Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

Strazdas wrote: »

I can't see imagine any scenario where it would be acceptable for hundreds of thousands of people in their 50s to be still waiting for a vaccine in mid June (nearly two months away from now), when the whole idea of the programme is that it moves down through the age cohorts : at that stage you would nearly see people in their twenties and teens being vaccinated ahead of them.

They would rightly be questioning what was going on and why it had been deemed they could receive J & J, but nothing else.

True but at the same time, it would depend on how govt “sells” it. I totally agree the programme should be moving down the age cohorts, the virus is progressively more deadly the older you are, after all.
However, given the likely dates for full protection - say a 50 something getting J&J in mid June would be fully protected by the end of June, and a 40 something getting Pfizer in mid May would also only be fully protected by the end of June too, with the second dose - is something govt could highlight, along with the benefits of only having to get one jab. That, along with the message that “if we don’t do it this way, we’ll end up binning half a million J&J shots, and taking much longer” would get it over the line I think. The plan was always a “live” document and subject to change.
Now, on one hand I don’t really agree with this, there’s something inherently wrong imo in the 50s & 60s being only given the vaccines that are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as being inferior, for a virus that’s worse for older people.
On the other hand, I’m not on NIAC or privy to the data they have, and if the medical advice is what is being speculated re the 50s, then it’s just something we have to deal with. I’m not even sure reducing the AZ restriction to 50 would help much, if you’re 58 you’d be p1ssed that you might get AZ in mid May and have to wait 12 weeks for dose two, while a 52 year old might get J&J late May and be done with it.
Then again a vaccination programme is mostly about the herd rather than the individual, so what best for the herd ? I’d hate to be on the HSE planning team right now, that’s for sure ! It’ll be bin J&J and take longer, or else p1ss off the 50-59 age cohort but stay on target.

timsey tiger wrote: »

people in their 60s got vaccinated before some in their 70s. This wouldn't be any different. It is about getting everybody done as quickly as possible, not sticking to some arbitrary order for the sake of it.

It's not an arbitrary order though? There is sound logic and evidence behind "COVID Age".

I think a good way to use up the j&j vaccines (and potentially excess az) would be to organise a parallel rollout, perhaps through the pharmacy network, where people could sign up voluntarily, but ahead of time. So, e.g., when 40+ are being vaccinated in the MVC, 30+ could sign up at pharmacies. Not sure how high the uptake would be, but it would potentially allow the MVCs to go ahead and vaccinate 50 and 60+ with whatever is available, without worrying about excess stocks at the end.
I know it probably won't be allowed, but if people are willing and aware of the risks, I think it is wrong to withhold the vaccines.

Russman wrote: »

True but at the same time, it would depend on how govt “sells” it. I totally agree the programme should be moving down the age cohorts, the virus is progressively more deadly the older you are, after all.
However, given the likely dates for full protection - say a 50 something getting J&J in mid June would be fully protected by the end of June, and a 40 something getting Pfizer in mid May would also only be fully protected by the end of June too, with the second dose - is something govt could highlight, along with the benefits of only having to get one jab. That, along with the message that “if we don’t do it this way, we’ll end up binning half a million J&J shots, and taking much longer” would get it over the line I think. The plan was always a “live” document and subject to change.
Now, on one hand I don’t really agree with this, there’s something inherently wrong imo in the 50s & 60s being only given the vaccines that are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as being inferior, for a virus that’s worse for older people.
On the other hand, I’m not on NIAC or privy to the data they have, and if the medical advice is what is being speculated re the 50s, then it’s just something we have to deal with. I’m not even sure reducing the AZ restriction to 50 would help much, if you’re 58 you’d be p1ssed that you might get AZ in mid May and have to wait 12 weeks for dose two, while a 52 year old might get J&J late May and be done with it.
Then again a vaccination programme is mostly about the herd rather than the individual, so what best for the herd ? I’d hate to be on the HSE planning team right now, that’s for sure ! It’ll be bin J&J and take longer, or else p1ss off the 50-59 age cohort but stay on target.

J&J are delivering 132k in May, the 50-59 age group is about 600K so at most 25% will be done by the end of May via J&J.

Have to say that as a 50 year old I'm concerned that it seems I am going to have to take the worst possible vaccine available in terms of effectiveness. I was very much a pro vaxxer previously, however I am leaning towards waiting it out now and seeing if something better becomes available later on in the summer. Also some reports out of the US on severe reactions to this one have me nervous also.

If they use AZ and J&J exclusively for 50-69. Will they kick off a parallel cohort of 49 and under using Pfizer?

Valhallapt wrote: »

If they use AZ and J&J exclusively for 50-69. Will they kick off a parallel cohort of 49 and under using Pfizer?

They'll have have to kick it off very soon after to get to 80% in June and we can probably expect some 40 somethings being done well in advance of 50 year olds. IMO July may now be that date because of these changes.

is_that_so wrote: »

AZ is more likely for most on account of the delivery levels of J&J in May although you could be queueing with the 20 somethings in June while they get their Pfizer!

And we’ll be queueing on our own in September for the second dose. It looks like we’ve drawn the short straw in the vaccine lottery. As others have said it’s not the individual that counts though. Still I will hate another period of time working from home while all my colleagues are back to normal.

Panrich wrote: »

And we’ll be queueing on our own in September for the second dose. It looks like we’ve drawn the short straw in the vaccine lottery. As others have said it’s not the individual that counts though. Still I will hate another period of time working from home while all my colleagues are back to normal.

Sure, it is the group but you've one part of the programme , the HSE, doing all they can to make it fair and another, NIAC, resetting their own guidance and potentially disrupting that plan. Optics and order of vaccination play a part in this too.

I do agree any vaccine is better than none - if no others are available. However 20 somethings getting a vaccine with 95% efficacy at the same time as 50+ year olds getting one with mid 60's seems unfair to me. I'd rather wait until more Phizer/Moderna became available as a choice than having to go with the worst performer or possibly the second worst AZ with a 12 week wait for both doses.

Supercell wrote: »

I do agree any vaccine is better than none - if no others are available. However 20 somethings getting a vaccine with 95% efficacy at the same time as 50+ year olds getting one with mid 60's seems unfair to me. I'd rather wait until more Phizer/Moderna became available as a choice than having to go with the worst performer or possibly the second worst AZ with a 12 week wait for both doses.

Not aiming this at you OP, but more in general.
All this talk of efficacy and vaccine selection is bloody ridiculous. Reeks of privilage, and is an issue excaerbated by the media - who are basically playing vaccines off against each other. From what I have seen, all vaccines (AZ, BioNTech, Moderna, J&J) are almost 100% effective at preventing severe illness and/or death against the disease. Isn't that the goal here? Added bonus if they prevent symptomatic infection and/or transmission, but don't let that distract from the facts that all vaccines do as they say on the tin.

If we are looking for perfection, we will never get out of this mess.

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Are you sure? In India they gave out millions of domestically produced AZ vaccines (look at their vaccination graph going vertical) yet are in absolute disaster now wouldn’t be surprised if AZ is useless against this variant, which doesn’t bode well for those took it.

I don't know, maybe it's more to do with the fact that India has a population of over a billion but have only administered ~170 million vaccines

Why are the papers saying this is a positive? They surely know that J&J won’t get fully delivered until middle to late June?
Only 170k doses between now and end of May.....
also they really need to set out that this is the last change to AZ and J&J and start opening up the portals for Pfizer and moderna for the under 50’s space out the interval by two works get as many as them done as possible before end of June!
Plough on!!

Cork2021 wrote: »

Why are the papers saying this is a positive? They surely know that J&J won’t get fully delivered until middle to late June?
Only 170k doses between now and end of May.....
also they really need to set out that this is the last change to AZ and J&J and start opening up the portals for Pfizer and moderna for the under 50’s space out the interval by two works get as many as them done as possible before end of June!
Plough on!!

I think the wording on the J&J recommendation is going to be interesting to analyse to be honest. J&J might see more daylight than just the over 50s and hopefully so. I would imagine the media have an idea on this hence reporting it as a positive