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

Deleted User wrote: »

It was ages ago at this point that the first panic started and it was mostly women. They've released feck all data but if it's a female problem or correlated with women taking the contraceptive pill then they can (should) just switch it so women (on the pill) don't take AZ. But that would be easy.


Also at this stage when things are meant to actually start swinging up maybe they should just focus on that. Daily vaccine numbers should be almost irrelevant once supply is sorted and they're being distributed and used quickly. Then again after the hammering due to **** supply for the first 3 months of the year they're probably dying to get a PR win of several record daily numbers per week for the next while, sure what's a few million quid for that?

It's clear they have no idea what the issue is.


https://www.breakingnews.ie/covid-vaccine/sister-of-man-who-died-of-blood-clot-after-vaccine-urges-others-to-have-the-jab-1108126.html


As we see more of the above it is going to become a bit messy, I can hear it already from friends and family and so on.

Can we stop saying "its not comparable to the pill"? The EMA literally compared them at the briefing yesterday. Rewatch it if you don't believe it.

Flying Fox wrote: »

It's not comparable to the pill, it's an entirely different type of clotting disorder which is harder to treat and has a much higher mortality rate.

On a population level, and for many individuals, the benefit of AZ outweighs the risk. But for healthy young people with a very low risk of serious harm from covid, it's not so clear cut. That's precisely why so many countries are applying an age cut off.

In Norway there were 6 cases out of 120,000 people, so 1 in 20,000. Of those, 4 died.

Germany had 39 cases out of 2.7m. That's 1 in 69,000.

Based on the QCovid risk calculator, someone in their mid-30s with no underlying conditions has about a 1 in 150,000 risk of dying from covid. So the benefit of AZ does not outweigh the risk for this age group.

Of course it's still beneficial to get vaccinated, but with a vaccine with a better safety profile that tips the risk/benefit balance into positive territory.

The bit in bold is the important bit. risk from the vaccine is higher than the risk from the covid for certain people..

I am a female in my mid 30's, With no underlying conditions, and don't know what to do when the vaccine is offered (And as i am in the North, and we are now doing the 40-44 age group, so i'm the next cohort)..
They have stopped giving AZ to under 30's now, but still being given to over 30's..
We don't know which vaccine we get until the day we turn up at the vaccination centre either, and from what i have read if you turn it down, you aren't eligible to be offered another one..

I am definitely not in any panic to get vaccinated given the issues and the low risk COVID poses to me

astrofool wrote: »

Good post, and sorry to cut it, but it precisely highlights the issues that we just don't have the processes in place to handle ambiguous cohorts, you can be at the mercy of a digitised GP or non-digitised GP, where some will put in the extra hours by hand and some won't, there's lots of ways to gather the numbers, but all are time intensive leading to delays in the rollout, treating them as a parallel group after the initial 150,000 (maybe subject to cancellations) would probably have allowed the more elderly cohorts to keep moving ahead, again, the disarray in systems would have led to lots of hard luck cases "My GP knows nothing, hospital won't tell me what to do.", it's also led to a creep in what qualifies, people who aren't really at risk now identify as someone who is at risk pushing the numbers up, and there's nothing a politician hates more than having to say no to a sick person.

In reality, if there had been a quarter of planning done beforehand rather than a snap decision, then they'd probably be done by now, as people have said, hindsight is 20/20.

Ambigous cohorts no but yes harder to coalate..

lists for potential treatments/vaccine should have been started months earlier as science pointed to the high risk people for serious covid under 70 and then added or subtracted from...hindsight is great but even ordinary people on boards were pointing to this months ago aswell as some GPs/specialists who started theirs early but we do have to remember some were dealing with other things like high risk patients from their departments with covid in a and e and ICU.. thing we are back to a creaking health service issue

We did do the nursing homes snd most of the over 70s first... so are you talking about the 60 to 70s? Not sure what your saying re 150,000 sentence?

Completely pararell would have worked only if you have enough vaccines of the right type..at the right time...trained staff etc...I think/hope once we get over the next 2 weeks and the high riskers under 70 really get going things will pick up speed...they need too for both high riskers, hospitals/staff and others whose lives have been on hold for over a year to protect them.

And their are better informed postets here posting re tracking the numbers than myself!

Will the J&J be used for any particular group given it’s just one shot? Like for some at risk group so they are finished quicker.

So reading between the lines it will be May before we see 250k vaccinated in a week

https://twitter.com/FergalBowers/status/1380171540784943110?s=19

ACitizenErased wrote: »

The EMA say that yes, watch the briefing. Journalist asked if there's other medication that could be used as an example for the same types of clots, Dr. Arlett said oral contraception.

There's no way it's 1 in 10,000 chance of CVT/CVST in the pill. Could be a 1 in a billion chance and when a journalist asked, it would be a correct statement for the EMA to make, but without actually comparing the rates for like for like clotting issues (identical clots) would be more accurate.

Wolf359f wrote: »

There's no way it's 1 in 10,000 chance of CVT/CVST in the pill. Could be a 1 in a billion chance and when a journalist asked, it would be a correct statement for the EMA to make, but without actually comparing the rates for like for like clotting issues (identical clots) would be more accurate.

Saw a graphic from the UK government that suggested that the risk from the vaccine is greater than the risk of catching covid and becoming very unwell in under 30's, hence the change in guidance.

Vaccines and the pill are comparable in that they are both prophylactic, ie they are given to healthy people to prevent illness or pregnancy.

If you are a 20 year old with a low risk from covid anyway I'd definitely not hold it against you if you preferred one of the other choices.

eastie17 wrote: »

has anyone tried this: https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/ireland-vaccine-queue

Apologies if its already been posted

The supply issue is a load of BS in my opinion, the HSE have ****ed this up as they still dont have their logistics squared away.

This calculator is fairly simple maths, currently uses a vaccination rate of 137K per week and an uptake rate of 74%, which we hit last week but I dont think we'll be able to do it consistently. The fact that its not consistent tells you they haven't got their ducks in a row logistically.
Based on me having no underlying conditions or no special case and currently being in my late 40s this predicts I will get my first vaccination late July early August.
If I was 25 it will be November!
Its been almost 4 months of "the vaccines are coming lads", the vaccines are there, they just haven't setup the infrastructure to handle giving them out. Its always someone else's issue.
I call bull**** on the Ministers assertion that 80% of adults who want one will be offered one by the end of June. We'll get news on some other supply issues at the end of April or early May I predict.

Go back to bed.

past the million happy fking days

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0408/1208644-covid-ireland/

Deleted User wrote: »

To compare the risks as you describe is not at all odd. People dont take the pill only once and then stop. Its an ongoing medication therefore the risk is measured over the extended period of time. The vaccine is 2 shots so is related to 2 shots only. Risk is measured over the normal usage of the product

I've given up correcting people on risk calculation and not including a time aspect or number of events that occur to reach a probability.

Over a lifetime, the chance of death occurring is always 1/1