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 No 2 - Read OP before posting

1113114116118119298

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,992 ✭✭✭Russman


    Perhaps they haven't been slow but they have been slower than their USA and UK equivalents

    Have they really though ?
    A quick google search says Pfizer submitted to the FDA on 20th November and were approved on 11th December, and they submitted to the EMA on 1st December and were approved on 21st December. I didn't double check the links/stories but it seems there wasn't much in it either way. Plus I think its a fuller authorisation here in Europe as opposed to emergency use in the States.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,493 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Perhaps they haven't been slow but they have been slower than their USA and UK equivalents

    a) It's fully dependent on when the companies submit, the EMA can't approve a vaccine that hasn't been submitted for approval (AZ hit this particularly, waiting a long time to submit that ended up being a cover for their lack of supply)
    b) The CDC and EMA have very high standards for approval that takes longer, the UK has been approving quickly under emergency approval, as this requires less data, the companies were able to submit faster as well, the EMA and CDC have been taking very similar amounts of time, the CDC still hasn't approved AZ, the UK approved J&J and Moderna after the EMA
    c) the time to approve has had very little effect on the roll out as it has all been supply driven
    d) The EMA has multiple vaccines in rolling approvals with continuous data being submitted in order to cut the approval time down but as we have 4 good vaccines, the need to approve faster has been diminished
    e) Novavax don't have a quantity of vaccine ready to go, when they do submit and if they get approved, the vaccines won't follow for months (as happened to the UK after Moderna approval)

    Will be interesting to see if you repeat this line in another few weeks time :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,367 ✭✭✭Le Bruise


    First jab done and dusted in Greystones yesterday. Really smooth process, barely even felt it and only a sore arm as a side effect. Even got out for a game of touch rugby last night!

    Roll on normality (in 6/7 weeks :))


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,326 ✭✭✭Scuid Mhór


    Which MVCs in Dublin are doing MRNA vaccines right now?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,376 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    astrofool wrote: »
    a) It's fully dependent on when the companies submit, the EMA can't approve a vaccine that hasn't been submitted for approval (AZ hit this particularly, waiting a long time to submit that ended up being a cover for their lack of supply)
    b) The CDC and EMA have very high standards for approval that takes longer, the UK has been approving quickly under emergency approval, as this requires less data, the companies were able to submit faster as well, the EMA and CDC have been taking very similar amounts of time, the CDC still hasn't approved AZ, the UK approved J&J and Moderna after the EMA
    c) the time to approve has had very little effect on the roll out as it has all been supply driven
    d) The EMA has multiple vaccines in rolling approvals with continuous data being submitted in order to cut the approval time down but as we have 4 good vaccines, the need to approve faster has been diminished
    e) Novavax don't have a quantity of vaccine ready to go, when they do submit and if they get approved, the vaccines won't follow for months (as happened to the UK after Moderna approval)

    Will be interesting to see if you repeat this line in another few weeks time :)

    My point has very little to do with vaccine rollout although we are in the middle of a pandemic so the sooner that a vaccine gets approved the sooner a rollout can start.

    The EMA really showed their uselessness in December 2020 when they were they approved the Pfizer vaccine almost a month after the UK. Considering their rolling review mechanism I see no reason for any delay between a company applying and getting approval

    I don't think my line on this will change


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,326 ✭✭✭Scuid Mhór


    Which MVCs in Dublin are doing MRNA vaccines right now?

    Re-quoting this just in case it gets lost.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 224 ✭✭Lyle


    Been keeping an eye out for coverage on side effects in Pfizer and Moderna abroad before any might happen here that the papers will probably lose their minds about.

    This is a good in-depth update from the CDC in the US about myocarditis and pericarditis after Pfizer/Moderna jabs. Few more cases than they expected but still very, very low numbers, incredibly rare in the grand scheme of things with tens of millions of doses given.

    Highest level of care received (Sample of 29 Chart Confirmed Cases)
    Outpatient - 1 (3.4%)
    Emergency department - 4 (13.8%)
    Inpatient hospitalization - 22 (75.9%)
    Intensive care unit (ICU) - 2 (5.7%)

    Median length of hospital stay - 1 day (Range 0–13)

    Discharged to home at time of chart review - 29 (100%)
    Follow-up visit noted at time of chart review - 27 (93.1%)

    Seems very positive that its a tiny proportion of adverse impacts vs jabs administered and its a highly treatable side effect despite sounding a bit scary.

    Source: https://cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-06/03-COVID-Shimabukuro-508.pdf

    EDIT: I do think these numbers show that NIAC or whoever should look at this and advocate for AZ to be made available to men aged 18 - 39. AZ clotting seems to impact women more than men and the MRNA heart stuff impacts men more than women. Seems a no brainer to use our surplus of AZ to get more men of that age demo done faster than they'd be done waiting for MRNA and it'd technically be safer for them to get AZ anyway.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,142 ✭✭✭dominatinMC


    Turtwig wrote: »
    That was the initial aim. This time a year ago we'd have been delighted with a vaccine efficacy greater than 50. Then we got three that prevented serious illness, infection and transmission. The real world data from the UK suggested that four weeks after the first dose the vaccines deployed there prevented infection in almost 90% of cases.

    Fast forward less than four months, we now have vaccines that prevent infection less than 50% of the time four weeks after the first dose. That is significant ground lost.

    The vaccines still prevent severe illness and death. People definitely need to have that part emphasised to them. That does not mean we should brazenly dismiss the ground lost. If we still had the original wildtype or even the alpha variant things would be considerably easier. As it stands we're lucky the UK is a few weeks ahead of us in the spread of the delta. We will get time to assess just how much the link between hospitalisations and infections has been weakened by the vaccine. We will also get to see just how much impact this variant has on the impact on the unvaccinated population cohorts.

    The best thing about the vaccines is that once we have a larger proportion of the population fully vaccinated. We can afford to be more relaxed about, well, everything.
    Whilst I share your concerns (Jesus I'm beginning hate that word now :pac:), I am encouraged by the report which PHE issued last week which stated that both AZ and BioNTech vaccines offered >90% protection against hospitalisation. And, as you say, that is the metric which people need to be made aware of. So the bottom line, vaccines work. And of course, the T-Cell response is another aspect which has yet to be established fully, from the limited pieces I have read, there is further grounds for optimism here.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,276 ✭✭✭IRISHSPORTSGUY


    funnydoggy wrote: »
    Wasn't the vaccine tracker supposed to be back this week? I'm jonesing for a fix of those sweet, sweet numbers..

    Source?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,473 ✭✭✭VonLuck


    This may have been asked before, but I got the Pfizer jab this morning and am scheduled for my second in exactly 3 weeks time. The information booklet they gave me said that it should be in 4 weeks. I assume the booklet is out of date and they didn't put the wrong date on my vaccination record?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,862 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    VonLuck wrote: »
    This may have been asked before, but I got the Pfizer jab this morning and am scheduled for my second in exactly 3 weeks time. The information booklet they gave me said that it should be in 4 weeks. I assume the booklet is out of date and they didn't put the wrong date on my vaccination record?

    AFAIK the Pfizer dose interval has always been 4 weeks and that hasn't changed.

    GP or MVC?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭bennyineire


    VonLuck wrote: »
    This may have been asked before, but I got the Pfizer jab this morning and am scheduled for my second in exactly 3 weeks time. The information booklet they gave me said that it should be in 4 weeks. I assume the booklet is out of date and they didn't put the wrong date on my vaccination record?

    The booklet is a guide, 3 weeks interval is the minimum interval for Pfizer


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,473 ✭✭✭VonLuck


    Lumen wrote: »
    AFAIK the Pfizer dose interval has always been 4 weeks and that hasn't changed.

    GP or MVC?

    GP. It's a bit confusing having conflicting information.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,862 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    VonLuck wrote: »
    GP. It's a bit confusing having conflicting information.

    I would put money on human error then.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭MerlinSouthDub


    Our doses used data on the ECDC vaccine tracker seems to be updating most days now.

    https://vaccinetracker.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/vaccine-tracker.html#distribution-tab

    3.7 million doses used (same as Paul Reid said yesterday)
    4.2 million doses received (this figure hasn't change all week, so excludes our Pfizer delivery of 317,000)

    That means we currently have about 800,000 doses in stock, about 700,000 of this is Pfizer. Possibly we've used another 100,000 doses since this data was submitted to ECDC.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 466 ✭✭Probes


    VonLuck wrote: »
    GP. It's a bit confusing having conflicting information.

    My missus had 2nd dose after around 3 weeks, CDC seems to think this is fine anyway.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,862 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Our doses used data on the ECDC vaccine tracker seems to be updating most days now.

    https://vaccinetracker.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/vaccine-tracker.html#distribution-tab

    3.7 million doses used (same as Paul Reid said yesterday)
    4.2 million doses received (this figure hasn't change all week, so excludes our Pfizer delivery of 317,000)

    That means we currently have about 800,000 doses in stock, about 700,000 of this is Pfizer. Possibly we've used another 100,000 doses since this data was submitted to ECDC.

    I have little faith in this data until someone in the HSE makes a statement about vaccine stocks.

    I don't watch any briefings but are none of the journos asking about this?

    Even (?) on Twitter the level of numeracy and literacy seems really poor.

    Take this Tweet for instance. Nobody seems to have noticed that 1.2 + 1.2 does not equal 3.5.

    https://twitter.com/DonnellyStephen/status/1405517786810519559


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,757 ✭✭✭CZ 453


    Our doses used data on the ECDC vaccine tracker seems to be updating most days now.

    https://vaccinetracker.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/vaccine-tracker.html#distribution-tab

    3.7 million doses used (same as Paul Reid said yesterday)
    4.2 million doses received (this figure hasn't change all week, so excludes our Pfizer delivery of 317,000)

    That means we currently have about 800,000 doses in stock, about 700,000 of this is Pfizer. Possibly we've used another 100,000 doses since this data was submitted to ECDC.

    Is the stock amount held back for dose 2? So if they give someone dose 1 there is a held back dose 2 for that person.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 318 ✭✭RavenBea17b


    Telegraph reporting that all cases among vaccinated people have been mild or asymptomatic. Looks like with the Delta variant it's being passed from unvaccinated -> vaccinated but not the other way around.

    Vaccines work, the whole premise of them was to reduce and stop serious covid and hospitalisation. Lets get those arms vaccinated. Sadly, there will always be small but significant part of the population who refuse, not just that they cant have a vaccine, point blank refuse.
    Boosters will be a regular part of life I suspect.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 318 ✭✭RavenBea17b


    Lyle wrote: »
    Been keeping an eye out for coverage on side effects in Pfizer and Moderna abroad before any might happen here that the papers will probably lose their minds about.

    This is a good in-depth update from the CDC in the US about myocarditis and pericarditis after Pfizer/Moderna jabs. Few more cases than they expected but still very, very low numbers, incredibly rare in the grand scheme of things with tens of millions of doses given.

    Highest level of care received (Sample of 29 Chart Confirmed Cases)
    Outpatient - 1 (3.4%)
    Emergency department - 4 (13.8%)
    Inpatient hospitalization - 22 (75.9%)
    Intensive care unit (ICU) - 2 (5.7%)

    Median length of hospital stay - 1 day (Range 0–13)

    Discharged to home at time of chart review - 29 (100%)
    Follow-up visit noted at time of chart review - 27 (93.1%)

    Seems very positive that its a tiny proportion of adverse impacts vs jabs administered and its a highly treatable side effect despite sounding a bit scary.

    Source: https://cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-06/03-COVID-Shimabukuro-508.pdf

    EDIT: I do think these numbers show that NIAC or whoever should look at this and advocate for AZ to be made available to men aged 18 - 39. AZ clotting seems to impact women more than men and the MRNA heart stuff impacts men more than women. Seems a no brainer to use our surplus of AZ to get more men of that age demo done faster than they'd be done waiting for MRNA and it'd technically be safer for them to get AZ anyway.

    I think the same press release commented that the number of instances of myocarditis was over the expected threshold. Hence it is so important to update the adverse reactions notices, - for what ever medication or vaccine. that way, research can be carried out etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,336 ✭✭✭rameire


    Lumen wrote: »
    I have little faith in this data until someone in the HSE makes a statement about vaccine stocks.

    I don't watch any briefings but are none of the journos asking about this?

    Even (?) on Twitter the level of numeracy and literacy seems really poor.

    Take this Tweet for instance. Nobody seems to have noticed that 1.2 + 1.2 does not equal 3.5.

    https://twitter.com/DonnellyStephen/status/1405517786810519559

    OAP's and healthcare and cohort 4 and 7 didn't need to register.
    The registration would link in with when the online registration portal opened for all others age related.

    Edit: But three comments now would suggest it is not clear what is meant.

    🌞 3.8kwp, 🌞 Clonee, Dub.🌞



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,534 ✭✭✭OwlsZat


    Lumen wrote: »

    Take this Tweet for instance. Nobody seems to have noticed that 1.2 + 1.2 does not equal 3.5.

    https://twitter.com/DonnellyStephen/status/1405517786810519559

    1.2M fully vaccinated = 2 x 1.2M = 2.4M
    1.2 first doses = 1.2M

    Total vaccines administered = 3.6M


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,504 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    OwlsZat wrote: »
    1.2M fully vaccinated = 2 x 1.2M = 2.4M
    1.2 first doses = 1.2M

    Total vaccines administered = 3.6M

    Add in J&J being a single jab and the figures look like they line up.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,817 ✭✭✭corcaigh07


    Has anyone registered twice in different locations? Or can can you change your location ?

    I’m 35 and registered in south Dublin . Grew up and family house in Cork. All my 35 year friends in cork have got text and date for first vaccine already.

    I'd imagine your PPS number and my mobile would conflict if you try to register again.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 883 ✭✭✭eoinbn


    OwlsZat wrote: »
    1.2M fully vaccinated = 2 x 1.2M = 2.4M
    1.2 first doses = 1.2M

    Total vaccines administered = 3.6M

    Accounting for J&J

    1.13 * 2 = 2.26
    Add in J&J
    2.26 + .07 = 2.33

    2.33 + 1.2 = 3.53


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,660 ✭✭✭✭josip


    Which MVCs in Dublin are doing MRNA vaccines right now?


    Aviva doing Pfizer next Monday


  • Posts: 229 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Does anyone know what Ennis are doing now? Hopefully there soon for mine


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,862 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    OwlsZat wrote: »
    1.2M fully vaccinated = 2 x 1.2M = 2.4M
    1.2 first doses = 1.2M

    Total vaccines administered = 3.6M

    Nope.

    The tweet says

    1.2 million people fully vaccinated
    1.2 million who registered have now received at least one dose

    At least one dose includes people with two doses.

    Can nobody read or write English any more?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭MerlinSouthDub


    Lumen wrote: »
    I have little faith in this data until someone in the HSE makes a statement about vaccine stocks.

    I don't watch any briefings but are none of the journos asking about this?

    None of the "journalists" have asked about this. It's absolutely baffling that we haven't been given proper data on vaccine deliveries. IT systems are irrelevant for this - it's 4 deliveries a week, you could write them down and tot them up on a piece of paper.

    The only reason we are not being told the number of vaccines delivered is that going as fast as we should be.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,866 ✭✭✭Raoul


    VonLuck wrote: »
    GP. It's a bit confusing having conflicting information.

    I got it from Pfizer themselves and it was 19 days between the two doses. So I wouldn't worry.


Advertisement