If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)
Hi all, The AutoSave Draft feature is now disabled across the site. The decision to disable the feature was made via a poll last year. The delay in putting it in place was due to a bug/update issue. This should serve as a reminder to manually save your drafts if you wish to keep them. Thanks, The Boards Team.
Hello all! This is just a quick reminder to 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.




  • Registered Users Posts: 12,050 ✭✭✭✭ Dav010

    Vaccines don’t necessarily have a defined time span during which they must all give protection, and their efficacy is dependent to a degree on the host, and the virus they are protecting the recipient from. The protection acquired may not wane in many, and boosters may not be necessary for all, but they will be offered/recommended to all because it is difficult to know for certain who will need it and who won’t in advance.

    Just because you think it should last longer, and it may well for many, does not mean it is not a vaccine. The definition of what a vaccine is, is easy to look up, google is your friend.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,655 ✭✭✭ JDxtra

    Let's be honest, I don't think as many people in Ireland would have signed up for the vaccine if it was widely known that it may only last 6 months for some.

    My greatest risk of actually catching the virus was in those mass vaccination centres. I have never been so close to so many other people since this pandemic started. I don't fancy going through that again.

    But my main concern now is that regardless if you need a one or not, a regular booster will be required to keep your vaccine passports valid.

  • I would imagine that most people would say "depends on what the vaccine is for". Or I'd like to hope they would.

    Besides, it doesn't matter what people's perception of the definition is, it only matters what the definition is.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,175 ✭✭✭ Glaceon

    Same here and I've always been staunchly pro-vaccination. The first dose did nothing to me except for a sore arm. The second seemed fine at first, just a sore arm and a bit of tiredness, but I got chest pains about a week later. It cleared up after another week or so but it was scary. I think I'll be speaking to my GP before taking any boosters.

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭ Danno

    Vaccine boosters will probably come in for the elderly and vulnerable, kind of like the "original" vaccine plan.

    But then again, as we have seen, plans change.

    In my own opinion there shouldn't be any requirement for boosters for the fit and healthy as things currently stand. For vaccinated healthy and fit folks - of which many have already contracted covid both pre-vaccine and in some cases post-vaccine, there should be a strong immune response to any further infections as the body "knows" what to do to ward it off.

    Something NIAC should be looking into is the Valneva vaccine which is reputed to be "variant" proof owing to how it is made. If this gets approval and lives up to it's reputation then work on getting that out as "a booster". Our stockpiles of other vaccines could then be used to help third world countries.

  • In my own opinion there shouldn't be any requirement for boosters for the fit and healthy as things currently stand. For vaccinated healthy and fit folks - of which many have already contracted covid both pre-vaccine and in some cases post-vaccine, there should be a strong immune response to any further infections as the body "knows" what to do to ward it off.

    That's not an "opinion" though. If the data shows that's true, then vaccinated healthy folks will not be recommended boosters. If not, vaccinated healthy folks will be recommended boosters.

  • Registered Users Posts: 15,553 ✭✭✭✭ astrofool

    By the time Valneva has been approved most of the vaccines we have today will be expired (likely already used), there is going to need to be a lot of patience waiting for new vaccines to come online and the same slow ramp up and rollout. Pfizer/Moderna already have updated mRNA vaccines being trialed (and they can pivot pretty quickly for variants if needed), they don't think they're needed as the current vaccine is holding up well.

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,100 ✭✭✭ Former Former Former

    Boosters will be a pain in the arse... but if the alternative is going back into lockdowns, hospitals full, schools closed, pubs closed... I'll take as many injections as I need to, to be honest.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 435 ✭✭ godzilla1989

    All a waste of time tbh

    Flatten the curve and let everyone get infected eventually was always they way out of this and will continue to be so.

    A paper was released 2 days ago that is astounding.

    I actually had to read the numbers a few times and re-read the paragraphs to make sure I wasn’t misreading it was so shocking.

    They are saying previously infected but unvaccinated people were 27 times likely to have symptomatic COVID than vaccinated non previous infected naive persons

    They might as well leave the kids get Covid now unvaccinated like chicken pox and not bother vaccinating them as they gonna get infected either way

    Its really bad news for countries like New Zealand, Australia etc. They tried really hard to suppress now looks like vaccination won't be enough they gonna have to keep certain restrictions in place until they have some good natural immunity.

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,100 ✭✭✭ Former Former Former

    Wait, then who were those people who asked me to drop my pants?

  • Registered Users Posts: 15,553 ✭✭✭✭ astrofool

    It's a preprint still subject to review, however, if it's correct, then vaccination followed by exposure should deliver a very robust immune response at the least risk to the individual (and others). Boosters should be enough to prevent severe disease in those vulnerable to SARS-COV2.

    The immunity from the vaccines is what keeps our hospital numbers down, reduces and prevents most deaths and lets the restrictions end.

    The other two options are to let it rip through the population (as we'll see happen in countries with low vaccine take up) or pursue zero-COVID.

  • Registered Users Posts: 846 ✭✭✭ airy fairy

    It is either use a vaccine that was developed very quickly, or wait until a longer lasting one was developed. But we also needed to take what is available to stop variants appearing.

    I know I'll be happy to take a booster at certain times rather than go through the restrictions again.

    The flu vaccine is redeveloped every year. I have yet to see someone develop a third eye from getting the flu vaccine every year.

  • Registered Users Posts: 435 ✭✭ godzilla1989

    If it's correct and looks it to me, then the narrative that vaccines offered more protection than natural infection has been absolute bullshit from the start, 27 times more likely is incredible, with 27 times more likely we should have been encouraging young healthy to get exposed to create herd immunity over the last 18 months and the curve would have been flattened big time.

    Yes we will be fine here in terms of hospital numbers if we can control the spread, but we can't go mad either as not enough natural immunity exists in this country to let everyone get exposed, as the current 2% CHR ( case hospitilisation rate ) and 2000 cases a day is 40 hospital admissions a day at present and if that increases to 3,000-4,000 cases and 60-80 hospital admissions that isn't sustainable and our hospital cases will rise to 1,000 very quickly and we will be in trouble.

    We should be fine though, it won't be a nice winter, hospitals will be busy, surgeries will be cancelled, but we will survive

    Countries like Australia and NZ are absolutely bollox'd though, no natural immunity and they have a vaccine that's 27 times likely to have prevent symptomatic COVID than natural infection.

    They will have to control transmission big time, even when everyone is vaccinated, they can't just let it rip.

    2% CHR, a vaccine so so at preventing infection and no natural immunity at all is a disaster. Good luck to them

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,100 ✭✭✭ Former Former Former

    Point of order here - "let everyone get infected eventually" was absolutely never the way out of this.

  • Registered Users Posts: 435 ✭✭ godzilla1989

    It's the only way out

    You, me, your family, your friends are all gonna get infected eventually, no escape from it.

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,100 ✭✭✭ Former Former Former

    You had better hope that it's not, because the death toll will be massive and guess what, natural immunity doesn't last forever either.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,553 ✭✭✭✭ astrofool

    They will need to define more closely what they are tracking, there has been a lot of reports out recently but headlining as not as effective against moderate disease, what really matters is severe disease (i.e. what gets people hospitalized) and the data there continues to be good as seen by the case numbers vs. those in hospital and ICU.

    I'm almost at the stage of disregarding a study if it doesn't specify the numbers who get severely ill (the other one being for how long the viral load lasts, not just what it's peak values are).

  • Registered Users Posts: 435 ✭✭ godzilla1989

    Vaccine's and better hospital treatment's have the CFR well under 0.5% now I believe

    There will be death but hopefully not massive

  • Registered Users Posts: 435 ✭✭ godzilla1989

    Moving the goal posts there astro

    Symptomatic covid prevention was how the vaccine's were measured eg 95% and what they study looked at, severe disease is much harder to track as you need a massive pool of data that might not even be accurate ( in hospital with covid or from covid )

    Our own data shows severe illness in CHR rates

    CHR ( which is severe illness imo as your in hospital with Covid, but you can argue in hospital with covid or from covid ) is 9% for over 65's at present who are vaccinated, it was over 20% pre vaccines

    Now something like 20% of daily cases are fully vaccinated and less than 0.5% are re-infections ( 40 times less )

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,100 ✭✭✭ Former Former Former


    • This is incorrect. Like, just not correct.
    • "Vaccine was 100% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 95.3% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration"

    Pfizer and BioNTech Confirm High Efficacy and No Serious Safety Concerns Through Up to Six Months Following Second Dose in Updated Topline Analysis of Landmark COVID-19 Vaccine Study | Pfizer

  • Registered Users Posts: 435 ✭✭ godzilla1989

    That data is months old

    If it was 100% effective in preventing severe illness no one would ever end up in hospital with Covid

    Half of the 320 in our hospitals are fully vaccinated, so it's not 100%, not even close

    9% of covid cases over the age of 65 who are fully vaccinated end up in hospital, that's a fact

    Data is on the HSE site.

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,598 ✭✭✭ Wolf359f

    I'm not dismissing the figures, but can you link to where the HSE provides that info. I didn't think they were releasing that kind of detail.

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,100 ✭✭✭ Former Former Former

    Now it's you who's moving the goalposts.

    You said "Symptomatic covid prevention was how the vaccine's were measured" - that was not correct.

  • Registered Users Posts: 211 ✭✭ ohnohedidnt

    I bet this is the first time you took a first if its kind vaccine technology which was also rushed through trials at record smashing speed and administered under emergency authorizarion and manufactured by a company with history of dangerous manipulation of trial data (assuming Pfizer)

    The assumption seems to be that people are against this vaccine because they're anti-vaccine. That is not the case at all. I'm skeptical about the safety and benefits of this one vaccine. If I was offered anything other than mRNA, I'd probably take it.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 303 ✭✭ Dr. Greenthumb

    There's a lot of things you can do to reduce your risk of getting a severe dose of covid. Boosters are the easy way out but why is there no push for people to improve their lifestyle? Why aren't they publishing the info on comorbidities like the amount of obese people, people with hypertension, chronic smokers etc. that are dying from this so we can make our populations more resilient to any disease going forward.

    Of course healthy people have died from Covid but it seems from the reading I have done that they are the exception.

    Boosters were always coming and to me it's alarming how many people are not willing to make adjustments to their lifestyle to protect themselves and are instead continuing to live an unhealthy lifestyle while relying on shots. The majority of the population seem to go along with whatever the advice of the government is so why aren't the government pushing healthier life choices? They would probably get a great reaction out of it rather than the prolonged restrictions which lead to a more sedentary lifestyle and therefore make people more prone to a bad dose.