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

Multipass · 12-04-2021 04:19PM

titan18 wrote: »

Sure, but there's less risk with a different vaccine, so if my options are AZ now or Pfizer in 3 months, I'd prefer to wait. The options aren't just risk of side effects from AZ or risk of covid, there's more there.

That’s fine to say you want to wait, just don’t expect to stay in lockdown while you wait. The lunacy of all of this - we need to use whatever vaccines are available. Pronto. And open the country.

AlekSmart · 12-04-2021 04:19PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm also in my 30s, no underlying conditions, and I'd walk to the other side of the country for an AZ vaccine.

Jeepers I'd save you a walk,I'm 60+ and I'd happily allow you to slip in front of me in the Queue.

AlekSmart · 12-04-2021 04:22PM

Turtwig wrote: »

AZ on shorter dosing schedules is not recommended. The immune response in the initial clinical trials was not very good.

Mix and match would effectively be making people guinea pigs without affording them the protections they'd get in a clinical trial.

Imo it has to be the option to continue with AZ for those already dosed. Or a full vaccination from MRNA.

I've a feeling, J & J will have the same issue as AZ.

Probably one very good reason for having that State indemnification against Liability all the same ?

Stark · 12-04-2021 04:23PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Should have used AZ on the over 70s also. Why was Pfizer and Moderna ringfenced to that cohort?

They didn't have data on over 65s when they started on them. (They do now though, although they'll probably be too thick skulled to change the policy and will end up wasting all the mRNA vaccines on them leaving us with stockpiles of AZ and J&J we can't use)

12-04-2021 04:23PM

lbj666 wrote: »

Not the question I asked, i know its very rare but is the likelyhood less in 60+ based on the data so far, because thats worth emphasising to the 60-69 group if it is.

Or is it only the likelyhood of severe covid or death that increases the risk ratio's enough for it to still be recommended.

I read your post as a statement and not a question and as such agreed with it. My response was to highlight the other products where we accept a risk and as an aside you can point out to 60-69 year olds that it is safer for them rather than more dangerous for others, and also they are likely yo have taken multiple other drugs that have similar risks

ACitizenErased · 12-04-2021 04:25PM

I reckon if this does come to pass they'll have to demand AZ only for anyone 60 plus. Won't work otherwise

marno21 · 12-04-2021 04:25PM

The reports on the Janssen vaccine to date of blood clots suggest it’s an issue with the adenovirus viral vector which would mean it’ll likely be an issue with Janssen too.

Over 60 restrictions is exactly the type of ultra conservative approach we continue to see in this country. Apart from the blanket ban for a short period, those aged 60-69 are the only ones in this country who haven’t been not advised to take this vaccine.

The risk balance for those aged 45+ and those under 60 with underlying conditions makes this a very very poor decision. Way too conservative (as usual).

Stark · 12-04-2021 04:26PM

seamus wrote: »

Euch, what a mess.

All is not lost though.

If AZ can only be used on the 60+ cohort, then it will be used as a matter of priority on them, and other vaccines only used to fill the gaps.

This means an overavailability of the other vaccines, which means that we should be able to clean up the 70+ cohort a bit faster, AND move on to the younger age groups faster too. We'll likely be doing 50-59 age group in parallel with the 60-69.

While the AZ dosing regime in use is 12 weeks, that's a maximum. The second dose can be provided after 4 weeks, and if we have "too much" AZ, then it's likely the dosing schedule will be tightened up to 4/5 weeks. The biggest issue (IMO) with AZ is the 3-month window. We can't have the most vulnerable cohorts sitting half-vaccinated until August/September. So hopefully we can abandon that now.

It'll make things tricky in the vaccination centres though. There'll need to be separate areas set up for AZ and non-AZ vaccinations.

If only you were the one running the country.

I've a sad feeling the way it'll play out is they'll stick with their current approach of vaccinating over 70s with Pfizer/Moderna then continuing through the priority list as it stands with a mix of vaccines, leaving us with stockpiles of J&J and AZ in June.

Frank Bullitt · 12-04-2021 04:29PM

My Da got his first jab yesterday, small steps will get us there.

funnydoggy · 12-04-2021 04:29PM

Afraid to think of a virtual start to my second year of MTU in September..

I can't do another fúcking semester sitting down in my room looking at a screen :pac:

eoinbn · 12-04-2021 04:32PM

Turtwig wrote: »

AZ on shorter dosing schedules is not recommended. The immune response in the initial clinical trials was not very good.

Mix and match would effectively be making people guinea pigs without affording them the protections they'd get in a clinical trial.

Imo it has to be the option to continue with AZ for those already dosed. Or a full vaccination from MRNA.

I've a feeling, J & J will have the same issue as AZ.

The US trials used 4 weeks and had good efficacy. AZ trial data is a mess. No rhyme or reason to it.
AZ is a setback but J&J would be a hammer blow. We would need to find another 2m doses to account for what we would lose out on Q2 and July.

leahyl · 12-04-2021 04:33PM

I know of a 35 year old female who got the pfizer vaccine today - didn't think they were giving the pfizer to the younger population?

12-04-2021 04:35PM

Update: My mother got her 5th offer for a first vaccine yesterday.
That's 4 lists she's been on in error. Likely won't be the last either.

ACitizenErased · 12-04-2021 04:35PM

leahyl wrote: »

I know of a 35 year old female who got the pfizer vaccine today - didn't think they were giving the pfizer to the younger population?

What group?

leahyl · 12-04-2021 04:36PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

What group?

Have no idea - I assume group 4 seeing as she is 35? Isn't group 4 for people aged 16-69 with underlying conditions?

Micky 32 · 12-04-2021 04:37PM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Its a very very rare side effect and a very small number of cases relative to the amount of AZ used.

I fail to see how they've come up with this recommendation to be honest.

None of us would take any medication or vaccine if we knew the very very rare side effects to each one.

(queue the replies of this isn't any other medication - they all come with a list of rare side effects)

Just looked at the leaflet with my chol tabs rare side effects:

Breast enlargement in men

Hepatitis.

Damage to the nerves of your arms and legs

Memory loss

:pac:

namloc1980 · 12-04-2021 04:38PM

If AZ is now off the table then that sets back the vaccination programme massively.

ddarcy · 12-04-2021 04:40PM

eoinbn wrote: »

The US trials used 4 weeks and had good efficacy. AZ trial data is a mess. No rhyme or reason to it.
AZ is a setback but J&J would be a hammer blow. We would need to find another 2m doses to account for what we would lose out on Q2 and July.

Novovax has a high efficacy and are mass producing now. They should be submitting in the next few weeks to the FDA/ EMA. FDA is an issue as they, like AZ, have used non approved FDA sites to run the trial for results. They do however have another US trial wrapping up as well. I’d expect the efficacy to drop like AZ as the FDA is far mor rigorous in testing, but even dropping from 89% to probably high 70’s isn’t bad.

Vicxas · 12-04-2021 04:41PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

If AZ is now off the table then that sets back the vaccination programme massively.

No, it doesnt. It just means that over 60's will get AZ exclusively.

If Pfizer and Moderna drop supply forecasts then we're going to be set back.

Multipass · 12-04-2021 04:43PM

What about the cost, Astrozeneca is far cheaper.
no-ones talking about that. We have unlimited finances now. **** the next generations.

Sofa King Great · 12-04-2021 04:44PM

Vicxas wrote: »

No, it doesnt. It just means that over 60's will get AZ exclusively.

If Pfizer and Moderna drop supply forecasts then we're going to be set back.

Of course it does. They aren't going to hold off on vaccinating certain over 60s until the supply of AZ arrives in May and June and give the currebt supply of pfizer/modern to under 60s.

Don't forget last week the point was made repeatedly that age is the most important factor.

namloc1980 · 12-04-2021 04:45PM

Vicxas wrote: »

No, it doesnt. It just means that over 60's will get AZ exclusively.

If Pfizer and Moderna drop supply forecasts then we're going to be set back.

We're not giving AZ to over 70s. That hasn't changed unless you can show otherwise. So the only ones getting AZ will be from 60-69.

ACitizenErased · 12-04-2021 04:46PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

We're not giving AZ to over 70s. That hasn't changed unless you can show otherwise.

Well we will be now

bennyineire · 12-04-2021 04:48PM

Multipass wrote: »

What about the cost, Astrozeneca is far cheaper.
no-ones talking about that. We have unlimited finances now. **** the next generations.

So you reckon go with the cheapest vaccine which will hold up opening the country and costing the state millions in PUP and lost tax revenue ?

I really hope you don't handle finances on work or for your family

namloc1980 · 12-04-2021 04:48PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Well we will be now

Not confirmed yet as far as I know.

Icantthinkof1 · 12-04-2021 04:48PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

We're not giving AZ to over 70s. That hasn't changed unless you can show otherwise.

Surely it would be a silly decision to continue to give the RNA vaccines to the over 70’s and not with AZ considering no one else can take them under 60?
Shouldn’t the RNA vaccines now be given to the 16-59 medically vulnerable?

Elessar · 12-04-2021 04:48PM

Christ almighty this is infuriating.

The Irish authorities are, as usual, on the extreme end of conservatism with everything to do with this pandemic. After the longest and probably most draconian restrictions on planet earth, they are going ultra-cautious with AZ rather than take the bigger picture into account.

You can be damn sure a lot of over 60s will refuse AZ now, and ultimately they will have to be given another one. Rather than a blanket ban for under 60s they should allow under 60s to take it with a note that these clots are a tiny possible side effect. I'm sure many would still take one.

Otherwise this is going to be a complete shambles, again.

namloc1980 · 12-04-2021 04:49PM

Icantthinkof1 wrote: »

Surely it would be a silly decision to continue to give the RNA vaccines to the over 70’s and not with AZ considering no one else can take them under 60?
Shouldn’t the RNA vaccines should be given to the 16-59 medically vulnerable?

Of course it would be silly but that's what we've been doing all along and wouldn't surprise me if that's what we continue to do.

vienne86 · 12-04-2021 04:50PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Well we will be now

How do you know that? I think a changr there is unlikely and most over 70s have their first dose now.

ACitizenErased · 12-04-2021 04:50PM

vienne86 wrote: »

How do you know that? I think a changr there is unlikely and most over 70s have their first dose now.

Who else are we going to give it to?

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

Comments