Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

Turtwig · 23-04-2021 09:45AM

Strazdas wrote: »

That's a very big jump - 68 new cases reported in a single week

We shouldn't be too surprised at that. There's greater awareness now. Interesting to see one occurred after the second dose. In a few weeks we should have a more detailed insight into the risk for both J&J and AZ vaccines.

Dempo1 · 23-04-2021 09:51AM

Amirani wrote: »

The Minister for Health isn't on NIAC. If they tell him they need more time or information to make their decision, then there's nothing he can do; he's not the expert here.

I'm not sure if it would even be legal for him to "force" an earlier decision. Would certainly open the State up to all sorts of additional liability.

There's certainly a growing not so gentle hint campaign coming from Certain Government ministers, HSE senior management, NPHET levelled toward NIAC to approve full use of J&J vacinne, it's boarding on interference quite frankly and very disturbing. As I've stated previously if AZ & J&J Vacinnes are pretty identical and have had some small numbers of reported blood clotting incidents, NIAC will have some explaning to do if they give full approvals to J&J and continue to restrict AZ. I'm no medical expert but something is not right with this process and I find it concerning any not so subtle persuading is going on. I'm pro vacinne, anti mixed messaging.

snotboogie · 23-04-2021 09:55AM

ixoy wrote: »

Little point comparing to Canada - different supply lines.

They have, yes, but before that we were roughly the same and sometimes ahead of them. Allow for fluctuations a little - if the gap continues to widen further and further, then yes it'll be more disheartening.

Im looking at the 7 day average for vaccination rates. On the 1st of April we were in the high middle of the pack among the 18 Western European countries, in 6th place with a rolling 7 day average vaccination rate of 0.39 per 100 per day.

Since the 14th of April we have been in last place. Our current 7 day average is 0.42, only a slight increase from the 1st of April. Sweden went from 0.31 to 0.65, Portugal went from 0.38 to 0.67, Germany went from 0.37 to 0.6, even Spain who were leading the pack on the 1st of April have gone from 0.46 to 0.63. We are the only Western European country to never hit a 0.5 average over 7 days.

Im not sure why people are not picking up on this but we are really starting to fall behind. It's going to start showing in the overall vaccination rates very soon, we had pretty good months by European standards in February and March which is hiding the current trends in the overall numbers but it won't stay like that for much longer. There is no point celebrating a 35k or 40k day on Friday if we keep having 5k days on Weekends and 20k days on Mondays and Tuesdays. We need to consistently be averaging 25k to 30k over 7 days to keep up with the rest of Europe now.

SusanC10 · 23-04-2021 09:56AM

Dempo1 wrote: »

There's certainly a growing not so gentle hint campaign coming from Certain Government ministers, HSE senior management, NPHET levelled toward NIAC to approve full use of J&J vacinne, it's boarding on interference quite frankly and very disturbing. As I've stated previously if AZ & J&J Vacinnes are pretty identical and have had some small numbers of reported blood clotting incidents, NIAC will have some explaning to do if they give full approvals to J&J and continue to restrict AZ. I'm no medical expert but something is not right with this process and I find it concerning any not so subtle persuading is going on. I'm pro vacinne, anti mixed messaging.

In this article Eamonn Ryan is talking about J&J for Aged 50+

http://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0422/1211323-covid-ireland/

hmmm · 23-04-2021 09:57AM

Dempo1 wrote: »

There's certainly a growing not so gentle hint campaign coming from Certain Government ministers, HSE senior management, NPHET levelled toward NIAC to approve full use of J&J vacinne, it's boarding on interference quite frankly and very disturbing. As I've stated previously if AZ & J&J Vacinnes are pretty identical and have had some small numbers of reported blood clotting incidents, NIAC will have some explaning to do if they give full approvals to J&J and continue to restrict AZ. I'm no medical expert but something is not right with this process and I find it concerning any not so subtle persuading is going on. I'm pro vacinne, anti mixed messaging.

There seems to be a significant difference in the number of reported clotting cases for J&J versus AZ. The risk profile does not look identical.

Government could do more than merely "hint" here. They need to give NIAC cover and tell them what they would like the risk balance to be.

"This is a medical decision" I hear some say. Look, this is either a pandemic or it isn't - if we're in a pandemic and Covid is dangerous, then we need to deploy vaccines as quickly as possible and accept a slightly higher risk than we would in normal times. If it's not a pandemic and we can leave good vaccines go unusued, then let's reopen the country. Extended lockdowns are not a low-cost alternative to vaccination.

Russman · 23-04-2021 09:57AM

Dempo1 wrote: »

There's certainly a growing not so gentle hint campaign coming from Certain Government ministers, HSE senior management, NPHET levelled toward NIAC to approve full use of J&J vacinne, it's boarding on interference quite frankly and very disturbing. As I've stated previously if AZ & J&J Vacinnes are pretty identical and have had some small numbers of reported blood clotting incidents, NIAC will have some explaning to do if they give full approvals to J&J and continue to restrict AZ. I'm no medical expert but something is not right with this process and I find it concerning any not so subtle persuading is going on. I'm pro vacinne, anti mixed messaging.

Tend to agree with this. For an un named minister to describe something NIAC are doing as "madness" as reported in one of the papers this morning, is pretty disgraceful imo. Let the experts do their jobs, just because he/she doesn't like the potential outcome, doesn't mean its the wrong one.

23-04-2021 09:58AM

Turtwig wrote: »

We shouldn't be too surprised at that. There's greater awareness now. Interesting to see one occurred after the second dose. In a few weeks we should have a more detailed insight into the risk for both J&J and AZ vaccines.

They're also moving down the ages and into the groups most at risk of the clots.

It is concerning. I know people will argue the risk is tiny, but 32 people in the UK alone have died from this. That's not insignificant. The covid risk for many of those people would have been very low too.

I'm relieved at NIAC's approach, even if it was on the conservative side.

Valhallapt · 23-04-2021 09:58AM

Dempo1 wrote: »

There's certainly a growing not so gentle hint campaign coming from Certain Government ministers, HSE senior management, NPHET levelled toward NIAC to approve full use of J&J vacinne, it's boarding on interference quite frankly and very disturbing. As I've stated previously if AZ & J&J Vacinnes are pretty identical and have had some small numbers of reported blood clotting incidents, NIAC will have some explaning to do if they give full approvals to J&J and continue to restrict AZ. I'm no medical expert but something is not right with this process and I find it concerning any not so subtle persuading is going on. I'm pro vacinne, anti mixed messaging.

Couldn’t disagree more. The government should be telling niac that there is a balance to be had, the J&j vaccine is safe and effective albeit with an extremely rare side effect. We can’t keep the country locked down forever waiting for the perfect vaccine, that may never come.

If J&j was the only vaccine in town, we won’t even bother talking about the rare side effects.

J&j should be approved for everyone as per the ema and fda recommendations. Perhaps they can offer people an opt out of J&j and they can join a queue for a preferred vaccine.

23-04-2021 10:00AM

Russman wrote: »

Tend to agree with this. For an un named minister to describe something NIAC are doing as "madness" as reported in one of the papers this morning, is pretty disgraceful imo. Let the experts do their jobs, just because he/she doesn't like the potential outcome, doesn't mean its the wrong one.

If the outcome is different to other countries, its certainly up for debate.

If they're looking at the vaccine purely on an individual risk level, is it worth taking versus the risk of covid, not taking into account the societal impacts of the lack of vaccines having us in lockdowns - its being looked at wrong.

is_that_so · 23-04-2021 10:01AM

snotboogie wrote: »

Im looking at the 7 day average for vaccination rates. On the 1st of April we were in the high middle of the pack among the 18 Western European countries, in 6th place with a rolling 7 day average vaccination rate of 0.39 per 100 per day.

Since the 14th of April we have been in last place. Our current 7 day average is 0.42, only a slight increase from the 1st of April. Sweden went from 0.31 to 0.65, Portugal went from 0.38 to 0.67, Germany went from 0.37 to 0.6, even Spain who were leading the pack on the 1st of April have gone from 0.46 to 0.63. We are the only Western European country to never hit a 0.5 average over 7 days.

Im not sure why people are not picking up on this but we are really starting to fall behind. It's going to start showing in the overall vaccination rates very soon, we had pretty good months by European standards in February and March which is hiding the current trends in the overall numbers but it won't stay like that for much longer. There is no point celebrating a 35k or 40k day on Friday if we keep having 5k days on Weekends and 20k days on Mondays and Tuesdays. We need to consistently be averaging 25k to 30k over 7 days to keep up with the rest of Europe now.

It's really never been about league tables, we are consistently putting over 90% of what we get into arms within 7 days. That is a supply issue in our case and you can't really tell what mix of vaccines other countries are using nor what strategies they are using.

Dempo1 · 23-04-2021 10:01AM

hmmm wrote: »

There seems to be a significant difference in the number of reported clotting cases for J&J versus AZ. The risk profile does not look identical.

Government could do more than merely "hint" here. They need to give NIAC cover and tell them what they would like the risk balance to be.

"This is a medical decision" I hear some say. Look, this is either a pandemic or it isn't - if we're in a pandemic and Covid is dangerous, then we need to deploy vaccines as quickly as possible and accept a slightly higher risk than we would in normal times. If it's not a pandemic and we can leave good vaccines go unusued, then let's reopen the country. Extended lockdowns are not a low-cost alternative to vaccination.

I do agree it's a medical decision which is why I'm alarmed at politicians in particular making statements like 'it should be aporoved", suggesting' Hope" when they mean 'Approve " etc

Valhallapt · 23-04-2021 10:02AM

Flying Fox wrote: »

They're also moving down the ages and into the groups most at risk of the clots.

It is concerning. I know people will argue the risk is tiny, but 32 people in the UK alone have died from this. That's not insignificant. The covid risk for many of those people would have been very low too.

I'm relieved at NIAC's approach, even if it was on the conservative side.

Almost 130,000 people have died from covid in the uk. How many more will die from late cancer diagnosis or suicide as a side effect of covid?

32 deaths is terrible, but it’s better than anything else

revelman · 23-04-2021 10:03AM

hmmm wrote: »

There seems to be a significant difference in the number of reported clotting cases for J&J versus AZ. The risk profile does not look identical.

I’m no scientist but there is a certain assumption built into this statement surely. You are assuming that the quality and quantity of reporting of side effects is the same in the United States as it is in Europe. I imagine it is very good in places like Germany and Norway. Is it just as good elsewhere?

Russman · 23-04-2021 10:04AM

hmmm wrote: »

There seems to be a significant difference in the number of reported clotting cases for J&J versus AZ. The risk profile does not look identical.

Government could do more than merely "hint" here. They need to give NIAC cover and tell them what they would like the risk balance to be.

"This is a medical decision" I hear some say. Look, this is either a pandemic or it isn't - if we're in a pandemic and Covid is dangerous, then we need to deploy vaccines as quickly as possible and accept a slightly higher risk than we would in normal times. If it's not a pandemic and we can leave good vaccines go unusued, then let's reopen the country. Extended lockdowns are not a low-cost alternative to vaccination.

I can't agree with this at all. Yes we're in a pandemic and all that that entails, but IMHO there's no way politicians should be deciding what the medical risk profile should be. I get all the economy and lockdown stuff, but we need to have faith in our medical products that they've been assessed by competent professionals and the system of approvals hasn't had interference from vested interests. I'm sure (?) that NIAC factor us being in an urgent situation into their deliberations anyway.

wadacrack · 23-04-2021 10:05AM

We need to ramp up vaccination very quickly. Race between infection and protection. What NIAC ae doing could have long term repercussions. Being overly cautious in spite of EMA approval in a fast moving pandemic is not a rational way of thinking. We are falling well behind the EU average and this seems to missed by the media conveniently again.

stephenjmcd · 23-04-2021 10:06AM

SusanC10 wrote: »

In this article Eamonn Ryan is talking about J&J for Aged 50+

http://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0422/1211323-covid-ireland/

He's not. He gave a hypothetical situation when asked and used the 50 age group as an example

hmmm · 23-04-2021 10:07AM

Dempo1 wrote: »

I do agree it's a medical decision which is why I'm alarmed at politicians in particular making statements like 'it should be aporoved", suggesting' Hope" when they mean 'Approve " etc

It's not a medical decision.

A medic will look at the risk of an age group getting Covid and what their outcomes will be, and will compare it to the risk of them taking the vaccine. It's a simple mathematical decision as to what age groups get the vaccine.

There's no-one there taking into account the cost (and this will primarily affect younger people) of weeks or months extra of lockdowns and social distancing. It won't take into account the tourism and hospitality businesses who will not be able to reopen until we're nearly into Winter. It won't take into account the impact of MHQ on people who want to see their familes & a whole host of other impacts.

We're either in a pandemic or we are not. If you're not going to use the tools to get us out of a pandemic then it doesn't sound very serious - reopen the country.

I agree with posters above. Make it available to people if they choose to take it.

is_that_so · 23-04-2021 10:07AM

Flying Fox wrote: »

They're also moving down the ages and into the groups most at risk of the clots.

It is concerning. I know people will argue the risk is tiny, but 32 people in the UK alone have died from this. That's not insignificant. The covid risk for many of those people would have been very low too.

I'm relieved at NIAC's approach, even if it was on the conservative side.

There is nothing wrong with caution but will NIAC consider the effect on our programme? Restrictions will push it out by at least 2-3 weeks. The kite flying of an over 50s restriction at least gives it a purpose, if it's just the over 60s it's really of little use to us in the overall vaccination programme.

Dempo1 · 23-04-2021 10:07AM

Valhallapt wrote: »

Couldn’t disagree more. The government should be telling niac that there is a balance to be had, the J&j vaccine is safe and effective albeit with an extremely rare side effect. We can’t keep the country locked down forever waiting for the perfect vaccine, that may never come.

If J&j was the only vaccine in town, we won’t even bother talking about the rare side effects.

J&j should be approved for everyone as per the ema and fda recommendations. Perhaps they can offer people an opt out of J&j and they can join a queue for a preferred vaccine.

I do get your points but I respectively disagree, primarily because of the contradiction that is obvious here, AZ restricted, J&J, hmmmm mm, maybe not. I wouldn't subscribe to the notion Government or Politicians should be permitted to tell medical experts what to do.

I'm not being critical of NIAC, just pointing out that it would seem wholely inappropriate for politicians to be nudging a decision that is preferential to their narrative.

JPup · 23-04-2021 10:08AM

Dempo1 wrote: »

There's certainly a growing not so gentle hint campaign coming from Certain Government ministers, HSE senior management, NPHET levelled toward NIAC to approve full use of J&J vacinne, it's boarding on interference quite frankly and very disturbing. As I've stated previously if AZ & J&J Vacinnes are pretty identical and have had some small numbers of reported blood clotting incidents, NIAC will have some explaning to do if they give full approvals to J&J and continue to restrict AZ. I'm no medical expert but something is not right with this process and I find it concerning any not so subtle persuading is going on. I'm pro vacinne, anti mixed messaging.

Is it interference though? It is the government that makes the decision at the end of the day. NIAC is just there to give advice. Ministers have to also consider the economic impact of prolonging the lockdown which the medical experts don't.

Valhallapt · 23-04-2021 10:08AM

Russman wrote: »

I can't agree with this at all. Yes we're in a pandemic and all that that entails, but IMHO there's no way politicians should be deciding what the medical risk profile should be. I get all the economy and lockdown stuff, but we need to have faith in our medical products that they've been assessed by competent professionals and the system of approvals hasn't had interference from vested interests. I'm sure (?) that NIAC factor us being in an urgent situation into their deliberations anyway.

Doctors differ, patients die. The EMA and the FDA continue to show all vaccines on the market are safe and effective.

I know I trust the EMA far above NIAC or NEPHET for that matter.

Gael23 · 23-04-2021 10:08AM

Still no text. How long does it take after your GP registers you?

pc7 · 23-04-2021 10:09AM

Paul Reid on Claire Byrne saying 39k vaccinated yesterday, that's super.

Valhallapt · 23-04-2021 10:10AM

pc7 wrote: »

Paul Reid on Claire Byrne saying 39k vaccinated yesterday, that's super.

That must be a record! I hope we can keep going at this rate.

Dempo1 · 23-04-2021 10:11AM

hmmm wrote: »

It's not a medical decision.

A medic will look at the risk of an age group getting Covid and what their outcomes will be, and will compare it to the risk of them taking the vaccine. It's a simple mathematical decision as to what age groups get the vaccine.

There's no-one there taking into account the cost (and this will primarily affect younger people) of weeks or months extra of lockdowns and social distancing. It won't take into account the tourism and hospitality businesses who will not be able to reopen until we're nearly into Winter. It won't take into account the impact of MHQ on people who want to see their familes & a whole host of other impacts.

We're either in a pandemic or we are not. If you're not going to use the tools to get us out of a pandemic then it doesn't sound very serious - reopen the country.

I agree with posters above. Make it available to people if they choose to take it.

It is a medical decision surely?

All well in good if people were permitted to have a choice, the HSE have made it abundantly clear, there is no choice given, refuse what's offered and go to the bottom of the Q, a policy I do agree with incidentally albeit with clarity given.

Russman · 23-04-2021 10:11AM

Valhallapt wrote: »

I know I trust the EMA far above NIAC or NEPHET for that matter.

Why is that ?

23-04-2021 10:13AM

Valhallapt wrote: »

Almost 130,000 people have died from covid in the uk. How many more will die from late cancer diagnosis or suicide as a side effect of covid?

32 deaths is terrible, but it’s better than anything else

I lost a parent to covid, I know only too well how serious it is.

AZ is a good vaccine and it's a no brainer that older and vulnerable people should take it, as the benefit far outweighs the risk for them. But that's not necessarily the case in younger people, so yes I'm relieved NIAC took the stance they did, even more so now in light of this new UK data.

lbj666 · 23-04-2021 10:13AM

Dempo1 wrote: »

There's certainly a growing not so gentle hint campaign coming from Certain Government ministers, HSE senior management, NPHET levelled toward NIAC to approve full use of J&J vacinne, it's boarding on interference quite frankly and very disturbing. As I've stated previously if AZ & J&J Vacinnes are pretty identical and have had some small numbers of reported blood clotting incidents, NIAC will have some explaning to do if they give full approvals to J&J and continue to restrict AZ. I'm no medical expert but something is not right with this process and I find it concerning any not so subtle persuading is going on. I'm pro vacinne, anti mixed messaging.

As already the mentioned the incidence level of such cases for J&J is not anywhere near those for AZ as of now. So allowing J&J for younger cohorts the AZ would not be mixed messaging. Where the problem lies is news headlines for both vacines say "rare blood clots" painting both of them with the same brush, people to perceive there is a mixed message when a public figure, NIAC rightfully doesnt paint them both with the same brush.

The fear of mixed messaging perceived by the less informed can not be a primary driver for such a crucial decision.

Dempo1 · 23-04-2021 10:13AM

JPup wrote: »

Is it interference though? It is the government that makes the decision at the end of the day. NIAC is just there to give advice. Ministers have to also consider the economic impact of prolonging the lockdown which the medical experts don't.

I believe it is interference albeit subtle.

I fully agree its government that has to consider economic impacts etc.

Strazdas · 23-04-2021 10:13AM

Valhallapt wrote: »

That must be a record! I hope we can keep going at this rate.

It is : I think we hit 35k on one day last week.

Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

Comments