Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

Russman wrote: »

Seems a bit confusing to me - how can age restricted AZ finish mid June, but additional Pfizer is late June ? I’m obviously missing something !

All the scenarios look great though in fairness if they come to pass. Over 45s by end of May, can that really be right ? Hope so as that’s me, but I’ve been mentally expecting a month later.

Found the graphs confusing , but on reading your comment , would think it means that 60 to 69s finished mid June?

PaulJoseph22 wrote: »

Don’t hold your breath....
I read in today’s paper there’s an 86 year old still waiting for the vaccine, plus they appear to have ignored the cancelled appointments from last week and are scheduling 65 to 69 now. It’s a shambles.

You realise they're running at the same time?

Goldengirl wrote: »

Found the graphs confusing , but on reading your comment , would think it means that 60 to 69s finished mid June?

I’d say start of June based on what Paul Reid said the other day.
The graph and the commentary seem incredibly positive and fingers crossed they’re accurate, it’d be amazing if it plays out that way. I just found it hard to reconcile the graph with the text tbh.

PaulJoseph22 wrote: »

Really, my sister over 60 had an appointment which was cancellled, a week later, no word, same with me.....

It's been widely reported that it will be two weeks before everyone is re-accomodated

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

None of the vaccines prevent you from contracting the virus, so yes of course you can become positive at any time before or after the jab.

They do not even prevent you from developing Covid.

People seem to have unreasonable expectations from the jab.

Do you really want people to try to explain to you how the vaccines do work ...at this stage ....or are you just on a wind up ?

MrStuffins wrote: »

....... What?

Thought they just reduced symptoms.You can ,as far as I know still catch and transmit the virus even after vaccination.

But I am unsure as to whether or not there is a small section of the population that
is completely unaffected by the vaccine. If you develop antibodies either from the vaccine or via normal transmission does it automatically follow that you are protected to some degree?

WSJ on the latest here on the J&J pause ...

- What drove the J&J pause was not the clots but rather doctors incorrectly treating to clots. The CDC wanted to be able to issue the right advise to the medical profession on how to deal with the clots. Traditional clot treatments may not work. In 4/6 cases, doctors gave heparin which may have made the clots even worse.
- In one case, what worked was blood thinner called argatroban, along with intravenous immune globulin.
- The two most likely options, for Friday's CDC verdict, are restricting the shot to an age group such as men and women over 50 years, or allowing a return to widespread use but with added a warning about the benefits and risks of the shot.

Seems like the CDC will resume J&J with new clot treatment advise or restrict to 50+. With the EMA working with the FDA, it would seem likely that the EMA might do something similar tomorrow but even if the EMA give a green light (with new clot treatment advise) it is obviously plausible that NIAC will restrict J&J to 50+.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

My mother is in her early 70s, a slightly nervous diabetic. You're spot on with respect to fortnightly delivery, GP confirmed it will be at end of month. It would seem rational to complete first doses for this cohort before moving on to the 65-69 age group. Anyway, the system is imperfect and I can't begrudge anyone in their sixties receiving jab promptly. What I will begrudge are teachers who haven't reached middle age/under 30s getting anything more than zero consideration. Young and healthy? Back of the line.

It seems that scheduling deliveries is the bottleneck for the over 70s. I guess the logistics are quite complex. I know it's frustrating, but it really wouldn't make sense to delay the under 70s in the MVCs until every last gp has finished their over 70s. Hopefully they'll all be sorted in the next couple of weeks.

Lumen wrote: »

There's no reason in principle that many over 70s can't be done in the MVCs the same as other age groups. That's what the UK have done.

If they'd planned this properly months ago (as soon as the vaccines had been ordered) there would have been a central registration system in place where you could specify whether you were happy making your own way to an MVC or needed it closer to/at home.

I'm not really moaning and it'll all work out in time but it's not hard to see how it could have been done better, at least from my armchair.

The original plan was AZ to the gps for the over 70s so planning deliveries etc would have been trivial.

When you're under pressure deadline wise, you're not going to waste time adding features that are unlikely to be used.

Hindsight is 20:20

JTMan wrote: »

WSJ on the latest here on the J&J pause ...

- What drove the J&J pause was not the clots but rather doctors incorrectly treating to clots. The CDC wanted to be able to issue the right advise to the medical profession on how to deal with the clots. Traditional clot treatments may not work. In 4/6 cases, doctors gave heparin which may have made the clots even worse.
- In one case, what worked was blood thinner called argatroban, along with intravenous immune globulin.
- The two most likely options, for Friday's CDC verdict, are restricting the shot to an age group such as men and women over 50 years, or allowing a return to widespread use but with added a warning about the benefits and risks of the shot.

Seems like the CDC will resume J&J with new clot treatment advise or restrict to 50+. With the EMA working with the FDA, it would seem likely that the EMA might do something similar tomorrow but even if the EMA give a green light (with new clot treatment advise) it is obviously plausible that NIAC will restrict J&J to 50+.

The f*cking ultra conservative NIAC will undoubtedly limit its use if the FDA do it, which will make it practically useless for us. If the FDA say 50+, NIAC will say 60+. Our only hope is that there are no restrictions recommended by the FDA and EMA, which might put pressure on NIAC but I'm not holding my breath.

As a 30-something I would happily take J&J, but it seems I'm not allowed to make that decision for myself.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

My mother is in her early 70s, a slightly nervous diabetic. You're spot on with respect to fortnightly delivery, GP confirmed it will be at end of month. It would seem rational to complete first doses for this cohort before moving on to the 65-69 age group. Anyway, the system is imperfect and I can't begrudge anyone in their sixties receiving jab promptly. What I will begrudge are teachers who haven't reached middle age/under 30s getting anything more than zero consideration. Young and healthy? Back of the line.

If it's any comfort, there are many in the 65-69 cohort who would happily wait another couple of weeks to get Pfizer instead of getting Astrazeneca tomorrow. As someone quipped over the weekend, it feels like 60-69 year olds are not old to be vulnerable and not young enough to be valuable!

Deleted User wrote: »

Has anyone who got vaccinated considered doing a covid antibody test afterwards?

Double edged sword, if it was positive it could give you extra assurance. If negative it could make you anxious when you may well have immunity/t cells etc.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

None of the vaccines prevent you from contracting the virus, so yes of course you can become positive at any time before or after the jab.

They do not even prevent you from developing Covid.

People seem to have unreasonable expectations from the jab.

Goldengirl wrote: »

Do you really want people to try to explain to you how the vaccines do work ...at this stage ....or are you just on a wind up ?

No, I am quite well informed on that subject, but what you could do is explain what prompted your post above, as I gave no indication I do not understand how vaccines work.
I repeat

People seem to have unreasonable expectations from the jab.

JTMan wrote: »

WSJ on the latest here on the J&J pause ...

- What drove the J&J pause was not the clots but rather doctors incorrectly treating to clots. The CDC wanted to be able to issue the right advise to the medical profession on how to deal with the clots. Traditional clot treatments may not work. In 4/6 cases, doctors gave heparin which may have made the clots even worse.
- In one case, what worked was blood thinner called argatroban, along with intravenous immune globulin.
- The two most likely options, for Friday's CDC verdict, are restricting the shot to an age group such as men and women over 50 years, or allowing a return to widespread use but with added a warning about the benefits and risks of the shot.

Seems like the CDC will resume J&J with new clot treatment advise or restrict to 50+. With the EMA working with the FDA, it would seem likely that the EMA might do something similar tomorrow but even if the EMA give a green light (with new clot treatment advise) it is obviously plausible that NIAC will restrict J&J to 50+.

Anyone who watched the first FDA press conference (as posted on here) knew it was to advise clinicians on treatment. The FDA said through the whole press conference multiple times that they needed to pause to update guidance regarding treatment

firemansam4 wrote: »

Both my parents are in the 75 - 80 group and have not been called for there first jab yet. When they contacted the doctors a few days ago they were told it could be another 10 days and they would contact them to let them know

My parents in law..79 and 83 have both had BOTH doses at this stage