Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

ixoy · 17-04-2021 11:37AM

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

But the majority of cases are under 45s.

So why is it mentioning 18-30 age group?

Yep and that would mean 30-44 should be prioritised as they're definitely more at risk. In addition they're probably more likely to be the patrons of restaurants, for example, where they'd be unmasked rather than the masked servers so you'd be better targeting transmission.
Or just keep as is.

PhilOssophy · 17-04-2021 11:39AM

Calm down everyone, it is just a thing they are going to look at. They aren't saying that they will be doing it.

Now maybe I'm a 30 something with young children whose life hasn't been altered massively by this pandemic, but I think the college going age group, students at home with parents, etc, are missing out big time due to the pandemic.

I think of my life to date and think "when would I have been most content with such a pandemic" and I reckon the worst time would be 18-25 and stuck at home with mammy and daddy. Those are years these people won't get back, e.g. college is 3-4 years for most people.

By the time the rollout reaches these age cohorts, it will probably be splitting hairs. It will be weeks rather than months I expect.

But I have great sympathy for this age group because they are missing out on more than I am.

ACitizenErased · 17-04-2021 11:41AM

I’m in my early 20s - I completely agree with the fact that this would stop transmission etc but I would feel ridiculously uncomfortable getting the vaccine before my mother.

irishlad. · 17-04-2021 11:42AM

Thursday 15th: 33,386

Not bad, not bad at all

ACitizenErased · 17-04-2021 11:43AM

irishlad. wrote: »

Thursday 15th: 33,386

Not bad, not bad at all

“It ShOulD bE hIgHeR SHAMBLES” etc etc

Rebelbrowser · 17-04-2021 11:47AM

seamus wrote: »

I think this is a solo run by Donnelly. We already know that he's arrogant and obsessed with his own ego.

He's a complete joke with younger voters, so I suspect this is his idea of "giving something back" to them to make him more popular.

That's my guess too. I suspect (and hope) that his cabinet colleagues are apoplectic this morning. Whatever you think of Norma Foley, imagine what she is thinking this morning. Think of the grief she got selling the age only priority ranking for vaccines to the teachers. But in fairness she and the government stuck with it and essentially got everyone to accept the age based roll out. And they did it by saying it was all about vaccinating the most vulnerable first. They went out of their way to emphasise that a 20 something had nothing to fear from covid. And now that idiot Donnelly is undoing everything in one feel swoop. This idea is going nowhere but the damage is done. If this is a solo run by Donnelly I'd say its curtains for him. And good riddance.

Qrt · 17-04-2021 11:48AM

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Calm down everyone, it is just a thing they are going to look at. They aren't saying that they will be doing it.

Now maybe I'm a 30 something with young children whose life hasn't been altered massively by this pandemic, but I think the college going age group, students at home with parents, etc, are missing out big time due to the pandemic.

I think of my life to date and think "when would I have been most content with such a pandemic" and I reckon the worst time would be 18-25 and stuck at home with mammy and daddy. Those are years these people won't get back, e.g. college is 3-4 years for most people.

By the time the rollout reaches these age cohorts, it will probably be splitting hairs. It will be weeks rather than months I expect.

But I have great sympathy for this age group because they are missing out on more than I am.

I agree. Not sold on prioritising the 18-30s, but that age group are also where the most development takes place. Your college experience, and the friends you make in your early adulthood tend to shape the rest of your life. I know my own experience has been messed up with online college and it’ll be a fair while before I get back on track. Just my thoughts.

SJFly · 17-04-2021 11:48AM

I have really tried to get behind the roll-out and been understanding of the very difficult decisions that have had to be made. But I cannot get behind this. They cannot vaccinate healthy 18 year-olds before 49 year-old garda, teachers, carers, who do not have an insignificant risk of serious complications from covid. It's insane.

Turtwig · 17-04-2021 11:49AM

I would love to be a fly on the wall in their next cabinet meeting.

lbj666 · 17-04-2021 11:49AM

Russman wrote: »

Plans should always be open the change imo, but the messaging from this is disastrous. It’s completely flying in the face of medical advice from two weeks ago when it was said that no occupation was more prone to severe outcomes than another, and age was the biggest factor in having a bad outcome from COVID. Which would be worse for society - 1,000 cases in people in their 20s, or 1,000 cases in people in their 40s ?

That’s before the totally subjective arguments that it’s essentially rewarding bad behaviour of a cohort who have largely given two fingers to restrictions (there’s a reason most cases are under 45), and assuming people in their 40s/50s don’t go out or socialise.

Hopefully it’s just SD thinking he’s cleverer than, I dunno, his dog or something.

The AZ and JJ news were massive curve balls,

Say it was a +40 cap was put on and JJ and Pfizer was given to 40-60s as it arrived, we would be facing a potential shortage of Pfizer and surplus of JJ by the time we get to under 40 or under 30 around.
While if Pfizer had to be stocked for younger cohorts ,no point leaving them stocked just get going on them.

irishlad. · 17-04-2021 11:50AM

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cUZy6AMCwuA2zhtRuKK7cqMVgmhdDsGsZrFWJTkw9DY/edit#gid=502588836

Great progress with cohort 3, more than likely there aren't 475k in the cohort. I decided to overestimate to be safe.

Degag · 17-04-2021 11:52AM

Does anyone find it kinda mad that they've given a jab to 22% of the population yet any normal 69 year old hasn't received a vaccine yet?

Like, both my parents are in their 60s and if you told me they'd be outside of the top 22% of adults i wouldn't have believed you.

Obviously, frontline workers and those with underlying illnesses precede them but with the cohort behind them - 18-59 year olds - my brain is still telling me that they should be in the 22%

Obviously not the case though!

Rebelbrowser · 17-04-2021 11:53AM

Neamhshuntasach wrote: »

I don't know if spread is even throughout different subsets in under 45s or if there is a higher proportion of cases in the 18-30s. I haven't looked at the figures. That's why I said if there is evidence to support it.

From my own personal view, I'd see under 30s being the more socially active. A lot of part time workers in businesses that may not be open, college students, groups of people that will mix regardless of restrictions and will probably visit family. Obviously 31 to 45 year olds can be involved in the same activity. But I'd associate it more with younger people.

I don't care if it's "rewarding" those that are most likely to spread the virus due to not following restrictions. We need to look at what is actually happening and react to it to address all aspects of the covid impact across the board. And not just do what is maybe more moral or ideal. So if vaccinating the younger age groups first after everyone that is deemed vulnerable is done reduces the number of cases in the community, where we all live, then I think it's a sound approach.

Just to add, I'm not advocating for this tactic or approach. I just mean I understand why they may change and I'd have no problem with it.

In fairness your position is very logical and devoid of the emotion some of us feel this morning. But I do think it overlooks the extent to which we unveiled a new policy which is the diametric opposite of this new suggestion in the last 3 weeks. That's why this is nuts.

irishlad. · 17-04-2021 11:55AM

Degag wrote: »

Does anyone find it kinda mad that they've given a jab to 22% of the population yet any normal 69 year old hasn't received a vaccine yet?

Like, both my parents are in their 60s and if you told me they'd be outside of the top 22% of adults i wouldn't have believed you.

Obviously, frontline workers and those with underlying illnesses precede them but with the cohort behind them - 18-59 year olds - my brain is still telling me that they should be in the 22%

Obviously not the case though!

250k first doses gone into cohort 2, the frontline healthcare workers. Thats a big chunk of our 814k first doses given out. All these people would be under 65

TheDoctor · 17-04-2021 11:57AM

irishlad. wrote: »

Thursday 15th: 33,386

Not bad, not bad at all

What sort of number are we looking at now for the week?

JTMan · 17-04-2021 11:58AM

"Evidence not there to support vaccinating younger people first" ...

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1383369941647192064?s=19

irishlad. · 17-04-2021 12:01PM

TheDoctor wrote: »

What sort of number are we looking at now for the week?

Aim is 130-140k

Another big day tomorrow of 35k tomorrow would put us well on track to hit target

Polar101 · 17-04-2021 12:03PM

I thought the idea behind the vaccination policy was to vaccinate the vulnerable, to prevent deaths and hospitalisations. If the order is switched to younger people first, that is going to change. We weren't supposed to care about case numbers once the vulnerable are vaccinated. I'm not too convinced about the science and logic behind the proposed change.

ACitizenErased · 17-04-2021 12:04PM

JTMan wrote: »

"Evidence not there to support vaccinating younger people first" ...

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1383369941647192064?s=19

End of the day its up to NIAC and if theres any inkling of evidence against it (as there was for AZ) then they won’t agree to it

ACitizenErased · 17-04-2021 12:04PM

Polar101 wrote: »

I thought the idea behind the vaccination policy was to vaccinate the vulnerable, to prevent deaths and hospitalisations. If the order is switched to younger people first, that is going to change. We weren't supposed to care about case numbers once the vulnerable are vaccinated. I'm not too convinced about the science and logic behind the proposed change.

It was in the original rollout plan all along, it’s not a new thing

headtheball14 · 17-04-2021 12:05PM

The idea behind this is to try to change the conversation from the ****show of mhq implementation.

This is completely plucked from the sky from what I can see .

lbj666 · 17-04-2021 12:06PM

Polar101 wrote: »

I thought the idea behind the vaccination policy was to vaccinate the vulnerable, to prevent deaths and hospitalisations. If the order is switched to younger people first, that is going to change. We weren't supposed to care about case numbers once the vulnerable are vaccinated. I'm not too convinced about the science and logic behind the proposed change.

It's been put forward because there could be a lack of elegible vacine available by the time they get to younger groups pending what happens with JJ, especially if they use every eligible vacine on older cohorts until they get to them.

Seems like I am the lone wolf on this this morning.

Bubbaclaus · 17-04-2021 12:08PM

headtheball14 wrote: »

The idea behind this is to try to change the conversation from the ****show of mhq implementation.

This is completely plucked from the sky from what I can see .

"Plucked from the sky"? The fact that it would be examined was in the original vaccine rollout document published early December. Seems like they are following through with the examination.

KrustyUCC · 17-04-2021 12:08PM

Stephen Donnelly the gift that keeps giving

Kinda goes against the age based risk model they were selling only 2 weeks ago

It's all about folks not occupation

Sell that get people to move on

Now it's about transmission lol

So let's vaccinate the youngest cohort

The mixed messaging is brilliant

ACitizenErased · 17-04-2021 12:09PM

headtheball14 wrote: »

The idea behind this is to try to change the conversation from the ****show of mhq implementation.

This is completely plucked from the sky from what I can see .

NIAC recommended it in the original rollout plan if vaccines prevent transmission

Probes · 17-04-2021 12:09PM

JTMan wrote: »

"Evidence not there to support vaccinating younger people first" ...

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1383369941647192064?s=19

This idea is daft. I agree that there may be some benefit to vaccinating the most mobile in society, however this should be provided to those in positions where they have mix with society due to their work. Think teachers, public service employees, opticians etc. To vaccinate all 20 year olds because they are going to have a social life is mad.

sd1999 · 17-04-2021 12:09PM

A few here have mentioned potential vaccine hesitancy in the younger cohorts and I know this obviously isn’t representative of the country but in my own experience (I’m 21 btw), all of the 20 or so people I’ve been in semi-regular contact with over this lockdown are all extremely eager to get a vaccine. It generally isn’t younger groups that spread anti-vaxxer stuff online either. Also just want to note, I have no stake in this as I’m in Cohort 7 anyway. I do think this is a good idea though as reducing overall transmission protects everyone whereas starting with 50-30s mostly protects 50-30s. Vaccinating 18-30s will have a bigger impact on transmission. And by that point everyone over 60 and every other medically vulnerable person will have had at least one dose. It also means colleges can go back as normal in September so we don’t have to pay thousands in fees and rent for college that’s mostly online. The impact online lectures has had is significant and I know many that are seriously struggling with it who wouldn’t have been if the lectures were in person. Younger people are also the ones who mostly work in the restaurants and pubs so I don’t know who you think is going to serve you if they’re not vaccinated. Finally, viewing things in terms of “rewards” or “punishments” is ridiculous be it younger people being “rewarded” for breaking restrictions (I haven’t seen anyone other than my family since November btw. Most of my friends are the same) or over 60s being “punished” with AZ. They’re just pragmatic decisions. There’s no emotion behind how these things are allocated.

Hurrache · 17-04-2021 12:09PM

He's a nut with this hair brained suggestion, a worldwide outlier with his ideas. The cabinet will have him slapped down before NIAC/NPHET gets a chance.

sd1999 · 17-04-2021 12:12PM

Also, given that non vulnerable under 60s won’t get a vaccine until June, the argument about vaccinating secondary school teachers is redundant as secondary schools are closed from June onwards. Primary school teachers tend to be younger and if they were prioritised would only have had one dose a few weeks before the primary school year ends.

SusanC10 · 17-04-2021 12:13PM

seamus wrote: »

I think this is a solo run by Donnelly. We already know that he's arrogant and obsessed with his own ego.

He's a complete joke with younger voters, so I suspect this is his idea of "giving something back" to them to make him more popular.

Is he not afraid of losing votes in the 30-50 cohort ?

Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

Comments