Jump to content
IGNORED

Who's getting the vaccine?


amdirel

Recommended Posts

Is anyone going to be doing "I've had the jab" selfies on Facebook? After enduring all the ice bath photos etc I'm planning to put one up. But I'm 2a so that's a while yet.


My GP clinic has been sending out vaccine upate emails so I'm assuming they will send out an email when they know they will have stock and we can then book for jab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like that Covid live now includes vaccination data, purely from curiosity, I like numbers 😊


It’s a nice feeling to finally see it happening.

 

I saw that this morning for the first time. I went to the COVID Live site, and not really looking properly, glanced to my right where I was expecting "Tests" to be, saw 580 and thought that that couldn't be right; they couldn't have only done 580 tests in 24 hours. Upon closer inspection though, I spotted "Vaccinations" at the top right and had to scroll down to get to the actual "Tests" numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serenity now insanity later

I'm 1a (due to the ward I work in) and will be getting the Pfizer vaccine on Thursday. My main worry over the last year has been the possibility of catching Covid and accidentally infecting someone else. Working in a Hospital it is so clear we are not doing anywhere enough to prevent transmission in that environment.

I'm relieved to be getting the vaccine. Even if it's not perfect it will reduce my risk of getting sick and making others sick. Could not live with myself if I infected someone and they died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s exactly how I feel too, serenity now insanity later - although I’m in 1b. But with a vulnerable patient cohort, so yeah, couldn’t live with myself if I brought it to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been reported that two elderly people in Queensland have been given 4 times the required amount of vaccine yesterday. A doctor has apparently been stood down.

I just do not understand how this could happen.


I am just hearing this now on a MSM network so this comes with a query factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Lord, don't read the comments, you've been given fair warning:


https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/tga-bans-pfizer-astrazeneca-brand-mentions-in-covid-19-vaccine-advertising-20210223-p574xl.html


It doesn't take too much reading of the article to find out that the TGA has, like all other prescription drugs, banned advertising of the covid vaccines. That means ABC chemist won't be able to say 'come to us, we've got the Pfizer' (given there's plenty of confusion about the relative efficiencies), however you will, naturally, be able to find out which one you're lining up for.


Apparently that makes us worse than China. Doesn't allow people to 'research' (with which degree?). 'If I can't have the Pfizer I'll wait'.


Anyone who thinks they might be able to get the Pfizer from a chemist clearly hasn't done much research so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence from Scotland is looking like AZ is just as good, possibly even slightly better than Pfizer. Will be interesting to see if that shakes out but could upset a few people who have been determined to believe AZ is the “dud”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence from Scotland is looking like AZ is just as good, possibly even slightly better than Pfizer. Will be interesting to see if that shakes out but could upset a few people who have been determined to believe AZ is the “dud”.

 

Yes, i can't quote what I've read - there have been a few, but the reduction in serious illness in those who've had just one dose is fantastic - and the benefit seems to continue consistently through to the second dose.


Would love to hear what [mention]Lou-bags[/mention] has to say about the two.


I do chortle when people want to do their own 'research' and decide 'which one's the best fit for their family'.


Note, I have no objection to people being fully informed, and reading widely from recognised experts, but it seems the main negative comments on The Age article are from people who didn't even bother to read the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been reported that two elderly people in Queensland have been given 4 times the required amount of vaccine yesterday. A doctor has apparently been stood down.

I just do not understand how this could happen.


I am just hearing this now on a MSM network so this comes with a query factor.

 

Hunt and Kelly spoke this morning about this, but didn't confirm how much. Lady on the ABC now said there are reports getting around that it was a whole vial, but can't confirm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been reported that two elderly people in Queensland have been given 4 times the required amount of vaccine yesterday. A doctor has apparently been stood down.

I just do not understand how this could happen.


I am just hearing this now on a MSM network so this comes with a query factor.

 

Hunt and Kelly spoke this morning about this, but didn't confirm how much. Lady on the ABC now said there are reports getting around that it was a whole vial, but can't confirm.

 


I missed the presser. The vial holds 1.8 mls so it would mean whoever gave it did not use the required 1ml syringe to draw it up but perhaps a 2.5ml syringe. I am just surprised by this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence from Scotland is looking like AZ is just as good, possibly even slightly better than Pfizer. Will be interesting to see if that shakes out but could upset a few people who have been determined to believe AZ is the “dud”.

 

I agree - I was talking with an epidemiologist colleague from the Netherlands yesterday, and she was really surprised to hear that the AZ vaccine is regarded as a ‘dud’ in Australia. Absolutely not the view in the rest of the world, and not well supported by data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence from Scotland is looking like AZ is just as good, possibly even slightly better than Pfizer. Will be interesting to see if that shakes out but could upset a few people who have been determined to believe AZ is the “dud”.

 

I agree - I was talking with an epidemiologist colleague from the Netherlands yesterday, and she was really surprised to hear that the AZ vaccine is regarded as a ‘dud’ in Australia. Absolutely not the view in the rest of the world, and not well supported by data.

 

I'm actually surprised people in the Netherlands are surprised, given the news coming out of the EU. I've read numerous articles about the scepticism in Germany - I've just googled and this has come up, but there were plenty of others.


https://www.businessinsider.com.au/some-france-germany-uk-avoid-astrazeneca-jab-pfizer-reports-2021-2?r=US&IR=T


Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I THINK it started with reports mistakenly conflating 'lack of data' for older people, with 'poor result data'. I don't think some earlier info on an accidental half then full dose regimen helped confidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't help when people like Michelle start bagging it on Q&A for example.



But Dr Ananda-Rajah called on the Australian Government to be more transparent.


She said some of her colleagues had doubts about receiving the AstraZeneca jab and wanted to receive the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine instead due to its higher efficacy.


"What I'm hearing from some of my colleagues is… they'd like the Pfizer vaccine," she said.


"They understand there's a difference between an efficacy of 95 per cent and an efficacy of 63 per cent.


"I feel the Australian public are not being levelled with.


"This speaks to the issue of Australia's hybridised approach where 10 million adults will get a highly efficacious vaccine in Pfizer.


"The other 10 million will be getting a safe vaccine, which is moderately efficacious, in AstraZeneca.


"When I hear messaging that they're [both] highly effective vaccines, that is not correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am confused. Is the above Dr confirming AZ vax is not as effective?


What about above in Scotland?


Is she just saying we are just not given enough information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't help when people like Michelle start bagging it on Q&A for example.



But Dr Ananda-Rajah called on the Australian Government to be more transparent.


She said some of her colleagues had doubts about receiving the AstraZeneca jab and wanted to receive the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine instead due to its higher efficacy.


"What I'm hearing from some of my colleagues is… they'd like the Pfizer vaccine," she said.


"They understand there's a difference between an efficacy of 95 per cent and an efficacy of 63 per cent.


"I feel the Australian public are not being levelled with.


"This speaks to the issue of Australia's hybridised approach where 10 million adults will get a highly efficacious vaccine in Pfizer.


"The other 10 million will be getting a safe vaccine, which is moderately efficacious, in AstraZeneca.


"When I hear messaging that they're [both] highly effective vaccines, that is not correct.

 




A 65%-70% efficacious vaccine which comes without the burden of storage and transportation difficulties is sometimes worth the difference in efficacy and they are now learning that perhaps the efficacy is improved by delaying the second shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am confused. Is the above Dr confirming AZ vax is not as effective?


What about above in Scotland?


Is she just saying we are just not given enough information?

 

Indeed, sounds like they're not terribly up to date, as it's looking increasingly likely the AZ is very effective.


Also, the quoted efficiencies ignore the underlying infection rates in the community. Even if the Pfizer is more effective, our most vulnerable will have had it, and the rest of us having a very effective immunisation by way of the AZ gives us an astonishingly good coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Early on there was talk about the different approaches the studies took. I can’t find the source now but I’m sure I recall reading that Pfizer (& Moderna?) only tested people who were symptomatic, whereas AZ was testing asymptomatic people on a schedule too, so potentially picking up additional cases.


Regardless, all the major vaccines (including the Russian Sputnik, the Johnson & Johnson, the Chinese Sinovac and Novovax) all seem to be demonstrating very very good results at preventing major illness and death. If the vaccine/s can change COVID from “potentially deadly” to “annoying cold” well that’s amazing!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am confused. Is the above Dr confirming AZ vax is not as effective?


What about above in Scotland?


Is she just saying we are just not given enough information?

 

Indeed, sounds like they're not terribly up to date, as it's looking increasingly likely the AZ is very effective.


Also, the quoted efficiencies ignore the underlying infection rates in the community. Even if the Pfizer is more effective, our most vulnerable will have had it, and the rest of us having a very effective immunisation by way of the AZ gives us an astonishingly good coverage.

 

She was up to date a week or two ago when the episode of Q & A aired, the data from Scotland was reported in the last two days.


It depends a lot on what you want it to do of course, there seem to be a number of ways to measure how 'effective' a vaccine is.


If memory serves, the Scotland data suggests that AZ is very good at reducing hospitalisations and serious illness, which is marvellous. That doesn't mean that it is also highly effective in preventing people from contracting the disease or passing it onto other people.


For someone working with a vulnerable cohort (immune compromised children for example, who aren't being vaccinated here at all at this stage) this may be an important distinction because they may be overwhelmingly concerned about passing the virus to others, as opposed to being hospitalised themselves.


I watched that episode of Q & A and thought that her points seemed valid and reasonable. She made it abundantly clear that both vaccines were completely safe but that one was markedly more effective than the other in available clinical trials. That isn't actually being disputed by anyone I don't think, the argument is about how effective a vaccine needs to be in order to be worthwhile and the consensus is that AZ is absolutely good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think for a first generation vaccine the AZ is amazing. It was better than they had initially hoped, especially with the longer gap between doses and a 94% reduction in hospitalisation for serious illness in the Scottish study. It is a long game with COVID-19 and there will be more vaccines which will follow.


I hear the Oxford University researchers already hope to reveal an “upgrade” in the Northern Hemisphere autumn which will incorporate the new strains and they they are working on making the vaccine in pill form. If the vaccine could be made in pill form that would make the distribution easier and faster.


The Germans need to be careful as they are moving into a third wave surge of Covid 19 infections and the EU president is asking if they can divert the unused German vaccines elsewhere in Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I truly hope the overdose given to the two aged care residents does not cause a trend of non vaccination. Please please still have faith in the process.


It beggars belief to be honest, we are talking about the most simple of calculations and 4th grade Math to have got the dose correct, this is first base when it comes to medical procedures. There is no excuse for a registered clinician to have made this mistake if they are of sound mind. I hope there is transparency with what happened her, the vaccine is new, the method of vaccination is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advertisement
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...