Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

1…143144146148149…331

Comments

  • #4352
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    I have family member in Cohort 7 in same limbo, they only attended GP for the condition. GP isn't vaccinating Cohort 7.
    I'll send you a PM and if I hear anything useful will contact you.


  • #4353
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Stark wrote: »
    Over-65s were cohort 5(high risk)/6(other O65s) in the pre-AZ age limits system. In the post AZ age limits system, everyone aged 60-69 is cohort 5.
    Sorry I had a typo - meant to say under 65's


  • #4354
    PropJoe10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,396 ✭✭✭PropJoe10


    We're once again in an idiotic situation, entirely of our own making. We're now going to be giving the least effective vaccine to an age group that is more susceptible to the virus. We're the only country to limit use of this J&J vaccine, and are going against the findings of the EMA and the US authorities.

    Someone needs to publish the findings of NIAC with a clear and unambiguous reasoning as to why this J&J vaccine is being limited.

    And another thing - why is AstraZeneca now acceptable for over 50s whereas previously it was only to be used on over 60s? What has changed in the medical advice there? All this is doing is creating doubt and confusion. We really aren't capable of doing anything right.


  • #4355
    Polar101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,043 ✭✭✭Polar101


    hmmm wrote: »

    I'm also not sure I understand the line in the media that the J&J vaccine can be used by under 50s if no other vaccines are available. What does "available" mean? We have Pfizer & Moderna - it might be a months delay before you get them, but they are "available".

    Also, if it's OK to give J&J to under 50s if a random condition is met, why is it being restricted in the first place?

    In any case, at least many people in their 50s would be fully vaccinated pretty quickly, since there's only one dose.


  • #4356
    PhilOssophy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,114 ✭✭✭PhilOssophy


    People need to stop saying "least effective vaccine". That is based on a very limited clinical trial. People take a flu jab every winter which might be 40-50% effective.
    The efficacy is based on a clinical trial. There are 3 key things which matter, does it prevent you getting it, does it prevent hospitalisation and death, and does it prevent you from spreading it. All are performing outstandingly well on all of these.
    If J&J had gone for the 2-shot approach, they could well have achieved a similar efficacy to Pfizer/Moderna, but they decided it would be a 1-shot.
    It would be hilarious if in 6 months time, the J&J vaccine was still offering immunity whereas Pfizer/Moderna had lost their protection. There is nothing to say this won't be the case.


  • Advertisement
  • #4357
    gandalfio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 871 ✭✭✭gandalfio


    Pretzill wrote: »
    I'm also in this age group and I always thought it would be J & J by the time the got around to me - Any vaccine is better than none and all have side effects they are looking into the bioanteq one being linked to heart issues in Germany (sorry no link) Also a one shot is very acceptable to me they wouldn't have it on the market if it wasn inferior they just have to check everything.

    You're going to have to provide a source for that claim


  • #4358
    Sweet.Science
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,985 ✭✭✭Sweet.Science


    PropJoe10 wrote: »
    We're once again in an idiotic situation, entirely of our own making. We're now going to be giving the least effective vaccine to an age group that is more susceptible to the virus. We're the only country to limit use of this J&J vaccine, and are going against the findings of the EMA and the US authorities.

    Someone needs to publish the findings of NIAC with a clear and unambiguous reasoning as to why this J&J vaccine is being limited.

    And another thing - why is AstraZeneca now acceptable for over 50s whereas previously it was only to be used on over 60s? What has changed in the medical advice there? All this is doing is creating doubt and confusion. We really aren't capable of doing anything right.

    Power does terrible things to people


  • #4359
    plodder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,808 ✭✭✭plodder


    PhilOssophy wrote: »
    Thread has moved on too far since I last logged in.

    I was talking to my cousin a few minutes ago who works as a secretary in a GP's practice.

    2 weeks ago: Calling people to arrange vaccine:
    - "Are you offering me Pfizer or AZ? Because I don't want the AZ......oh its Pfizer? Great - book me in".

    This morning at 7.45, phone starts hopping, several such calls before 9.30: Patients in their 50's:
    - "Hi, is there any way you can get me a Pfizer vaccine?"
    - "Can I be added to a waiting list, etc or will you be getting more Pfizer"?

    My mother was saying there are 2 questions now in her circle:
    1. Are you vaccinated
    2. Which one did you get

    This is what this is generating. AZ has served 30-40m people in the UK perfectly well, and the overall vibe is "they are all excellent vaccines, it doesn't matter which one you get". The US and EU have both said unrestricted access to J&J is fine.

    Here, we are just faffing around, creating arbitrary rules, and generating vaccine hysteria because people think a blood clot which is 1000 times less likely to kill you than Covid is a danger.

    You simply couldn't make it up. I have previously defended scientists, etc on this thread, and do favour a cautious approach for the most part, but how many other lives will be lost due to missed cancer screening, missed operations, etc because of this arseing around?
    They need to be better prepared to deal with this nonsense, with the right information. Many of these people (like myself) probably had the flu vaccine in the past. Did (most of us) ever ask any questions about what they were putting in our arms? No, because we trusted the system. And this situation has arisen because they are being more cautious than usual, not less so.

    I'm hearing a bit of equivocation now as well that could lead people to think they might have a choice. The advice about J&J being given if others are "not available" certainly leads to that thinking as well. They should be 100% clear that if you are being offered a vaccine today but refuse it, they shouldn't be saying anything about when you might get a different one. They'll be asked "surely you must have some idea" and the answer should be "no we don't".


  • #4360
    Russman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,979 ✭✭✭Russman


    is_that_so wrote: »
    If the J&J advice had been suggested by Donnelly we'd laugh at him and it has the potential to cause a lot of grief with its very vague whatever you're having yourself. We also know the risk of depending on AZ for any numbers. You'd like it to work out but bumpy road may be an understatement and we really don't want to see half the over 50s unvaccinated in the middle of June when the under 30s are getting their call.

    Totally agree with all that.

    I'm hopeful, maybe in a naive way, that it will work out. Most people are pragmatic enough to realise we have to roll with the punches, especially after the 15 months we've had. I think the carrot of just getting one jab will mitigate much of the "they're getting it before me" for people. Communication and getting the message out there that all the vaccines work will be massive.


  • #4361
    FlubberJones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 911 ✭✭✭FlubberJones


    Polar101 wrote: »
    Also, if it's OK to give J&J to under 50s if a random condition is met, why is it being restricted in the first place?

    In any case, at least many people in their 50s would be fully vaccinated pretty quickly, since there's only one dose.

    51 here and wondering how long it will be before I can actually book an appointment online... anyone any ideas on this? Or is it dependent on too many factors to make an informed response.


  • Advertisement
  • #4362
    PhilOssophy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,114 ✭✭✭PhilOssophy


    PropJoe10 wrote: »

    And another thing - why is AstraZeneca now acceptable for over 50s whereas previously it was only to be used on over 60s? What has changed in the medical advice there? All this is doing is creating doubt and confusion. We really aren't capable of doing anything right.

    This!!!! Why are we restricting its use, when some of the top medical institutions in the world are saying it is safe? Do NIAC claim to know more than the FDA and the EMA?

    If we are saying over 50s because it fits with the number of vaccines, then that is just the sort of twisted logic which creates hesitation.


  • #4363
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,285 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    PhilOssophy wrote: »
    I have previously defended scientists, etc on this thread, and do favour a cautious approach for the most part, but how many other lives will be lost due to missed cancer screening, missed operations, etc because of this arseing around?

    None? Why would lives be lost?

    A few thick whiners are deferring their vaccines because they're too lazy/stupid to understand that all the vaccines are good, but if they defer they're only hurting themselves because other people will take them instead.

    As far as I can tell there isn't any hold up. We have a little over a weeks supply of vaccines in fridges, and have done for a while.

    All that's happening is that queues are being shunted around. A bit like when you're in the supermarket queue and you feel aggrieved that another one is going faster, it makes no difference in aggregate.


  • #4364
    Russman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,979 ✭✭✭Russman


    PropJoe10 wrote: »
    We're the only country to limit use of this J&J vaccine,

    No, we're not.


  • #4365
    Strazdas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,420 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    is_that_so wrote: »
    If the J&J advice had been suggested by Donnelly we'd laugh at him and it has the potential to cause a lot of grief with its very vague whatever you're having yourself. We also know the risk of depending on AZ for any numbers. You'd like it to work out but bumpy road may be an understatement and we really don't want to see half the over 50s unvaccinated in the middle of June when the under 30s are getting their call.

    I think the logical thing to do would be to give the over 50s whatever is available rather than target them with one vaccine. Being fixated on there being 600k J & J doses and 600k people in that cohort is messy and potentially very problematic (what would happen if the J & J doses failed to arrive in June?). By giving them a first dose of every vaccine available, you would be able to mostly clear them and move straight down to the 40s and then 30s.


  • #4366
    KrustyUCC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,077 ✭✭✭KrustyUCC


    Yet then you will have left over J&J and AZ that can't be used on those 40s and 30s if you the Pfizer and Moderna that they can use on 50-69 year olds


  • #4367
    Diarmuid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭Diarmuid


    Russman wrote: »
    Yeah, but you've others with restrictions too, its not just us in fairness. If 50 is true for us, we'd have one of the lowest restrictions from what I can see:
    Spain 70-79
    France 55+
    Italy 60+
    Iceland 60+

    Its so subjective that there's likely no definitive "right" or "wrong" answer, but every country's version of NIAC will come to its own decision.

    I don't know about other countries but France isn't restricting it to over 55. They are currently vaccinating the over 55s so maybe that's where the confusion has come in.


  • #4368
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    KrustyUCC wrote: »
    Yet then you will have left over J&J and AZ that can't be used on those 40s and 30s if you the Pfizer and Moderna that they can use on 50-69 year olds
    This is where the J&J "nothing else available" clause will be invoked!


  • #4369
    ixoy
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 18,045 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    PropJoe10 wrote: »
    We're the only country to limit use of this J&J vaccine,
    Not true at all. Other countries have limited it, e.g. Italy to over 60s.


  • #4370
    Russman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,979 ✭✭✭Russman


    Strazdas wrote: »
    I think the logical thing to do would be to give the over 50s whatever is available rather than target them with one vaccine. Being fixated on there being 600k J & J doses and 600k people in that cohort is messy and potentially very problematic (what would happen if the J & J doses failed to arrive in June?). By giving them a first dose of every vaccine available, you would be able to mostly clear them and move straight down to the 40s and then 30s.

    Exactly this, the simple thing is to fire away as planned, if some of the 50s are still not done by the time J&J arrives, then fine, horse it into them. If it means that come end of June, the 50s are done and we've half a million shots of J&J arriving, donate it to COVAX. In the meantime, keep jabbing people.


  • #4371
    PhilOssophy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,114 ✭✭✭PhilOssophy


    Lumen wrote: »
    None? Why would lives be lost?

    The longer hospital beds and HSE resources are taken up with Covid patients, the more others who are waiting for treatments lose out.

    We need to end this thing ASAP and creating a vaccine hesitancy or the "I'm getting the worst vaccine so I am not taking it" mantra is the worst way to do it.


  • Advertisement
  • #4372
    Strazdas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,420 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    KrustyUCC wrote: »
    Yet then you will have left over J&J and AZ that can't be used on those 40s and 30s if you the Pfizer and Moderna that they can use on 50-69 year olds

    They would have to cross that bridge when they come to it. Leaving perhaps hundreds of thousands of people in their fifties waiting until mid to late June (two months away) for a first dose of a vaccine seems no sort of a solution.

    And as I said, what would happen if there was a sudden problem with delivery of the J & J doses in June and they don't arrive?


  • #4373
    SusanC10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,432 ✭✭✭SusanC10


    Completely confused as to how this latest news on the use of J&J and AZ will affect the rollout here.

    Husband and I both aged in 45-49 bracket. No medical conditions. Roughly when can we expect to get our 1st doses ? And how does this news affect us - will we get them earlier or later ?


  • #4374
    MerlinSouthDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭MerlinSouthDub


    I see Belgium got 396,630 Pfizer vaccines yesterday (this was expected)

    That would be about 170,000 here. Should be a busy, busy week for vaccinating!

    https://covid-vaccinatie.be/en/doses-delivered


  • #4375
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    SusanC10 wrote: »
    Completely confused as to how this latest news on the use of J&J and AZ will affect the rollout here.

    Husband and I both aged in 45-49 bracket. No medical conditions. Roughly when can we expect to get our 1st doses ? And how does this news affect us - will we get them earlier or later ?
    Probably June but could register earlier. I guess it depends when they start the over 50s and add 3-4 weeks to that.


  • #4376
    MerlinSouthDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭MerlinSouthDub


    LarryBird wrote: »
    They'd one job and it was not to make an arse of this, one job.

    When this is all said and done serious questions have to be asked about the asshats running the show.

    What specifically have they made an arse of in relation to vaccinations? Going along at a great pace now, and looking good to have 80% done by end of June


  • #4377
    Strazdas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,420 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    SusanC10 wrote: »
    Completely confused as to how this latest news on the use of J&J and AZ will affect the rollout here.

    Husband and I both aged in 45-49 bracket. No medical conditions. Roughly when can we expect to get our 1st doses ? And how does this news affect us - will we get them earlier or later ?

    A hard one to estimate Susan, but if the plan is to have the bulk of the adult population done by the end of June, I could see you registering on the portal in May, so not 'too' far away.

    The big unknown is what they intend to do with people in their 50s and just what vaccines they will give them apart from J & J.


  • #4378
    titan18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,052 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    Strazdas wrote: »
    They would have to cross that bridge when they come to it. Leaving perhaps hundreds of thousands of people in their fifties waiting until mid to late June (two months away) for a first dose of a vaccine seems no sort of a solution.

    And as I said, what would happen if there was a sudden problem with delivery of the J & J doses in June and they don't arrive?

    It would seem very unfair if you were telling 60-69 just AZ for you and nothing else but allow 50-59 get Pfizer when they have the same vaccines available to them as 60-69.

    Should split the groups imo and once groups 4 and 7 are done (probably another 3-4 weeks anyway), move on to 40-49 then with them and have 50-69 as a separate group. It likely means a 59 year is getting a vaccine sooner than original plan and a 50 year old is waiting a bit longer but so be it.

    Otherwise you need to allow for Pfizer being given to all from 50-69 and we end up with unused vaccines in June and it takes us longer to get everyone vaccinated.


  • #4379
    Russman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,979 ✭✭✭Russman


    Diarmuid wrote: »
    I don't know about other countries but France isn't restricting it to over 55. They are currently vaccinating the over 55s so maybe that's where the confusion has come in.

    Fair enough. I had just done a quick google to see if there were any others.


    Took it from here
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/22/coronavirus-johnson-eu-states-begin-using-single-dose-covid-vaccine

    "France, which has received 200,000 doses of the J&J shot, will begin using them from Saturday, a government spokesman said, adding that there was “no question” of the country abandoning either J&J or AstraZeneca.

    The country’s health authority, HAS, earlier this month approved the J&J vaccine for use in people aged 55 and over, the same age limit it had imposed on the AstraZeneca shot, and is expected to reaffirm that restriction by Friday."


  • #4380
    Zipppy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,053 ✭✭✭Zipppy


    I'm very high risk, in my 50s.
    two weeks ago had vaccination cancelled as apparently I couldn't get AZ cos it wasn't safe for my age group.
    Now it appears that today we'll be told it is in fact safe..with no further data utilised except 'ah sure it'll be grand'

    So 2 weeks on, no vaccine, no word, no sign of one....pathetic shambles...


  • Advertisement
  • #4381
    FlubberJones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 911 ✭✭✭FlubberJones


    Strazdas wrote: »
    A hard one to estimate Susan, but if the plan is to have the bulk of the adult population done by the end of June, I could see you registering on the portal in May, so not 'too' far away.

    The big unknown is what they intend to do with people in their 50s and just what vaccines they will give them apart from J & J.

    This is my concern, I'm 51 and wondering when I will get the chance to book one... Happy to take whatever is offered.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement