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

[Deleted User]

JDD wrote: »

So I have a 1 in 250,000 chance of developing a serious blood clot condition when getting two shots of AZ...

whereas I had a 1 in 10,000 chance of developing blood clots (which in all cases can be serious) when taking the contraceptive pill. Which I took every day for 20 years.

And I have 1 in 1,000 chance of developing a blood clot when taking a long haul flight.

This panic is nonsense. Give me the AZ (or whatever you have) please.

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?

[Deleted User]

JDD wrote: »

So I have a 1 in 250,000 chance of developing a serious blood clot condition when getting two shots of AZ...

whereas I had a 1 in 10,000 chance of developing blood clots (which in all cases can be serious) when taking the contraceptive pill. Which I took every day for 20 years.

And I have 1 in 1,000 chance of developing a blood clot when taking a long haul flight.

This panic is nonsense. Give me the AZ (or whatever you have) please.

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.

Maxface

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.

nibtrix

speckle wrote: »

Edit..Important..just checked site saying list of immunosuppressants niw not limited to those listed..not sure when this changed been buzy

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/39038-provisional-vaccine-allocation-groups/

Yeah it's been "including but not limited to x meds" since they split the cohorts into VERY high risk and high risk, hence my surprise at the Rheumy dept. saying "only the named meds". Could have just been an overworked administrator trying to cut down the calls though!

ACitizenErased

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.

lucernarian

quokula wrote: »

It’s down to the fact that when these decisions were being made, the UK was being decimated with 1000+ deaths per day. They were desperate and they had to gamble and try the unproven route to get themselves out of catastrophic trouble.

Ireland and most of Europe were in a much healthier position in terms of infection rates and were able to more comfortably follow the manufacturers guidelines. Obviously the risk has ended up paying off for the UK and they’re looking better right now, but only after suffering enormously to get where they are.

I feel the need to point out how completely untrue it was to say that Ireland was in a much healthier position in terms of infection rates.

Ireland had, in the two weeks since the arrival of doses of vaccine, the worst infection rate per capita in the world....

trixi001

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

josip

irishlad. wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ZaraKing/status/1380150292432437255

Good that she added the, "on a daily basis" :rolleyes:

speckle

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!

Wolf359f

ACitizenErased wrote: »

If you watched the EMA briefing yesterday Dr. Peter Arlett was asked which other medicines have the same clots and he said contraceptives.

So you are saying the pill has a 1/10000 of causing cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), the same clotting causing the concern with AZ?

salmocab

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.

ACitizenErased

Wolf359f wrote: »

So you are saying the pill has a 1/10000 of causing cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), the same clotting causing the concern with AZ?

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.

giveitholly

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

speckle

nibtrix wrote: »

Yeah it's been "including but not limited to x meds" since they split the cohorts into VERY high risk and high risk, hence my surprise at the Rheumy dept. saying "only the named meds". Could have just been an overworked administrator trying to cut down the calls though!

Glad you saw edit went looking after posting straight away for more info..Thanks for the timing info....that was the start of the 10 relatives in the family who are high risk who wanted getting theirs or when I had the fall that injured the leg..so a bit out of the loop on updates and wrecked tired as they are all starting on number two and have to be kept an eye on for side effects and one in hospital again for the umpteened time this year..they could do their own pcr test at this rate with no hands

Have you pointed out the change to them/in writing or got your Gp too.. maybe the gp in surgery or at a MVcenter..is the best way foward? Or run public health/vax line for mote info?
Would be interesting to know why the highlighted certain drugs..was it just because they are used more hence they saw more severly ill patients on them with covid or is their more too it.

Wolf359f

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.

nibtrix

speckle wrote: »

Would be interesting to know why the highlighted certain drugs..was it just because they are used more hence they saw more severly ill patients on them with covid or is their more too it.

The drugs they list are mostly cancer treatments or higher risk immunosuppressants that are given as infusions in hospitals, rather than self-administered injections or tablets. I totally agree that people on these treatments are higher up the scale and need to be prioritised.

It's the uncertainty around "not limited to" that is the issue, with the choice of what other meds to include being left up to individual departments.

stefanovich

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

That risk is calculated based on taking the drug daily for a defined period (usually a year, but might be 10 years). So to compare it directly to a single dose of a vaccine is a little bit odd, and the type of clot that the vaccine may be causing is more serious than the clots typically linked to the pill.

Overall the pill increases the chance of clotting by a factor of 3 or 4 compared to people not on the pill and we know a bit about how to reduce the risk (risk is higher in smokers, certain pre-existing conditions etc.) so it can be minimised. Hopefully they'll figure out how to minimise the risk with the vaccine.

Ireland is currently giving AZ to high risk pregnant women, which I feel is an unnecessary risk, given that there is a significant clotting risk in pregnancy anyway.

[Deleted User]

Been hearing a bit lately about how the vaccines aren't having much of an effect in Chile. They are.

https://twitter.com/RufusSG/status/1380169345486184450?s=20

[Deleted User]

ACitizenErased wrote: »

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.

I'm responding to the '1 in 10,000' chance of a clot on the pill. This refers to the overall risk of a clot (which can actually be a bit higher depending which pill you're on). The vast majority of these clots are VTEs (including DVTs). They are more easily diagnosed, more easily treated and have a much lower mortality rate than a CVST.

It is completely incorrect to claim that there is a 1 in 10,000 chance of a CVST on the pill. There may be a very minor chance, which is why the journalist's question was answered in that way, but it's disingenuous to compare it to the risk of a VTE from the pill.

Frank Bullitt

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.

snotboogie

Hardyn wrote: »

Been hearing a bit lately about how the vaccines aren't having much of an effect in Chile. They are.

https://twitter.com/RufusSG/status/1380169345486184450?s=20

Chile has been looking better in overall cases since Monday. Bahrain is the head scratcher, 51 shots per 100 and cases still steeply on the up there.

trellheim

past the million happy fking days

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

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

That risk is calculated based on taking the drug daily for a defined period (usually a year, but might be 10 years). So to compare it directly to a single dose of a vaccine is a little bit odd, and the type of clot that the vaccine may be causing is more serious than the clots typically linked to the pill.

Overall the pill increases the chance of clotting by a factor of 3 or 4 compared to people not on the pill and we know a bit about how to reduce the risk (risk is higher in smokers, certain pre-existing conditions etc.) so it can be minimised. Hopefully they'll figure out how to minimise the risk with the vaccine.

Ireland is currently giving AZ to high risk pregnant women, which I feel is an unnecessary risk, given that there is a significant clotting risk in pregnancy anyway.

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

astrofool

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

Turtwig

speckle wrote: »

Would be interesting to know why the highlighted certain drugs..was it just because they are used more hence they saw more severly ill patients on them with covid or is their more too it.

The specific drugs listed have unknown risks associated with them with regard to COVID. The precautionary principle is applied, it's assumed people on these treatments were best to cocoon and now be part of cohort 4. For other treatments the risks with COVID are a little better understood.

We mostly just copied all ours lists from the UK.

The immune medication stratification of risk is attached to this post.

marno21

trellheim wrote: »

past the million happy fking days

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

The next million should take 5-6 weeks only.

It’s all up from here

speckle

thanks Turtwig thats the one I refered earlier but couldnt find again. You have saved alot of time going through stuff here

Edit your right its the Irish version of the Uk one I posted a previous link too..haha Gurbh mile maith agat.

[Deleted User]

[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 didn't say to compare the risk was odd, I said to make a direct comparison is odd.

[Deleted User]

100 days to get to a million. The mostly gently inclining ramp I've ever seen. Could stick a 19th century locomotive on it without much bother. :pac: