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

NeuralNetwork

The Americans are practically at the McDonald's drive thru speed of delivery at this stage. We need to be looking at solutions like that when the doses are available.

“Big Mac, Diet Coke, large fries and a side of Moderna” - “roll up your sleeve at the first window!”

It’s all become very fast and casual.

A friend of mine had his at the local supermarket car park outdoors. He literally rolled it into a trip to do the shopping.

I did the same myself here with Boots for a flu jab over the years. Drop in. Jab. Cup of coffee & do the Xmas shopping.

celt262

is_that_so wrote: »

IMO it'll be surprising to see it up and running by the end of May at the current rates.

Its there already and has been used by the HSE as a poster here kindly informed me earlier today.

is_that_so

PhoenixParker wrote: »

The reality is 80% of the adult population will be done in the next 12 weeks, at a rate of over 250k most weeks. Segmenting off 100k teachers here and 50k adults in overcrowded places there makes little sense considering the hassle involved.

By the time you'd work out a plan to visit every school twice and who precisely in each school qualifies and then adjudicate all of the edge cases. . . you'd be 6 weeks getting them all done anyway. (Look at the nursing homes which was fairly tightly planned).

MCVs and GPS, whack it out by age and blast through it.

It's an imagined reality for now. I'd love to see as much as anyone but we need to temper our expectations of deliveries.

celt262

PhoenixParker wrote: »

The reality is 80% of the adult population will be done in the next 12 weeks, at a rate of over 250k most weeks. Segmenting off 100k teachers here and 50k adults in overcrowded places there makes little sense considering the hassle involved.

By the time you'd work out a plan to visit every school twice and who precisely in each school qualifies and then adjudicate all of the edge cases. . . you'd be 6 weeks getting them all done anyway. (Look at the nursing homes which was fairly tightly planned).

MCVs and GPS, whack it out by age and blast through it.

You wont find it till secondary schools and colleges are closed anyway.

is_that_so

hmmm wrote: »

A beneficial side-effect is that it may also generate a bit of a mania for getting the vaccination. You'll feel you are missing out when your friends are all repeatedly refreshing the vaccination website at 9am as if it was the queue for PS5s.

IMO it'll be surprising to see it up and running by the end of May at the current rates.

NeuralNetwork

hmmm wrote: »

A beneficial side-effect is that it may also generate a bit of a mania for getting the vaccination. You'll feel you are missing out when your friends are all repeatedly refreshing the vaccination website at 9am as if it was the queue for PS5s.

I think that’s been the story in France btw. A lot of the anger about lack of jabs has shifted public opinion a lot. It’s gone from absolute paranoia to “incompetent government! How dare they! Where’s my vaccine?!!!”

PhoenixParker

The reality is 80% of the adult population will be done in the next 12 weeks, at a rate of over 250k most weeks. Segmenting off 100k teachers here and 50k adults in overcrowded places there makes little sense considering the hassle involved.

By the time you'd work out a plan to visit every school twice and who precisely in each school qualifies and then adjudicate all of the edge cases. . . you'd be 6 weeks getting them all done anyway. (Look at the nursing homes which was fairly tightly planned).

MCVs and GPS, whack it out by age and blast through it.

hmmm

NeuralNetwork wrote: »

Hopefully we should be at the level where we don’t have to keep rationing jabs and can move to open access soon though.

A beneficial side-effect is that it may also generate a bit of a mania for getting the vaccination. You'll feel you are missing out when your friends are all repeatedly refreshing the vaccination website at 9am as if it was the queue for PS5s.

NeuralNetwork

celt262 wrote: »

Just do it by age and be done with it.

Everyone has a reason to get it before someone else so age is fairest.

There’s a few beyond that I would prioritise, particularly anyone in front line / high risk occupations that isn’t covered as medical staff.

Hopefully we should be at the level where we don’t have to keep rationing jabs and can move to open access soon though.

It would make sense to just fly though the lists fast, lie what is now happening in the USA.

It’s worrying to see the ludicrous recruitment hurdles being mentioned for vaccinators like asking a doctor for her Junior Cert results.

The mass vax centres are also physically open, visible and highly supervised so I think some of the extreme screening and vetting is probably a bit over the top, even if it’s appropriate in other contexts.

lbj666

Cork2021 wrote: »

I really really can’t stand these ****èrs!!!

https://twitter.com/isagcovid19/status/1376660674210844675?s=21

And then their leader Killeen

https://twitter.com/killeen_gerry/status/1376819550696710144?s=21

Hospitalisation rate in young and health is very low but not neglible. Small %tage by very big number = big number.

Their focus on mortality is scare mongering though.

Stark

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I think the 18-34s should go before the 35-54's. As somebody in the 35-54 cohort, the restrictions have limited impact on me. But I look at the younger age groups, it must be so hard on a 20 year old student who should be away from home, having the craic, to be stuck at home with their parents.

These are life's experiences that they are missing out on - I will gladly give my vaccine to somebody in this age group and wait a bit longer.

Plus, the 18-34 age group are probably responsible for the bulk of the cases - not blaming, I can see why they are bored of things.

I agree. Personally I think there should have been some modelling done to say "well we can reduce case fatality rate by giving to vulnerable first, but we can reduce overall cases/transmission by giving to people with high numbers of social contacts first" and have a spread of vaccines across the age cohorts that way. Of course such a move would be politically impossible.

[Deleted User]

Micky 32 wrote: »

From Rte:

“”The Cabinet will consider a proposal that from 12 April, people who are fully vaccinated against Covid-19 can meet other fully vaccinated people indoors.“”

That's a no brainer, would be welcome relief for many older people being able to have a friend over for a visit, and the risk would be very low.

celt262

NeuralNetwork wrote: »

You’re not going to get a perfect running order.

You could argue that the over 30s are more likely to be exposed to spread from schools for example due to being more likely to have school going kids.

I would prioritise university students / anyone at 3rd level, people in multi occupancy households with people beyond their own family & people caring for or living with elderly people and of course people who work in areas that have been high risk like meat factories.

It would make sense to prioritise front line workers in retail and public transport too.

Just do it by age and be done with it.

Everyone has a reason to get it before someone else so age is fairest.

[Deleted User]

Stumbled across this, interesting enough, Bhutan are trying to give their entire adult population a dose in a week.

https://kuenselonline.com/nearly-40-percent-of-eligible-population-vaccinated-in-two-days/

PhilOssophy

Stark wrote: »

In the original list it was floated that 18-34s might go before 35-54s, not sure is that still being considered. At the time they were waiting to see if the vaccines were effective in stopping transmission, which it seems now that they are.

I think the 18-34s should go before the 35-54's. As somebody in the 35-54 cohort, the restrictions have limited impact on me. But I look at the younger age groups, it must be so hard on a 20 year old student who should be away from home, having the craic, to be stuck at home with their parents.

These are life's experiences that they are missing out on - I will gladly give my vaccine to somebody in this age group and wait a bit longer.

Plus, the 18-34 age group are probably responsible for the bulk of the cases - not blaming, I can see why they are bored of things.

is_that_so

NeuralNetwork wrote: »

You’re not going to get a perfect running order.

You could argue that the over 30s are more likely to be exposed to spread from schools for example.

I would prioritise university students, people in multi occupancy households with people beyond their own family & people caring for or living with elderly people.

Karina Butler mentioned this at the beginning and it hasn't been ruled out yet as a possible approach.

NeuralNetwork

You’re not going to get a perfect running order.

You could argue that the over 30s are more likely to be exposed to spread from schools for example due to being more likely to have school going kids.

I would prioritise university students / anyone at 3rd level, people in multi occupancy households with people beyond their own family & people caring for or living with elderly people and of course people who work in areas that have been high risk like meat factories.

Teachers obviously.

It would make sense to prioritise front line workers in retail and public transport too.

is_that_so

PhilOssophy wrote: »

But that's why you do models for a number of scenario's, i.e. if we get X we need to do this, if we get Y we need to this, and so on.

In your scenario, we run the risk of x shots arriving and we are going to do y (i.e. capacity) vaccinations, rather than x/2 shots.

I bet the HSE will ultimately make a balls of it - we'll have vaccine sitting around while we scramble to work out the logistics of a new test centre, get vaccinators, etc and deal with a capacity which is way below supply.

In reality, we should always be looking at the number of remaining people there is for vaccine in any 1 week, i.e. if there's 3m people left to vaccinate, and we get 6m vaccines, how quickly can we get them all vaccinated?

I don't think they will. IMO they do have a plan, models etc but it's utterly contingent on the likes of AZ not ringing up on a Sunday to say they are not delivering this week. As has been said more than once they really don't trust AZ promises now and at 20% of our plans that could throw models sideways very fast.

Micky 32

From Rte:

“”The Cabinet will consider a proposal that from 12 April, people who are fully vaccinated against Covid-19 can meet other fully vaccinated people indoors.“”

KrustyUCC

Stark wrote: »

In the original list it was floated that 18-34s might go before 35-54s, not sure is that still being considered. At the time they were waiting to see if the vaccines were effective in stopping transmission, which it seems now that they are.

I'll be bottom of the list so instead of cohort 10 currently

Long way to fall

Same for my fiancee

MerlinSouthDub

hmmm wrote: »

Makes complete sense. Otherwise we'll have to build this large admin structure consisting of people whose sole job is to try and figure out who should be in which cohort. It also stops various lobby groups walking all over each other trying to be first in line.

In the ideal world yes we'd have worked out risk to some granular level, but we have to be realistic and practical also.

I'm also wondering if they are feeling pretty confident about supplies? I think if supplies were low you'd maybe stick to the structured cohort approach, but with lots of supplies, you'd go with the simplest approach to make things move at the fastest possible pace?

Stark

KrustyUCC wrote: »

That means the most socially active cohorts 18-40 will be the last to vaccinated

In the original list it was floated that 18-34s might go before 35-54s, not sure is that still being considered. At the time they were waiting to see if the vaccines were effective in stopping transmission, which it seems now that they are.

NeuralNetwork

hmmm wrote: »

Makes complete sense. Otherwise we'll have to build this large admin structure consisting of people whose sole job is to try and figure out who should be in which cohort. It also stops various lobby groups walking all over each other trying to be first in line.

In the ideal world yes we'd have worked out risk to some granular level, but we have to be realistic and practical also.

Even with digital records, they’re not organised to be searched like that. Their main purpose is to maintain patient records for treatment purposes. So it’s a hell of a task to go though the entire population.

You can identify the very vulnerable groups quickly enough in a GP’s database but your average patient who they might see once a year or so isn’t going to show up. People were suggesting using data like BMI and all sorts of subtle stuff which might not even be on any record.

PhilOssophy

is_that_so wrote: »

Models are useless when you're dealing with shoddy suppliers like AZ. Other countries are already finding their own confident predictions need to be revised. I'd much prefer to hear x shots have arrived and we are going to do y vaccinations this week.

But that's why you do models for a number of scenario's, i.e. if we get X we need to do this, if we get Y we need to this, and so on.

In your scenario, we run the risk of x shots arriving and we are going to do y (i.e. capacity) vaccinations, rather than x/2 shots.

I bet the HSE will ultimately make a balls of it - we'll have vaccine sitting around while we scramble to work out the logistics of a new test centre, get vaccinators, etc and deal with a capacity which is way below supply.

In reality, we should always be looking at the number of remaining people there is for vaccine in any 1 week, i.e. if there's 3m people left to vaccinate, and we get 6m vaccines, how quickly can we get them all vaccinated?

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

If the miracle happens we need a step up with the pharmacies. There's no deal with the pharmacies foe their involvement in vaccination yet.

I'm confident one can be put in place promptly.

So far one hasn't been discussed as the detail of what's needed is not available but background discussions have happened.

I agree Ciaran - but this is the sort of thing which should be ready to pull the trigger on. Otherwise it'll be a chaotic rush to get the logistics / deals / etc worked out when the vaccines are en route.

CIARAN_BOYLE

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Surely they have modelled it though, e.g. if we get X vaccines, we'll need this many beds to get a throughput of this many people per week. It doesn't seem too difficult to me.
I can't help think at some stage we'll end up with a load of vaccines and the HSE not ready because they don't know how many MVC's/beds/vaccinators/etc we need.

If the miracle happens we need a step up with the pharmacies. There's no deal with the pharmacies foe their involvement in vaccination yet.

I'm confident one can be put in place promptly.

So far one hasn't been discussed as the detail of what's needed is not available but background discussions have happened.

KrustyUCC

That means the most socially active cohorts 18-40 will be the last to vaccinated

hmmm

NeuralNetwork wrote: »

That’s because they can’t identify the cohorts. We are already having the same problem. It’s a huge administrative task to identify exactly who is in which order with fine detail of health records.

Makes complete sense. Otherwise we'll have to build this large admin structure consisting of people whose sole job is to try and figure out who should be in which cohort. It also stops various lobby groups walking all over each other trying to be first in line.

In the ideal world yes we'd have worked out risk to some granular level, but we have to be realistic and practical also.

Stark

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Significant change being made it looks like

https://twitter.com/Philip_Ryan/status/1376889911849193476?s=20

Interesting. Does mean in my parents case, they'll probably get vaccines close to each other which will make a lot of sense. Previously my father was in cohort 6 and my mother in cohort 12 despite only 2 years age difference.

NeuralNetwork

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Significant change being made it looks like

https://twitter.com/Philip_Ryan/status/1376889911849193476?s=20

That’s because they can’t identify the cohorts. We are already having the same problem. It’s a huge administrative task to identify exactly who is in which order with fine detail of health records.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

Does that mean no priority for teachers, people in overcrowded accom, certain key workers?

Teachers are going to be fuming.

The overcrowded accomodation angle always seemed a bit weird, more hassle than its worth I would have thought. Also in the timelines we're looking at, with potentially 250k a week, you'd question if its worth having so many different groups if many of them are only going to be a couple of weeks apart.