I do get the pressure that the planners are under - the whole system is between a rock and a hard place. But equally I'm not going to be critical of people who do want to think about that vaccine resistant variant issue now. Because I'm hoping we can actually get out of this misery in Q3/Q4 rather than seeing it all kick off again next winter.
The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll
- Thread starter Badunk
- Start date
On a different note, Israel has now given first jabs to over 1m people, about 12% of the population, and are currently dispensing about 125k/Pfizer vaccines per day.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-55514243
Anybody know how logistically their rollout is being done? Mass vaccination centres, minimal paperwork? Or something else?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-55514243
Anybody know how logistically their rollout is being done? Mass vaccination centres, minimal paperwork? Or something else?
I understand your anger and frustration, which are feelings widely sharedI’m willing to compromise on them just being angry in private tbh
I think maybe they have the army involved. There’s probably a degree of pre-existing organization there which is helping facilitate progress.
Here’s some good data on vaccine rollout for us all to get competitive about. Dunno what the hell they’re doing in Israel but I’m deeply jealous of them anyway.
Got my first jab just now.
I think I feel more stupid for having some hope that they wouldn't feck up the vaccine than annoyed they're fecking up the vaccine.
Yes, it is. The army supports the healthcare system by taking care of civilians. Newly medical centres co-managed by both parties.. parkings transformed into health centres for routine procedures...
You may add:
(1) They started to buy vaccines last June while clinical trials were note over.
(2) Political agility of a country in permanent state of war/political insecurity
(3) Authoritarian management style typical of the Middle East
The actual PHE Green Book guidance on mixed product doses doesn't sound as unsettling as the abbreviated version. It suggests it's intended as a rare contingency measure. That said, it doesn't make clear how they're going to monitor it to make sure that it is rare, or how they're going to follow it up to see what happens - unless they believe the normal incident report mechanism can cover it.
The “green book” states: “If the course is interrupted or delayed, it should be resumed using the same vaccine but the first dose should not be repeated. There is no evidence on the interchangeability of the Covid-19 vaccines although studies are under way. Therefore, every effort should be made to determine which vaccine the individual received and to complete with the same vaccine.
“For individuals who started the schedule and who attend for vaccination at a site where the same vaccine is not available, or if the first product received is unknown, it is reasonable to offer one dose of the locally available product to complete the schedule. This option is preferred if the individual is likely to be at immediate high risk or is considered unlikely to attend again.
“In these circumstances, as both the vaccines are based on the spike protein, it is likely the second dose will help to boost the response to the first dose. For this reason, until additional information becomes available, further doses would not then be required.”
The “green book” states: “If the course is interrupted or delayed, it should be resumed using the same vaccine but the first dose should not be repeated. There is no evidence on the interchangeability of the Covid-19 vaccines although studies are under way. Therefore, every effort should be made to determine which vaccine the individual received and to complete with the same vaccine.
“For individuals who started the schedule and who attend for vaccination at a site where the same vaccine is not available, or if the first product received is unknown, it is reasonable to offer one dose of the locally available product to complete the schedule. This option is preferred if the individual is likely to be at immediate high risk or is considered unlikely to attend again.
“In these circumstances, as both the vaccines are based on the spike protein, it is likely the second dose will help to boost the response to the first dose. For this reason, until additional information becomes available, further doses would not then be required.”
Pfizer presumably? Let us know what aches and pains you get!Got my first jab just now.
The article seems a lot less alarmist than the headline suggests. The guidance has been updated to say if there is shortfall of one vaccine a different vaccine may be considered for use with consideration for vulnerable patients or patients that may be unlikely to return (homeless people etc I guess). It doesn’t really suggest that there’s going to be widespread vaccine mixing.
My sister had it on the 30th and for a couple days she was out with a fever and stomach pains. She's already had COVID and gets tested regularly cos of her job (she did the test again when she wasn't well yesterday) - was negative.
Probably coincidence, but was enough to make my grandmother hesitate a bit when she gets the call
Two doses, exactly 21 days apart. Vaccination as God intended.Got my first jab just now.
It's a nice change to see a graph where having a steep upward slope is good news.
Amazed at the inefficiency being shown by the US government. 20 million planned, 2.8 million done. What a shitshow.
I'm sure the CEO of Pfizer appreciates your devotion
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I agree with basically all of that (and will defer to you on the extra knowledge about the supply), but that isn't what the public are being told. I just don't think sugar-coating this story is appropriate, and it comes with risks for adherence to various public health measures including future vaccination if the more complicated story takes centre stage in a more difficult moment.
If the position is that we can't get through the next 12 weeks without an accelerated vaccination program, and that might mean we need to start from scratch again with a new vaccination program at a better point, we might see greater levels of wastage and more missed second doses, there will be more people getting covid in between the first and second doses, and in general it will be a more challenging vaccination rollout, I would understand that. I'm still not sure I would agree with the priorities, but in general I am happy to defer to the experts. But that isn't what they're saying.
I'm not asserting that they haven't considered the trade-offs, I'm just saying they haven't talked through the trade-offs and explained their thinking on why we have chosen this course. Short statements that emphasise the positives have some value in some circumstances but in this situation I think the public have a right to more transparency and more depth.
Im a healthy 32 year old with no underlying conditions,
5 million people in Ireland which means we have to vaccinate over 13k people a day to get to me who is probably last on the list
I dont see myself getting this until 2022 as its just not matemathically or logistically possible to do that many people every day
5 million people in Ireland which means we have to vaccinate over 13k people a day to get to me who is probably last on the list
I dont see myself getting this until 2022 as its just not matemathically or logistically possible to do that many people every day
I was thinking to myself last night that they should use this latest lockdown to vaccinate 20% of the population. I mean go thermonuclear on it. Working 12 hour days, hiring double or triple what they would normally employ.
Feels like a lack of urgency in Ireland right now. I wonder do we actually have the supplies to move faster? And if not, why not?
Not sure really. My aunt in a nursing home said she was been vaccinated in early January.
Apparently we’re due to receive 40,000 doses per week. Surely that’s nowhere near enough?
Does this not contradict the UK's current plan? Unless I'm mistaken, this feels like a very real/public/tragic soap opera unfolding in front of us.
I read last night somewhere that the EU did not order enough.
Why though? The issue is a lack of supply right now but once that's sorted I don't see an issue. 13k a day shouldn't be a problem even for a small country like Ireland.
There’s definitely no lack of urgency. There is a lack of supplies though. It’s going to be a recurring theme all year tbh.
I think it's more of an EU thing than an Ireland thing. And there is good reason to believe more vaccines will be added to the supply early-ish this year. These two stories provide some good context for the current supply issues, which roll down to every country because a limited supply in the early stages is spread out equally. There is a significant element of luck involved in picking and choosing winners, but the EU's approach was particularly cautious, with lower risks and more options but a slower roll-out. The US got a little lucky that they picked the right winners early, but they also took a lot of risk and invested a lot of money to have that kind of supply if things went as they expected. The EU wanted to wait a little longer and spread it out over more vaccines.
If I’m reading it right, the Der Spiegal article kind of implies it may not have been entirely down to bad luck:
“Why were only 300 million doses of a vaccine secured that had already demonstrated 95 percent efficacy in clinical trials at the time? One that had been hailed as a sensation and was already on its way to regulatory approval? German Health Minister Spahn pushed for more to be purchased, but he failed to prevail in the end due to opposition from several EU member countries -- in part, apparently, because the EU had ordered only 300 million doses from the French company Sanofi. "That’s why buying more from a German company wasn't in the cards,” says one insider familiar with the negotiations. The European Commission has denied that version of events, saying it isn’t true that Paris took massive steps to protect Sanofi.”
I think she's trying to explain what the real plan is.
The trouble is the contingency plan is also present in the paperwork and gives some last resort advice if a vaccine centre needs to do something immediately (due to the patient's circumstances) but either doesn't know what Dose 1 they had, or they don't have it available.
Thinking about it, I wouldn't be surprised if there are another batch of similarly awkward recommendations for what to do if someone has a serious allergic or other reaction to the Dose 1 of one of the vaccines. Which will sound similarly bad but again is probably also a necessary piece of contingency planning.
EU should have bet on all the horses. The money to buy the vaccines is meaningless compared to the gdp losses not to mention health aspects. Then if you end up with too many, just donate it. Huge unforgivable feck up from EU.
This is just the start of a process and after several weeks your country can easily vaccinate much more people per day. No doubt about it.
Exactly
The Der Spiegel article is particularly critical and does involve a bit of vaccine nationalism in the Germany vs. France point there, but yeah it is unquestionably true that it wasn’t wholly or even majorly down to bad luck. It was a calculated decision that so far they appear to have misjudged. But as @jojojo says that could change with J+J and Novavax. With a bit of luck there will be some very positive results in the next month and it could change the equation a lot. But the challenges of the vaccine rollout that experts warned about but decision makers hopefully dismissed are becoming more clear every week. The seamless rollout is a fantasy and the reality is still quite tough.
I do agree they should have made a different call and they misjudged the financial risk of too many early failures vs too few early successes. But I can understand their decision making. Europe’s finances had taken a big hit by Q3 and I think they expected countries to manage the winter wave better, so the risks vs rewards seemed a little different. So I wouldn’t say it was unforgivable at this point. Things might turn around.
I actually think the administration of the vaccines has been worse than the procurement in some European countries at this point. France for example need to do a lot more quickly.
Easy to say now because we all know which vaccines won the race. Even so, if Pfizer had been able to ramp up production as fast as they hoped, the timing wouldn't be looking as bad - basically all their Q1 delivery quantities (for the early adopters/buyers) have been halved.
A lot of Europe's faith was placed in more conventional, seemingly easier to manufacture/distribute vaccines - like the AstraZeneca and the Sanofi/GSK. Sanofi's vaccine won't be ready until late 21 (if ever) and the AZ's trial results, and more particularly the way it reported its results upset everyone. AZ was expected to be one of the great workhorses of the vaccine campaigns (and it may yet prove to be exactly that) and at best the confusion has led to delays.
The other two potential high volume suppliers on the current UK/EU lists are J&J and Novavax (the latter still don't have a firm order from the EU, but are still expected to agree a deal). Those two are expected to report Phase3 results in the next month - and all being well, that may mean we see them arrive in late Q1/early Q2.
I think the cost/benefit/risk scenarios were so asymmetric that it was no-brainer to order enough of every top5-8 vaccines. But I don’t think either of us will change our view on this, so happy to leave it here
I heard from a friend at the ECB (who tends to be pretty clued up on all things EU) that Paris acted like absolute morons in shaping the EU vaccine purchasing strategy.
Yeah, I’m not saying I disagree with you at all. I’d say you’re than likely correct. I just don’t feel comfortable being quite so critical of such an important decision that I can only speculate about on how it was made. I suspect there will be demands for them to be explain why things happened the way they did in the coming weeks and we might get more clarity. Hope it wasn’t some bureaucratic nonsense and political infighting as suggested by a few sources.I think the cost/benefit/risk scenarios were so asymmetric that it was no-brainer to order enough of every top5-8 vaccines. But I don’t think either of us will change our view on this, so happy to leave it here
It always feels like a kick in the dick... "You're young and healthy, goto work (where you're still at risk, let's face it), then go home and goto sleep and don't have any fun until you get the vaccine. Btw you're last on the list so expect to be massively depressed by 2023 when you eventually get it anyway"
Batches of the newly approved coronavirus vaccine from Oxford University and AstraZeneca have started arriving at hospitals ahead of the jab’s rollout.