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

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part XII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

16556566586606611111

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,492 ✭✭✭floorpie


    Where does it mention HIV patients being recommended to get vaccinated? The only instance it seems to list are HIV patients who are not being treated for it or with a certain CD4 count? I suppose the CD4 it mentions indicates a bad case



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Being mystified as to the reasons people would refuse to avail of a safe free booster shot,

    Its not safe though - there is a level of risk associated with each shot, however small. The more shots you get, the less reward/risk there is, which defeats the case for getting a booster. Even with waning immunity, most of the population are now protected enough from covid that they need to fear nothing from it - but they can still get any manner of bad side effects from jab 3/4/5.. etc

    Unless you are immunocompromised or have some other significant risk factor, there is no justification for a booster shot. The death and ICU stats back this up.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭Valhallapt


    Vaccines were mis sold. They were never going to eradicate Covid, they were never designed to do so. Covid was never going to be eradicated like small pox, it’s more like traditional flu where we build immunity and mitigate disease through vaccination and natural immunity.

    nphet built their entire strategy on getting vaccines to get Covid eradicated.

    covid will be around for many more years.

    vaccines are critically important as they reduce the rate of transmission, reduce the likelihood of showing symptoms and being infectious, dramatically reduce the likelihood of needing hospitalisation and most important dramatically cut the death rate. That’s what they were designed to do, they work perfect.

    we are now facing lock down again, because having the longest strictest lockdown in Europe has backfired, a side effect is we now have the lowest natural immunity in Europe, there is no way around the fact there most of us will get Covid at some point. The original slogans were correct, flatten the curve and let it burn out in a manageable way, but nphet, again went opposite to WHO advice and went for extreme lockdowns in the persuit of zero Covid.

    the arrogance of nphet, their anti science approach has now damaged two Christmas periods.



  • Posts: 8,647 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Highest CD4 count lends itself to patient not taking their medication correctly/not currently been treated/antiviral resistance (which is rare).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,417 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    The conversation for most usually goes "There should be no restrictions and we should treat everybody", then they collapse in on themselves as they can't explain how that can happen without COVID being some sort of hoax and the government has restrictions for fun.

    In the past few days, these are how the question is avoided:

    "COVID is seasonal (apart from the countries with large summer waves)"

    "People would have died anyway (how do very sick people die without going to hospital first?)"

    "We should add extra hospital capacity (sure, but that can't be done quickly, what do we do till then?)"

    "Vaccines are causing the excess deaths (eh?)"

    What's your own opinion?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 542 ✭✭✭PhoneMain


    HIV and immunocompromised patients are at a higher risk of severe disease.

    I was responding to a poster who said HIV and the immunocompromised arent recommended to get the vaccine. And he linked the numbers of HIV patients and immunocompromised to those in ICU. That's factually incorrect.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,492 ✭✭✭floorpie


    I take your point, but I'm not familiar with vaccination for HIV patients and you seem to be: if a person had a CD4 of say 200-500, and were being treated for this, would it be recommended that they're vaccinated? Because the table isn't clear



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so



    How exciting for you! To be honest I find this type of posting truly baffling because it offers no solutions, and is really an exercise in ego massage. If your wisdom is indeed as deep as you claim it is some of these insights would have found a way to places where they can actually do something but all you seem to want to do with it is to prove to people how right you are. I've no idea what you are trying to do with that pseudo intellectual piffle in the middle of that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Yeah I keep coming back to that 70% for the over 80s, which looks like a decent benchmark for the older groups. Agree on other groups.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,417 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    A lot of people and politicians were banging on about zero COVID (and people on here), we should have been keeping hospitals near capacity with COVID (along with whatever opening got us to that point), but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

    However, boosters should mitigate the worst effects and the viral pills should handle the rest, so normality is coming, but the powers that be need to let cases (and hospitalisations) stay relatively high but manageable to get there, locking down for 2 weeks just prolongs everything for 2 more weeks.

    The question is if we can get away with the current increased restrictions or will they need to go further, keep watching the hospitals.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,447 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Is there any rough timeline for the Pfizer antiviral getting EMA approval and then ultimately being available in hospitals etc?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,492 ✭✭✭floorpie


    we should have been keeping hospitals near capacity with COVID (along with whatever opening got us to that point)

    Yeah this is a key, but uncomfortable, thing that isn't mentioned much. If we're all going to get infected anyway, then we may as well optimise capacity, essentially.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 248 ✭✭kieran26


    The vaccine isn't free. We pay for it through our taxes.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,579 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    I do not know where you are getting that there was a variant of concern reported in March 2020. According to the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention the first reported variant of concern was not until September 2020, the Beta variant which had low transmission levels. Followed in December 2020 by the Gamma variant and the Delta variant. The government plan you are talking about was from summer 2020 when none of those variants had been reported, least of all the present one which is the major problem, and before we even knew if there was going to be a vaccine.

    With no knowledge of the present variant, (or indeed any variants or a vaccine in summer 2020), I do not know what you believe the plan then should have been that would take into account two unknows ?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 542 ✭✭✭PhoneMain


    I wouldnt know the ins and outs of that information, to be honest people with certain conditions are advised on vaccines by hospital consultants so that'd be a discussion between consultant and patient. Same as those with cancer, on immunosuppressants etc



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Thank you for telling me what I am. Its great not to have to think about it myself. Really appreciate the time you are taking to think about other people👊



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Your commentary - however sincere - offers nothing.

    You were still unironically talking about 'only two more weeks' the fortnight prior to Oct 22nd.

    "Hey it looks like covid has altered our plans. Oh well you can't know what the virus will do. Gee who could have seen that coming"

    Do you not get that restrictions and lockdown are primarily a political choice?

    'The virus is forcing us to shutter businesses' Such waffle. Do you see yourself parroting this year in year out?

    Cautious waiting in the summer then shocked face in the winter *gasp* the virus has thrown us another curveball!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,579 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    As I have said in my last post mystified, rather than you somehow looking on it as disapproval. If you cannot see the difference then that is up to you.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    To me it's an implied criticism of others but each to their own.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Your link says:

    "People with HIV and those with weakened immune systems due to other illnesses or medication might be at increased risk for severe COVID-19. They may receive a COVID-19 vaccine. However, they should be aware of the limited safety data:

    Information about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for people who have weakened immune systems in this group is not yet available

    People living with HIV were included in clinical trials, though safety data specific to this group are not yet available at this time

    People with weakened immune systems should also be aware of the potential for reduced immune responses to the vaccine, as well as the need to continue following current guidance to protect themselves against COVID-19."

    People with HIV and compromised immunity have and do continue to receive vaccines. The likelihood is they are over represented in the vaccine population in ICU



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 494 ✭✭Billgirlylegs


    I think you are better of letting them quote their figures and make all the stuff up that they want. In a matter of days their figures and subsequent calculations are blown to smithereens and they need to make up something else. Sure age is only a minor factor in the death rate. Especially when compared to Covid.

    I would be more interested in Minister Donnelly(another expert??) stating 81% this morning of people being treated for Covid in ICU have underlying conditions. Presumably this information is known because the person is in regular contact regular with a Doctor. If we believe HSE statistics are accurate(good luck with that, it is a BIG if), 66% of that 81% of Covid patients in ICU, who are in contact with a Doctor have not chosen to be vaccinated. By my rough calculations, 54% of the people being treated for Covid in ICU, have underlying issues while chosing not to be vaccinated.

    In view of the well documented arguments over patients (and their partners) attending Maternity Hospital - another group in regular contact with Doctors - why does it appear that there are significant numbers of people who ( I admit this is my assumption) are in regular contact with a Doctor not choosing to be vaccinated.

    Any explanations or even theories folks?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Exactly my point Grow, thanks.

    I wish there would be more addressing of the point rather than immediately reacting based on the name of the poster



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


    And why WON'T that be happening next December 2022,2023,2024 etc .... that is my whole point...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,579 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    There may be a small risk, but is the risk less or more of serious illness or even death from not getting vaccinated ?

    Surely if waning immunity gives you less protection, and that immunity continues to wane, then does it not seem logical to avail of a booster that will boost your immunity level back up to a much higher level. The booster shot efficacy is over 98%

    The hospital and ICU numbers would tend to very much disagree with your assessment of being vaccinated rather than not being so.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,900 ✭✭✭✭bear1




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,579 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    I have explained to you why it mystifies me, and I really have seen nothing to explain that away so, other than that nothing I can do about how you choose read it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 248 ✭✭kieran26


    How long is the booster shot immunity at over 98%? Wouldn't immunity on this shot wane too?



  • Advertisement
Advertisement