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

astrofool

RavenBea17b wrote: »

Vacciworld Twitter quite informative in that collating data.
So figures from the Vacciworld tweet 2 days ago are as follows :
Pfizer, AZ and Blood Clots UK numbers
Pulmonary Embolism
PF- 15
AZ-13

Non Specific thrombosis
PF- 10
AZ- 3

DVT
PF - 8
AZ - 14

Thrombophlebitis
PF-4
AZ-1

*NO causality* established between blood clots and either vaccine.
(Vaccinations are 55% PF and 45% AZ)

Summary from Vacciworld, figures from Yellow card data.

The data are from the MHRA's weekly summary of the Yellow Card reporting - Annex1 Vaccine Analysis Print

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting#yellow-card-reports

The data is weak, but not non-existent, the reason it's become an issue is because of the clusters of cases, which have a low probability of occurring naturally. The overall numbers are not what's been investigated (as they already know they are in line with normal levels in society).

astrofool

stefanovich wrote: »

Don't conflate low risk with no risk. Not the same.

My question still stands and is a valid one.

There is no known severe side effects for the individual (up to and including death) of the currently approved vaccines.

[Deleted User]

When do they plan to have all the over 70s vaccinated? I know it is not set in stone but I was on to my own gp and they were only doing 80 -84 at the weekend. Seems so slow.

stefanovich

astrofool wrote: »

ACitizenErased, posters like this is the reason why severe side effects are unacceptable (unless specifically called out in the documentation, as clearly some medicines, such as chemotherapy do cause issues in cases where the patient is already ill anyway, vaccines are intended for the healthy public), and it's why I brought it back up this morning, as the difference in approval is subtle, but it is there. Medicines such as vacines get approved for everyone, if used according to the guidelines, there will be no risk of severe side effects.

You are understanding what this means wrongly.

Don't conflate low risk with no risk. Not the same.

My question still stands and is a valid one.

RavenBea17b

Vacciworld Twitter quite informative in that collating data.
So figures from the Vacciworld tweet 2 days ago are as follows :
Pfizer, AZ and Blood Clots UK numbers
Pulmonary Embolism
PF- 15
AZ-13

Non Specific thrombosis
PF- 10
AZ- 3

DVT
PF - 8
AZ - 14

Thrombophlebitis
PF-4
AZ-1

*NO causality* established between blood clots and either vaccine.
(Vaccinations are 55% PF and 45% AZ)

Summary from Vacciworld, figures from Yellow card data.

The data are from the MHRA's weekly summary of the Yellow Card reporting - Annex1 Vaccine Analysis Print

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting#yellow-card-reports

ACitizenErased

astrofool wrote: »

ACitizenErased, posters like this is the reason why severe side effects are unacceptable (unless specifically called out in the documentation, as clearly some medicines, such as chemotherapy do cause issues in cases where the patient is already ill anyway, vaccines are intended for the healthy public), and it's why I brought it back up this morning, as the difference in approval is subtle, but it is there. Medicines such as vacines get approved for everyone, if used according to the guidelines, there will be no risk of severe side effects.

You are understanding what this means wrongly.

Okay, just ignore the EMA saying we can keep using it, whatever floats your boat.

stephenjmcd

average_runner wrote: »

Yeah, i know people who have gotten it.
Severe headaches, temps and a hangover feeling for 2 days!!!

But you said the side affects of AZ were worse than the others which isn't the case. You can get those with any of the vaccines, Pfizer, Moderna or AZ.

People have had those symptoms with them all & some have had no side effects. Everyone's different but the possible effects are the same. Most common being fatigue, temp and chills, sore arm etc

astrofool

stefanovich wrote: »

Is the risk collective or individual? In other words, could an individual be put at greater individual risk if the collective effect was positive?

ACitizenErased, posters like this is the reason why severe side effects are unacceptable (unless specifically called out in the documentation, as clearly some medicines, such as chemotherapy do cause issues in cases where the patient is already ill anyway, vaccines are intended for the healthy public), and it's why I brought it back up this morning, as the difference in approval is subtle, but it is there. Medicines such as vacines get approved for everyone, if used according to the guidelines, there will be no risk of severe side effects.

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Which is exactly what I posted above. The EMA recommended "that the vaccine’s benefits continue to outweigh its risks and the vaccine can continue to be administered while investigation of cases of thromboembolic events is ongoing"
That is literally their AZ statement.

You are understanding what this means wrongly.

crossman47

Leinster90 wrote: »

I hate this phrase “an abundance of caution”. We need to take some more risks at this stage regarding vaccines and re-opening. Keep distributing the AZ vaccine to those who want it. Nobody is being forced to take it. It has already been given to millions of people.

Why do we always have to take the most conservative, low-risk approach as if there are no negative knock-on effects?

Fear of litigation? You know what this country is like.

stefanovich

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Yes there is.

Look at the EMA update just the other day:

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-prac-investigating-cases-thromboembolic-events-vaccines-benefits

And the actual definition of a CMA from the EMA approval press release..

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-recommends-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-authorisation-eu

Is the risk collective or individual? In other words, could an individual be put at greater individual risk if the collective effect was positive?

ACitizenErased

astrofool wrote: »

I would bold the end part as well:

This is saying that that the approval will be given based on the risk that the dataset might be incomplete, not that there is a risk with the medicine based on the data being submitted.

It's a subtle difference, but it is a difference.

This also means that when data comes in, that data can effect the approval, sometimes with updated guidelines and side effects.

As of right now there is no known severe side effects to the vaccine, the data causing the latest pause is weak, and some authorities are pausing and some are not as it's highly probable that it's not an issue.

This is not a case of "COVID causes 1% death, but the vaccine only causes 0.00001% death so take it", it's currently 0% death with the vaccine if administered according to the guidelines.

Which is exactly what I posted above. The EMA recommended "that the vaccine’s benefits continue to outweigh its risks and the vaccine can continue to be administered while investigation of cases of thromboembolic events is ongoing"
That is literally their AZ statement.

astrofool

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Yes there is.

I would bold the end part as well:

This happens if the benefit of a medicine or vaccine’s immediate availability to patients outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that not all the data are yet available.

This is saying that that the approval will be given based on the risk that the dataset might be incomplete, not that there is a risk with the medicine based on the data being submitted.

It's a subtle difference, but it is a difference.

This also means that when data comes in, that data can effect the approval, sometimes with updated guidelines and side effects.

As of right now there is no known severe side effects to the vaccine, the data causing the latest pause is weak, and some authorities are pausing and some are not as it's highly probable that it's not an issue.

This is not a case of "COVID causes 1% death, but the vaccine only causes 0.00001% death so take it", it's currently 0% death with the vaccine if administered according to the guidelines.

average_runner

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Any proof of that ?

Anecdotally I know people who've had AstraZeneca & others who've had Pfizer. Both sets reported pretty much the same experience 24hrs post vaccination, a bit of fatigue, aches and pains but not a bother on them the next day.

All your advised possible side effects in both. It was compared to a hangover.

Yeah, i know people who have gotten it.
Severe headaches, temps and a hangover feeling for 2 days!!!

NeuralNetwork

Hector Savage wrote: »

So do people think by end of 2021 EU will be in a good position vaccine wise ?
I'm genuinely curious, have not been back to the old sod since December 2019 and don't know if it will ever be possible - seriously.

I’d say more likely by the end of the summer.

I think you’ll see the US and UK compete by early summer and EU likely by a he end of the summer / early autumn.

There are very big volume boosts due for BioNTech and Janssen / J&J comes on steam very soon also Moderna volumes are increasing.

AstraZeneca is only at most 20% of supply.

I think though there’s an element of demand dumping going on. The EU has been supplying numerous countries, including US’ neighbours Canada & Mexico and a raft of other countries including the U.K., Israel etc etc all through this. So the burden of supply has been very much carried by EU plants as opposed to US ones that have been entirely focused domestically.

For all anger over the EU export regulations, the EU has been the region that’s been keeping supplies flowing to many countries, and arguably at its own expense, as it could have just closed off exports of vaccines until EU demand was met, which is exactly what the USA did, but it would mean places like Canada waiting until 2022 to begin serious programmes.

There’s been a very unfair burden sharing between the US and EU on this and they are both huge global suppliers of vaccines and pharmaceuticals generally.

Hector Savage

IRISHSPORTSGUY wrote: »

Because more vaccines will be available and the vaccines currently available will be scaling up production.

This time next month the J&J deliveries will be starting and the yield from Pfizer's new factory in Germany will be coming through.

So do people think by end of 2021 EU will be in a good position vaccine wise ?
I'm genuinely curious, have not been back to the old sod since December 2019 and don't know if it will ever be possible - seriously.

ACitizenErased

astrofool wrote: »

Sorry to go back to an old post, but this stuck with me, vaccines are approved for use based on their own safety data, the risk of catching the disease that the vaccine prevents are not part of the approval. There is no "balance of risks" to the approval.

This is why we can trust the health authorities when medicines are approved, and it's also why when we see something severe that doesn't match previous data that it must be investigated. It's also why people with a much less chance of catching the disease and having complications can trust taking the vaccine.

Yes there is.

Look at the EMA update just the other day:

The position of EMA’s safety committee PRAC is that the vaccine’s benefits continue to outweigh its risks and the vaccine can continue to be administered while investigation of cases of thromboembolic events is ongoing

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-prac-investigating-cases-thromboembolic-events-vaccines-benefits

And the actual definition of a CMA from the EMA approval press release..

CMAs allow for the authorisation of medicines that fulfil an unmet medical need on the basis of less complete data than normally required. This happens if the benefit of a medicine or vaccine’s immediate availability to patients outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that not all the data are yet available.

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-recommends-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-authorisation-eu

[Deleted User]

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Not proof, anecdotal, but my sister in law was quite ill after her AZ jab (dose 1) the other day. Vommiting, hot an cold flashes, migrane. She was much better the following day though.

No thrombosis or PE then?

NeuralNetwork

It’s clearly not an excuse but I think we also have to look at Ireland in terms of how we operate around medical negligence claims too.

What would you think might happen here if a group of regulators who would be deemed to be very competent all pause and the Irish regulator didn’t & then something turned out to actually be problematic?

There would inevitably be legal and political fallout.

They’re not in a position where they can say “sure it’s probably grand!”

Multiple countries have paused based on the flags raised, so I think we have no option but to take it seriously.

That’s good in many ways as it keeps our systems airing on the side of safety all the time, but it’s also always going to mean we will never throw caution to the wind for the sake of speed either.

astrofool

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Doctor was out last week to change catheter and said housebounds were getting the AZ vaccine.

That's good to hear, means advice change about over 70's has been followed (of course doesn't help them much this week, but it'll catch up).

astrofool

Fitz* wrote: »

Call me a cynic but I suspect that those in charge of the vaccine roll out in Ireland wanted a reason to suspend the rollout.

They are under severe pressure because of the speed of their roll out, so any sort of a chance they can get to pause will be welcomed. This gives an opportunity to take a break, recheck their internal stock levels of needles etc, keep up to date on the admin side, maybe get more doses in and then continue the vaccine roll out again. Again, the reason of the slow roll-out can be blamed on external factors, which suit their narrative.

Targets won't be met again this week or next week but the excuse given this time will be the suspension. I wonder what the next excuse will be?

Everything arriving is going straight into arms, the system is purely supply constrained, the vaccination roll out data also confirms this is the case. This has been explained to people over and over.

AZ was also being administered in hospitals which is the easier location to roll out from, vs. Pfizer which is being kept in a cold supply chain to GP's for administering.

If this was an excuse for a pause, it's the most stupid possible way to do it, and anyone believing such a thing is probably not that bright either.

Apogee

Friday: 17312 administered. Over 600K total doses. Mon-Fri: 76,462. Cohort 4: 3295

zuutroy

Hector Savage wrote: »

So the EU are still saying it's on track to have the vast majority vaccinated and pandemic under control by end of 2021, what are they basing this on ?

It's on a snails pace and at this rate will take 2+ years to vaccinate the majority ..

Actually at this rate it would take 5 years, but this rate doesn't matter.

IRISHSPORTSGUY

Hector Savage wrote: »

So the EU are still saying it's on track to have the vast majority vaccinated and pandemic under control by end of 2021, what are they basing this on ?

It's on a snails pace and at this rate will take 2+ years to vaccinate the majority ..

Because more vaccines will be available and the vaccines currently available will be scaling up production.

This time next month the J&J deliveries will be starting and the yield from Pfizer's new factory in Germany will be coming through.

[Deleted User]

stephenjmcd wrote: »

If he's housebound then NAS will be visiting to administer the vaccine. It'll take time for them to get to everyone.

Doctor was out last week to change catheter and said housebounds were getting the AZ vaccine.

Hector Savage

So the EU are still saying it's on track to have the vast majority vaccinated and pandemic under control by end of 2021, what are they basing this on ?

It's on a snails pace and at this rate will take 2+ years to vaccinate the majority ..

iamwhoiam

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I think I’m going to ring the doctors and get my housebound 82 yr old father onto the next round of Pfizer. I’ll get a private disabled taxi/ambulance to bring him.

My only concern is he has a tracheotomy so a face mask doesn’t cover that. I don’t know if it should be covered at all tbh.

You could put the filter on the trachy , when in the surgery put a surgical mask over the trachy leaving the bottom ties loose .Scroll down to see the photo

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7394613/

stephenjmcd

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I think I’m going to ring the doctors and get my housebound 82 yr old father onto the next round of Pfizer. I’ll get a private disabled taxi/ambulance to bring him.

My only concern is he has a tracheotomy so a face mask doesn’t cover that. I don’t know if it should be covered at all tbh.

If he's housebound then NAS will be visiting to administer the vaccine. It'll take time for them to get to everyone.

[Deleted User]

I think I’m going to ring the doctors and get my housebound 82 yr old father onto the next round of Pfizer. I’ll get a private disabled taxi/ambulance to bring him.

My only concern is he has a tracheotomy so a face mask doesn’t cover that. I don’t know if it should be covered at all tbh.

Renault 5

Fitz* wrote: »

Call me a cynic but I suspect that those in charge of the vaccine roll out in Ireland wanted a reason to suspend the rollout.

They are under severe pressure because of the speed of their roll out, so any sort of a chance they can get to pause will be welcomed. This gives an opportunity to take a break, recheck their internal stock levels of needles etc, keep up to date on the admin side, maybe get more doses in and then continue the vaccine roll out again. Again, the reason of the slow roll-out can be blamed on external factors, which suit their narrative.

Targets won't be met again this week or next week but the excuse given this time will be the suspension. I wonder what the next excuse will be?

I think the same. But thats just my opinion man:cool:

Fitz*

Call me a cynic but I suspect that those in charge of the vaccine roll out in Ireland wanted a reason to suspend the rollout.

They are under severe pressure because of the speed of their roll out, so any sort of a chance they can get to pause will be welcomed. This gives an opportunity to take a break, recheck their internal stock levels of needles etc, keep up to date on the admin side, maybe get more doses in and then continue the vaccine roll out again. Again, the reason of the slow roll-out can be blamed on external factors, which suit their narrative.

Targets won't be met again this week or next week but the excuse given this time will be the suspension. I wonder what the next excuse will be?