Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

SJFly · 04-05-2021 07:40AM

If the Irish times article is accurate, I think that's a reasonable plan. The only difficulty I see is that if the J&J supplies arrive late June, it is likely that over 40s could be finished by then too. On the other hand, this plan will let us burn through a lot more AZ than previously expected so hopefully things can still be kept on track.

Happydays2020 · 04-05-2021 07:50AM

SJFly wrote: »

If the Irish times article is accurate, I think that's a reasonable plan. The only difficulty I see is that if the J&J supplies arrive late June, it is likely that over 40s could be finished by then too. On the other hand, this plan will let us burn through a lot more AZ than previously expected so hopefully things can still be kept on track.

It is a plan alright but we will not know if it is reasonable until we will hit the 30’s age group and whether at that time there will be push back on the vaccines offered. Or if there are some issues with AZ or J&J in the <50 age group (optics vs managed risk). I will take anything offered but that is not the case for everyone.

Irish Stones · 04-05-2021 07:59AM

revelman wrote: »

All the approved vaccines are 100% effective in preventing hospitalisation and death from COVID.

Is it "preventing hospitalisation AND death" or is it "preventing hospitalisation AND/OR death"?

There have been a few cases of people in my country who received both shots of Pfizer, and about 3 to 4 weeks later they ended up in a hospital, in the ICU, and one of them seems unresponsive to all treatments.
So maybe it isn't 100% effective?

Pandiculation · 04-05-2021 08:02AM

The problem with this is the difficulty we all have in making risk assessments based on this kind of data, and what might happen if you get a few prominent cases of clots.

I don’t think Ireland is all that vaccine hesitant, but given some countries like Denmark, have dropped it entirely, I think they’ll be an uphill battle on the PR front with this.

JPup · 04-05-2021 08:04AM

Irish Stones wrote: »

Is it "preventing hospitalisation AND death" or is it "preventing hospitalisation AND/OR death"?

There have been a few cases of people in my country who received both shots of Pfizer, and about 3 to 4 weeks later they ended up in a hospital, in the ICU, and one of them seems unresponsive to all treatments.
So maybe it isn't 100% effective?

I think when people quote 100% in such circumstances you can take it to mean effectively 100% or 100% rounded to the nearest whole number. When you are giving a vaccine to tens of millions of people there will always be some unfortunate few who are the exceptions.

munchkin_utd · 04-05-2021 08:06AM

JPup wrote: »

I think when people quote 100% in such circumstances you can take it to mean effectively 100% or 100% rounded to the nearest whole number. When you are giving a vaccine to tens of millions of people there will always be some unfortunate few who are the exceptions.

indeed, but if everyone is vaccinated then the virus stops being spread so those who potentially might have a weaker protection dont get infected anyhow.

Lumen · 04-05-2021 08:06AM

Irish Stones wrote: »

Is it "preventing hospitalisation AND death" or is it "preventing hospitalisation AND/OR death"?

There have been a few cases of people in my country who received both shots of Pfizer, and about 3 to 4 weeks later they ended up in a hospital, in the ICU, and one of them seems unresponsive to all treatments.
So maybe it isn't 100% effective?

It takes a several weeks to go from infection to hospital so it's likely they were infected before the second dose took effect, or even before they'd received the second dose.

Pandiculation · 04-05-2021 08:07AM

Irish Stones wrote: »

Is it "preventing hospitalisation AND death" or is it "preventing hospitalisation AND/OR death"?

There have been a few cases of people in my country who received both shots of Pfizer, and about 3 to 4 weeks later they ended up in a hospital, in the ICU, and one of them seems unresponsive to all treatments.
So maybe it isn't 100% effective?

It doesn’t claim to be 100% effective. It’s in the >90% range in Pfizer’s case so, you will get outlying cases for many reasons why some people will have poor immunity, despite being vaccinated.

You’ll also have people with generally low immunity who’ll ultimately be relying on high uptake of vaccines in the general population as, even if they are vaccinated, their immune system may mount a very weak response.

None of that means the vaccine doesn’t work, but no vaccine is ever 100% effective, but the kinds of 90%+ results for the mRNA vaccines is a really remarkably high level, probably one of the best results ever seen in any vaccine.

You’ll *always * find outlying cases in a population wide rollout. If you link those few cases together, it still doesn’t change the fact that they’re obscure and outlying. That’s just the reality of anything that’s being done on this scale.

eoinbn · 04-05-2021 08:09AM

Strazdas wrote: »

Irish Times reports that the plan is to try and move through the over 50s at pace by offering every vaccine going and that people in their 40s could be offered AZ and J & J if no other vaccine is available at that point (which is allowed by NIAC).

Here the IT reported that NIAC said that J&J can be given to people under 50 if nothing else is available. AZ isn't included in that.

NIAC recommendation is a complete copout. Why say something is only recommended for people over 50 and then say it can be used for people under 50 if nothing else is available? Everyone is limited by supply, of course there will be nothing else available. It is clearly an exercise of washing their hands of any responsibility. They should be stood down and replaced with people that are willing to give clear guidance.

Irish Stones · 04-05-2021 08:10AM

Pandiculation wrote: »

It doesn’t claim to be 100% effective.

The post I quoted in my message says "All the approved vaccines are 100% effective in preventing hospitalisation and death from COVID."
I didn't say that vaccines are 100% effective, the quoted message did.

Danzy · 04-05-2021 08:10AM

JPup wrote: »

It’s a commonly used phrase to be fair.

Among people with chronic low self esteem.

Irish Stones · 04-05-2021 08:12AM

Lumen wrote: »

It takes a several weeks to go from infection to hospital so it's likely they were infected before the second dose took effect, or even before they'd received the second dose.

Well, actually there are cases when one ends up in hospital within a week or so. A friend of mine 8 days from infection to ICU. A person I was told about took less than a week, his wife three days more.

is_that_so · 04-05-2021 08:16AM

EU vaccination rate beginning to shift and it seems the supply problem has finally gone.

EU now confident that supply – the biggest problem in early months of year – should not be an obstacle to further acceleration

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/03/covid-vaccine-rollout-rapidly-gathering-pace-across-europe

Pandiculation · 04-05-2021 08:16AM

It takes around 21 days for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to be effective and, at least from what I read, it’s not a linear scale where you get a bit more immunity with each day, rather the effect may increase in spurts and more towards the end of that 21 day timeframe.

It’s also different for different vaccines and you’ll get difference in individuals too.

So all anyone can do is provide an average timeframe for generating immune response and take a conservative view of it.

Chris_5339762 · 04-05-2021 08:20AM

Ficheall wrote: »

IHME not as optimistic as they have been accused of being heretofore! Well, for some vaccines/variants anyway...

http://www.healthdata.org/covid/covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-summary

Edit: well, I guess just AZ jumped out at me, since that's what the parents will be getting. And most likely quite a few more of us..

Two things that pop out at me:
1) They included that (rubbished) South African study on that variant and AZ, which was a very poor study, with tiny numbers and was overall utter crap.

2) If I wrote a paper in my field with such lack of data in a table I'd be hung. I know its not all available but the emptiness of the Pfizer column is shocking.

Zipppy · 04-05-2021 08:26AM

Got my Pfizer jab yesterday at my GPs..as a person with some health vulnerabilities I must say it's a great feeling.
No side effects as yet...finger crossed I get none..

Pandiculation · 04-05-2021 08:26AM

At least with the mix and match approach looking like it might be safe and effective, if there are any variants escaping one or other or the vaccines, it’s looking entirely feasible that you could get a booster shot later in the year with one that is effective.

The mRNA vaccines in particular are easily tweaked to deal with potential problematic variants too and there’s scale in EU based production and supply chains for that tech now.

pc7 · 04-05-2021 08:27AM

Zipppy wrote: »

Got my Pfizer jab yesterday at my GPs..as a person with some health vulnerabilities I must say it's a great feeling.
No side effects as yet...finger crossed I get none..

Anecdotally from friends who had Pfizer some felt a bit off after second dose, nothing panadol didn't fix. Delighted you got sorted.

Pandiculation · 04-05-2021 08:30AM

pc7 wrote: »

Anecdotally from friends who had Pfizer some felt a bit off after second dose, nothing panadol didn't fix. Delighted you got sorted.

In general that’s what I’m hearing too. Two people I know said Pfizer-BioNTech caused them far less reaction than they have had with seasonal flu jabs, so I think for the vast majority it seems to be extremely uneventful.

I also know plenty of U.K. based people who had AstraZeneca without any issues either.

I know personally, I tend to get a fairly rough few days after the flu jab so, with any vaccine I’m just prepared with Panadol and keeping the diary lightly loaded.

Zipppy · 04-05-2021 08:35AM

pc7 wrote: »

Anecdotally from friends who had Pfizer some felt a bit off after second dose, nothing panadol didn't fix. Delighted you got sorted.

Yes, I feel a little bit 'meh' this morning but not sure if that's last nites wine or the jab

is_that_so · 04-05-2021 08:49AM

https://twitter.com/HSELive/status/1389278582220812290

podgeandrodge · 04-05-2021 08:55AM

Pandiculation wrote: »

The problem with this is the difficulty we all have in making risk assessments based on this kind of data, and what might happen if you get a few prominent cases of clots.

I don’t think Ireland is all that vaccine hesitant, but given some countries like Denmark, have dropped it entirely, I think they’ll be an uphill battle on the PR front with this.

It's a lot more difficult to tell people they are being stupid not to want Astra or J&J, when an EU country states that the "benefits of using the Covid-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson do not outweigh the risk of causing the possible adverse effect in those who receive the vaccine”.

And that "taking the present situation in Denmark into account, what we are currently losing in our effort to prevent severe illness from Covid-19 cannot outweigh the risk of causing possible side effects in the form of severe blood clots in those we vaccinate,” the health authority said".

With hospital numbers plummetting right now, if we followed suit, I wonder what the impact would be in terms of extra weeks? Denmark are saying 4 weeks for them. Will we get to a point where we have enough MRNA vaccines to ditch the others.

Pablo Escobar · 04-05-2021 09:02AM

Irish Stones wrote: »

Well, actually there are cases when one ends up in hospital within a week or so. A friend of mine 8 days from infection to ICU. A person I was told about took less than a week, his wife three days more.

It's highly unlikely that they did. The average time from infection to symptoms is 5 days. Then the rough time from first symptoms to hospitalization 7-10 days. Generally ICU takes a bit longer but can happen at any time. But your time of 8 days from infection to ICU would seem unlikely.

JPup · 04-05-2021 09:03AM

Danzy wrote: »

Among people with chronic low self esteem.

In my experience it’s amongst Irish people over the age of 65 which might amount to the same thing!

They also say god bless a lot

dashoonage · 04-05-2021 09:04AM

is_that_so wrote: »

https://twitter.com/HSELive/status/1389278582220812290

Apologies for the stupid question but would the intention be to open registration for the 40-49 group on the 14th or how does it work ?

is_that_so · 04-05-2021 09:10AM

dashoonage wrote: »

Apologies for the stupid question but would the intention be to open registration for the 40-49 group on the 14th or how does it work ?

There will probably be a delay of at least a week or so based on how they've done it to date. My guess would be closer to the end of this month. That said quite a few of the over 60s haven't registered yet.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/concern-as-220000-people-aged-60-to-69-fail-to-register-for-vaccine-1119442.html

SusanC10 · 04-05-2021 09:12AM

If the intention all along was to use all 4 Vaccines for both 50+ and under-50, then why announce at all that AZ is not recommended for use in under-50s and J&J should only be used in under-50s if no other available?

Panrich · 04-05-2021 09:26AM

SusanC10 wrote: »

If the intention all along was to use all 4 Vaccines for both 50+ and under-50, then why announce at all that AZ is not recommended for use in under-50s and J&J should only be used in under-50s if no other available?

A few weeks ago the AZ was not recommended for under 60’s so they seem to be taking a view that a vaccine of any sort is better than none at all and are extending the age ranges to suit their existing and expected stocks.

Gile_na_gile · 04-05-2021 09:34AM

Following discussions between health officials and Ministers in recent days it is expected that the same approach will apply to under-50s as to over-50s – meaning that some people in their 40s could be offered the Johnson & Johnson or AstraZeneca shots.

From the updated IT piece. So people in that (and my) cohort may be offered AZ or Janssen. I would expect that the devil is in the detail, as if they start age 49 on May 14th, then they would be running in parallel anyway, and also there is the plan for the less predictable subgroups to have these two in any case.

Following that, probably a 30% chance of a 40-49 person getting an adenovirus vaccine, increasing as we get closer to July.

stephenjmcd · 04-05-2021 09:40AM

They're playing with the "If no other vaccine is available" clause in the recommendations. Can't say I blame them but there was / is better ways to work it.

Where they could fall down is trying to say to large numbers of u50s for example your apointment is for J&J or AZ while people have it in their head that neither vaccine are recommended for u50s currently.

This could get quite messy if I'm honest. Far from ideal.

Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

Comments