Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

ixoy · 26-04-2021 10:51PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

If a couple of weeks is the difference in removing risk for younger cohorts it is the right decision.

Is it just a couple of weeks? Could those couple of weeks also mean that young people getting infected suffer more long-term Covid, spread it to those 50+ who haven't been vaccinated? Are there knock on effects to hospitalisations that affect other areas?
And do they present the reasoning behind their results, versus that adopted by other countries, or is it a case of :"We don't have to explain ourselves to you".

stephenjmcd · 26-04-2021 10:52PM

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Kingston Mills unusually glum on Claire Byrne live

Surprised at NIAC decision to limit J&J

Would prefer to take J&J over AZ

Worried about Indian Variant

Course he'd prefer it, sure its one dose. Wouldn't we all prefer one dose.

Think some people need to take a step back and wait for the final advice & actually look at the overall impact to the rollout. There's little change to June timelines, some groups may move a little faster, some a little slower than expected, to me I don't see a major issue here its not going to throw things out completely. It'll take the HSE a bit of planning but it's all possible.

Would have preferred a lower cut off myself but it is what it is and they'll have have work with it, like I say though it's possible.

lbj666 · 26-04-2021 10:55PM

I ll say it again there is a far clearer route for a few days in court for NiAC CMO et al over vacine safety than any of their decisions would have for prolonguing the vacine programme and the how many deaths would happen as a result.It's far muddier and fingers can be pointed anywhere. They just get numbed into such super conservative decisions and the government leave them at it and provide no sort of amnesty to put them more at ease and allow more balanced or broader picture approach in their decision making.

dominatinMC · 26-04-2021 10:57PM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Course he'd prefer it, sure its one dose. Wouldn't we all prefer one dose.

In fairness, the reason he stated for choosing J&J over AZ is the increased efficacy against the SA variant - which he said AZ was only 10% effective against. And he even cited that much-maligned study (with the CIs) as evidence of this, which I have to say was surprising. He did qualify that by saying that it was a very small study and that AZ does still protect against severe illness.

26-04-2021 10:58PM

Doc07 wrote: »

Thanks for posting it. However on the last point EMA don’t make the call on who should get what vaccine, especially when their are more than one vaccine in the mix.

You're right, be interesting to see what countries approve for all cohorts. USA & FDA has approved for over 18s.

Turtwig · 26-04-2021 10:59PM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Course he'd prefer it, sure its one dose. Wouldn't we all prefer one dose.

Mills preferred JJ over AZ because he thinks AZ doesn't work as well against the south African variant.

He did not mention anything about single shot iirc.

stephenjmcd · 26-04-2021 11:01PM

dominatinMC wrote: »

In fairness, the reason he stated for choosing J&J over AZ is the increased efficacy against the SA variant - which he said AZ was only 10% effective against. And he even cited that much-maligned study (with the CIs) as evidence of this, which I have to say was surprising. He did qualify that by saying that it was a very small study and that AZ does still protect against severe illness.

Not bothered watching the Tonight Show or Claire Byrne these days myself to be honest but for the love of god that study again. Not sure how they've not been pulled up on that study as a reference. Fair enough he said it was a small study but there's plenty more going against it than that.

thebaz · 26-04-2021 11:15PM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Would have preferred a lower cut off myself but it is what it is and they'll have have work with it, like I say though it's possible.

Everything HSE/NPHET/NIAC do is over-cautious, perhaps it is to do with our letigious society, where any accident seams to result in massive compensation claim.
Given what is happening in India, and the risk of virus over vaccine, seams crazy to me to not at least limit Johnson to over 30s, but what would I know just a stupid citizen.

snotboogie · 26-04-2021 11:17PM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Course he'd prefer it, sure its one dose. Wouldn't we all prefer one dose.

Think some people need to take a step back and wait for the final advice & actually look at the overall impact to the rollout. There's little change to June timelines, some groups may move a little faster, some a little slower than expected, to me I don't see a major issue here its not going to throw things out completely. It'll take the HSE a bit of planning but it's all possible.

Would have preferred a lower cut off myself but it is what it is and they'll have have work with it, like I say though it's possible.

That would be true if the HSE reserve AZ and J&J for 50+ only and start vaccinating under 50's concurrently with the mRNA's.

I don't see that being politically palitable so I'd imagine we'll keep going as planned for now and hit supply shortages when we get to the under 50's and can't use AZ or J&J.

TomOnBoard · 26-04-2021 11:19PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Did I not hear something earlier about a proven treatment for when these blood clots arise? Why can't we go with that instead of limiting their use?

If these blood clots arise, and you haven't sought treatment (because you didn't know you should, or didn't think you needed to) you may die. Treatment is only possible after a diagnosis.

titan18 · 26-04-2021 11:24PM

snotboogie wrote: »

That would be true if the HSE reserve AZ and J&J for 50+ only and start vaccinating under 50's concurrently with the mRNA's.

I don't see that being politically palitable so I'd imagine we'll keep going as planned for now and hit supply shortages when we get to the under 50's and can't use AZ or J&J.

It seemed to be politically palatable to do it for 60-69, why wouldn't it be the same for 50-59.

stephenjmcd · 26-04-2021 11:26PM

snotboogie wrote: »

That would be true if the HSE reserve AZ and J&J for 50+ only and start vaccinating under 50's concurrently with the mRNA's.

I don't see that being politically palitable so I'd imagine we'll keep going as planned for now and hit supply shortages when we get to the under 50's and can't use AZ or J&J.

It's been done already for 60-69 so they'll absolutely do it again for 50+

There's been a few things done that wouldn't have been seen as politically palitable, teachers vaccines etc but they've been done.

JPup · 26-04-2021 11:27PM

snotboogie wrote: »

That would be true if the HSE reserve AZ and J&J for 50+ only and start vaccinating under 50's concurrently with the mRNA's.

I don't see that being politically palitable so I'd imagine we'll keep going as planned for now and hit supply shortages when we get to the under 50's and can't use AZ or J&J.

Why wouldn’t it be politically palatable? It’s the logical thing to do and the only way they can hit the 80% target by the end of June. Martin needs to make that target, or at least get very close, to get FF off life support in the polls.

nibtrix · 26-04-2021 11:27PM

titan18 wrote: »

It seemed to be politically palatable to do it for 60-69, why wouldn't it be the same for 50-59.

They are talking about skipping ahead to 40s while 50s wait for the supply of J&J not being palatable.

Stark · 26-04-2021 11:34PM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

It's been done already for 60-69 so they'll absolutely do it again for 50+

There's been a few things done that wouldn't have been seen as politically palitable, teachers vaccines etc but they've been done.

Maybe they could start prioritising by occupation again. Might be a way to sneak younger people up the queue without making it too obvious.

JPup · 26-04-2021 11:38PM

nibtrix wrote: »

They are talking about skipping ahead to 40s while 50s wait for the supply of J&J not being palatable.

They wouldn’t be skipping ahead. The two groups would run concurrently as over 60s and over 70s are now.

Klonker · 26-04-2021 11:39PM

NIAC are making a difficult job for government and the HSE multiple times as difficult.

As others have mentioned, a lot of over 50s will be waiting until late June to get their vaccine. How many of this cohort would statistical die of covid compared to if there was no age restriction on J&J? Same issue with AZ and over 60s. Sure no bother as long as NIAC can't be blamed if someone ends up with bad reaction to a vaccine.

greenheep · 26-04-2021 11:43PM

JPup wrote: »

They wouldn’t be ‘skipping ahead’. The two groups would run concurrently as over 60s and over 70s are now.

The bulk of J&J isn't due until late June so they can't do them concurrently, they have to wait for it to arrive

26-04-2021 11:45PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

They would recommend it to everyone.

It’s difficult for people to grasp, but the availability of safer vaccines makes it ethically prudent to err on the side of caution. If a couple of weeks is the difference in removing risk for younger cohorts it is the right decision.

Ethically prudent if you make no other considerations on the impact of your decision on wider society and people's livelihoods

Myramar · 26-04-2021 11:47PM

Speak Now wrote: »

If J&J and AZ were the only approved vaccines in the EU what would NIAC recommend? Herd immunity for most under 50's?

Stephen Donnelly answered this question a few weeks ago. He said that if AZ was the only vaccine we had it would be a "different story".
32 million people in Europe have received this vaccine and it has proved itself effective. People are not dropping like flies after taking one vaccine or the other.
The problem with AZ is that it has a "bad image" fuelled by Social Media and a traditional media that now follows Social Media. 25 years ago the blood clotting issue would never have seen the light of day. Nowadays we think we are enlightened because we have more information but this is a two edged sword. Too much information is as bad as not enough.
I am in the 60-69 age group and I will take the AZ vaccine. Not because of what Donnelly, Martin, Varadkar, Nephet, NIAC, or Reid have to say but because 32 million people have had something to say.
There is no logical reason why all the vaccines should not be considered equally. The clotting issue is insignificant and a red herring.

joeysoap · 26-04-2021 11:49PM

Don’t you just love those smart vaccines that know the age difference between 59 and 60 and between 69 and 70. Really smart.

Rebelbrowser · 26-04-2021 11:49PM

If they give over 50s a mix of AZ and J&J, there's a hell of a difference between those who get one versus the other in terms of when they are fully vaccinated. Imagine if, say, a 51 year old is getting AZ in June when a 46 year old gets Pfizer in late May. 46 year old is fully vaccinated by early July, 51 year old is fully vaccinated sometime in late September or October. Easier sell if he's given J&J in June, back on track then with his 46 year old comparator, both fully vaccinated by July.

Pretzill · 26-04-2021 11:49PM

My other half is getting his first dose tomorrow - he would be cohort 4 but over 60 so it's AZ he's a little nervous because of all the recent press about AZ but I believe it to be a good type of vaccine and would prefer it over the DNA type vaccines - although I won't get a choice as I'm in a different cohort. I will most likely be waiting a while yet but so happy the roll out is picking up its pace!

hmmm · 26-04-2021 11:51PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It’s difficult for people to grasp, but the availability of safer vaccines makes it ethically prudent to err on the side of caution. If a couple of weeks is the difference in removing risk for younger cohorts it is the right decision.

A "couple of weeks" while the country remains in a lockdown with the economic and social damage this causes. Lockdowns are not cost-free, and sometimes I think this is forgotten on the medical side.

NPHET/NIAC or whoever shouldn't get to decide that lockdowns are an acceptable price to pay to reduce the very small risk from a vaccine - that's a decision a government should be taking.

I think the current lockdown is fraying badly, and I'm not sure the people are going to give the government an "extra few weeks". We need to get vaccines into arms as quickly as possible.

Myramar · 26-04-2021 11:52PM

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

If they give over 50s a mix of AZ and J&J, there's a hell of a difference between those who get one versus the other in terms of when they are fully vaccinated. Imagine if, say, a 51 year old is getting AZ in June when a 46 year old gets Pfizer in late May. 46 year old is fully vaccinated by early July, 51 year old is fully vaccinated sometime in late September or October. Easier sell if he's given J&J in June, back on track then with his 46 year old comparator, both fully vaccinated by July.

J&J is a one shot Jab so it won't be mixed with anything.

plastic glass · 26-04-2021 11:52PM

joeysoap wrote: »

Don’t you just love those smart vaccines that know the age difference between 59 and 60 and between 69 and 70. Really smart.

Silly statement. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Van.Bosch · 26-04-2021 11:53PM

hmmm wrote: »

A "couple of weeks" while the country remains in a lockdown with the economic and social damage this causes. Lockdowns are not cost-free, and sometimes I think this is forgotten on the medical side.

NPHET/NIAC or whoever shouldn't get to decide that lockdowns are an acceptable price to pay to reduce the very small risk from a vaccine - that's a decision a government should be taking.

I think the current lockdown is fraying badly, and I'm not sure the people are going to give the government an "extra few weeks". We need to get vaccines into arms as quickly as possible.

Fraying badly is right - I don’t know anyone 100%, most are doing I’d say 90% but very different to last April.

Klonker · 26-04-2021 11:57PM

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

If they give over 50s a mix of AZ and J&J, there's a hell of a difference between those who get one versus the other in terms of when they are fully vaccinated. Imagine if, say, a 51 year old is getting AZ in June when a 46 year old gets Pfizer in late May. 46 year old is fully vaccinated by early July, 51 year old is fully vaccinated sometime in late September or October. Easier sell if he's given J&J in June, back on track then with his 46 year old comparator, both fully vaccinated by July.

Both would have similar protection after first dose of J&J and AZ. It's just that after second does of AZ this person would have marginally better and longer protection.

The issue seems to be only with a green cert. I think the only fair thing is to give the certs after a person has the first dose. If it's for a vaccine that is supposed to have a second dose then there should be a date on it for second vaccine. If that date passes and no second shot the cert should be null and void until second vaccine.

josip · 26-04-2021 11:58PM

nibtrix wrote: »

They are talking about skipping ahead to 40s while 50s wait for the supply of J&J not being palatable.

I thought there were still a lot of 2nd doses of Pfizer to be administered to the over 70s before the 49s and under start getting jabs?
Whereas any J&J we get in April (40k) and May (140k) will go into 50-59 year olds immediately.
A lot of 50-59 year olds are still going to get jabbed before 40-49 year olds.

Rebelbrowser · 27-04-2021 12:03AM

Myramar wrote: »

J&J is a one shot Jab so it won't be mixed with anything.

Didn't mean it that way. Meant some get AZ, some get J&J. Apologies I wasn't clear

Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

Comments