Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

Widescreen wrote: »

EU were turning there nose up at the AZ vaccine from the start. That's why they are getting short changed with supplies.

Johnson and Johnson will be portrayed as Mother's milk next week and all will be ok. It's American it has to be ok!

Definitely not - it's because AZ are a useless supplier. The big row between the EU and AZ broke out because of their poor deliveries. Nearly three months on and their deliveries are as bad as ever.

Dempo1 wrote: »

We'll agree to disagree, I certainly did not intend disingenuous misdirection, I made ligitimate observations and asked legitimate questions based on what I've seen happening over the past few days. If you look at my response re context, I used the word 'Probably " with the intent of not suggesting dishonesty as you put it. Many have differing opinions and the whole debate on Vacinnes can get heated, this was certainly not my intention. Like many, I wish to learn. On a personal level I have an auto immune disease which a side affect of seriously high blood pressure, so whilst absolutely pro vacinne, I have genuine concerns should I be offered either J&J or AZ, it's not about trust or lack of it, it's out of concern. What led to my initial post was what I perceived as an agenda being pushed by some prior to NIAC"s next decision.

I don't think that I'll ever agree anything with anybody who can't just make their point without embellishing the truth. But, I agree we'll leave it there. lol

Turtwig wrote: »

This only tips the risk vs reward balance if the number of doses is a factor. That's unknown at this point. It could simply be, individuals with a certain biology get one of these vaccines they get the reaction. The number of doses may not matter. Your biology has marked your cards.
Or it could be a issue with the delivery and quality whereby multiple doses increase the risk.

I've oversimplified. I hope it helps illustrate the principle. We don't yet know if J and J single dose has an advantage or not.

True, however from another perspective, the # of doses does matter at a population level. The single dose allows for full vaccination to be achieved considerably faster than the two-dose one.
Which is another aspect to be included in the weighting.

hmmm wrote: »

Interestingly, it looks like the regulator there may also allow citizens to receive the AZ vaccine "at their own risk".

I think there is merit to this, people here are concerned about clotting and they have every right to be and to opt not to take the vaccine. However that are probably more people who are either unconcerned and still happy to proceed the AZ and J&J, but they are being prevented from doing so.

Enlarge the age cohorts for AZ and let people opt out without severe penalty, probably will have to wait longer but that’s down to supply.

hmmm wrote: »

Germany has given the approval for J&J to be used without restrictions.
https://www.ft.com/content/b254833a-27c9-482c-8492-4b63571e57ee

Interestingly, it looks like the regulator there may also allow citizens to receive the AZ vaccine "at their own risk".

I think this is something that given the current circumstances you have to consider allowing for. The problem is ensuring people understand the risk. Going by a lot of the sh1t I've seen on twitter and social media the risk is actually very poorly explained to people.

It's also something you have to be really careful how you present to people. Simply allowing the option may cause people to perceive the vaccine as more dangerous than it actually is! If you are going to use it it needs to be very carefully presented with assurances for thorough follow up if something does awry for the individual on the receiving end of the jab.

Turtwig wrote: »

I think this is something that given the current circumstances you have to consider allowing for. The problem is ensuring people understand the risk. Going by a lot of the sh1t I've seen on twitter and social media the risk is actually very poorly explained to people.

It's also something you have to be really careful how you present to people. Simply allowing the option may cause people to perceive the vaccine as more dangerous than it actually is! If you are going to use it it needs to be very carefully presented with assurances for thorough follow up if something does awry for the individual on the receiving end of the jab.

I agree with that. Just presenting a choice will automatically mean many will opt to avoid AZ (wrongly IMO but many people have no concept of risk).

Turtwig wrote: »

It's also something you have to be really careful how you present to people. Simply allowing the option may cause people to perceive the vaccine as more dangerous than it actually is! If you are going to use it it needs to be very carefully presented with assurances for thorough follow up if something does awry for the individual on the receiving end of the jab.

True, and for the next few decades we're going to have anti-vaxxers saying "Do you remember the AZ vaccine killed young Timmy O'Reilly back in 2021."

If you're going to make it available, it needs to be very clear that you are spinning a wheel, and while the odds are incredibly low that you will have a bad outcome a small number of people will be affected. Many people will be turned off by this, I think most are quite realistic about risk and won't be.

It's not something you would consider outside a pandemic with very significant and continuing economic and social impacts from restrictions. It might not even be needed if we see a big acceleration of supply from other vaccines, but if we do have surplus AZ over the coming weeks we should be deciding now whether we would be willing to release it to under-60s.

Turtwig wrote: »

I think this is something that given the current circumstances you have to consider allowing for. The problem is ensuring people understand the risk. Going by a lot of the sh1t I've seen on twitter and social media the risk is actually very poorly explained to people.

It's also something you have to be really careful how you present to people. Simply allowing the option may cause people to perceive the vaccine as more dangerous than it actually is! If you are going to use it it needs to be very carefully presented with assurances for thorough follow up if something does awry for the individual on the receiving end of the jab.

What does a waiver or "at their own risk" actually mean in practical terms though ? I'm not against it, but does it mean you won't sue anyone ? or you won't take up a hospital bed if you need treatment ? I'm just not sure its workable.

Even in an Irish context, most people who are saying they'd take AZ tomorrow (I would too btw) are likely to be younger than the cohorts currently being jabbed so I'm not sure it would make any difference as we'll likely have plenty of supply by the time their turn comes round anyway.

If NIAC approve J&J without restriction then great, lash it into whoever is next on the list and plough on. I'm just not sure someone in their 40s saying they'd happily sign a waiver and take AZ will matter a damn as their turn is weeks away anyway. I think you'd end up having to mix and match cohorts all over the place if we went the waiver route.

thebaz wrote: »

our NIAC seams more over-cautious than even NPHET, taking the weekend off to think about it - meanwhile citizens of the country are in lockdown for a year and most are urgently awaiting vaccinations, and a return to some form of nomality. Sighhh.

Perhaps I’m biased working in tech, but on several occasions over my career we’ve had a major issue, we keep working until it’s fixed, we literally camped in the office 72 hours straight once to fix an issue. That wasn’t life or death or anything close.

Gael23 wrote: »

What’s the process of getting the vaccine via your GP

Honestly just ring them.

If you are in an eligible group they may offer it. But it is very open ended question as not all GPs are doing it and the ones that are may be restricted to who they have to give it to (eg over 70’s), so you could be lower priority on the list assuming your group is going now.

Russman wrote: »

What does a waiver or "at their own risk" actually mean in practical terms though ? I'm not against it, but does it mean you won't sue anyone ? or you won't take up a hospital bed if you need treatment ? I'm just not sure its workable.

Even in an Irish context, most people who are saying they'd take AZ tomorrow (I would too btw) are likely to be younger than the cohorts currently being jabbed so I'm not sure it would make any difference as we'll likely have plenty of supply by the time their turn comes round anyway.

If NIAC approve J&J without restriction then great, lash it into whoever is next on the list and plough on. I'm just not sure someone in their 40s saying they'd happily sign a waiver and take AZ will matter a damn as their turn is weeks away anyway. I think you'd end up having to mix and match cohorts all over the place if we went the waiver route.

Unfortunately, there are only modest quantities of J&J at present and lashing into it does not seem feasible. Most of the J&J will go in June to younger cohorts.

ddarcy wrote: »

Honestly just ring them.

If you are in an eligible group they may offer it. But it is very open ended question as not all GPs are doing it and the ones that are may be restricted to who they have to give it to (eg over 70’s), so you could be lower priority on the list assuming your group is going now.

My doctors secretary says I should receive a text with a link to register.

Does that make sense?

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Unfortunately, there are only modest quantities of J&J at present and lashing into it does not seem feasible. Most of the J&J will go in June to younger cohorts.

I though they were going to uses it for the bosses and homeless etc?

crossman47 wrote: »

Yes if you are over 70 or in a vulnerable group.

I’m 30 but medically vulnerable l

What is the link to?