Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

wes · 12-05-2021 10:54AM

Deleted User wrote: »

At least you admit it's vile. India crying out for oxygen and a poster says Ireland should get its masks on first.

India refusing aid from Pakistan (Specifically oxygen btw. I know they hate each other, but it is not in Pakistan's interest for India to collapse due to covid, hence offering aid), and also refusing to allow aid from Pakistan administered Kashmir to Indian administered Kashmir (which is criminal btw).

India isn't so desperate for oxygen as they are fine to refuse from Pakistan to save face and not to mention potential crimes against humanity for refusing aid to India administered Kashmir. I see no reason we need to make up for bad decision from foreign governments. What are we suppose to do? Force them to engage in common sense? The aid that was sent was sitting at an airport in India for a week at least, not even sure if it was distributed to those in need or sold to the highest bidder.

The world sent India millions in Covid aid. Why is it not reaching those who need it most?

Any vaccines would likely be given to the rich, and they are charging for vaccine in India for some idiot reason as well. I don't see how we can help countries insisting on being stupid.

Lumen · 12-05-2021 11:00AM

The risk of veinous thrombosis after a long-haul flight is approximately 1 in 5000.

The risk of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis or splanchnic vein thrombosis from the AZ vaccine is approximately 1 in 150,000, and that's including all the people who would have got it anyway.

So crudely, the worst case is that a single long haul flight is about as risky as being vaccinated 30 times with AZ. There's also well known radiation risks from long haul flights.

Yet I have never met anyone who avoids long haul flights because of the health risks.

stephenjmcd · 12-05-2021 11:05AM

FreeGaf wrote: »

Where did i say anytime soon?

Right here, "a few more weeks"

FreeGaf wrote: »

Im 48 years old and it will be a big no from me if offered AZ. I'll wait it out a few more weeks now until i have a choice.

Like I said your under 50 you won't be offered it anyway. There's 3 vaccines available to your age group, you don't get a choice as to which one you get.

Wolf359f · 12-05-2021 11:09AM

Lumen wrote: »

The risk of veinous thrombosis after a long-haul flight is approximately 1 in 5000.

The risk of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis or splanchnic vein thrombosis from the AZ vaccine is approximately 1 in 150,000, and that's including all the people who would have got it anyway.

So crudely, the worst case is that a single long haul flight is about as risky as being vaccinated 30 times with AZ. There's also well known radiation risks from long haul flights.

Yet I have never met anyone who avoids long haul flights because of the health risks.

What's the risk of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis from a long haul flight? If you're going to compare.... Maybe compare the same type of clot?
The AZ rate in certainly increasing in occurrence as younger and younger people are vaccinated with it.
Ontario rate is higher than the UK rate now.

Tim Robbins · 12-05-2021 11:14AM

Interesting update here: https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0512/1221083-virus-vaccine-rollout/

Finally the media picking up that cohort 7 people are getting left behind and GPs not vaccinating them. Let's hope Reid et al start answering.

robinph · 12-05-2021 11:16AM

Wolf359f wrote: »

What's the risk of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis from a long haul flight? If you're going to compare.... Maybe compare the same type of clot?
The AZ rate in certainly increasing in occurrence as younger and younger people are vaccinated with it.
Ontario rate is higher than the UK rate now.

The risk of getting run over by a drunk driver whilst on a long haul flight is zero, and the risk of the windows falling out of the plane you are in causing catastrophic decompression whilst crossing the road is also zero. That doesn't mean you can't compare the relative risks of each incident happen in the situation where they are actually going to happen though.

Amirani · 12-05-2021 11:26AM

robinph wrote: »

The risk of getting run over by a drunk driver whilst on a long haul flight is zero, and the risk of the windows falling out of the plane you are in causing catastrophic decompression whilst crossing the road is also zero. That doesn't mean you can't compare the relative risks of each incident happen in the situation where they are actually going to happen though.

One type of clot is commonly fatal or at least debilitating. The other one isn't.

In that context it doesn't make much sense to compare the relative risks of acquiring distinct illnesses. If you want to compare relative risk than compare fatalities from flight-acquired clots to fatalities from vaccine acquired clots.

12-05-2021 11:27AM

Wolf359f wrote: »

What's the risk of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis from a long haul flight? If you're going to compare.... Maybe compare the same type of clot?
The AZ rate in certainly increasing in occurrence as younger and younger people are vaccinated with it.
Ontario rate is higher than the UK rate now.

Exactly. They are different types of clots, the CVSTs being more difficult to treat and having a much higher fatality rate.

In Ontario it's now 1 in 60,000.

OwlsZat · 12-05-2021 11:42AM

Lumen wrote: »

The risk of veinous thrombosis after a long-haul flight is approximately 1 in 5000.

The risk of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis or splanchnic vein thrombosis from the AZ vaccine is approximately 1 in 150,000, and that's including all the people who would have got it anyway.

So crudely, the worst case is that a single long haul flight is about as risky as being vaccinated 30 times with AZ. There's also well known radiation risks from long haul flights.

Yet I have never met anyone who avoids long haul flights because of the health risks.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/eu-regulator-reviews-reports-rare-nervous-disorder-after-astrazeneca-vaccine-2021-05-07/

Any amusing anecdotes around the risk of developing a rare degenerative nerve disorder by taking the AstraZeneca as well?

As a young non-obese person I certainly wont' be taking AZ when my risk profile is so low.

Russman · 12-05-2021 11:43AM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Right here, "a few more weeks"

Like I said your under 50 you won't be offered it anyway. There's 3 vaccines available to your age group, you don't get a choice as to which one you get.

Not to be that guy, but 3 ??
Edit:Including the caveat with J&J I guess ?

Gile_na_gile · 12-05-2021 11:55AM

The overall incidence of VITT concurs with the much more extensive data from the UK of 1 in 100,000, so it is what it is. AZ benefits outweighs risk until such time that mRNA vaccines are widely available and Covid rates are very low. In the meantime, the current measure favours >40-60 years across Europe including the UK. If you are offered it and don't want it that is your right. It doesn't need to be broadcasted to the world to help you rationalise your decision. You will get an mRNA vaccine eventually, but it is not clear when. Perhaps only a matter of weeks rather than months, but there will be pressure to retain mRNA vaccines for minors in the summer.

Pandiculation · 12-05-2021 12:08PM

Any indication of when registration will begin for the next age group, which I assume is 40-49 ?

Pandiculation · 12-05-2021 12:13PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Interesting update here: https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0512/1221083-virus-vaccine-rollout/

Finally the media picking up that cohort 7 people are getting left behind and GPs not vaccinating them. Let's hope Reid et al start answering.

That’s really beyond sloppy that this is only being picked up now. There’s been lot of anecdotal evidence of very big differences between different GPs on this in terms of speed of rollout and plenty of posts on social media from people who are complaining that they haven’t been contacted.

It looks like ball was dropped badly for this group and they’re very high priority in terms of risk.

iamwhoiam · 12-05-2021 12:16PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Interesting update here: https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0512/1221083-virus-vaccine-rollout/

Finally the media picking up that cohort 7 people are getting left behind and GPs not vaccinating them. Let's hope Reid et al start answering.

Finally someone is copping on and the HSE better sort it out very soon .
A bit of relief for a lot of stressed people hopefully

revelman · 12-05-2021 12:18PM

Pandiculation wrote: »

That’s really beyond sloppy that this is only being picked up now. There’s been lot of anecdotal evidence of very big differences between different GPs on this in terms of speed of rollout and plenty of posts on social media from people who are complaining that they haven’t been contacted.

It looks like ball was dropped badly for this group and they’re very high priority in terms of risk.

What I don’t understand is that there have been lots of anecdotal reports of people without underlying conditions being vaccinated when GPs (especially in rural areas) have had excess vaccines. These reports are so numerous that there must be some truth to them. I don’t necessarily have a problem with this but I’m wondering how have these people been categorised? Have they also been categorised as Cohort 4?

iamwhoiam · 12-05-2021 12:21PM

revelman wrote: »

What I don’t understand is that there have been lots of anecdotal reports of people without underlying conditions being vaccinated when GPs (especially in rural areas) have had excess vaccines. These reports are so numerous that there must be some truth to them. I don’t necessarily have a problem with this but I’m wondering how have these people been categorised? Have they also been categorised as Cohort 4?

And how did it happen when GPs had lists of Cohort 4 and 7 in front of them ?

Scuid Mhór · 12-05-2021 12:25PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Interesting update here: https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0512/1221083-virus-vaccine-rollout/

Finally the media picking up that cohort 7 people are getting left behind and GPs not vaccinating them. Let's hope Reid et al start answering.

What exactly is this article saying?

stephenjmcd · 12-05-2021 12:26PM

Russman wrote: »

Not to be that guy, but 3 ??
Edit:Including the caveat with J&J I guess ?

Yeah using the "If nothing else available" caveat which will be used a fair bit I'd suspect

Pandiculation · 12-05-2021 12:27PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

And how did it happen when GPs had lists of Cohort 4 and 7 in front of them ?

I suspect we’ll have to have an inquiry later in the summer. They’ll just be ploughing on with it now.

What it points out to me is a lack of local public health coordination infrastructure. Our GP system isn’t really a system at all. It’s a bunch of totally free floating, self employed operators, just doing their own thing with very little HSE involvement.

It’s not surprising there are issues like this emerging.

keno-daytrader · 12-05-2021 12:39PM

FlubberJones wrote: »

Registered this morning, expecting it won't be long before I have the invite for the jab... shame it's not J&J as that would mean I would be in the clear soon... rather than the 12 week wait for the second dose. Hopefully restrictions will ease overall allowing us to travel anyway..

As far as I know over 50's who get AZ are still at 16 weeks for second dose. NIAC crazy solution to "collect more data".

Wolf359f · 12-05-2021 12:45PM

keno-daytrader wrote: »

As far as I know over 50's who get AZ are still at 16 weeks for second dose. NIAC crazy solution to "collect more data".

Considering the UK had only started second doses of AZ when all this kicked off, it was unknown if the same issue could appear in the second doses.
First update from the UK a few weeks ago had 4 cases in 4mil second doses, last week's update has 6 in 6mil. So no nasty surprises so far. That's data being collected.
Or would you prefer NIAC to just suggest they just jab away and have the person cross their fingers?

Edit: sorry just realised you mean the 50-59 group getting vaccinated this week have the 16 week gap? Yeah that's a bit silly if their first dose benefit outweighs the risk, the second would also. I under the reasoning for the under 50's second dose being delayed.

lastusername · 12-05-2021 12:47PM

OwlsZat wrote: »

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/eu-regulator-reviews-reports-rare-nervous-disorder-after-astrazeneca-vaccine-2021-05-07/

Any amusing anecdotes around the risk of developing a rare degenerative nerve disorder by taking the AstraZeneca as well?

As a young non-obese person I certainly wont' be taking AZ when my risk profile is so low.

You just wonder is this the start of the effects coming out now. That said, it mentions no causal link between the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and the heart inflammation reports. Who knows if there will be a link this time next year though?

It seems like if you are in a low risk profile and cases are on a downward trajectory, you might be reluctant to rush to take one at the minute.

Cole · 12-05-2021 12:47PM

Scuid Mhór wrote: »

What exactly is this article saying?

Glad I'm not alone. I get the overall story, but I'm still left confused...not sure if it's my lack of detailed knowledge of the current system of vaccinations or just plain old bad writing.

i'm sure I'll hear/read a clearer explanation somewhere late.

ACitizenErased · 12-05-2021 12:49PM

That RTE article sounds like nothing will change to me, they’ll just re-assign some of the cohort 4 as cohort 7

Scuid Mhór · 12-05-2021 12:50PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

That RTE article sounds like nothing will change to me, they’ll just re-assign some of the cohort 4 as cohort 7

That's exactly how I read it too, beefing up the numbers in cohort 7.

iamwhoiam · 12-05-2021 12:50PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

That RTE article sounds like nothing will change to me, they’ll just re-assign some of the cohort 4 as cohort 7

At least we know that the HSE are aware that cohort 7 exist . That’s a help .

Wolf359f · 12-05-2021 12:53PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

That RTE article sounds like nothing will change to me, they’ll just re-assign some of the cohort 4 as cohort 7

Sounds like that will only happen when they get their second dose, so it's going to make it hard to see any progress and then all of a sudden first and second doses get taken away from cohort 4 and added to cohort 7.

Maybe the figures we see atm for cohort 7 are the ones actually done by GP's? How this wasn't flagged ages ago, I don't know. Was there not a tick box for cohort 7 when they were inputting the data on to the system?

Tim Robbins · 12-05-2021 12:54PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

At least we know that the HSE are aware that cohort 7 exist . That’s a help .

I'm surprised the media aren't making more of this. There's quite a lot of very serious conditions there in cohort 7 and hard to understand how come they are not being looked after, while people in their 50's with nothing are being looked after.

revelman · 12-05-2021 12:58PM

keno-daytrader wrote: »

As far as I know over 50's who get AZ are still at 16 weeks for second dose. NIAC crazy solution to "collect more data".

Every person over 50/60 I know who has recently been vaccinated with AZ has been told to return in 12 weeks.

I think the initial 16 week interval was for younger people (mostly in healthcare) who received AZ some time ago. There was a report somewhere on boards from one of these that they had since been told to get their second dose at 12 weeks.

iamwhoiam · 12-05-2021 12:58PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I'm surprised the media aren't making more of this. There's quite a lot of very serious conditions there in cohort 7 and hard to understand how come they are not being looked after, while people in their 50's with nothing are being looked after.

I personally think cohort 4 and 7 should have been via a portal and done and dusted in MVC’c before the next group was started
GPs and clinic could have mailed their lists to the HSE and had this sorted long before now .

Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

Comments