Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

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.

I don't think there is any reason to be concerned yet. The astrazeneca age limit put a spanner in the works this month, but we'll be back on track soon.

If J&J is allowed for at least some people under 60 and the spacing for pfizer goes out to 6 weeks then we will still hit the 80% vaccinated by the end of June I think.

Given that the bulk of J & J doses aren't due to arrive until June, I think people are reading a tiny bit too much into its potential impact. It would be a help certainly but not a total gamechanger (and definitely not that in the next six weeks).

Flying Fox wrote: »

We haven't though? We've just redirected supply.

J&J is a separate issue and if there is an age cut off it's likely to be lower. The risk appears to be much lower than AZ too, so there's a reasonable chance it will be approved for all ages.

Yes that what limiting it to over 60s does. We have the over 60s covered with AZ there are no more arms for the J&J to go into. Everyone else have to wait for pfizer or moderna. It’ll effectively remove 1.2m jabs from our supply and slow roll out by several months

The government want 80% vaccinated by June, that’s not going to happen without J&J. J&J is due to vaccinate 15% of the population between now and end of June

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.

Like Chimps and gorillas are identical. 1 in 900,000 vs 1 in 125,000 is a long way from identical odds.

timsey tiger wrote: »

Like Chimps and gorillas are identical. 1 in 900,000 vs 1 in 125,000 is a long way from identical odds.

Probably taking my "Pretty Identical" point out of context, I'm just pointing out manufacturing process, ingredients and how both Vacinnes work. I accept incidents absolutely tiny, my primary concern is interference prior to a decision being made and objectively how one vacinne can be restricted and another potentially not, I think it's a ligitimate question when and if it happens

Dempo1 wrote: »

Probably taking my "Pretty Identical" point out of context, I'm just pointing out manufacturing process, ingredients and how both Vacinnes work. I accept incidents absolutely tiny, my primary concern is interference prior to a decision being made and objectively how one vacinne can be restricted and another potentially not, I think it's a ligitimate question when and if it happens

Probably? How so? I qouted your entire post. It was you who was making an irrelevant false equivalence. Based on what you are saying we should be popping the Sanofi vaccine into everybody, because it is "pretty identical" to the AZ and Janssen vaccines. I was just calling you on your sh1t.

Widescreen wrote: »

I'm convinced AZ is a political thing from the start and the J&J decision will prove it.

Yes and in a roundabout way, it's what I'm concerned about

Dempo1 wrote: »

Charming contribution and un called for, shame ligitimate questions, concerns on Vacinnes decend into rudeness.

Legitimate questions do not need to have disingenuous misdirection within them. I made a legitimate criticism of this dishonesty you accused me of quoting out of context again a misdirection since I quoted the entirety of your post.

Who is the one who should be ashamed of themselves here?

Widescreen wrote: »

I'm convinced AZ is a political thing from the start and the J&J decision will prove it.

Was the UK decision political? And South Africa? Or just the decision of the individual European countries?

And I'm not going to agree that a decision on allowing J&J more flexibility proves anything. In fact, the data to my mind makes it much more likely that more flexibility should be given. And I'm not in agreement with being so cautious around AZ.

Gael23 wrote: »

Ok so it seems to be quite short notice then?

32.5 hours exactly

secman wrote: »

Registered my wife on Monday, got a text this morning for appointment at 6:30 pm tomorrow evening in Citywest.

I can register tomorrow, this is a thinly veined.....my wife is older than me thread

What is it about all these baby-snatching women who were marauding around the gaff in tbe 70's and early 80's?

vienne86 wrote: »

CityWest seems to be steaming ahead. I know a good few people who registered at least a week ago and who have heard nothing .......their local MVC would most likely be the Aviva.

Definitely they seem to be firing ahead
I have friends all done and dusted in City west and other friends who registered the same day awaiting a text . They would be Croke Park or Aviva
Whoever is in charge of logistics in City West is doing a tremendous job

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 no group identified yet as being more at risks of the clots. Simply stating otherwise is wrong. If an elderly person had this incident in Jan or Feb it likely wouldn't even have been recognised. Only because younger people in their 30s and 40 were affected was their condition so thoroughly investigated. A possible reason that along with vaccination profile the event was observed first in younger cohorts. Younger people may be more at risk. They may not be. We don't have enough reliable information to definitely say either way yet.

People here keep quoting dismissive stats as if they are final. 1 in several million and other ridiculous tweets. The stats are in flux. The UK rate now is almost 1 in 125,000. That may increase even further - and if goes to 1 in 100,000 or higher an interesting discussion will have to be had. There may be a set % of the population that should never take the viral vector vaccines. Small enough that you would never see the issue in clinical trials but large enough that if this were not a pandemic the medicine may be withdrawn or withheld under very strict circumstances until the individuals at risk are known and understood better.

Politicians would do well to sht the fck up. I disagree with NIACs position. I disagree much stronger with the public comments declaring the age thresholds. It's a complicated subject that can be updated as more information becomes available. The limits are not set in stone.

Widescreen wrote: »

I'm convinced AZ is a political thing from the start and the J&J decision will prove it.

There's a pretty considerable difference in the incidence rate - but that is bearing in mind that J&J hasn't been in widespread use like AZ has.

So on the face of it, this is apples & oranges. Not only is J&J "safer" than AZ, but it's also one-dose. So that tips the balance of risk -v- reward in a very different way.

I don't think it would fair to say that if J & J gets the go-ahead for under-60s that it must be a political decision.