Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

1…186187189191192…225

Comments

  • #5642
    Dempo1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,200 ✭✭✭✭Dempo1


    Perhaps might need to rename this thread or start another one for J&J, us halted it's use for similar reasons as AZ and now just add insult to injury, J&J have stalled deliveries to EU.

    You couldn't make this up. But in fairness the rush to develop and release vaccines was bound to hit hurdles

    Is maith an scáthán súil charad.




  • #5643
    astrofool
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,745 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    The Pfizer vaccine isn't much use against the South African variant your immune system does a better job.

    Am disappointed in this, you were figuratively walked through almost line by line about this just a few nights ago, and have completely ignored all that and basically reverted to the first comment you made.

    This is in no way true, you know it's not true, why keep repeating it? What's the angle? What's the gain?


  • #5644
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,049 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    astrofool wrote: »
    Am disappointed in this, you were figuratively walked through almost line by line about this just a few nights ago, and have completely ignored all that and basically reverted to the first comment you made.

    This is in no way true, you know it's not true, why keep repeating it? What's the angle? What's the gain?

    The key is not to get too downhearted when certain individuals completely ignore logic and reason


  • #5645
    rm212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 689 ✭✭✭rm212


    correct horse battery staple wrote: »
    There is one good point in having such a plant in Ireland

    Covid could become endemic and yearly we will need millions of dozes of that years variety

    also it would build up expertise in country in case of another pandemic.

    Admittedly, that is actually a pretty good point. We really have no guarantees right now with regards to how long the vaccines last, whether we'll need annual boosters etc. It wouldn't be the worst idea to put preparations in place and to be honest, I'm very fearful that this pandemic won't be a once in a lifetime event for anybody relatively young. At least if that's the case, we are in a far, far better place to deal with it next time, with the knowledge gained from this one.


  • #5646
    PaulJoseph22
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 503 ✭✭✭PaulJoseph22


    My sister is 65 and was due to get AZ tomorrow. She has been texted that it’s cancelled, thought they wanted that age group to take AZ......


  • Advertisement
  • #5647
    astrofool
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,745 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    PaulJoseph22 wrote: »
    My sister is 65 and was due to get AZ tomorrow. She has been texted that it’s cancelled, thought they wanted that age group to take AZ......

    Presumably she was in cohort 4 which means mass cancellations while they figure out the logistics, it's likely she'll get AZ when they start up again in a few days.


  • #5648
    RobMc59
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    Slightly OT but my sister who has lived in Spain for 20+years told me she is getting her 1st jab(pfizer apparently)Saturday and the 2nd 3 weeks later.As discussed on this and other covid threads this a is different time scale to here in Britain.


  • #5649
    The Phantom Jipper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 990 ✭✭✭The Phantom Jipper


    Does anybody know what vaccines are likely to be used for the people who register through the portal that goes live on the 19th, for the 65-69 year olds?


  • #5650
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,132 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    The Phantom Jipper wrote: »
    Does anybody know what vaccines are likely to be used for the people who register through the portal that goes live on the 19th, for the 65-69 year olds?
    Very likely to be AZ.


  • #5651
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,326 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    astrofool wrote: »
    Am disappointed in this, you were figuratively walked through almost line by line about this just a few nights ago, and have completely ignored all that and basically reverted to the first comment you made.

    This is in no way true, you know it's not true, why keep repeating it? What's the angle? What's the gain?

    I know how to read, it clearly states "vaccinated individuals who were infected despite their inoculation was eight times higher than its prevalence in the unvaccinated infected population"

    What's the gain? No gain, you can't convince me that statement means the polar opposite of what it states.

    There is absolutely no way to read that and come to the conclusion that the people with the pfizer vaccine were less likely to be infected with the south african variant.

    Isn't this how mRna vaccines are meant to work, attack the variant they're designed to work on, may provide some defence against other variants but and it's a big but a variant can scoot straight past it if your new defences aren't triggered.


  • Advertisement
  • #5652
    astrofool
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,745 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    I know how to read, it clearly states "vaccinated individuals who were infected despite their inoculation was eight times higher than its prevalence in the unvaccinated infected population"

    What's the gain? No gain, you can't convince me that statement means the polar opposite of what it states.

    There is absolutely no way to read that and come to the conclusion that the people with the pfizer vaccine were less likely to be infected with the south african variant.

    Isn't this how mRna vaccines are meant to work, attack the variant they're designed to work on, may provide some defence against other variants but and it's a big but a variant can scoot straight past it if your new defences aren't triggered.

    You were clearly shown that there was both a reduction in cases among the vaccinated and that there was no severe outcomes for those who were vaccinated.

    You said that a persons immune system was better than a vaccine, this is demonstrably false and was mentioned nowhere in the article, and should be retracted by you as dangerous and misleading.


  • #5653
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,562 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    I know how to read, it clearly states "vaccinated individuals who were infected despite their inoculation was eight times higher than its prevalence in the unvaccinated infected population"

    What's the gain? No gain, you can't convince me that statement means the polar opposite of what it states.

    There is absolutely no way to read that and come to the conclusion that the people with the pfizer vaccine were less likely to be infected with the south african variant.

    Isn't this how mRna vaccines are meant to work, attack the variant they're designed to work on, may provide some defence against other variants but and it's a big but a variant can scoot straight past it if your new defences aren't triggered.

    This is clearly a misreading of the report.

    It is like the claim cosmetic companies make where they say '80% of those that expressed a preference, agreed ..... '. How many expressed a preference - they do not say. So of 1,123 subjects tested the sample, and of 10 that expressed a preference, 8 agreed ....' but 1,113 had no preference, a much more significant number.

    You are is obviously misreading the significance of the statements.


  • #5654
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,326 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    astrofool wrote: »

    You said that a persons immune system was better than a vaccine, this is demonstrably false and was mentioned nowhere in the article, and should be retracted by you as dangerous and misleading.

    It was mentioned, the unvaccinated had nothing to rely on except their immune system, They had 8 times less infection from the brazilian variant.

    We don't fully understand the immune system, they're still trying to develop a test for t-cell immunity for instance, completely false to state an emergency use vaccine is better against variants jury is still out.


  • #5655
    astrofool
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,745 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    It was mentioned, the unvaccinated had nothing to rely on except their immune system, They had 8 times less infection from the brazilian variant.

    We don't fully understand the immune system, they're still trying to develop a test for t-cell immunity for instance, completely false to state an emergency use vaccine is better against variants jury is still out.

    This was explained to you a few days ago, because they had taken the vaccine, none of the people with the south African variant were suffering any ill effects from COVID, what it found was that there was 8 times more people infected with the south African variant than other variants, but because the vaccine is so great, those people weren't suffering from it and had 0 severe illnesses even though they were infected, not that the vaccine is 8 times less effective.

    Your post is 100% not true and anyone else reading this forum deserves to know that. You're stepping over into anti-vax territory, maybe the day that's in it meant you let your guard down, or maybe it was a one off, we'll see.


  • #5656
    lucernarian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,243 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    ddarcy wrote: »
    Pfizer produce viagra here. I guess that’s a vaccine ensuring some lads get the ride. This vaccine is only produced in Belgium and the US now. The US will have another plant online in a week and the EU is funding a plant in Germany more as well too.

    The problem is the HSE, with no research put all their eggs in the AZ/Oxford basket. It’s it’s coming back to haunt them now.
    We are using all of the allotments of all vaccines possible under the EU purchasing program. Had we not ordered AZ vaccines, we'd be even further behind in the rollout.

    How is that possibly putting all of their eggs in one basket?


  • #5657
    ddarcy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 553 ✭✭✭ddarcy


    lucernarian wrote: »
    We are using all of the allotments of all vaccines possible under the EU purchasing program. Had we not ordered AZ vaccines, we'd be even further behind in the rollout.

    How is that possibly putting all of their eggs in one basket?

    AZ and JJ for that matter are at cost. I’ll admit the government couldn’t exactly order more Pfizer/Moderna etc without people complaining, so they were in a rock and a hard place. AZ overpromised and under delivered (try that at your work and see how well it goes). They knew the EU allotment wasn’t adequate and went the at cost way (therefore put all their eggs in the AZ basket per se based on promised deliveries). If AZ panned out we could probably be starting cohort 8 soon and they’d be the heroes...

    We are lucky that Pfizer has more than doubled production or we’d be in a much worse position than we are now.


  • #5658
    ODriscoll
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 155 ✭✭ODriscoll


    Early last year, when masks were a Obvious help, there were experts on here saying they were useless!
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=112649313

    Then you have the 'ask no questions what so ever brigade' (repeating shyte they just heard a few minutes prior and now experts)
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=116249657

    Turns out the actual expert almost everywhere now say a 74 year old should not be 'just vaccinated without a question of at least what vaccine


    Those concerned -
    Learn not to waste your precious time with such bored eejits, when anyone on here who tells you here they know for sure about any aspect, the only thing you know for sure they are talking shyte about a new virus that the Chinese still do not have under control, and notice most all are still wearing masks in public.

    Anyone who can use a phone and reason will do better to ask their own Doctor or chemist any question re this very dangerous virus.
    The extremes on both sides of arguments on here will only confuse the obvious, the online knowalls on here are a pathetic when not dangerous joke.
    The extremes of no questions just take any vaccine - to the polar opposite.


  • #5659
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,326 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    astrofool wrote: »
    This was explained to you a few days ago, because they had taken the vaccine, none of the people with the south African variant were suffering any ill effects from COVID, what it found was that there was 8 times more people infected with the south African variant than other variants, but because the vaccine is so great, those people weren't suffering from it and had 0 severe illnesses even though they were infected, not that the vaccine is 8 times less effective.

    Your post is 100% not true and anyone else reading this forum deserves to know that. You're stepping over into anti-vax territory, maybe the day that's in it meant you let your guard down, or maybe it was a one off, we'll see.

    Simple question, can the brazilian variant break through the Pfizer vaccine YES/NO?

    Your trying to frame it as anti vax, it's not you know only too well the sample size was small so you can't state for an absolute fact that people of all groups have 0 risk of severe illness once they're has the pfizer vaccine, to do so is misleading.


  • #5660
    deeperlearning
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 269 ✭✭deeperlearning


    There is now a surge of the South African variant in London:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-56729607

    Two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine were found to have only a 10.4% efficacy against this variant.


  • #5661
    astrofool
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,745 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Simple question, can the brazilian variant break through the Pfizer vaccine YES/NO?

    Your trying to frame it as anti vax, it's not you know only too well the sample size was small so you can't state for an absolute fact that people of all groups have 0 risk of severe illness once they're has the pfizer vaccine, to do so is misleading.

    You were blathering on about the South African variant, but I guess rather than retract a lie you want to meander over to something else.

    But to answer your question more broadly, there is currently no known variants of high consequence, thus no worries about vaccine escape.

    And why you're bringing this up on the AZ thread is a bit odd and veering wildly off topic.


  • Advertisement
  • #5662
    astrofool
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,745 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    deeperlearning wrote: »
    There is now a surge of the South African variant in London:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-56729607

    Two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine were found to have only a 10.4% efficacy against this variant.

    The confidence interval of those results were so low that it couldn't be called a study. The real world results of AZ have been better than any of those limited tests came up with.

    But I guess we're back to the variants part of the anti-vax roll call.


  • #5663
    FileNotFound
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,993 ✭✭✭FileNotFound


    astrofool wrote: »
    The confidence interval of those results were so low that it couldn't be called a study. The real world results of AZ have been better than any of those limited tests came up with.

    But I guess we're back to the variants part of the anti-vax roll call.

    More important the study had no participant that suffered serious effects of covid.

    So even if it was accurate AZ only 10% effective at preventing mild to moderate but 100% effective at prevent serious to hospitalisation.

    The aim was not to overwhelm the healthcare system. And AZ is effective for that.


  • #5664
    Ten of Swords
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,540 CMod ✭✭✭✭Ten of Swords


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Simple question, can the brazilian variant break through the Pfizer vaccine YES/NO?

    Your trying to frame it as anti vax, it's not you know only too well the sample size was small so you can't state for an absolute fact that people of all groups have 0 risk of severe illness once they're has the pfizer vaccine, to do so is misleading.


    This thread is not about the Pfizer vaccine and this style of posting was what earned you a threadban from the last vaccine thread. Stay on topic if you intend to continue posting in this thread

    Moderator: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender, Vegan & Vegetarian

    Category Moderator: Social & Fun



  • #5665
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,326 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    astrofool wrote: »
    .

    But to answer your question more broadly, there is currently no known variants of high consequence, thus no worries about vaccine escape.

    I meant the SA, it appears AZ and the rest fail to offer protection against it and the cluster sizes seem to be on the rise in the UK with that particular strain which could lead one to assume it had become dominant in those areas.
    All I'm saying is we should pay attention to the smoke, I don't have the same blasé no worries take on things as you from my reading of the current situation.

    Just to clarify as you may have assumed I was thinking something different, I'm not concerned that variant is going to cause any extra problems health wise, my concerns were about trust which that report undermined in my eyes, you thought it was a vote of confidence though hence my struggle to read it as such.


  • #5666
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,130 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    FileNotFound wrote: »
    More important the study had no participant that suffered serious effects of covid.

    So even if it was accurate AZ only 10% effective at preventing mild to moderate but 100% effective at prevent serious to hospitalisation.

    The aim was not to overwhelm the healthcare system. And AZ is effective for that.
    The trial had no participants at all that developed severe illness, so the trial provided no information about the efficacy of AZ against severe illness caused by the SA variant.

    It may provide some degree of protection or it may not.

    I would still recommend taking the AZ vaccine if offered it. It is known to protect against all levels of disease caused by the more prevalent strains in this part of the world so your last paragraph is absolutely correct.

    We're all going to need at least another vaccination, perhaps annual vaccinations against the variants for a while yet.


  • #5667
    brickster69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,936 ✭✭✭brickster69


    EU not to renew contracts next year.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronovirus-eu-vaccines/eu-commission-to-end-astrazeneca-and-jj-vaccine-contracts-at-expiry-paper-idUSKBN2C10MU

    “Wars begin when you want them to, but they don’t end when you ask them to.”- Niccolò Machiavelli



  • #5668
    goingnowhere
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,524 ✭✭✭goingnowhere


    Between Pfizer and Moderna there are over a billion doses ordered and another 400 million for Curevac which is another mRNA vaccine candidate. So there is more than enough to vaccinate the 470 odd million EU citizens


  • #5669
    brickster69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,936 ✭✭✭brickster69


    Price changes for 2022

    https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/bulgarian-pm-reveals-price-eus-130238694.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw&tsrc=twtr

    “Wars begin when you want them to, but they don’t end when you ask them to.”- Niccolò Machiavelli



  • #5670
    odyssey06
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,432 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Germany recommends under-60s who got AstraZeneca first dose vaccine should switch to another for second...
    In individual cases, younger people wanting a second AstraZeneca shot can get one so long as they have a careful medical risk assessment. Officials added that in individual cases, younger people wanting a second AstraZeneca shot can get one so long as they have a careful medical risk assessment.
    That also applies to high-risk people under the age of 60 still awaiting their primary vaccination.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/germany-recommends-people-avoid-astra-zeneca-covid-19-vaccine-for-second-dose-5409078-Apr2021/

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • #5671
    realdanbreen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,068 ✭✭✭realdanbreen


    So am i right in saying that if you are over 60 you can register with the HSE from tomorrow morning if you want to take the astrazeneca jab?


Advertisement