Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

is_that_so · 26-04-2021 07:00PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

Nobody is saying the vaccine is unsafe, and I'm sure NIAC will be at pains to point that out.

What is a consideration is risk v benefit for the various groups. Better to get vulnerable populations fully vaccinated in one go than partially vaccinate them.

So now the over 50s are vulnerable? Would you have said the same if they had said over 40s only? Overall what it looks like the proviso is a loose attempt to give J&J some kind of extended life in the programme.

Tyrone212 · 26-04-2021 07:02PM

Won't over 50s be vaccinated by the time the end of June comes, with a first shot anyway. So what are they going to do with 500k shots then as most of them come in June to late June.

titan18 · 26-04-2021 07:03PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

Nobody is saying the vaccine is unsafe, and I'm sure NIAC will be at pains to point that out.

What is a consideration is risk v benefit for the various groups. Better to get vulnerable populations fully vaccinated in one go than partially vaccinate them.

To me by recommending it not be used on people under 50, it's saying it's unsafe for those people.

From a risk Vs benefit pov and the vaccine is safe, then it's better to use it.

Not for someone on the Aran Islands to get it cos its logistically an issue to give them Pfizer but unsafe to give it to someone in Dublin

Deeper Blue · 26-04-2021 07:03PM

This is so bloody frustrating.

What's going to happen to j&j doses that arrive from July onwards?

Ugh

wadacrack · 26-04-2021 07:04PM

Great results

https://twitter.com/vacciworld/status/1386742408583524352

EddieN75 · 26-04-2021 07:04PM

Gael23 wrote: »

I believe so yes, but it was do that or wait 7-10 years

Has there ever been a vaccination against a disease or virus that was either proven or rumoured to have caused medical complications years later?

26-04-2021 07:04PM

is_that_so wrote: »

So now the over 50s are vulnerable? Would you have said the same if they had said over 40s only?

Huh?

I'm talking about the homeless, etc, which was the context here.

stephenjmcd · 26-04-2021 07:04PM

EddieN75 wrote: »

Is it true that vaccine producers have been given legal protection from being sued if anything goes wrong with people after taking their vaccines? Both short and long term

This is the case in the Us but not sure about Ireland?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html

The state covers it

Stheno · 26-04-2021 07:05PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Genuine question . Do we have enough supplies of Pfizer and Moderna to justify that only those 50-70 can recieve J and J or Astra Zeneca .
I am stunned by this news tonight and really disappointed for people still waiting

What it also means is that the 60-69 age group may be on of the last to be fully vaccinated due to the current twelve week gap

Even those done now won't be fully vaxxed till the end of July

I forsee the gap being shortened, due to political fear of the grey vote

titan18 · 26-04-2021 07:05PM

Tyrone212 wrote: »

Won't over 50s be vaccinated by the time the end of June comes, with a first shot anyway. So what are they going to do with 500k shots then as most of them come in June to late June.

Best case is everyone in the 50-59 group gets J&J and nothing else so keeps Pfizer for the ones that can't get az or j&j. They probably won't do that and we end up wasting doses and taking longer.

is_that_so · 26-04-2021 07:06PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

Huh?

I'm talking about the homeless, etc, which was the context here.

OK, not clear in your post nor the one you replied to.

26-04-2021 07:08PM

titan18 wrote: »

To me by recommending it not be used on people under 50, it's saying it's unsafe for those people.

From a risk Vs benefit pov and the vaccine is safe, then it's better to use it.

Not for someone on the Aran Islands to get it cos its logistically an issue to give them Pfizer but unsafe to give it to someone in Dublin

It's not deemed unsafe though, and can be used in younger people if other options are unavailable.

It's simply recommended to offer a different vaccine if that is possible.

is_that_so · 26-04-2021 07:08PM

titan18 wrote: »

Best case is everyone in the 50-59 group gets J&J and nothing else so keeps Pfizer for the ones that can't get az or j&j. They probably won't do that and we end up wasting doses and taking longer.

One would assume the "hard to reach" communities will be done first so no vaccines for the over 50s for quite a bit.

marno21 · 26-04-2021 07:10PM

wadacrack wrote: »

Great results

https://twitter.com/vacciworld/status/1386742408583524352

Those numbers are simply ****ing daft for such a speedily developed vaccine on a breakthrough platform

Moderna should trial a 1 shot vaccine to see how long immunity lasts. Could be very useful going forward

is_that_so · 26-04-2021 07:11PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

It's not deemed unsafe though, and can be used in younger people if other options are unavailable.

It's simply recommended to offer a different vaccine if that is possible.

They will really need to explain that one properly especially if it is not recommended for under 50s.

iamwhoiam · 26-04-2021 07:11PM

Stheno wrote: »

What it also means is that the 60-69 age group may be on of the last to be fully vaccinated due to the current twelve week gap

Even those done now won't be fully vaxxed till the end of July

I forsee the gap being shortened, due to political fear of the grey vote

I am delighted to be vaccinated but a tiny bit miffed that I will be in that group that has to wait 12 weeks . My husband had Pfizer and will be fully vaccinated ages before me .

titan18 · 26-04-2021 07:11PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

It's not deemed unsafe though, and can be used in younger people if other options are unavailable.

It's simply recommended to offer a different vaccine if that is possible.

Should offer to it everyone if its safe imo.

26-04-2021 07:13PM

is_that_so wrote: »

OK, not clear in your post nor the one you replied to.

The same poster I quoted was arguing that it was unsafe for all under 50s and therefore shouldn't be given to homeless under 50s.

The point I'm making (which is being missed completely) is that the vaccine is not unsafe, and that NIAC will state as much. Just like they did with AZ.

ACitizenErased · 26-04-2021 07:13PM

Mark Coughlan from Prime Time who does all the vaccine numbers thinks that NIAC's decision will cause delays. Worth checking his twitter profile for rationale.

ACitizenErased · 26-04-2021 07:15PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

The same poster I quoted was arguing that it was unsafe for all under 50s and therefore shouldn't be given to homeless under 50s.

The point I'm making (which is being missed completely) is that the vaccine is not unsafe, and that NIAC will state as much. Just like they did with AZ.

If the vaccine was safe in NIAC's eyes they'd be offering it to anyone. Not recommending it for U50s inherently insinuates it's not safe.

26-04-2021 07:17PM

is_that_so wrote: »

They will really need to explain that one properly especially if it is not recommended for under 50s.

It's not recommended if there are other options available, which in the majority of cases there will be.

It's not black and white. A tiny risk does not make the vaccine unsafe in general. However it does make it reasonable to offer an alternative to the people at the highest risk of clotting, where it is possible to do this.

is_that_so · 26-04-2021 07:17PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

The same poster I quoted was arguing that it was unsafe for all under 50s and therefore shouldn't be given to homeless under 50s.

The point I'm making (which is being missed completely) is that the vaccine is not unsafe, and that NIAC will state as much. Just like they did with AZ.

There is a very convoluted "we don't recommend it but if you really have to" message at work in this. My own feeling is that it is a tacit recognition of the spanner they are throwing into the vaccination programme with this.

KrustyUCC · 26-04-2021 07:18PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Mark Coughlan from Prime Time who does all the vaccine numbers thinks that NIAC's decision will cause delays. Worth checking his twitter profile for rationale.

Terrinle news if that transpires

NIAC cause a delay in the vaccination program which is the basis for easing restrictions

Pushing opening of things like hospitality further down the line

26-04-2021 07:19PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

If the vaccine was safe in NIAC's eyes they'd be offering it to anyone. Not recommending it for U50s inherently insinuates it's not safe.

Would you say the same about AZ? Because NIAC were at great pains to emphasize that it was safe for under 60s too, but that the very small risk to younger people and availability of other vaccines influenced their recommendation.

is_that_so · 26-04-2021 07:19PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Mark Coughlan from Prime Time who does all the vaccine numbers thinks that NIAC's decision will cause delays. Worth checking his twitter profile for rationale.

It will also very likely find a fair cohort of the under 50s done before some of them receive a shot.

ACitizenErased · 26-04-2021 07:20PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

Would you say the same about AZ? Because NIAC were at great pains to emphasize that it was safe for under 60s too, but that the very small risk to younger people and availability of other vaccines influenced their recommendation.

It doesn't matter what they say, their recommendations completely contradict their comments. Not sure what's so hard to get that recommendations saying 'oh you cant have that one' insinuates that it's unsafe.

funnydoggy · 26-04-2021 07:21PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

If the vaccine was safe in NIAC's eyes they'd be offering it to anyone. Not recommending it for U50s inherently insinuates it's not safe.

That's what I mean - most of us here would take it in a heartbeat but when two of our vaccines are age restricted, it isn't a good look and the general public won't take it handy. I already have college friends who are terrified of AstraZeneca, and now this happens.. They can't get them now anyway but again, not a good look for these vaccines.

Stheno · 26-04-2021 07:22PM

is_that_so wrote: »

It will also very likely find a fair cohort of the under 50s done before some of them receive a shot.

Yeah.
My GP has a reserve list of people in their late 50s for Pfizer as 60-69 are getting AZ

Now I can see them jumping to 45-49

Its all getting a little bit messy

is_that_so · 26-04-2021 07:22PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

It's not recommended if there are other options available, which in the majority of cases there will be.

It's not black and white. A tiny risk does not make the vaccine unsafe in general. However it does make it reasonable to offer an alternative to the people at the highest risk of clotting, where it is possible to do this.

One option - Pfizer. So why was AZ treated differently with no wishy washy proviso?

funnydoggy · 26-04-2021 07:23PM

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Terrinle news if that transpires

NIAC cause a delay in the vaccination program which is the basis for easing restrictions

Pushing opening of things like hospitality further down the line

I need to go back to work, and if I have to spend another college semester on zoom I'll fúcking have a mental breakdown

Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

Comments