The delay impacts the reopening in regards to restaurants, events, economic impact, etc...
Personally nothing changed.
Delays in rolling out vaccine
- Thread starter tomdublin
- Start date
Personally nothing changed.
People's behaviour has a much more significant and immediate impact on that.
Paul O Mahoney
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,844
Hse reporting 77,303 vaccines have been administered..thats a pretty big uptick on last week.
Appears to be two sets of figures floating about, Our World data has 40k from Monday and the above figure above is 77k, must be a time lag.
Appears to be two sets of figures floating about, Our World data has 40k from Monday and the above figure above is 77k, must be a time lag.
Here's an alternative to using a made up calculator to estimate when you might be able be get vaccination. Plenty of caveats in it.
"The information in the chart has been stated on the Dáil record by members of the government. The plan is highly provisional and based on assumptions around the future production and delivery schedule of vaccines that have not yet been medically approved"
Edit: updated link as original tweet deleted (I'm not a Twitter user)
"The information in the chart has been stated on the Dáil record by members of the government. The plan is highly provisional and based on assumptions around the future production and delivery schedule of vaccines that have not yet been medically approved"
Edit: updated link as original tweet deleted (I'm not a Twitter user)
Last edited:
Paul O Mahoney
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,844
The above is a link that shows an overall rollout plan.
My linking of stuff is fairly rubbish apologies.
Its not an official HSE document either but a TD .
My linking of stuff is fairly rubbish apologies.
Its not an official HSE document either but a TD .
Last edited:
I see irish government ordering batches of the Astra zeneca vaccine now before the date the european agency meeting on january 29, obviously they have it on good authority that it is to be authorized. The same happened with the pFizer vaccine in December they brought the date forward due to massive political pressure and because Germany was furious that the UK, US and Israel had a got a big start on their vaccination programs with a vaccine that was actually mostly developed in Germany.
Also in late December the EMA was putting out rumours that the Astra zeneca vaccine would not be authorized and would have to do more trials, then the huge upsurge with the new variants and massive political pressure to get this authorized and out there quickly.
Methinks the EMA is not solely a scientific body and that politics is as much involved in their decisions as anything, if the upsurge in corona did not happen they would have gone through the motions with the Astra zeneca vaccine and delayed its authorization by slowing down the bureacratic hoops that had to be jumped through
Also in late December the EMA was putting out rumours that the Astra zeneca vaccine would not be authorized and would have to do more trials, then the huge upsurge with the new variants and massive political pressure to get this authorized and out there quickly.
Methinks the EMA is not solely a scientific body and that politics is as much involved in their decisions as anything, if the upsurge in corona did not happen they would have gone through the motions with the Astra zeneca vaccine and delayed its authorization by slowing down the bureacratic hoops that had to be jumped through
Paul O Mahoney
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,844
Astrazeneca had to redo some of its trials as it didn't know why their vaccine worked so well with half a dose, there were other issues too like age etc.
Astrazeneca didn't apply to the EMA until last week, its difficult to approve something that hasn't applied for.
Every regulatory system is political and governments are involved, look at Israel they went directly to Pfizer and told them that they could roll out faster than anyone else, Pfizer said ok as they would get data in the real world quicker.
The EMA job is to make sure all the aspects that a vaccine are understood and comply with the standards expected.
Paul O Mahoney
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,844
If they are ordering independently which I haven't seen any evidence.
Just saw a story, they are asking for early delivery, to get it out to GPs but won't be administering it until after approval
Last edited:
Oxford vaccine unlikely to be rolled out in EU in January as EMA look for more data on ‘quality’ of vaccine
THE European roll-out of the Oxford University-AstraZeneca vaccine is unlikely to take place in January, according to an official at the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
www.independent.ie
“At the moment, AstraZeneca has only provided data on their clinical trials to the European Medicines Agency,” he said.
“We need additional data on the quality of their vaccine.”
In addition, AstraZeneca has yet to submit a formal application, which is another necessary condition for the vaccine to be recommended.
This made it "improbable" that an approval could be granted next month, Mr Wathion said.
its obvious that the massive pressure as a result of the new variants pushed the EMA to cut out alot of nonsense and get on with it especially as the UK was already vaccinating tens of thousands with the Astrazeneca vaccine. unless they had some genuine information which the UK regulators did not have they had to release it.
Paul O Mahoney
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,844
I'm confused.....are you suggesting that the EMA are turning a blind eye to issues just to approve the Astrazeneca vaccine?
The Astrazeneca vaccine is only 62% effective in the dose used in the UK. That is cause for concern. Those in higher risk groups should be given one of the more effective vaccines.this is an article from late december where an EMA official was saying that they were not going to approve it in JanuaryOxford vaccine unlikely to be rolled out in EU in January as EMA look for more data on ‘quality’ of vaccine
THE European roll-out of the Oxford University-AstraZeneca vaccine is unlikely to take place in January, according to an official at the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
“At the moment, AstraZeneca has only provided data on their clinical trials to the European Medicines Agency,” he said.
“We need additional data on the quality of their vaccine.”
In addition, AstraZeneca has yet to submit a formal application, which is another necessary condition for the vaccine to be recommended.
This made it "improbable" that an approval could be granted next month, Mr Wathion said.
its obvious that the massive pressure as a result of the new variants pushed the EMA to cut out alot of nonsense and get on with it especially as the UK was already vaccinating tens of thousands with the Astrazeneca vaccine. unless they had some genuine information which the UK regulators did not have they had to release it.
Paul O Mahoney
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,844
This was cited in another thread, but I read the vaccine is 62 to 90% effective based on certain other variables, including age.
Still though 62% is pretty high, there is also the other issue of both the Pfizer/Moderna vaccine causing problems with the very elderly particularly in Norway with side effects causing deaths.
Its difficult to understand everything at the moment.
I didn't see the definition of efficacy in that article - is it symptoms free? Negative test? Or severe cases? *
e.g. No COVID-19-related hospital admissions occurred in ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 recipients, whereas ten (two of which were severe) occurred in the control groups.
If it prevents symptoms in 62% and the rest get mild symptoms but no severe cases then I guess the concern is that those with mild symptoms could still transmit the virus.
However if we have already vaccinated the vulnerable & frontline groups, then that is less of a concern.
* Edit: Seems to be a positive PCR test & one of the common symptoms of covid
Last edited:
Yep, it's not surprising the EMA requested additional data.
Don't let the facts spoil Joe's conspiracy theories!
Considering the level of co-operation within the scientific community that was needed to get these vaccines developed so quickly, is it too much to ask that regulators take a similar coordinated response to ensure all available data and analysis is shared. There seems to be large differences between the regulators that could lead to a dangerous situation where future vaccines are dispensed in markets where the regulatory approval is seen as 'softer' as desperation for access to supplies grows. I don't have an issue with the EMA taking it's time but I would question how there can be such a divergence between the UK regulator and EMA/FDA with regard to the Oxford vaccine. There are valid questions to be asked why they seemed be able to obtain UK approval so easily and yet seemed to hold off on even seeking EU approval until it was already approved and distributed in the UK. It would suggest that they knew the hurdle for obtaining EU approval was much higher than obtaining in the the UK. I know the Daily Mail readers just see 'Oxford' and think made in Britain so is quality but personally I would have less confidence in this vaccine than the others currently available
This is how the industry works at the moment. Regulators that don't care about compromising safety can fast-track approval as they choose.
This sounds like a deliberate move by the Oxford team to ensure UK got supply first (potentially funding linked). In December, while the UK regulators were saying approval was only days away, the European regulators stated that formal approval hadn't even been submitted to them. They can't provide approval where none has been sought.
Paul O Mahoney
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,844
I has seen reports of some people in the UK not accepting the Pfizer vaccine as its not British.
Regarding regulatory requirements my wife has mentioned that the EMA is more rigorous in her view due to many reasons, which she can't say, but one obvious reason is they represent a lot more and diverse population.