nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 3 - Read OP

Beasty

Thread 1
Thread 2

No anti-vax stuff in this thread - it's to discuss the various vaccines available and how they are getting rolled out, as well as testing procedures

Threadbans carry over

Threadbanned users:
3xh
Dr.Frost
kingbhome
nannerbenahs
skooterblue2
Fodla
Caraibh
drunkmonkey
lawrencesummers
Howard Beale
Thornysheep
Snowcat

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Dressoutlet

Telecaster58 wrote: »

Where?

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058159465/173/#post116414189

Stark

It could very well be youngest first as more super spreaders in the younger age cohorts.

marno21

From last Thursday

Prof MacCraith explained that by last Monday evening, 94% of all available vaccines had been administered, rising to 99% on Tuesday and all were given out by Wednesday, with more supply arriving in on Wednesday night.

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0220/1198359-vaccine-roll-out/

/thread

Dressoutlet

Telecaster58 wrote: »

Where?

We are giving them as we get them. Over 370,000 vaccines gone. We don't have a store of them somewhere.

Klonker

Stark wrote: »

It could very well be youngest first as more super spreaders in the younger age cohorts.

I can see the logic in what you're saying but I doubt it'll be done that way. It would go down like a lead balloon.

Every higher age group is at more risk, thats why started 85+ and down from there. If they changed the order when they get to 55 and start with youngest then the age groups most at risk will be waiting longer and there would be a lot of criticism of such a move.

Russman

Klonker wrote: »

I can see the logic in what you're saying but I doubt it'll be done that way. It would go down like a lead balloon.

Every higher age group is at more risk, thats why started 85+ and down from there. If they changed the order when they get to 55 and start with youngest then the age groups most at risk will be waiting longer and there would be a lot of criticism of such a move.

I agree with you but I think it is (or at least was) actually mentioned in the plan that if the vaccines are shown to reduce transmission, the 18-34 year olds in the second last group will be prioritised as they are more socially active.
Apparently someone in their forties has no friends and doesn't go into the office.

odyssey06

Russman wrote: »

I agree with you but I think it is (or at least was) actually mentioned in the plan that if the vaccines are shown to reduce transmission, the 18-34 year olds in the second last group will be prioritised as they are more socially active.
Apparently someone in their forties has no friends and doesn't go into the office.

And the plan fantastically assumes this cohort of busy partying 18-34 year olds will be lining up to take the time to get the vaccine... when they know they are low risk for its consequences.

josip

Russman wrote: »

I agree with you but I think it is (or at least was) actually mentioned in the plan that if the vaccines are shown to reduce transmission, the 18-34 year olds in the second last group will be prioritised as they are more socially active.
Apparently someone in their forties has no friends and doesn't go into the office.

Check and check

Charles Babbage

Ireland is dispensing the vaccine better than most in Europe. They have less control over the supply, although Denmark managed to source a few extra shots in some murky process.

https%3A%2F%2Fd6c748xw2pzm8.cloudfront.net%2Fprod%2F0b7df4c0-775d-11eb-bfe5-6922481676bd-standard.png?dpr=2&fit=scale-down&quality=medium&source=next&width=700

anplaya27

I got the az vaccination 1st dose Tuesday. Was initially grand then sick as anything. 2nd dose in 12 weeks.

[Deleted User]

Russman wrote: »

I agree with you but I think it is (or at least was) actually mentioned in the plan that if the vaccines are shown to reduce transmission, the 18-34 year olds in the second last group will be prioritised as they are more socially active.
Apparently someone in their forties has no friends and doesn't go into the office.

It's not saying that, its saying that on average they are socially less active than 18-34 year olds. Not even sure that's debateable.

Caquas

Deleted User wrote: »

They are not doing better on Rollout, rather procurement. We have rolled out virtually everything we have

What matters is the number of doses delivered. It is no cause for self-congratulation to say that the delay here is due to procurement.

When the blame-game starts (i.e. when the UK opens up and we are still in lockdown), those distributing the vaccines can point to those procuring the supplies but who will want to hear their excuses? We just want our jabs, and pronto.

PhoenixParker

Caquas wrote: »

What matters is the number of doses delivered. It is no cause for self-congratulation to say that the delay here is due to procurement.

When the blame-game starts (i.e. when the UK opens up and we are still in lockdown), those distributing the vaccines can point to those procuring the supplies but who will want to hear their excuses? We just want our jabs, and pronto.

Our projected end date for vaccinations is nearly the same as the UKs.
Right now the projection is 82% done with a first dose by the end of June, and that's without AZ delivering most of the doses they've said they'll deliver. If AZ do deliver those doses we're looking at 95% + coverage by the end of June.

We will open up very close to when the UK opens up.

Bubbaclaus

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Our projected end date for vaccinations is nearly the same as the UKs.
Right now the projection is 82% done with a first dose by the end of June, and that's without AZ delivering most of the doses they've said they'll deliver. If AZ do deliver those doses we're looking at 95% + coverage by the end of June.

We will open up very close to when the UK opens up.

No point explaining it to him. He will either not get it or decide to ignore it.

NIMAN

Water John wrote: »

Thought it was 1.3ml.

Was chatting to the doctor who gave me mine, each little bottle is only 2ml.
6 doses.

If they reduced it to 0.285ml they could get 7 doses from a vial. Wonder does the 0.015ml make the difference?

CrabRevolution

iguana wrote: »

I think there is maybe a group before this. People who are more likely to be exposed and spread the virus to the vulnerable. Say for example someone maintaining IT systems or utility services for the HSE. They are in and out of different hospitals and care facilities. Often several a day. They are more likely to be exposed than most people but unlike a retail worker, for example, if they are exposed they become an infection risk to many of our most vulnerable in multiple settings. They aren't frontline healthcare workers but they really should be prioritised in an early group.

As far as I'm aware most HSE maintenance/IT/engineering staff were included in Group 2 and were vaccinated from early January.

Edit: I'll add the caveat that this is based on the small few hospitals I work with. I'm sure other posters have experiences contradicting me.

Icantthinkof1

anplaya27 wrote: »

I got the az vaccination 1st dose Tuesday. Was initially grand then sick as anything. 2nd dose in 12 weeks.

The side effects seem to be lasting on average 36hours hope you’re feeling better now?
Did they say to you Tuesday that the 2nd dose is in 12 weeks?
I got the AZ vaccine 2 weeks ago and they told me my 2nd dose will be in 10 weeks time

[Deleted User]

NIMAN wrote: »

Was chatting to the doctor who gave me mine, each little bottle is only 2ml.
6 doses.

If they reduced it to 0.285ml they could get 7 doses from a vial. Wonder does the 0.015ml make the difference?

Vaccine is 0.45 and dilutent is 1.8, so there actually is 7 doses with no waste, think I read Denmark have been getting 7 per vial often enough

speckle

plodder wrote: »

Covid-19 Live Updates: Single Pfizer Dose Strongly Protects Those Who’ve Had the Virus, Studies Find

I seem to remember the AZ vaccine had a similar effect (or at least the antibody levels were hugely increased). Is it worth considering delaying the second shot for anyone who had the virus? Arguably, the first dose is a lot like the second one for anyone who wasn't infected.

Thanks... the main take aways for me are..
How come over half the hcws remained negative for over 4 months ( repeated testing and serology )... I hope someone is researching that also.

Great re the idea of serological testing before a single dose but are we going get that here with the HSE... my gp was sayng the HSE would not allow them order tests like that.

Question I think for Hmmzis... would a 140 fold increase in antibodies be dangerous for some people for example those with autoimmunity issues and any chance of ADE etc

Small study 51 people would like more safety data from a larger group..as possibly these were young and healthy people?

would help conserve a lot of doses if it works

but the question I would ask if you have already had covid and mounted an decent antibody response to the whole virus not just the spike protein part are you not in a better position to avoid/fight off it again and varients? Maybe one for hmmiz again?

Apogee

JTMan wrote: »

Ah, okay, 54 is the cap (it's 16+, rather than 18+ according to several reports). Whilst I realise we will get to a point where prioritisation will not be needed, 16-64 seems like way to big a group to be doing in 1 go. Also, the risk to those aged 40+ is significantly higher than those aged 16-39 so prioritisation of 40-54 makes sense to me, at least for a the first couple of weeks.

18-54 according to gov.ie

gov.ie wrote:

Aged 18-54 years who did not have access to the vaccine in prior phases

Rationale
If evidence demonstrates the vaccine(s) prevent transmission, those aged 18-34 should be prioritised due to their increased level of social contact and role in transmission.

Ethical Principles
The principle of minimising harm is relevant should it become clear that a vaccine can impact on transmission of the virus as this would indirectly protect the most vulnerable in society as well as restore social and economic activity.

ShineOn7

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Ireland is dispensing the vaccine better than most in Europe. They have less control over the supply, although Denmark managed to source a few extra shots in some murky process.

That's a great, eye opening graph

France look like they'll struggle to get back to normality as something like a third of all people polled there said they're not taking a vaccine

Russman

AdamD wrote: »

It's not saying that, its saying that on average they are socially less active than 18-34 year olds. Not even sure that's debateable.

It was tongue in cheek

ingo1984

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Ireland is dispensing the vaccine better than most in Europe. They have less control over the supply, although Denmark managed to source a few extra shots in some murky process.

There was nothing murky about Denmarks acquisition of extra supplies. Greece and Portugal stated that they had excess supply. Hungary, Denmark, and Germany said they would take the extra supply off their hands. Our government still with their heads up their arses.

Beasty

Threads merged

is_that_so

ingo1984 wrote: »

There was nothing murky about Denmarks acquisition of extra supplies. Greece and Portugal stated that they had excess supply. Hungary, Denmark, and Germany said they would take the extra supply off their hands. Our government still with their heads up their arses.

Extra supplies are one thing, getting them into people's arms quite another!

seansouth36

ShineOn7 wrote: »

That's a great, eye opening graph

France look like they'll struggle to get back to normality as something like a third of all people polled there said they're not taking a vaccine

France is going to have issues alright; massive distrust of government, they might have to get creative. I know someone in Israel was suggesting workers who didn't want the vaccine would have to pay for a daily COVID test - not sure if that could be enforced however.

funnydoggy

Am I right in saying it takes about three weeks for the first dose to kick in? What about the third? Does it differ for each vaccine?

titan18

ingo1984 wrote: »

There was nothing murky about Denmarks acquisition of extra supplies. Greece and Portugal stated that they had excess supply. Hungary, Denmark, and Germany said they would take the extra supply off their hands. Our government still with their heads up their arses.

Ya, out of all the blunders our government has made, that's one of the more unforgivable imo. Vaccines available to take, were paying far more in health and PUP costs and they don't buy them.

brickster69

titan18 wrote: »

Ya, out of all the blunders our government has made, that's one of the more unforgivable imo. Vaccines available to take, were paying far more in health and PUP costs and they don't buy them.

Scared to take a decision in case it does not work out well. Can always blame someone else if it goes wrong.

Klonker

Is there any chance the government could look to take some other EU countries AZ/Oxford vaccines if they are struggling to get people to take them?

It's great to see uptake so high here. I know we like to call our country backwards a lot (and rightly so sometimes) but everyone seems keen to get any vaccine they can get. I listen to some American podcasts and theres a lot of 'which vaccine did you get? Oh that's the good one, the others don't protect against the variants' Thankfully our non fussiness is working in our favour :pac: