZ is 82% (CI 63 - 92%)
J and J is 72% in the US

They all offer near 100% protection against severe illness, hospitalisation and death.

Thank you for your response, but are you sure we're talking about the same thing?

AFAIK probability of getting sick once vaccinated and probability to still transmit the virus to individuals who are not vaccinated yet are two different characteristics of a vaccine.
Unless I got that wrong from the news.

Also, when we say it protects against severe illness that again applies to the vaccinated individual.

What I'm trying to understand is how a vaccinated individual that's completely asymptomatic but carries the virus can affect unvaccinated individuals and what are the differences in that regard between mRNA and AZ/J&J vaccines.

Sorry for being difficult, but I still don't fully understand this bit.

drunkmonkey

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Given that is the end game, the suggestion that we will continue testing and isolating and contact tracing vaccinated individuals is preposterous. We may employ the full range of Public Health tools to localised outbreaks, etc. But fundamentally once people are vaccinated their immune systems are no longer naive and once we have protected against immune naivety on a population basis we can move on.

Eyes on the prize.

Your completely missing what I was saying, we have a situation now without anywhere near enough population coverage for the 90% herd immunity we've been told is required where cases are going to be ignored and data to test an assumption is not being collected.
Eyes are on the prize, looking at it though we may have jumped ahead too quick by a month or two on that particular rule.
It's not like me to be cautious around this, we're very close I just don't want to see it messed up but your saying that can't happen so I'll run with it. The CMO may have finally got to me as he seems to be cautious in relation to the variants and us cutting loose.

PhoenixParker

There was a study that showed that if you're vaccinated and tested positive for the virus (already a very low chance of hapoening) you're about half as likely to transmit the virus as someone who tests positive & is unvaccinated.

That was based on households of healthcare workers in the UK.

is_that_so

Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »

But: last week I heard a statement from a virologist, explaining that, when there are no more restrictions, and over time (months to years), every single person who is not vaccinated will get Covid.

That is unlikely to be true and we've seen how COVID has behaved during this in households and groups, with some being infected and some not at all.

JDD

Anyone have any guesses when registration will open for 40-44 year olds? I'm chomping at the bit here.

is_that_so

JDD wrote: »

Anyone have any guesses when registration will open for 40-44 year olds? I'm chomping at the bit here.

Next week, expect an announcement this week.

xboxdad

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Your posting history on this forum is imo a continued rhetorical game to try and poke holes in Public Health responses and vaccine efficacy.

(...)

- Our overriding goal is to distribute vaccines to a high enough percentage of the population that we start to see case suppression via population protection / immunity

I would like to react to two of your points above:

1. I personally can't wait to get vaccinated, but I'm wary of the reopening plans due to my lack of understanding of how vaccinated, asymptomatic carriers can affect unvaccinated people. Are mRNA vaccines better to prevent this or not? If they are, to what extent?

2. Vaccination of children is a big question still it appears. Dismissing this issue as "not a vulnerable group" isn't something that would make me sleep better. We either need really safe vaccines for them or we must use types of vaccines on adults that protects again transmission, not just against sickness.

xboxdad

PhoenixParker wrote: »

There was a study that showed that if you're vaccinated and tested positive for the virus (already a very low chance of hapoening) you're about half as likely to transmit the virus as someone who tests positive & is unvaccinated.

That was based on households of healthcare workers in the UK.

Did I not read somewhere that the chance for transmission was 5% with mRNA vaccines? Your "half" sounds much worse than that.

If the chance of asymptomatic transmission was so high when vaccinated, we'd be essentially creating people who are pretty much guaranteed to walk around without any symptoms spreading the virus instead of being aware of their sickness and staying home.

I really hope this "half" is just some misunderstanding.

actionmancoyle

actionmancoyle wrote: »

We've done great to finally get the vaccination run going and easing of restrictions planned for July all sound good but I am not seeing the progress in terms of case numbers or hospitalizations right now

I can't understand how we still have nearly 500 cases a day and an increase in hospitalisations lately when we have over 40% vaccinated on first dose and at least 10% or more have natural immunity at this stage as we missed alot cases in each wave.

With half the population having some protection now we shouldn't be at was is the equivalent of 1000 cases a day like we had at end of December when we had no vaccines.

Covid is still very much in large circulation with 420 cases a day like yesterday when half the population have some protection, we should be seeing alot better progress than we are now, especially as it's nearly summer

Vaccinations increase and at the same time restrictions decrease keeping it in balance.

rameire

Can Mods update the title?
and say '44 and under Possible Registration from Next week.'

eoinbn

[HTML][/HTML]

actionmancoyle wrote: »

We've done great to finally get the vaccination run going and easing of restrictions planned for July all sound good but I am not seeing the progress in terms of case numbers or hospitalizations right now

I can't understand how we still have nearly 500 cases a day and an increase in hospitalisations lately when we have over 40% vaccinated on first dose and at least 10% or more have natural immunity at this stage as we missed alot cases in each wave.

With half the population having some protection now we shouldn't be at was is the equivalent of 1000 cases a day like we had at end of December when we had no vaccines.

Covid is still very much in large circulation with 420 cases a day like yesterday when half the population have some protection, we should be seeing alot better progress than we are now, especially as it's nearly summer

New variants that spread faster.
We have vaccinated the older half of the population. Most of the infections have been in the younger half.
If the goal was to reduce infections ASAP we would of started with the young people.

PhoenixParker

xboxdad wrote: »

Did I not read somewhere that the chance for transmission was 5% with mRNA vaccines? Your "half" sounds much worse than that.

If the chance of asymptomatic transmission was so high when vaccinated, we'd be essentially creating people who are pretty much guaranteed to walk around without any symptoms spreading the virus instead of being aware of their sickness and staying home.

I really hope this "half" is just some misunderstanding.

Yes you're misunderstanding.

People are frequently talking about the stats all wrong. It's usually best to think of it in terms of people than stats since "half" or 5% of 95% must always be of something.

Suppose you have two groups of 10,000 people.
One group is fully vaccinated with Pfizer and let's say the efficacy is 90%
One group is unvaccinated.

Both groups get exposed to massive amounts of Covid, the same amount for each group.

1000 people in the unvaccinated group get Covid.

The same number of people in the vaccinated group should get Covid, but 90% don't because fo the vaccine so 100 people get Covid.
Those 100 people transmit at half the rate of the people who get Covid in the unvaccinated group.

50 people in the unvaccinated Covid group will transmit as much Covid to the next generation of infectees as 100 people in the vaccinated group. The vaccinated group are half as infectious.

But in addition to being only half as infectious, there are a lot fewer of them.

For the original group of unvaccinated people, 10% of the population are walking around infected and infectious (1000 people of 10,000)
For the vaccinated group of people 0.5% of the population is walking around infected and infectious (50 people of 10,000).

Vaccinated people who test positive are half as infectious but the vaccinated group as a whole is at 1/20th [your 5%] of the level of infectiousness.

Furze99

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Your posting history on this forum is imo a continued rhetorical game to try and poke holes in Public Health responses and vaccine efficacy.

So is nobody allowed dare to question holes & inconsistencies in Public Health policy & response??

We don't live in a totalitarian state and public health officials do not have some divine right to ultimate knowledge and rule.

Many of the issues ultimately come down to the needs of society as a whole versus the rights of individuals. Which has greater priority in what circumstances etc. Decisions have been made that affect groups as a whole that may not suit individuals within those groups. There has to be debate about the merits and demerits of such decisions.

xboxdad

PhoenixParker wrote: »

For the original group of unvaccinated people, 10% of the population are walking around infected and infectious (1000 people of 10,000)
For the vaccinated group of people 0.5% of the population is walking around infected and infectious (50 people of 10,000).

Thank you, I read it 3 times to let me perfectly understand it.
It makes a lot of sense.

A couple of questions if I may, now that I understand the situation better:

1. I assume that the 10% unvaccinated infectious people would not all be walking around as a percentage of them would be tied to bed. (within days of infection possibly?)

2. In contrast to that are the 0.5% vaccinated infectious ppl pretty much guaranteed to be walking around feeling great? Or they'd also be tied to bed with bad symptoms / same percentage as in the other group?

Lumen

xboxdad wrote: »

Thank you, I read it 3 times to let me perfectly understand it.
It makes a lot of sense.

A couple of questions if I may, now that I understand the situation better:

1. I assume that the 10% unvaccinated infectious people would not all be walking around as a percentage of them would be tied to bed. (within days of infection possibly?)

2. In contrast to that are the 0.5% vaccinated infectious ppl pretty much guaranteed to be walking around feeling great? Or they'd also be tied to bed with bad symptoms / same percentage as in the other group?

I'm not where you're going with this, or whether this addresses any of your questions, but from the research summaries I've read, people infected with the COVID virus are most infectious before the onset of symptoms. This is why we have a COVID pandemic.

Other diseases (like Ebola, for instance) are not transmissible until after onset of symptoms. That's why we don't have an Ebola pandemic.

Gael23

Got my second Pfizer dose this morning

PhoenixParker

xboxdad wrote: »

Thank you, I read it 3 times to let me perfectly understand it.
It makes a lot of sense.

A couple of questions if I may, now that I understand the situation better:

1. I assume that the 10% unvaccinated infectious people would not all be walking around as a percentage of them would be tied to bed. (within days of infection possibly?)

2. In contrast to that are the 0.5% vaccinated infectious ppl pretty much guaranteed to be walking around feeling great? Or they'd also be tied to bed with bad symptoms / same percentage as in the other group?

The results were from real world transmission to households members of vaccinated & unvaccinated healthcare workers so the transmission rates reflect real human behaviour and what happens with real vaccinated and unvaccinated people acting as one would expect.

As Lumen notes, transmission is most likely to occur before symptoms so the 10% tied to a bed have most likely done their infecting before they got that far.

Necro

rameire wrote: »

Can Mods update the title?
and say '44 and under Possible Registration from Next week.'

I can't update the thread title with stuff that 'might' happen but I have updated the age ranges who CAN register as of today. Once they announce the new round of registrations we can update again.

ShineOn7

John Campbell (he should be hitting 1 million subscribers this week) and statistics on Myocarditis cases with Pfizer and Moderna

Risk looks pretty minuscule based on Israel:

5 million vaccinations, 62 cases (the Maths on that is 1 in every 80,000)

This article is linked in the video's notes and says

out of more than 5 million people vaccinated in Israel, there were 62 recorded cases of myocarditis in the days after the shot. It found that 56 of those cases came after the second shot and most of the affected were men under 30.

The report said that 60 of the patients were treated and released from hospital in good condition. Two of the patients, who were reportedly healthy until receiving the vaccination, including a 22-year-old woman and a 35-year-old man, died.

“The findings were presented to the Pfizer company who replied that they had not had similar reports in the rest of the world and would examine the data,” an excerpt from the report said, adding that the details had also been sent to the US FDA and CDC, who were also investigating

So it looks like the extremely rare incidents are now two different things in two different vaccine groups

• AZ/Jansenn - Blood clots (some on the brain with AZ)
• Pfizer/Moderna - Myocarditis

Myocarditis is common among those who get Covid, so maybe the people getting Myocarditis with Pfizer/Moderna would have got it anyway (and a lot harsher) if they got Covid

I'd still take Pfizer now if a nurse was beside me with the jab with no issues

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2xmtd8dkA

lukas8888

The EMA are reviewing the death of a belgian woman who suffered a blood clot and low platelets after receiving a Johnson and johnson vaccine.
The first report of a fatality after receiving the vaccine.

drunkmonkey

lukas8888 wrote: »

The EMA are reviewing the death of a belgian woman who suffered a blood clot and low platelets after receiving a Johnson and johnson vaccine.
The first report of a fatality after receiving the vaccine.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210526-belgium-limits-j-j-vaccine-to-over-41s-after-death

What age is it open to here?

is_that_so

drunkmonkey wrote: »

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210526-belgium-limits-j-j-vaccine-to-over-41s-after-death

What age is it open to here?

59-50 for now. There's confusion whether the over 45s can get it. We don't have much at present anyway.

harr

Why are they opening registration so early for the age groups ? Surely it would make more sense to wait till they are at least halfway through the current age bracket.
Most centres are still finishing off the over 50s and the 45-49s won’t start till next week at some point and yet they are opening the registration for the 40-45s next week.

eoinbn

ShineOn7 wrote: »

John Campbell (he should be hitting 1 million subscribers this week) and statistics on Myocarditis cases with Pfizer and Moderna

Risk looks pretty minuscule based on Israel:

5 million vaccinations, 62 cases (the Maths on that is 1 in every 80,000)

This article is linked in the video's notes and says



So it looks like the extremely rare incidents are now two different things in two different vaccine groups

• AZ/Jansenn - Blood clots (some on the brain with AZ)
• Pfizer/Moderna - Myocarditis

Myocarditis is common among those who get Covid, so maybe the people getting Myocarditis with Pfizer/Moderna would have got it anyway (and a lot harsher) if they got Covid

I'd still take Pfizer now if a nurse was beside me with the jab with no issues

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2xmtd8dkA

A link hasn't been established yet in the case of mRNA and Myocarditis.
He is using results from J&J to determine who to vaccinate AZ with.
There isn't conclusive evidence that AZ effectives women at far higher rates than men.
Not many young people have got AZ. It could have the same heart issue, if one exists.
A heart issue, that is rarely serious, is very different to a stroke.

ixoy

harr wrote: »

Why are they opening registration so early for the age groups ? Surely it would make more sense to wait till they are at least halfway through the current age bracket.
Most centres are still finishing off the over 50s and the 45-49s won’t start till next week at some point and yet they are opening the registration for the 40-45s next week.

Because it gives you the sense of progress - once you register, you'll likely get a vaccine appointment within 3 or so weeks (region dependent). So when I hopefully sign up next week, the goal is near.
Other countries, such as Switzerland, let you sign up months ago and you didn't know when the date from submission to vaccination would be at all. I prefer the much narrower window we've mostly enjoyed. And perhaps the small delay in opening up the most important age cohort now (mine ) is to ensure we can keep up with that 3-or-so week process.

JPup

harr wrote: »

Why are they opening registration so early for the age groups ? Surely it would make more sense to wait till they are at least halfway through the current age bracket.
Most centres are still finishing off the over 50s and the 45-49s won’t start till next week at some point and yet they are opening the registration for the 40-45s next week.

That's not true though, is it? Loads of 45-49 age group have commented here that they have been vaccinated over the past week or been given appointments. We can't say the exact number because of the ransomware attack but its seems likely to be in the tens of thousands if not already into six figures.

Bellie1

Anyone have breakdown of ages in the country. The CSO seems to have eg 45-60 or something like that, anyways wasnt by decade.

muddypuppy

harr wrote: »

Why are they opening registration so early for the age groups ? Surely it would make more sense to wait till they are at least halfway through the current age bracket.
Most centres are still finishing off the over 50s and the 45-49s won’t start till next week at some point and yet they are opening the registration for the 40-45s next week.

Honestly I would much rather that they opened for all the ages as soon as possible, while making it clear that this is just a registration and it's not a first come first serve. Would give people a lot more time to register, people don't have to follow the news to know when to register, and there would be a constant "backlog" in the unlikely of change that some vaccination centre finish the current age bracket too soon.

Lumen

Bellie1 wrote: »

Anyone have breakdown of ages in the country. The CSO seems to have eg 45-60 or something like that, anyways wasnt by decade.

CSO table PEA04, April 2020

Age Group Thousands
0 - 4 years 309.5
5 - 9 years 344.1
10 - 14 years 350
15 - 19 years 323.9
20 - 24 years 307.2
25 - 29 years 292.2
30 - 34 years 324
35 - 39 years 386.5
40 - 44 years 393.7
45 - 49 years 358.5
50 - 54 years 316
55 - 59 years 292.7
60 - 64 years 258.9
65 - 69 years 224.2
70 - 74 years 190.8
75 - 79 years 134.1
80 - 84 years 89.8
85 years and over 81.2
All ages 4977.4

Lumen

^^ Remember there are 260k frontline healthcare workers across the working age groups in the table above who have had one dose, but about 150k of those still need a second dose.

questionmark?

Lumen wrote: »

^^ Remember there are 260k frontline healthcare workers across the working age groups in the table above who have had one dose, but about 150k of those still need a second dose.

Have to also take account that many in lower age groups have already got jabbed due to been in the relevant at risk groups plus with 300k per week at the moment rising to 400k per week in June we are motoring now! I say their 82% target won't be far off and likely reached maybe second - third week of July.

Feeling positive folks!!

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

CSO table PEA04, April 2020

Age Group Thousands
0 - 4 years 309.5
5 - 9 years 344.1
10 - 14 years 350
15 - 19 years 323.9
20 - 24 years 307.2
25 - 29 years 292.2
30 - 34 years 324
35 - 39 years 386.5
40 - 44 years 393.7
45 - 49 years 358.5
50 - 54 years 316
55 - 59 years 292.7
60 - 64 years 258.9
65 - 69 years 224.2
70 - 74 years 190.8
75 - 79 years 134.1
80 - 84 years 89.8
85 years and over 81.2
All ages 4977.4

Currently doing 300k k jabs a week,200k min probably of which are 1st
By the end of july they could start 18 to 30

questionmark?

Marine Layer wrote: »

Currently doing 300k k jabs a week,200k min probably of which are 1st
By the end of july they could start 18 to 30

It's 400k a week in June.

Also that 300k a week at the moment doesn't include all doctors who are doing vaccines due to the hacking situation. Expect the number to rise a bit further in what was done the last few weeks.

*I really wish we had the daily figures for vaccines. Inner nerd needs figures and graphs!

JTMan

J&J will be offered, as an option, to those aged 40-44 according to Leo Varadkar.

He said that the vaccine portal would open to people between 40 and 44 “in the coming days”. There will be an option for this group to receive the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, he said.

revelman

JTMan wrote: »

J&J will be offered, as an option, to those aged 40-44 according to Leo Varadkar.

The Germans have today announced that they are expecting a bigger delivery of J&J next week than they initially anticipated. This would work out at roughly 45k J&J arriving for us next week. (17k this week)

They are also expecting a seriously big AZ delivery on first week of June. Would work out at 150K for us.

https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/fileadmin/Dateien/3_Downloads/C/Coronavirus/Impfstoff/Lieferprognosen_aller_Hersteller_2._Quartal.pdf

eoinbn

questionmark? wrote: »

It's 400k a week in June.

Also that 300k a week at the moment doesn't include all doctors who are doing vaccines due to the hacking situation. Expect the number to rise a bit further in what was done the last few weeks.

*I really wish we had the daily figures for vaccines. Inner nerd needs figures and graphs!

It's 300k and that includes GPs. Our current supply is about 260k but we are working through a stockpile of mRNA.

J&J is not suitable for 45-49 but is suitable for 40-44 who are at an even higher risk of clots. The mind boggles.
If it came from the EU factory I would take it but if it is from that kip Emergent Biosolutions then I wouldn't go near it.

reubenreuben

In my experience it seems if you have a BMI showing you are unhealthy then you get the jab quicker via your doctor, yet if you try to keep healthy and fit you are bottom of the queue.

Might as well just eat all the pies

km79

JTMan wrote: »

J&J will be offered, as an option, to those aged 40-44 according to Leo Varadkar.

Why would it be safe for 40-44 but not for 45-49?