Vaccine Megathread No 2 - Read OP before posting

Strazdas · 05-07-2021 07:44PM

xboxdad wrote: »

So it wasn't racist to ask these questions after all. Glad to see it's not just me who wonder if they were stored appropriately.
I'm due for my 2nd shot in the coming days and I'm not comfortable with the timing of this entire business therefore.

George's point was that buying vaccines from another country is not the same thing as buying from a manufacturer. If you're buying from Pfizer for example, they are responsible for delivering them to you in perfect condition. But buying surplus doses from a third country means you have to carry out all sorts of checks, as they are technically 'second hand' doses.

growleaves · 05-07-2021 07:44PM

Woody79 wrote: »

Taking an asprin is more risky than AZ vaccine as is driving a car.

No. Daily aspirin use is what leads to death by overdose, not 'taking an aspirin'.

L1011 · 05-07-2021 07:46PM

growleaves wrote: »

Link

Vaccines do not appear to prevent acquisition and propagation of covid (but we knew that already?)

There was never a claim that any of the vaccines were 100% effective, which I'm absolutely sure you already know.

xboxdad · 05-07-2021 07:47PM

Strazdas wrote: »

George's point was that buying vaccines from another country is not the same thing as buying from a manufacturer. If you're buying from Pfizer for example, they are responsible for delivering them to you in perfect condition. But buying surplus doses from a third country means you have to carry out all sorts of checks, as they are technically 'second hand' doses.

Exactly. ...and successful checks done on a small percentage of vials doesn't necessarily guarantee that all of them survived the unknown storage conditions.

05-07-2021 07:48PM

growleaves wrote: »

No. Daily aspirin use is what leads to death by overdose, not 'taking an aspirin'.

Asprin can cause bleeding in stomach brain and throughout the body.

You stick to your hard held beliefs that only overdose of asprin can cause harm.

Im not gonna change you.

05-07-2021 07:51PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As said:

Over a million doses given out of AZ in ireland and not one death?

Its not restricted and as Luke Oneill said risk is not related to age.

AZ has been given to people in ireland from early 20's to late 60's.

This will continue to be the case, or have I missed something?

Can a 20 something apply for AZ currently or is it restricted?

Taking an asprin is more risky than AZ vaccine as is driving a car.

How many people have died in road accidents in ireland this year?

You really should read up on the actual data if you're going to post about this. Try the UK yellow card/MHRA reports for a start. The risk is highest for younger age groups and decreases significantly for the older ones. This has been widely accepted by countless regulators around the world and has been reported in the news for months now. It is stated on the product information leaflets. If Luke O'Neill claims otherwise, he's wrong.

The majority of AZ doses went to the over 60s. Some healthcare workers also received them, and there have been some clotting cases here. As far as we know there have been no deaths, but bear in mind the first case here wasn't reported until a family member went to the media.

There was an age restriction on AZ for months, you must know this, you've been posting on this thread for some time. The only reason it has been lifted is because we need to speed up vaccinations in light of Delta.

growleaves · 05-07-2021 07:51PM

L1011 wrote: »

There was never a claim that any of the vaccines were 100% effective, which I'm absolutely sure you already know.

That is my understanding yeah. But they are touted as being useful for 'community protection' by some authorities.

The transmissibility after infection is a bit up in the air. They give 'some' protection or 'more' protection against transmission but no one can say how much (because they don't know?)

If you can have four vaccinated individuals testing positive in one dressing room that looks like low protection to me.

Strazdas · 05-07-2021 07:51PM

xboxdad wrote: »

Exactly. ...and successful checks done on a small percentage of vials doesn't necessarily guarantee that all of them survived the unknown storage conditions.

In any event, there is no particular reason to believe there is anything wrong with the Romanian vaccines. It's more that they are simply carrying out checks and cross checks at the moment just to make sure they are all okay.

05-07-2021 07:59PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

You really should read up on the actual data if you're going to post about this. Try the UK yellow card/MHRA reports for a start. The risk is highest for younger age groups and decreases significantly for the older ones. This has been widely accepted by countless regulators around the world and has been reported in the news for months now. It is stated on the product information leaflets. If Luke O'Neill claims otherwise, he's wrong.

The majority of AZ doses went to the over 60s. Some healthcare workers also received them, and there have been some clotting cases here. As far as we know there have been no deaths, but bear in mind the first case here wasn't reported until a family member went to the media.

There was an age restriction on AZ for months, you must know this, you've been posting on this thread for some time. The only reason it has been lifted is because we need to speed up vaccinations in light of Delta.

It has also been lifted as very effective treatments for the extremely rare clotting events have been identified

Marymoore · 05-07-2021 08:00PM

Does anyone know: if you text “new” to reschedule an appointment do you get one quicker than when you first register?

05-07-2021 08:01PM

growleaves wrote: »

That is my understanding yeah. But they are touted as being useful for 'community protection' by some authorities.

The transmissibility after infection is a bit up in the air. They give 'some' protection or 'more' protection against transmission but no one can say how much (because they don't know?)

If you can have four vaccinated individuals testing positive in one dressing room that looks like low protection to me.

Not if they caught it but weren’t transmitting, which evidence shows is likely the case

growleaves · 05-07-2021 08:05PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Not if they caught it but weren’t transmitting, which evidence shows is likely the case

Okay but how do we know that? The article doesn't say who likely gave it to who. Presume you are talking about other evidence, would appreciate if you point me to it.

CrowdedHouse · 05-07-2021 08:07PM

Marymoore wrote: »

Does anyone know: if you text “new” to reschedule an appointment do you get one quicker than when you first register?

2 days for me (2nd dose)

Economics101 · 05-07-2021 08:08PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

You really should read up on the actual data if you're going to post about this. Try the UK yellow card/MHRA reports for a start. The risk is highest for younger age groups and decreases significantly for the older ones.

I think that the AZ "risk" question has been misunderstood. It surely is a matter of relative risk, i.e. the risk from taking the vaccine versus the risk from not being vaccinated. The balance of AZ risk is less favourable for younger people not so much because the being-vaccinated risk is higher (it is), but because the risk from not being vaccinated is so much lower.

Furthermore this calculation is affected by the prevalence of the disease, which changes the balance of risk for everyone. Also the risk from not being vaccinated has to be measured over some time interval, in theory how long it would take to get an alternative vaccine.

05-07-2021 08:08PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

You really should read up on the actual data if you're going to post about this. Try the UK yellow card/MHRA reports for a start. The risk is highest for younger age groups and decreases significantly for the older ones. This has been widely accepted by countless regulators around the world and has been reported in the news for months now. It is stated on the product information leaflets. If Luke O'Neill claims otherwise, he's wrong.

The majority of AZ doses went to the over 60s. Some healthcare workers also received them, and there have been some clotting cases here. As far as we know there have been no deaths, but bear in mind the first case here wasn't reported until a family member went to the media.

There was an age restriction on AZ for months, you must know this, you've been posting on this thread for some time. The only reason it has been lifted is because we need to speed up vaccinations in light of Delta.

You have your inbuilt biases and prejudices at this stage from many months ago. Stick to your beliefs and never ever change in spite of evidence.

You know more than Luke O'Nell now. I'm laughing at that one. Thats why 68% of young people would accept J&J or AZ in the morning.

Per Luke O'Neill 7 days ago:

"That began to become not true because it became clear age was not a predicter for clotting. In other words, young people have the same risk of clotting as older people - so it is across the board basically. That immediately means we should be using AstraZeneca across all age groups, there is no question now".

https://www.newstalk.com/news/luke-oneill-no-question-ireland-should-offer-astrazeneca-to-younger-people-1217182

05-07-2021 08:08PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not if they caught it but weren’t transmitting, which evidence shows is likely the case

Vaccinated individuals are both less likely to test positive and have significantly lower viral load when they do test positive

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7

05-07-2021 08:12PM

Economics101 wrote: »

I think that the AZ "risk" question has been misunderstood. It surely is a matter of relative risk, i.e. the risk from taking the vaccine versus the risk from not being vaccinated. The balance of AZ risk is less favourable for younger people not so much because the being-vaccinated risk is higher (it is), but because the risk from not being vaccinated is so much lower.

Furthermore this calculation is affected by the prevalence of the disease, which changes the balance of risk for everyone. Also the risk from not being vaccinated has to be measured over some time interval, in theory how long it would take to get an alternative vaccine.

Exactly.

05-07-2021 08:16PM

Woody79 wrote: »

You have your inbuilt biases and prejudices at this stage from many months ago. Stick to your beliefs and never ever change in spite of evidence.

You know more than Luke O'Nell now. I'm laughing at that one. Thats why 68% of young people would accept J&J or AZ in the morning.

Per Luke O'Neill 7 days ago:

"That began to become not true because it became clear age was not a predicter for clotting. In other words, young people have the same risk of clotting as older people - so it is across the board basically. That immediately means we should be using AstraZeneca across all age groups, there is no question now".

https://www.newstalk.com/news/luke-oneill-no-question-ireland-should-offer-astrazeneca-to-younger-people-1217182

Luke O'Neill is wrong. From the UK's report in May:

"The overall incidence after first or unknown doses was 14.7 per million doses. Taking into account the different numbers of patients vaccinated with COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca in different age groups, the data shows that there is a higher reported incidence rate in the younger adult age groups following the first dose compared to the older groups (20.1 per million doses in those aged 18-49 years compared to 10.8 per million doses in those aged 50 years and over). The number of first doses given to those in the 18-49 years age group is estimated to be 8.5 million while an estimated 16 million first doses have been given to patients aged 50+ years. "

See
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting

Tyrone212 · 05-07-2021 08:17PM

Is this the AstraZeneca thread?

05-07-2021 08:19PM

Tyrone212 wrote: »

Is this the AstraZeneca thread?

It's a vaccine thread. AstraZeneca make one of the vaccines.

growleaves · 05-07-2021 08:20PM

Apologies if this has already been posted:

FDA adds a warning to Covid-19 vaccines about risk of heart inflammation

The FDA is advising vaccine recipients to seek immediate medical attention if they experience "chest pain, shortness of breath, or feelings of having a fast-beating, fluttering, or pounding heart after vaccination."

Both the FDA and CDC are monitoring reports of these adverse events and will follow up to assess longer-term outcomes, the FDA noted.

05-07-2021 08:22PM

Johnny0Toole wrote: »

Luke O'Neill is wrong. From the UK's report in May:

"The overall incidence after first or unknown doses was 14.7 per million doses. Taking into account the different numbers of patients vaccinated with COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca in different age groups, the data shows that there is a higher reported incidence rate in the younger adult age groups following the first dose compared to the older groups (20.1 per million doses in those aged 18-49 years compared to 10.8 per million doses in those aged 50 years and over). The number of first doses given to those in the 18-49 years age group is estimated to be 8.5 million while an estimated 16 million first doses have been given to patients aged 50+ years. "

See
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting

Its now July.

Your actually confirming exactly what Luke O'Neill said.

Well put Sir.:cool:

05-07-2021 08:24PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You have your inbuilt biases and prejudices at this stage from many months ago. Stick to your beliefs and never ever change in spite of evidence.

You know more than Luke O'Nell now. I'm laughing at that one. Thats why 68% of young people would accept J&J or AZ in the morning.

Per Luke O'Neill 7 days ago:

"That began to become not true because it became clear age was not a predicter for clotting. In other words, young people have the same risk of clotting as older people - so it is across the board basically. That immediately means we should be using AstraZeneca across all age groups, there is no question now".

https://www.newstalk.com/news/luke-oneill-no-question-ireland-should-offer-astrazeneca-to-younger-people-1217182

I don't have any biases, I'm basing my opinions on the information available.

Is Luke O'Neill your only source on this?

As per the MHRA report published last Thursday:

"The overall incidence after first or unknown doses was 14.7 per million doses. Taking into account the different numbers of patients vaccinated with COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca in different age groups, the data shows that there is a higher reported incidence rate in the younger adult age groups following the first dose compared to the older groups (20.1 per million doses in those aged 18-49 years compared to 10.8 per million doses in those aged 50 years and over)."

The risk is double for the under 50s v over 50s.

Or do you know better than the experts at the MHRA?

05-07-2021 08:29PM

Woody79 wrote: »

Its now July.

Your actually confirming exactly what Luke O'Neill said.

Well put Sir.:cool:

Does Luke O'Neill have access to data the rest of the world hasn't seen? There has been no study showing the risk is equal across age groups. If there is do us all a favour and provide a link.

05-07-2021 08:31PM

Woody79 wrote: »

Its now July.

Your actually confirming exactly what Luke O'Neill said.

Well put Sir.:cool:

Apologies, the report is actually from the last week of June.

05-07-2021 08:32PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

I don't have any biases, I'm basing my opinions on the information available.

Is Luke O'Neill your only source on this?

As per the MHRA report published last Thursday:

"The overall incidence after first or unknown doses was 14.7 per million doses. Taking into account the different numbers of patients vaccinated with COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca in different age groups, the data shows that there is a higher reported incidence rate in the younger adult age groups following the first dose compared to the older groups (20.1 per million doses in those aged 18-49 years compared to 10.8 per million doses in those aged 50 years and over)."

The risk is double for the under 50s v over 50s.

Or do you know better than the experts at the MHRA?

I would believe a well known scientist in ireland over someone on boards.

Its clear you have held a belief from April/May and your not going to change.

Luke O'Neill has changed his mind about the risk.

NIAC has changed their mind about the risk.

Young people in ireland today believe acceptable risk (68% would take an AZ/J&J) if offered.

All these people are idiots, who wont follow the data from April. How foolish they all are.

05-07-2021 08:32PM

Economics101 wrote: »

I think that the AZ "risk" question has been misunderstood. It surely is a matter of relative risk, i.e. the risk from taking the vaccine versus the risk from not being vaccinated. The balance of AZ risk is less favourable for younger people not so much because the being-vaccinated risk is higher (it is), but because the risk from not being vaccinated is so much lower.

Furthermore this calculation is affected by the prevalence of the disease, which changes the balance of risk for everyone. Also the risk from not being vaccinated has to be measured over some time interval, in theory how long it would take to get an alternative vaccine.

It's a balance between the risk of harm from covid (which is higher for older cohorts) and the risk of harm from AZ (which is higher for younger cohorts). Of course this balance is impacted by higher prevalence rates, new variants, etc. Not disputing that for a moment.

A poster asked about the risks associated with the various vaccines. Another poster said the risk from AZ was one in a million which is obviously not the case, so I was responding to that.

05-07-2021 08:34PM

Johnny0Toole wrote: »

Apologies, the report is actually from the last week of June.

I'm supposed to believe your post in totality now when your original post did'nt suit your argument :pac::pac:

05-07-2021 08:36PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

It's a balance between the risk of harm from covid (which is higher for older cohorts) and the risk of harm from AZ (which is higher for younger cohorts). Of course this balance is impacted by higher prevalence rates, new variants, etc. Not disputing that for a moment.

A poster asked about the risks associated with the various vaccines. Another poster said the risk from AZ was one in a million which is obviously not the case, so I was responding to that.

Myocarditis is known to increase in younger male MRNA vaccinated cohorts.

Your just biased towards AZ.

https://www.aappublications.org/news/2021/06/10/covid-vaccine-myocarditis-rates-061021

From poll today young people just want A vaccine, any vaccine given the amount of covid in circulation.

We would all be alot more choosy about vaccines (pros and cons of each) and side effects etc. if covid wasnt an ongoing issue.

We dont have that luxury (young or old sick or healthy).

05-07-2021 08:40PM

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/hundreds-irish-tourists-flock-spain-24459608

What is the HSE vaccination document?

I went to my GP for the first shot of the Pfizer vaccine (second one in 2 weeks) and got a card with the date and the batch number but nothing from the HSE.

Vaccine Megathread No 2 - Read OP before posting

Comments