seamus wrote: » I'm not worrying, I'm speculating Do you genuinely think headlines like, "20% of hospital staff are refusing to be vaccinated" would go down well in February? polesheep is right that the HSE can't afford to just dump a load of workers, but at the same time it's an issue of critical importance when the majority of our deaths and cases were acquired in a healthcare setting. If healthcare workers don't get vaccinated it can and will be spun as a waste of time for the rest of to do it. So the HSE/HPSC wil take a pretty hard line on it.
expectationlost wrote: » did they take a hard line on the seasonal flu vaccine no.
is_that_so wrote: » They may not need it here as staff have seen first hand what it can do. Flu' shots I can understand people shrugging off and ignoring but COVID is a different beast. I think we'll get to 70% coverage comfortably nationally.
polesheep wrote: » If 20% don't take it, it will be spun as 80% taking it. A fantastic uptake that, if replicated across society, would be a resounding success.
expectationlost wrote: » Personally I can't understand healthcare staff shrugging off seasonal flu shots.
Hmmzis wrote: » Comparing SARS-cov-2 to seasonal influenza is disingenuous at best, the former being far more dangerous and a good bit more transmissible. Here is a document from the HSE outlining what vaccinations/immune statuses are needed for certain HCWs:https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/immunisation/hcpinfo/guidelines/chapter4.pdf The measles section is quite strict in its wording.
is_that_so wrote: » It's just a cut and paste from the UK MHRA so not wholly RTE's fault. The warning is not a surprising development and TBH flags should have been raised well before this as part of their plan.
Golfman64 wrote: » I had the Flu vaccine a couple of weeks ago and was asked specifically about any history of allergic reactions. This is not unusual for many vaccines. It won't stop the media jumping all over this nonetheless....
bush wrote: » What kind of allergies are they talking about? Food allergies? Ive had 2 bad reactions in my life but never found what caused them.
Micky 32 wrote: » Wait until the reports from the media flood in about all the headaches and chills that people will be having ( regardless of it being caused by the jab or not). There will be a huge mountain made out of this. It’s only the begining of the media frenzy.
joseywhales wrote: » Is nobody else concerned about the testing that was done during the trials? I recently heard Fauci compare pfizer v astra zenca, where he opined , who would we give 70% efficacy vaccine v a 90% efficacy. I was surprised by this, since he is an eminently intelligent man, he would know that in the astra zeneca trial they regularly swabbed participants for the virus, in the other trials they discouraged testing for mild symptoms because they said that the side effects may cause some mild symptoms and they left testing to the discretion of the participants' physician, who is by definition biased. Now given that the majority of cases are asymptomatic, to compare 70%v 90% is nonsensical, they are completely different numbers. We don't know which vaccine is more effective? Am I missing something?
joseywhales wrote: » Now given that the majority of cases are asymptomatic, to compare 70%v 90% is nonsensical, they are completely different numbers.
hmmm wrote: » Both of those are for numbers who caught the disease, Covid. It's an Apples for Apples comparison. Astra Zeneca were doing a separate study for evidence of the virus. You're correct Pfizer weren't doing this. These Astra Zeneca numbers haven't been released (I think).
seamus wrote: » Obviously we cannot know if anything will appear within 12/24/48 months for this particular vaccine, but that's not to say we've never done anything like this before. Long-term effects can also be extrapolated from the short-term data and outcomes from similar vaccines. Most drugs do not have a long-term "testing" element. The long-term portion is the bit where it's approved for general use and the outcomes are monitored. This is not known. It requires a specific kind of test where people are vaccinated and then deliberately infected to determine what happens next. It's ethically fraught. Strictly speaking vaccination doesn't prevent an pathogen from getting into your body, it just trains your body kill it when it does. The question is about how far the virus gets before being eliminated by the immune system. We know that it reduces the severity of any infection, which by implication suggests that it limits the propagation of the virus within the body. One can then deduce that if someone's viral load is lower, their infectiousness is also lower. But that's supposition and cannot be known. If they're classed as immunocompromised, then vaccination is not advised. Other family members should still get vaccinated as this will still limit the compromised person's risk of exposure. Anyone who had never taken a vaccine before is not going to take this one, that's kind of a given. It is so unlikely that it's basically impossible that someone could get to adulthood and be unaware of a severe allergy to the ingredients. They will have received multiple vaccinations as a child, but will also have been exposed to them through food or the environment. If someone *can't* get the vaccine, then their employer can't do anything about it. If vaccination is important to their work, then they will be prioritised.
Stheno wrote: » Same here, had to fill out a pre screening form and wait for 15 minutes after the injection in case of a reaction
Irish Stones wrote: » OK, but what if one has no known history because simply they have never taken a vaccine before? One could be allergic and still not know that.
