Had a couple of days to think about the option of choosing vaccines in the mainstream PICK, so here are my thoughts:
These tweets are not really about whether it is a right decision but more of a ‘why’ & ‘how’ about it. Whether it is the right call, I think only time can tell.
Vaccine preference, whether we want to admit, do play a part in vaccine uptake. We always assume all who want to get vaccinated wont mind which type we get, but that’s not entirely true. I wrote about it little here:
The theory of letting folks choose their vaccines is to cover whatever hesitancy, valid or invalid, people might have & subsequently increase uptake.
But the viability of that system hinges on 3 factors:\
1. Availability 2. Accessibility 3. Equitability
1. Supply of vaccines (all types on the portfolio) must be available. Which means no delivery hiccups and no storage hiccups.
They also have to be distributed evenly across all states and PPVs.
2. Vaccine must be easily accessible in ALL centres. No point if the centre within my area has only vaccine A & B but not vaccine C, which is only available in the next state.
If u give a choice, then the choices need to be easily accessible, for everyone.
3. Everyone must have equal chance to choose the types of vaccines. If vaccines A, B & C are only available in urban areas and folks in rural areas only have vaccine D, then the ability to choose is not equitable. We have already seen how the AZ system is skewed.
So IMHO, to justify putting the option of choice, these 3 criteria has to be met. I think I can safely say the system has not demonstrated all 3 of them, for now.
Trying to balance everything is hard. Dealing w hesitancy, supply, operational efficiency. U end up losing focus.
I also think we should maintain consistency of the message. If we say the best vaccine is the one available to us, then the roll out should be built around this.
Sure, certain vaccines, due to storage/logistics are better off for certain areas/population, but that’s fine.
Trying to address all of the issues operationally, I think it’s putting too much on the plate.
Decide on method of prioritisation, tweak according to supply availability & execute it. The more complicated the system is, the higher the chance of screw ups.
Just my 2c.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I still see ppl claiming having vaccine side effects or reactions is a sign of the vaccine ‘working’. This is false, please do not cause unnecessary worry to those who did not experience any side effects.
Let me try & explain. /continue
The immune system respond to the vaccine (or any foreign pathogen) by 2 ways.
1. Innate immunity: this is the initial response where all the white cells come out & play, trying to clear the body from the foreign particles. The physical manifestations r fever, body ache etc.
The innate immunity response is not a measure of how hard the body is working or building antibodies. And can be addicted by various factors: age, gender, co-morbids, stress, lack of sleep, hormones. List goes on.
A lot of talk on vaccines but this is probably the most significant shift in mindset. Easy DIY test kits available any time at pharmacies for public to self test.
Seems to me govt accepting virus will be in the community, like an endemic & possibility of small outbreaks.
Been answering Qs for the most part of the day, found out some misconception re: AZ vaccine or C19 vaccines in general. Would like to address these concerns/misconception.
Just to give everyone more in depth information that could help u understand more.
In general, this group mostly have no problems w receiving the vaccine. Even Haemophilia, platelet function disorders. Only consideration is if u are on treatment for these diseases, then u should consult your doctor.
2. On blood thinners.
Those on drugs like Warfarin, Aspirin, Dabigatran etc, all can take the vaccine safely. The concern is not increasing the AZ clot risk, the concern w blood thinners is after getting the shot, your arm bleeds intramuscularly.
Not going to repeat the ultra low incidence of blood clots in the AZ vaccines, think we’ve established that the benefits far outweigh the risks now.
But since tmrw is the big day, would like to offer some thoughts on other data, re: risk factors for the clots.
Most news sites will mention incidence is higher in younger age group & mostly women. However, European regulators does not mention this two groups are a risk factor, merely ‘incidence occurring higher in this 2 groups’.
Why?
1. Data is still in flux. Vaccination programs with AZ is ongoing & because of the phased nature i.e roll out in different age groups, occupation etc, means we don’t have a full set of data yet. Basically, the data is uneven.
I’m all for getting jabs in to arms & highly recommend everyone to get any approved vaccine but funnelling all the traffic to 1 website for 260k shots will be messy.
Building a system to vaccinate the whole country is a very complicated task but there has to be a simpler way.
Some initial thoughts re: this parallel AZ track is how about those w/out internet/smartphone/laptop access?
While trying to increase no. of ppl vaccinated is the ultimate goal, the system cannot widen the inequity gap further.
Selangor/KL is highly dense & urbanised, probably why they decided to open it up there first, but doesnt address the equally wide inequality gap there.
Migrant workers, B40s, marginalised groups, etc. These groups can jostle with the rest of the M40s & above to book their appts.
Some info on vaccine efficacy. We tend to make the mistake of 95% efficacy (Pfizer) being 95 out of 100 is protected from the disease while 5 out of 100 will get infected/succumb to disease.
But that’s not how vaccine efficacy works. So how did we get that 95%?
Consider these numbers. The Pfizer P3 trial had 43,661 participants.
Total was split into half, each group received the placebo or the vaccine. The placebo group had 162 symptomatic infection & the vaccine group had 8.
We then can calculate the infection risk. 0.74% vs 0.04%.
To get vaccine efficacy, first we get the risk difference between the two groups.
This means the vaccine reduces infection risk by 0.7 percentage point. But this is not efficacy.
Efficacy is dividing by original infection risk x 100%. Now u get the 95%.