Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

Cork2021 wrote: »

I don’t mind the age restrictions in theory as long as the 605,000 get the jab quickly. Wonder would they still use it on certain groups just so they don’t fall through the net? Ie the 40,000/50,000 that is/was supposed to be used for travellers, Roma, homeless etc?

You’d imagine that using it on some or all of those groups is a no brainer, assuming it’s approved for them.

If the Pfizer ramp up really is an extra 50k per week that should really take some of the sting out of the AZ issue imo.

I can’t remember the exact schedule but wasn’t the bulk of the J&J amount due to arrive in June ?

Wolf359f wrote: »

Citywest MVC was jam packed today, so I'd say they switched to Pfizer and recommenced with anyone who previously had an appointment.

It actually looked a little too busy, the queue snaking inside an army tent and into the car park. Maybe people are so eager they are arriving a little too early for their appointment.

Flipside, there was a single car lined up for covid testing.... So I like that balance!

Great that it seems to be going full steam ahead.

I know of 3 people (my mother and two others) in the 69 age group who are getting AZ on Tuesday in Citywest, all got their texts this evening after registering on the portal yesterday.

Skyfloater wrote: »

Anyone who's lived through WW2 may beg to differ. Remember these times folks, it's a "Raging inferno" out there.

Leaving aside your snark, let me give you a perspective, thus:

WW2, and/or any other such 'raging inferno' you want to consider resulted from man's inhumanity to man! They were PREVENTABLE! If ppl had sat down and worked stuff out beforehand, they never needed to happen! So, they were nowhere near the 'raging infernos' that were Spanish Flu, Polio, 1950s TB, HIV/AIDS or Covid-19, simply because they were a result of human hubris, arrogance, belligerance and love of conquer! Each and every one was CAUSED by us!

Covid, like the other plagues mentioned are/were natural phenomena, caused TO us, largely un-controllable and totally organic, and havesters of thousands to millions of human lives, before humans could do a single thing to deal with it/them.

As you mentioned WWII specifically, consider this: In the USA alone, by end-Feb 2021, more Americans had died from Covid in a year than had died in the entirety of WWII, Korean and Vietnam Wars combined!

EDIT: Just checked there on Worldometer.. Right now, there are 3,011,395 souls who have been lost to Covid-19 in just over a year, with no end in sight in many parts of the world. Whaddya think about the applicability of 'raging infernos' now?

Russman wrote: »

Great that it seems to be going full steam ahead.

I know of 3 people (my mother and two others) in the 69 age group who are getting AZ on Tuesday in Citywest, all got their texts this evening after registering on the portal yesterday.

Seems bizarre when the over 70s first jab still hasn't been completed yet.

Anyway not surprising.

IRISHSPORTSGUY wrote: »

"An abundance of caution" will be the death of this vaccination programme.

It was the LACK of an abundance of caution that characterised the worst failures of past vaccination programmes!

I love to see an abundance of caution figuring hugely in current vaccine roll-out.

EMA won't issue age restrictions. If they didn't with AZ, they won't with J&J.

Strazdas wrote: »

Does the current estimate of 80% by end of June now factor out J & J? Do they think this is doable with just Pfizer, Moderna and AZ?

Yes.

TomOnBoard wrote: »

It was the LACK of an abundance of caution that characterised the worst failures of past vaccination programmes!

I love to see an abundance of caution figuring hugely in current vaccine roll-out.

I'd like to see an abundance of common sense. Large parts of the economy didn't shut down for previous vaccination programmes. The risks are tiny and more people die from not getting a vaccine.

Age restrictions for J&J would be a huge blow.

ACitizenErased wrote: »

EMA won't issue age restrictions. If they didn't with AZ, they won't with J&J.

No guarantee of that. Depends on what the data tells them.

Wolf359f wrote: »

EMA already approved J&J. What you're suggesting is them changing that by limiting it by age. They haven't done that with AZ despite the higher incidence in clots. This is all on US data which is already out there. If they make any decision or suggestion (based on US data) they will more likely need to change the AZ decision.

While I understand that EMA approval is crucial in terms of marketing vaccines in EU, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to see its approval mechanisms as much more than rubber-stamping of the work of others by politically motivat bureaucratic processes. Its quite disappointing to see the agency that is charged with ensuring the stuff put into my body is safe is being double-judged all over the EU!

The Biden-era FDA has become the leading arbiter of vaccine safety IMO...MHRA and EMA are political pawns right now!

Irish Times reporting that those aged 18-30 age would get shots before those aged 30-50 under new plan. (I assume they mean 16-30).

There will be war over this.

The logic given seems to be that the younger party and socialise more. This does not sit well with me from a fairness perspective.

Those aged 30-50 are at significant more risk than the younger groups. All other countries, that I am aware of, are doing vaccinations by descending age group.

Lumen wrote: »

Why would it be unfair? Young adults have sacrificed the most relative to their risk. They've been locked up to protect older generations. This would be payback.

Ya, the younger people who couldn't be bothered to follow the advice get a benefit for their non compliance while the older people who followed the advice suffer from the delay?

If they change they would have to have strong medical and scientific logic otherwise there will be chaos with every civil service union shouting for priority.

JTMan wrote: »

Irish Times reporting that those aged 18-30 age would get shots before those aged 30-50 under new plan. (I assume they mean 16-30).

There will be war over this.

The logic given seems to be that the younger party and socialise more. This does not sit well with me from a fairness perspective.

Those aged 30-50 are at significant more risk than the younger groups. All other countries, that I am aware of, are doing vaccinations by descending age group.

I'm 39, so pretty much, smack bang in the middle of the are cohorts if that goes ahead.

As annoying as it will be, it does tend to make a bit of sense though.

Lumen wrote: »

Why would it be unfair? Young adults have sacrificed the most relative to their risk. They've been locked up to protect older generations. This would be payback.

Someone aged 30 has really sacrificed just as much as someone aged 29 comparative to risk to be honest.

Once they decided not to jab front line workers because they were going with age profile I’d have an issue with changing it again to be honest. I can see the logic in giving it to young gardai, teachers, meat factory workers, creche workers etc due the additional risk in their work environments but prioritising someone just because they are more likely to socialise against the rules....? Yeah that sticks a bit

The HorsesMouth wrote: »

Well sure then why aren't we vaccinating gardaí and teachers like they said they would at the start? The reason they were given is that a 50 year old working from home is far likely to die or get very sick from coronavirus than a 35 year old teacher. There would be mayhem if the age based roll out is changed again.

Absolutely. My other half just pointed out that we’d all like to socialise ffs and that parents who would largely be in the 30-50 age group have been trying to homeschool their kids and work from home (generalisation). Don’t they deserve to be vaccinated so they can socialise?

This would cause war