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

COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 2 [Mod Warning - Post #1]

Options
1…1314161819…331

Comments

  • Options
    #452
    stephenjmcd
    Registered Users Posts: 15,202 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    Sky King wrote: »
    Indeed it is. We wouldn't be too far off hitting this timeline in that case

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ep1ysuaXcAAToq0.jpg

    That's all old folks homes and HCWs, and a good shot of over 70's done by Feb.

    Potentially ambitious that timeline as a whole but regardless with 40k a week coming in, carehomes, their staff and frontline medical professionals should have a very large dent made and some groups completed by late feb.

    Varadkar referenced it there today, current estimates were critical mass done by late Feb / early March and we'd be looking at a very different picture.


  • Options
    #453
    Gael23
    Registered Users Posts: 12,091 ✭✭✭✭Gael23


    BryanMartin21 wrote: »
    If the vulnerable are vaccinated, I would think so, bar maybe large crowd events. There wouldn't be a justification to keep restrictions if vulnerable people had their vaccines. Lockdowns will be optional for those still wary I'm sure, they can stay at home.

    What would be defined a large crowd?


  • Options
    #454
    BryanMartin21
    Closed Accounts Posts: 206 ✭✭BryanMartin21


    Gael23 wrote: »
    What would be defined a large crowd?

    I can't comment as I would struggle to see a justification for a ban on crowds if the vulnerable were vaccinated. I just think they might restrict crowded events until not just the vulnerable but a large portion of the population are vaccinated.


  • Options
    #455
    VG31
    Registered Users Posts: 3,414 ✭✭✭VG31


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Probably not completely but maybe Level 2 or lower.

    There will have to be an acceptance of high case numbers for that to happen. Of course if high case numbers no longer result in significant deaths and hospitalisations it shouldn't be a big deal, but some people will need to need to come to terms with this and obsess less over case numbers.


  • Options
    #456
    Sconsey
    Registered Users Posts: 1,561 ✭✭✭Sconsey


    stephenjmcd wrote: »
    Potentially ambitious that timeline as a whole but regardless with 40k a week coming in, carehomes, their staff and frontline medical professionals should have a very large dent made and some groups completed by late feb.

    Varadkar referenced it there today, current estimates were critical mass done by late Feb / early March and we'd be looking at a very different picture.

    Crazy ambitious in my opinion, considering 40k doses per week is the equivalent of 20k people per week. Unless Moderna have a big supply waiting in the wings maybe?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #457
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    VG31 wrote: »
    There will have to be an acceptance of high case numbers for that to happen. Of course if high case numbers no longer result in significant deaths and hospitalisations it shouldn't be a big deal, but some people will need to need to come to terms with this and obsess less over case numbers.
    Yeah, I agree and I have commented on this scenario as well. 2,000 cases a day with few to no hospitalisations is little more than a cold or flu'!


  • Options
    #458
    BryanMartin21
    Closed Accounts Posts: 206 ✭✭BryanMartin21


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Yeah, I agree and I have commented on this scenario as well. 2,000 cases a day with few to no hospitalisations is little more than a cold or flu'!

    Comparing to the flu is a red rag to a covid bull!


  • Options
    #459
    stephenjmcd
    Registered Users Posts: 15,202 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    Sconsey wrote: »
    Crazy ambitious in my opinion, considering 40k doses per week is the equivalent of 20k people per week. Unless Moderna have a big supply waiting in the wings maybe?

    Well if you've Moderna then Oxford you can divert Pfizer & Moderna to the older population and those with underlying health conditions while looking to start the roll out of Oxford to the less vulnerable and younger population.

    Not to forget J&J amongst others who should be reporting in February. Get a few more approved and you really do have a very good supply line.


  • Options
    #460
    dominatinMC
    Registered Users Posts: 2,866 ✭✭✭dominatinMC


    ACitizenErased wrote: »
    Thought I'd let people know - my father's involved in the logistics for swabbing hubs for the HSE. Drive through vaccination centres are ready to go and will be set up within 3-4 hour notice of the go-ahead from Dublin.
    Great news, but a bit of an indictment of our media that this isn't headline news and that we have to get this information from boards :pac:


  • Options
    #461
    ShineOn7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    Sweet.Science wrote: »
    The Oxford one is the game changer . The world will look a lot different come March


    Genuine question; why is it the game changer?

    I've tried to keep up on all vaccine news, but it's not always possible as it's a very fluid situation


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #462
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    As Pfizer is okay for 16s and over, I wonder is there an argument to vaccinate Leaving Cert students in April and second dose in May. Would reduce the risk of them getting sick during the exams and they are the people that will occupy what can be crowded accommodation come September so would be useful to have them done and dusted before then.


  • Options
    #463
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ShineOn7 wrote: »
    Genuine question; why is it the game changer?

    I've tried to keep up on all vaccine news, but it's not always possible as it's a very fluid situation

    Production numbers, 2 billion next year. Which may be enough for either 1b or 1.5b people depending on dosing regimen.


  • Options
    #464
    Hmmzis
    Registered Users Posts: 2,004 ✭✭✭Hmmzis


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Production numbers, 2 billion next year. Which may be enough for either 1b or 1.5b people depending on dosing regimen.

    If I'm not mistaken they have the capacity to make 3b doses a year if push comes to shove.


  • Options
    #465
    CIARAN_BOYLE
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭CIARAN_BOYLE


    ShineOn7 wrote: »
    Genuine question; why is it the game changer?

    I've tried to keep up on all vaccine news, but it's not always possible as it's a very fluid situation

    Only way we will get the majority of the people vaccinated is if Oxford Astra Zenaca gets approved.

    Production is around the same as any 2 of the other vaccines.

    It's all about the numbers. As mentioned 40k a week for pfizer. I believe I read that moderna will be just over a third of pfizer so even combined the numbers won't be great.


  • Options
    #466
    ShineOn7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Production numbers, 2 billion next year. Which may be enough for either 1b or 1.5b people depending on dosing regimen.
    CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »
    Only way we will get the majority of the people vaccinated is if Oxford Astra Zenaca gets approved.


    Thanks

    Is the Oxford one mostly for the States or am I getting my John Campbell videos mixed up?

    Is some of it already allocated for the EU?


  • Options
    #467
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,356 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    ShineOn7 wrote: »
    Thanks

    Is the Oxford one mostly for the States or am I getting my John Campbell videos mixed up?

    Is some of it already allocated for the EU?
    Moderna would more closely fit the description of mostly for the States. EU has ordered 160m from Moderna.

    EU have ordered 400m from AstraZeneca, which would vaccinate upto 266m people vs. Moderna's 80m


  • Options
    #468
    CIARAN_BOYLE
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭CIARAN_BOYLE


    ShineOn7 wrote: »
    Thanks

    Is the Oxford one mostly for the States or am I getting my John Campbell videos mixed up?

    Is some of it already allocated for the EU?

    EU has purchased 300 million doses with an option for another 100 million.

    That's not a lot if 2 billion are being made in the year but world wide it will take a lot of demand off.


  • Options
    #469
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Statistics -you can go at it from two sides - observe the number of events you get and then get a confidence statement over a range as I have shown or complete multiple studies and use the standard deviation to calculate a distribution. And its not the number of patients in the trial that gives the confidence in efficacy, just the ratio of events. The more patients, the quicker you reach the endpoint. The overall number is important for safety. Either way a result that produces 9 events in 141 occurring in the vaccine population would occur about 1 time in 1,000,000,000,000 by chance if the vaccine was ineffective.

    So how does the first work: confidence. Take just the vaccined group producing 9 cases. How do you know what the results would be for each of you repeated the exercise with 100 groups?

    You appear to be saying that you can give x degree of confidence that 9 would be the number every time. More confidence the more groups.

    Say you ran a second vaccinated group and got 256 cases?


  • Options
    #470
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    BryanMartin21 wrote: »
    Comparing to the flu is a red rag to a covid bull!
    Yeah but if we get to a point of no hospitalisations because of the vaccine(s) cases may as well be a mild one!


  • Options
    #471
    Sconsey
    Registered Users Posts: 1,561 ✭✭✭Sconsey


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    So how does the first work: confidence. Take just the vaccined group producing 9 cases. How do you know what the results would be for each of you repeated the exercise with 100 groups?

    You appear to be saying that you can give x degree of confidence that 9 would be the number every time. More confidence the more groups.

    Say you ran a second vaccinated group and got 256 cases?

    Statistics is the discipline that concerns the collection, organization, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of data. In applying statistics to a scientific, industrial, or social problem, it is conventional to begin with a statistical population or a statistical model to be studied

    You should probably be asking statisticians your questions. I imagine the FDA, the EUM and others asked qualified statisticians to interpret the data. I am happy enough to believe their interpretations on this since I only have a passing understanding of the discipline and would not assume to second-guess so many independent experts.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #472
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,479 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Sconsey wrote: »
    Statistics is the discipline that concerns the collection, organization, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of data. In applying statistics to a scientific, industrial, or social problem, it is conventional to begin with a statistical population or a statistical model to be studied

    You should probably be asking statisticians your questions. I imagine the FDA, the EUM and others asked qualified statisticians to interpret the data. I am happy enough to believe their interpretations on this since I only have a passing understanding of the discipline and would not assume to second-guess so many independent experts.

    I've already pointed antiskeptic at the mathematics forum, antiskeptic is also refusing to answer any questions put to him and keeps on going with the same flawed analysis. raind has the patience of a saint.


  • Options
    #473
    snowstorm445
    Registered Users Posts: 932 ✭✭✭snowstorm445


    chrisbonnie wrote: »
    Newstalk did similar yesterday.

    Luke O'Neill was on with pat Kenny at around 9.30am, he was straight forward saying that yeah, more then likely that be variant is here. But then confirmed that the vaccines will work against it and that from what they know, it's no more deadly, just appears to be more transmissible. He then goes on saying he expects good news soon from Johnson & Johnson trials, curevac and also the Oxford vaccines, so all good news.

    On the 10 o'clock news just 30 minutes later on the same bloody channel their headline was.

    "Luke O'Neill claims new variant is already here"

    No mention of the fact its no more deadly, no mention of the fact the vaccines, which are here in a matter of days stop it in its tracks. No, just that one snippet.

    Could you imagine being a nervous person just switching on the radio and that's all you hear.

    It has to be said, the media coverage has been shambolic and bordered on criminal at times during this whole thing.

    Thank god the world didn't have 24 hour media during the Spanish flu pandemic. Could you imagine the hysteria then.......

    Newstalk's Youtube clip on the vaccine. Guess what headline did they decided to go with?

    Coronavirus vaccine gets 'conditional' green light across the EU

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMcQTRRb3-w

    I'm sure if they could have blown up and bolded the word "conditional" they would have done it in a heartbeat.

    They just can't help themselves. They'll be deeply upset when they can't sponge off of a panicked listenership post-pandemic.


  • Options
    #474
    Necro
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 51,162 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    So how does the first work: confidence. Take just the vaccined group producing 9 cases. How do you know what the results would be for each of you repeated the exercise with 100 groups?

    You appear to be saying that you can give x degree of confidence that 9 would be the number every time. More confidence the more groups.

    Say you ran a second vaccinated group and got 256 cases?

    Mod:

    This is going around in circles now, can you please drop this and move on


  • Options
    #475
    Marhay70
    Registered Users Posts: 1,913 ✭✭✭Marhay70


    snowstorm445 wrote: »
    Newstalk's Youtube clip on the vaccine. Guess what headline did they decided to go with?

    Coronavirus vaccine gets 'conditional' green light across the EU

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMcQTRRb3-w

    I'm sure if they could have blown up and bolded the word "conditional" they would have done it in a heartbeat.

    They just can't help themselves. They'll be deeply upset when they can't sponge off of a panicked listenership post-pandemic.


    Reading that sentence and the context in which it's intended, I think the problem is more to do with modern Irish journalism's ever more distant relationship with the English language.


  • Options
    #476
    speckle
    Registered Users Posts: 2,251 ✭✭✭speckle


    astrofool wrote: »
    I've already pointed antiskeptic at the mathematics forum, antiskeptic is also refusing to answer any questions put to him and keeps on going with the same flawed analysis. raind has the patience of a saint.

    Well I am thinking I have a problem taking it in too in a text format..maybe somebody has a video clip they might share...might be easier?


  • Options
    #477
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    So how does the first work: confidence. Take just the vaccined group producing 9 cases. How do you know what the results would be for each of you repeated the exercise with 100 groups?

    You appear to be saying that you can give x degree of confidence that 9 would be the number every time. More confidence the more groups.

    Say you ran a second vaccinated group and got 256 cases?

    That’s why it’s called a confidence statement. The usual standard is 95%. You will be 95% confident that the true proportion will be in a certain range if your sample is representative. The more data, the tighter the confidence interval.

    If you ran a second vaccinated group and got 256 cases, the impact of that on conclusions on the efficacy would depend on how many cases occurred in the unvaccinated group, because as I said it’s the proportion of cases in both groups and not the sample size that defines the efficacy. Based on the first study you would expect, with a very high probability, in excess of 2500 cases in the unvaccinated group. There is never certainty though


  • Options
    #478
    JTMan
    Registered Users Posts: 5,539 ✭✭✭JTMan


    0.74% of the UK have now received their first vaccination. Great start in the UK.

    https://twitter.com/NeilDotObrien/status/1341463362509697025


  • Options
    #479
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Tony Holohan said vaccines won't solve everything and even if they did it will take time. Now it's the time bit I know to be the case but I didn't think there would be an "if".


  • Options
    #480
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,169 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Tony Holohan said vaccines won't solve everything and even if they did it will take time. Now it's the time bit I know to be the case but I didn't think there would be an "if".

    We actually do, because whilst vaccines we now believe from their trials are able to suppress the severity, what we don't know yet is, do they prevent you getting the virus and does a vaccine prevent you infecting others?
    Until we know the answers to those questions, we have to keep masks and distance to protect those who haven't been vaccinated.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #481
    dominatinMC
    Registered Users Posts: 2,866 ✭✭✭dominatinMC


    Water John wrote: »
    We actually do, because whilst vaccines we now believe from their trials are able to suppress the severity, what we don't know yet is, do they prevent you getting the virus and does a vaccine prevent you infecting others?
    Until we know the answers to those questions, we have to keep masks and distance to protect those who haven't been vaccinated.

    And round and round we go. This issue has been discussed many times and it is generally acknowledged that once the majority of vulnerable are protected, restrictions will be gradually lifted and we will be moving on from this. Yes, some proportion of the vulnerable groups will not be able to take the vaccine but that is not an acceptable justification for prolonged restrictions and social distancing. The goodwill of the general population is already on the decline, and the government will not have sufficient cause for restrictions once we reach a "critical mass" as Leo himself put it. That is unfortunate for the vulnerable but life will move on.
    The remit of NPHET is to protect lives and that is it. At some stage economics, the well being and mental health of the general population will supersede the need to protect a very very small minority.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement