Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

Russman wrote: »

It’s ridiculous alright, but of course there can be an in between, depending on the circumstances a country is in. I think it was Glynn said it in one of his last pressers before Tony came back, that were we in a situation like we were back in January, there wouldn’t be a restriction on AZ, but because we’re in a much better place, we can afford to be cautious, or words to that effect.

I disagree to be honest. Creates confusion in a time where the least amount of confusion possible is required.

ACitizenErased wrote: »

I disagree to be honest. Creates confusion in a time where the least amount of confusion possible is required.

I can see where you’re coming from, absolutely, but I guess it’s down to the balance between a country’s level of “desperation” (for want of a better word) and appetite for risk. I think it’s reasonable to say the more desperate you are, the more risk you’ll take.

I suppose it was evident to a degree in the logic behind the AZ restriction. I can’t remember the exact numbers but wasn’t it that you’re something like 85 times more likely to die from covid than the vaccine in your 60s, and only 12 times more likely in your 40s. Something like that anyway. Clearly they’re much different levels of risk.

Beasty wrote: »

I actually think the way we (and the EU) have handled AZ is manna from Heaven for the anti-vaxxers. Any doubt is pounced upon and treated as something serious when it's been very clear all along that the benefits vastly outweigh any perceived risks.

I kind of think though that changing as they go based on evidence is ok given its so new and evidence is increasing every day. Tbh I find it somewhat reassuring at least they're being straightforward about risks.

Interesting NY Times article here on what next with the Pfizer vaccines ...

- Pfizer expects to apply to the Food and Drug Administration in September for emergency authorization to administer its coronavirus vaccine to children between the ages of 2 and 11. (Previously targeted 5-11 in September, now 2-11 in September).
- White house preparing for make the vaccine "accessible to younger generations". (As previously noted, approval for 12-15 expected early next week).
- The company said it also plans to apply this month for full approval of the vaccine for use in people from ages 16 to 85 change.
- Obtaining full FDA approval would, among other things, allow the companies to market the vaccine directly to consumers. Full approval would also allow the vaccine to remain on the market as the pandemic fades. It may also make it easier for companies, government agencies, schools and other entities to require vaccination.
- Pfizer’s chief executive approached the FDA on Friday with new data that it hopes will persuade the agency to allow its vaccine to be kept at refrigerator temperatures, rather than frozen, for up to four weeks. Current limit is 5 days.
- Pfizer make up a bit more than half of all doses administered in the US so far.

All positive developments by Pfizer.

SusanC10 wrote: »

Article updated now - expanded.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/with-targets-in-the-balance-what-is-going-on-with-the-vaccine-rollout-1.4555413

I don't see what's updated there? No new information in it

pc7 wrote: »

I’m very pro vaccinations, but have to admit I’ll be very hesitatant to have my smallies take this one. The risk to them
Is very very low of c19 I just don’t know that I’ll want to give them this at this stage.
As said I’m pro vaccination, paid for Men b for one before it was added to schedule and chicken pox vaccine.

100% agree. Especially with mRNA vaccines as they need to have full trials on younger people before we start rolling out to kids.

Strazdas wrote: »

They make some good points here. They say that leaving the over 50s waiting for weeks until supplies of J & J arrive and vaccinating the over 40s instead would be risky : what if J & J gets held up for some reason and the hundreds of thousands of doses don't materialise?

They also suggest that the plan may well be to give AZ and J & J to the under 50s - the alternative of binning those doses or sending them abroad when large sections of the population haven't even been vaccinated yet seems unthinkable.

Do they mention allowing people to reject a dose of AZ or JJ?

Happydays2020 wrote: »

Do they mention allowing people to reject a dose of AZ or JJ?

Well any person can reject any vaccine. When they get the text, they are told what vaccine they are receiving and asked to confirm whether they will show up for it. Therefore they are free to reject it.

Flying Fox wrote: »

And get to the back of the queue?

The opt-in approach would make far more sense.

Well if you're offered a vaccine and refuse it, you're pretty much pushing yourself down the queue. You can hardly expect them to contact you a few days later with the offer of a different vaccine.

Strazdas wrote: »

What do you mean 'nope'?? The person is asked to confirm with a yes or no by text if they will attend for the vaccination.

I'm helping a neighbour with the booking this is the text she got today for later in the week.

No confirm or reject option

COVID-19 vaccine dose 1 appointment: , age 60 Years


- When:

- Where: Abbeycourt Hotel Vaccination Centre (CVC),

Abbeycourt Hotel

Dublin Rd,

Nenagh,

E45 KA99


- Vaccine: AstraZeneca

- Read the patient information leaflet: https://hse.ie/!8PDV4P



Bring your phone, photo ID and a face covering. If you do not bring photo ID, you cannot enter the vaccination centre.


Be on time but do not arrive more than 5 minutes before your appointment.


Read more about going to a vaccination centre: https://hse.ie/vacctr


If you need to:

- reschedule your appointment, reply "New" to this text

- ask a question about your appointment, call the COVID-19 helpline on 1850 24 1850

.



EDIT 6000 POSTS \o/

Strazdas wrote: »

What do you mean 'nope'?? The person is asked to confirm with a yes or no by text if they will attend for the vaccination.

Nope no option on my father's one either.

Time and date and where to go that's it

Russman wrote: »

I think this is important. Personally I don’t know enough about vaccines and thresholds of risk in medicine etc etc., so I’d pay heed to what the likes of NIAC say. Maybe they’re right, maybe they’re wrong, but something about the HSE appearing to try to work their way around a NIAC recommendation doesn’t sit right with me. I think medical guidance should be more or less sacrosanct and not subverted for ease of the rollout. If the advice changes, fine, no issue.

I agree with this. I thought the NIAC recommendation was clear, over 50s only, and administer it to younger groups only if the mRNA vaccines were unfeasible - the latter provision being for difficult groups like homeless etc., and not general usage.

I happen to disagree with the over 50s provision, particularly for males given the evidence which is currently available, but if I was the HSE I'd make the prospect of large amounts of unused vaccines NIACs problem and not try and work around it.

I don't know also who is reporting to who, but the Minister for Health needs to start taking more responsibility here in finding the balance between extending lockdowns, vaccine risk and the prospect of good vaccines going unused.

Flying Fox wrote: »

If you're bang in the middle of the most at risk group for clotting, you shouldn't be offered a vaccine that is not recommended for you by NIAC, and not offered an alternative.

This is why the opt-in/waiver approach makes more sense.

Even the FDA decision on J&J included guidance that women under 50 should be offered an alternative vaccine.

With the vaccination passports and the single dose for j&j I don't think they'd be short of people opting in. Men in particular seem extremely low risk. I don't understand why this seems to have been taken off the table.