political analyst wrote: » How can any CF sufferer not be regarded as a severe case?
Pete_Cavan wrote: » But does that include what Sanofi will produce or will their production be in addition to that figure?
stephenjmcd wrote: » Full European commission press release herehttps://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/1369591200093732864?s=19 Pfizer is now able to deliver additional doses as a result of the January/February manufacturing expansion which has resulted in 4 million more doses becoming available within 2 weeks. Member states can purchase pro rata. Bodes well that Pfizer can deliver on their projections and the commissioning on new facilties along with the recent upgrades have quite clearly gone well and to plan hence the additional output now available.
Sanjuro wrote: » Why would the government have one target for the public, and one internal target that's significantly lower? Even if it's a PR thing, shouldn't you always under promise and over achieve rather than the other way round?
Pete_Cavan wrote: » I think people are taking the internal target thing too literally. The article linked above doesn't actually give the quote from Donnelly so we don't have the overall context in which he said it. I think it's a case of the target getting adjusted in line with delivery estimates from the suppliers, rather than having two separate parallel targets.
is_that_so wrote: » Well, I've heard about a few times but they can't communicate anything more than big pictures until they see supplies. I would say the list is based on how the group is categorized.https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/39038-provisional-vaccine-allocation-groups/#aged-16-69-and-at-very-high-risk-of-severe-covid-19-disease
Dressoutlet wrote: » That list is in alphabetical order only.
titan18 wrote: » Interesting that it's state can purchase pro rate. If a country doesn't take that up, hopefully we'll be in for that this time.
is_that_so wrote: » It still looks like a largely logical order. Henry also mentioned cancer patients and that ties in with hospitals being involved.
Dressoutlet wrote: » My GP said it was people with Intellectual Disabilities in care homes being done this week, which is way down on the Alphabetical list. Also aware that's my GP and not necessarily true.
Probes wrote: » It’s in this article, Donnelly saying we’d miss the 1.7m but we are only just missing the internal target of 1.2m.https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40241066.html?utm_campaign=40241228&utm_medium=readmore&utm_source=irishexaminer Also, great photo on the article
lucernarian wrote: » As I said earlier: With 1100 sufferers of CF in Ireland, I think it's nuts that that any of those would not be in cohort 4. I don't know why, it's something the NIAC and HSE would have to explain. And some people here are allergic to any criticism of them.
is_that_so wrote: » Care homes do make sense for more rapid progress. I've also heard of someone with cancer who has got a date! TBH if we get the supplies they can be done as a group inside of three weeks. That timeline has been mentioned as a target.
BringBackMick wrote: » If it wasn't for Pfizer we really would be goosed! There would be no chance of a summer! Hopefully we can still get the 60+ and HCW, vulnerable done by June. That'll be 95% of the problem fixed.
lucernarian wrote: » I would be amazed if any country doesn't take up their extra allocation.
Sconsey wrote: » They appear to be splitting CF into two cohorts based an severity...people with stable CF are in group 5, people with more severe CF are group 4. I have no idea clinically of the difference and how the risk level changes, but given the relatively low number of CF patientes overall you would think it would be easier to have them all in group 4.
Amirani wrote: » But you could say this for lots of conditions, and relatively low numbers in each of them might start to add up to to high numbers. Like you, I don't understand the clinical differences between "severe" risk and "high" risk, but their approach is based on this severity difference alright. It does make sense to do the severe risk groupings ahead of the high risk groupings anyway if it is logistically straightforward enough. I think certain groups calling for "equality" in rollout to all sufferers of a condition are being a little unreasonable, when the likely outcomes of catching Covid aren't equal between them.
Deleted User wrote: » At this point their conservatism indicates either incompetence or malice. The death toll for under 65s is below 200 in a year. Once the 65+ are done we'll be down to single digit deaths weekly and getting properly into the summer when the seasonality with also represses it. Over 65s and vulnerable should be done by the end of April (if they ever get the vaccines they're meant to) so just open up. Not this nonsense of 3 weeks at each level, the danger will be gone so ****ing get on with it.
political analyst wrote: » For what it's worth, Tracey O'Mahony has launched a legal challenge.https://gript.ie/barrister-tracey-omahony-launches-lockdown-challenge/
Deleted User wrote: » Beautiful charts showing what the vaccine is doing for us in healthcare environments
SusanC10 wrote: » I think communication has been lacking. My sister is Group 4. She hasn't been in a hospital since she was a child although she does also have other conditions which are controlled medically. GP says that they have no info. They are only finishing 85+ this week and moving to 80-84 then. Hopefully they will get to my elderly Mum (80+) soon at least as she is my sister's Carer.
Deathofcool wrote: » 1.1 million confirmed by Leo by end of q1.https://twitter.com/RTENewsAtOne/status/1369639343279792138?s=19
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5117ec177439400b1e5944f4d30acdda.svg)
