Covid 19 Part XXIX-85,394 ROI(2,200 deaths) 62,723 NI (1,240 deaths) (26/12) Read OP

iamwhoiam · 08-12-2020 08:16PM

Happydays2020 wrote: »

I presume vaccines will also be supplied privately in addition to supplies through the public scheme. Presumably that will happen once the pharma companies meet their contractual obligations to Governments.

I would hope not . It would be so unfair if those with money could get it ahead of others

Goldengirl · 08-12-2020 08:16PM

BeefeaterHat wrote: »

Exactly, the notion that we remain at lockdown until everyone in Ireland who has a medical condition gets vaccinated is insanity.

Not .

Won't be lockdown but will be restrictions as in distancing, no large gatherings and continued face masks for a good while yet .
Will be until after high risk individuals are vaccinated yes, and would also say until after essential workers in retail , education, transport etc.
Niall Moynagh on Six One tonight , talking about needing a substantial uptake amongst all groups as need 70 % plus for herd immunity and there are going to be groups who cannot get the vaccine, immunocompromised people, pregnant and breastfeeding women, younger teens and children , for a long time yet , until there is more data on these groups .
Also there will be that 5 to 10 % for whom the vaccine won't work .
Hopefully a more benign picture by next Summer .

crazy 88 · 08-12-2020 08:17PM

Why have the government lumped people with underlying conditions regardless of severity into the same group? I have mild asthma so I'd expect to be getting the vaccine before the general population but definitely not the same time as someone in severe danger such as a cancer sufferer or transplant patient. The UK have a better plan, putting "clinically extremely vulnerable individuals" at 4th and my group in 6th.

ZX7R · 08-12-2020 08:18PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Wouldn't be presuming anything at this stage.

All deals done by the eu have clauses in the purchase contracts for further purchase of the vaccines.
Could be a while before private procurement if ever.

08-12-2020 08:19PM

eagle eye wrote: »

So private practice gp's, dentists, physiotherapists etc. and all their staff like receptionists and secretaries should be vaccinated before those with underlying conditions? Do you think that's the right way to do things?
Then you have healthy 65-69 year olds and key workers ahead of them as well. Just seems ridiculous to me.
Lockdowns very much a reality until all with underlying conditions are vaccinated.

Who are going to be treating those with underlying conditions before they get the vaccine? Who is going to be treating those with auto immune conditions that mean they may not be able to take the vaccine? Who is going to be treating women in pregnancy who are bottom of the list because the vaccine has not been tested in the group? Some critical thinking wouldn’t go astray

Goldengirl · 08-12-2020 08:21PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Unfortunately this plan has the medically vulnerable under 65 very far down the list. Children with underlying conditions are in the very last group to be vaccinated.

I was surprised at this and I would say that the u der 65s with high risk illness will be moved up faster .
Don't think children will be vaccinated though until last and maybe not then , depends how it goes ...

eagle eye · 08-12-2020 08:22PM

lukas8888 wrote:

Nothing changes with you,your now trying to jump the queue using your underlying condition as a reason why your relative young age should not matter.Why do you think you should jump ahead of Dentists who spend all day crouched over patients mouths.

Your lack of reading skills comes shining through again. I'm high on the list due to my work. I'm saying I shouldn't be that high because of my work but I should be that high based on my underlying conditions. So no trying to jump the queue.

08-12-2020 08:22PM

crazy 88 wrote: »

Why have the government lumped people with underlying conditions regardless of severity into the same group? I have mild asthma so I'd expect to be getting the vaccine before the general population but definitely not the same time as someone in severe danger such as a cancer sufferer or transplant patient. The UK have a better plan, putting "clinically extremely vulnerable individuals" at 4th and my group in 6th.

Someone on cancer treatment or anti rejection drugs may not be able to get the vaccine

crazy 88 · 08-12-2020 08:25PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Someone on cancer treatment or anti rejection drugs may not be able to get the vaccine

Why wouldn't they? But anyway I'm just using those as examples of people in severe risk.

eagle eye · 08-12-2020 08:27PM

ZX7R wrote:

The role out is pretty much in line with the rest of Europe, and will end with the easing of restrictions quicker. The aim is to take the pressure of the health sector's. Sadly you and others with under lying issues are the minority in numbers. Easier to cocoon the minority than to lockdown the majority.

Well that minority is somewhere in the region of 1.3 million. Now obviously some of these are in other categories such as older and working in health but it's a lot of people.

Goldengirl · 08-12-2020 08:29PM

ongarite wrote: »

Over 85s cases way out of control but you won't hear NPHET mentioning it, only blaming under 25 age group.

https://twitter.com/RiochtConor2/status/1336380221172428802

Those pesky over 85s with their nights out in the gastropubs and Christmas shopping !

Turtwig · 08-12-2020 08:34PM

big syke wrote: »

Its down to who the vaccine was initially tested on.

Kids and pregnant women were not involved.

This will change in the future.

It won't change by much even if they are approved. People who were in the 'cocooning' category won't get the vaccine until after the designated 'key' workers. There's a logic to this too*. Aside from people in care settings the vast majority of cocooners didn't actually get the virus in the first place. They've been actively able to avoid it. The majority of society has through enormous sacrifices also helped shield them from it. There is no urgent pragmatic need from them to be vaccinated if they can keep avoiding the virus in the first place. Priority has to be weighted with people who can't avoid getting the disease with severity of disease outcome. While it sucks, the vast majority of cocooners and those who care for them will just have to remain very cautious for several months yet.

*Depending of course who are designated key workers.

iamwhoiam · 08-12-2020 08:34PM

crazy 88 wrote: »

Why have the government lumped people with underlying conditions regardless of severity into the same group? I have mild asthma so I'd expect to be getting the vaccine before the general population but definitely not the same time as someone in severe danger such as a cancer sufferer or transplant patient. The UK have a better plan, putting "clinically extremely vulnerable individuals" at 4th and my group in 6th.

They haven’t , there is a list of priorities

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/39038-provisional-vaccine-allocation-groups/

Ethical Principles

The principles of moral equality, minimising harm (if vaccines are shown to be safe and effective in these groups) and fairness.

*Includes health care workers who work in and out of all healthcare settings.

* *Chronic heart disease, including hypertension with cardiac involvement; chronic respiratory disease, including asthma requiring continuous or repeated use of systemic steroids or with previous exacerbations requiring hospital admission; Type 1 and 2 diabetes; chronic neurological disease; chronic kidney disease; body mass index >40; immunosuppression due to disease or treatment; chronic liver disease.

Renjit · 08-12-2020 08:35PM

Goldengirl wrote: »

Those pesky over 85s with their nights out in the gastropubs and Christmas shopping !

Just havin a wee bit fun :pac:

08-12-2020 08:35PM

crazy 88 wrote: »

Why wouldn't they? But anyway I'm just using those as examples of people in severe risk.

Those with compromised immunity are at significantly higher risk of an adverse response to the vaccine

Sconsey · 08-12-2020 08:36PM

I'd love the person that created this list to explain why people in the high risk group will get vaccinated ahead of the very high-risk. Either the HSE have their risk assessment messed up or the list is messed up.

I get the logic of the first few groups, I am not convinced by the key-worker group but whatever. But I can't get my head around a healthy 65 year old being prioritized over someone with cystic fibrosis or kidney failure for example.

Goldengirl · 08-12-2020 08:41PM

Renjit wrote: »

Just havin a wee bit fun :pac:

Santa and all his helpers

Turtwig · 08-12-2020 08:41PM

Sconsey wrote: »

I'd love the person that created this list to explain why people in the high risk group will get vaccinated ahead of the very high-risk. Either the HSE have their risk assessment messed up or the list is messed up.

I get the logic of the first few groups, I am not convinced by the key-worker group but whatever. But I can't get my head around a healthy 65 year old being prioritized over someone with cystic fibrosis or kidney failure for example.

To put it bluntly. Cystic fibrosis people know how to protect themselves and avoid the virus. Case numbers with these patients are extremely low. Case numbers of 65+ years are too high and this demographic still has a very significant risk of severe infection and death. You are far more likely to overwhelm your hospitals from those over the age of 65 than you are individuals with CF. Even if that means the CF individual has to remain in their bunker zone.

As a side note too: Many of the over 65s+ by the very nature of their age will have some comorbidities.

bb1234567 · 08-12-2020 08:42PM

Sconsey wrote: »

I'd love the person that created this list to explain why people in the high risk group will get vaccinated ahead of the very high-risk. Either the HSE have their risk assessment messed up or the list is messed up.

I get the logic of the first few groups, I am not convinced by the key-worker group but whatever. But I can't get my head around a healthy 65 year old being prioritized over someone with cystic fibrosis or kidney failure for example.

Maybe people who are every high risk have severe disabilities and don't have normal jobs or lifestyles, don't interact with the public, bed ridden etc..and may be more likely to die from covid but much less likely to get it in the first place due to small number of contacts? I don't know I'm sure there's a reason why

Polar101 · 08-12-2020 08:45PM

ongarite wrote: »

Over 85s cases way out of control but you won't hear NPHET mentioning it, only blaming under 25 age group.

Wasn't it negative scaremongering 1-2 months ago when they warned about it?

Turtwig · 08-12-2020 08:47PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Those with compromised immunity are at significantly higher risk of an adverse response to the vaccine

Is this confirmed for the messenger RNA vaccines?

crazy 88 · 08-12-2020 08:47PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

They haven’t , there is a list of priorities

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/39038-provisional-vaccine-allocation-groups/

Ethical Principles

The principles of moral equality, minimising harm (if vaccines are shown to be safe and effective in these groups) and fairness.

*Includes health care workers who work in and out of all healthcare settings.

* *Chronic heart disease, including hypertension with cardiac involvement; chronic respiratory disease, including asthma requiring continuous or repeated use of systemic steroids or with previous exacerbations requiring hospital admission; Type 1 and 2 diabetes; chronic neurological disease; chronic kidney disease; body mass index >40; immunosuppression due to disease or treatment; chronic liver disease.

And the priorities have people with underlying conditions all at number 7:
7 People aged 18-64 with certain medical conditions

Where/how have they split it out to people with severe underlying conditions and those with mild conditions like I suggested should be done?

Sconsey · 08-12-2020 08:49PM

Turtwig wrote: »

To put it bluntly. Cystic fibrosis people know how to protect themselves and avoid the virus. Case numbers with these patients are extremely low. Case numbers of 65+ years are too high and this demographic still has a very significant risk of severe infection and death. You are far more likely to overwhelm your hospitals from those over the age of 65 than you are individuals with CF. Even if that means the CF individual has to remain in their bunker zone.

As a side note too: Many of the over 65s+ by the very nature of their age will have some comorbidities.

That's a bad reason, it's rewarding stupidity and penalizing people that have done what the government/HSE have asked them to do.

crazy 88 · 08-12-2020 08:50PM

Turtwig wrote: »

Is this confirmed for the messenger RNA vaccines?

Or any vaccine? A person with a severely compromised immune system I would imagine is better risking a reaction than risking getting a virus.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/adults/rec-vac/health-conditions/weakened-immune.html

Goldengirl · 08-12-2020 08:50PM

Turtwig wrote: »

To put it bluntly. Cystic fibrosis people know how to protect themselves and avoid the virus. Case numbers with these patients are extremely low. Case numbers of 65+ years are too high and this demographic still has a very significant risk of severe infection and death. You are far more likely to lose people over the age of 65 than you are someone with CF. Even if that means the CF individual has to remain in their bunker zone.

As a side note too: Many of the over 65s+ by the very nature of their age will have some comorbidities.

Agreed re some .
But there are also an awful lot of people 50 to 64 that have hypertension/ cardiac disease/ diabetes t1 and 2 / severe pulmonary disease and these people are very high risk of severe illness and there have been high numbers in this age group hospitalised and in ICU .
A lot in this age group would have families to care and provide for and may not be able to cocoon.

Goldengirl · 08-12-2020 08:52PM

Turtwig wrote: »

Is this confirmed for the messenger RNA vaccines?

No because they haven't tested for these groups yet as far as I am aware .

Happydays2020 · 08-12-2020 08:53PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I would hope not . It would be so unfair if those with money could get it ahead of others

I appreciate the point but there are people who for economic reasons (theirs and ultimately ours) need to travel and indeed have been travelling through this period. If someone is in one of the lower priority groups yet wants to be vaccinated for their own and others safety then why not - noting that there is a separate stream of vaccines through the public procurement means. I am not talking about displacement.

Plumbthedepths · 08-12-2020 08:54PM

Sconsey wrote: »

That's a bad reason, it's rewarding stupidity and penalizing people that have done what the government/HSE have asked them to do.

It's nothing got to do with reward or punishment. It deals with the likelihood of interaction leading to possible infection.

mirrorwall14 · 08-12-2020 08:54PM

I’m both disappointed and ok with the list. On a personal level I’m a teacher designated very high risk and working from home which I absolutely hate. It was a shock to be considered very high risk and a real mindset change for me so in some ways I’m ok to be down the list. In others I just want to be back in the classroom....

BurgundyRose · 08-12-2020 08:56PM

If the Pfizer vaccine is approved how will vaccinations be worked? Will there be vaccine clinics and will they be at confident locations like at hospitals for an example? Or will there be vaccine vans or trucks travelling around Ireland. One of my parents remembers vaccines for TB or something else in the 50s and remembers being lined up at the sode of the road and vaccine vans.

It would be great of trucks could come to confident locations around Ireland. Like the blood banks.

Covid 19 Part XXIX-85,394 ROI(2,200 deaths) 62,723 NI (1,240 deaths) (26/12) Read OP

Comments