Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

dominatinMC wrote: »

God speed! The end is nigh (of this pandemic I mean! :pac:)

Such a simple process and hardly felt the prick. Had the jab within 10 mins of arriving. I’m glad i gave my small contribution to get the world up and running again!

blackcard wrote: »

So refreshing to hear someone talking openly about their gay mother

LOL



well played!

stephenjmcd wrote: »

We're discussing common side effects, fatigue etc not the clotting issues

Fair enough. You can still quantify those. Not anecdotes as you rightly pointed out.

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Most people have no alternative to using the roads less. There is, however, an alternative to AZ should people feel the risk is unacceptable. The Govt. have specifically indicated to the 40-50 age group that they have this choice, so I don't understand why anyone in this cohort choosing to elect to wait for MRNA gets this consistent "why won't you just take what you're offered", and "they are all safe" etc. etc. The level of risk is immaterial. If there are 2 vaccines, and one has a tiny risk and another has a tinier risk, it's reasonable that, depending on their age and circumstances, people might opt for the latter, especially with Govt. have specifically identified that this choice is open to them.

I do think though that the absolutely intense levels of publicity these vaccines have received have warped the way in which people are taking this personal risk assessment — to the point where people are prevaricating over tiny risk thresholds that are comparable to risks they voluntarily expose themselves to (often unknowingly) throughout their lives.

To kind of build on Lumen’s automobile analogy, it’s like being offered a lift to somewhere by two mates who are largely responsible drivers in perfectly fine cars — but then quibbling to yourself over which car or driver presents the tiny bit more risk to your wellbeing. You can’t guarantee they won’t crash and you’ll die, but this minutiae of risk assessment just isn’t something people do. But of course, if some actuary was to wave the risk profiles for either decision in your face, you might be minded to give disproportionate amount of thought to it. This is more or less what is happening with these vaccines, intense publicity is leading people to disproportionately aggrandise the risk comparison when in truth the options are all so similar it should simply come down to whichever will help you do your part in ensuring that vaccines are being stuck in arms with maximum efficiency.

If giving people the choice doesn’t affect the efficiency then fair enough, but if everyone starts going into the minutiae of the risk assessment then there will be prevarication over taking the “riskier” vaccine.

Flying Fox wrote: »

Calling people who are being offered a choice (based on verifiable medical data) anti-vaxxers is frankly ridiculous.

Clearly you know better than the experts, eh?

No i don't and i’m rather amused as to how you’ve come to that conclusion from my posts. Especially seeing as this post had nothing to do with expert opinions.

But yes, someone who refuses a vaccine, where there is no obvious process allowing another one to be administered, causing delay and inefficiency in the rollout, is as bad as an anti-vaxxer. And should go to the bottom of the list.

Now, if there is a process that is in place or coming into place that allows an easy, efficient choice in vaccine, then that’s great and people should use it if they so wish.

I will take what i’m given though and i believe the vast majority of people should do similar.

AZ interval being reduced from 16 to 12 weeks

keno-daytrader wrote: »

.@rtenews The interval between AstraZeneca doses will be reduced from 16 weeks to 12 weeks, phased over the coming weeks, according to Paul Reid, HSE CEO.

NIAC change the posts yet again.

But the 16 weeks was always subject to change. They said they were awaiting further research before deciding what to do next with it. It's good news anyway for the AZ recipients.

keno-daytrader wrote: »

.@rtenews The interval between AstraZeneca doses will be reduced from 16 weeks to 12 weeks, phased over the coming weeks, according to Paul Reid, HSE CEO.

NIAC change the posts yet again.

Isn’t it a good news story?

Or are you one of these people who thinks all change is bad?

podgeandrodge wrote: »

I thought it had always been 12 weeks! Did they change it up at some point, and now bringing it back down?

It was changed for the under 60s I think, pushed out to 16 weeks for reasons of caution. But they said at the time this was a provisional measure and they might change it again.

Degag wrote: »

Isn’t it a good news story?

Or are you one of these people who thinks all change is bad?

I have been a vocal critic of NIAC. Boards is a forum where people can voice their opinion, which is what I'm doing about NIAC.

No I dont think its a good news story. Anything to do with NIAC hasnt been a good news story for a long time.

Degag wrote: »

But yes, someone who refuses a vaccine, where there is no obvious process allowing another one to be administered, causing delay and inefficiency in the rollout, is as bad as an anti-vaxxer. And should go to the bottom of the list.

According to Paul Reid, when cohort 4 began in the MVCs a high proportion of people cancelled their first appointment because they wanted to discuss their vaccines and any potential impact on their treatment or condition with their consultant. There are very legitimate reasons why someone may delay or refuse a vaccine. It doesn't make them as bad as an anti-vax. The comparison is very disrespectful imo.

In HSE news conference just now they've basically said given the lack of supply of JJ, how quickly they are getting to the 40-49s, and given the difficulties involved in implementing NIAC's advice, they are basically just going to give everyone under 50 MRNA vaccines for now. Think I'm correctly capturing what they just said (they are getting through age groups a lot quicker than they thought with just MRNAs)

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

In HSE news conference just now they've basically said given the lack of supply of JJ, how quickly they are getting to the 40-49s, and given the difficulties involved in implementing NIAC's advice, they are basically just going to give everyone under 50 MRNA vaccines for now. Think I'm correctly capturing what they just said (they are getting through age groups a lot quicker than they thought with just MRNAs)

Looks like we're going to struggle to use 200k of J&J which means we could have potentially 400k+ doses that we can't use.

It's not great news to be honest. Will delay the rollout to u40s I think and we'll need more Pfizer to make up the shortfall

As for AZ, as I mentioned in comments the other day, looking at the numbers and 2nd dose coming due, it'll be used in very little dose 1 going forward