The Pat Kenny Show

Cole

Mav11 wrote: »

Not impressed either by Pat this morning. That doesn't mean the answers should be accepted, if these explanations are not supported by international scientific opinion.

I'm in the middle in all of this - or just confused to be honest - but Pat's approach just ends up polarising the (lay) public views on all of these topics. All I want is a reasonable, balanced and 'civilised' debate on it.

HeidiHeidi

Cole wrote: »

I'm in the middle in all of this - or just confused to be honest - but Pat's approach just ends up polarising the (lay) public views on all of these topics. All I want is a reasonable, balanced and 'civilised' debate on it.

A polite debate, with a bit of common courtesy shown to your invited expert guest, would do me!

Infoanon

Mav11 wrote: »

Not impressed either by Pat this morning. That doesn't mean the answers should be accepted, if these explanations are not supported by international scientific opinion.

Dr. McAuley explained these 'different' opinions, Pat just didn't want to hear.

Dr.Mc Auley was very clear that Antigen tests have there place but not as a replacement for PCR tests.

meeeeh

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

My God, but that was a masterclass in obnoxiousness by Pat this morning :eek:


I don't know why that doctor didn't just hang up on him. You'd have to admire his patience.


And then to finish with "oh nooooo, doctor, we get you on for your views, not for you to hear mine" - he actually said that with a straight face

I had to turn him off at that point, could take no more.


And as for his blind adoration of Luke O'Neill - I'm a LO'N fan myself, mostly - he was the only voice of positivity for the most part during our darkest days - but at the end of the day, he can say what he wants (at the risk of only his own reputation) - the experts (yes, experts Pat!) in NIAC and NPHET actually carry the responsibility for the outcome of decisions made. Luke O'Neill does not.

That's the problem. Irish state and public (possibly because previous government didn't have popular mandate at the time Covid happened) gave Nphet way too much power. They should be advisers but they became decision makers. Experts are often not suited to be decision makers that's why we need politicians who should be informed from different fields and make decisions.

EmmetSpiceland

2smiggy wrote: »

from what I understand the antigen tests are not very reliable with asymptomatic people ? Symptomatic people should not be out and about anyway.

I thought they told you whether someone was infectious, or not? So if an asymptomatic person takes the test it would still show whether they were infectious.

I missed the slot this morning but if the HSE etc are against using them, on the grounds that they’re not great, why are they being widely used in other countries and soon to be used by universities here?

Mav11

Cole wrote: »

I'm in the middle in all of this - or just confused to be honest - but Pat's approach just ends up polarising the (lay) public views on all of these topics. All I want is a reasonable, balanced and 'civilised' debate on it.

I'm in the middle of it myself. While it was a poor and tedious interview this morning, I'm glad that somebody on the airways is continuously challenging the party line.

TBH I don't trust the HSE or DOH very much. I think that they can be dangerous entities particularly as they haven't exactly covered themselves in glory pre, peri, or post pandemic.

Also, it is good to have critical, independent testing and debate of their decisions and decision making. It certainly gives me more confidence when there is not simple acceptance of their utterances.

HeidiHeidi

meeeeh wrote: »

That's the problem. Irish state and public (possibly because previous government didn't have popular mandate at the time Covid happened) gave Nphet way too much power. They should be advisers but they became decision makers. Experts are often not suited to be decision makers that's why we need politicians who should be informed from different fields and make decisions.

I think that's a popular perception, but I don't think it's what actually happened. And I know the deputy CMO emphasised that strongly on a number of occasions.


Now, maybe the politicians/cabinet/government placed too much weight on what NPHET advised (and I honestly don't know if they did or not, they certainly didn't in the run up to Christmas), but that's not the same thing as NPHET making the decisions.

Busi_Girl08

Texter: (paraphrase) "Doctors are notoriously stubborn and don't listen to other professions"

Other professions in this case being....radio show presenters?

Mav11

Busi_Girl08 wrote: »

Texter: (paraphrase) "Doctors are notoriously stubborn and don't listen to other professions"

Other professions in this case being....radio show presenters?

Immunologists?

meeeeh

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

I thought they told you whether someone was infectious, or not? So if an asymptomatic person takes the test it would still show whether they were infectious.

I missed the slot this morning but if the HSE etc are against using them, on the grounds that they’re not great, why are they being widely used in other countries and soon to be used by universities here?

Because in Ireland approach is let's not open. In other countries the approach is how can we open as soon as possible and make it safer. I just saw that in Germany they were taking antigen tests before they went to hairdresser or to the shop. There is a reason why we have the longest lockdown in Europe and it has nothing to do with Covid numbers.

HeidiHeidi

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

I thought they told you whether someone was infectious, or not? So if an asymptomatic person takes the test it would still show whether they were infectious.

I missed the slot this morning but if the HSE etc are against using them, on the grounds that they’re not great, why are they being widely used in other countries and soon to be used by universities here?

It's a lot more nuanced than that.


They're about 50% reliable in their positive results in asymptomatic cases, so the doctor explained that in a one-off situation where you test, say a planeload of people and 40 are positive, you'll catch 20 of them. Better than catching none of them, but not a panacaea for allowing unrestricted flight (for example, or concerts, or whatever).


Pat shouted over and over again that an antigen test would guarantee that the person sitting next to him was not infectious - and that just is not the case.



Whereas the doctor was saying they were much more useful in an ongoing situation like schools, meat factories etc, where you can do serial testing two or three times a week - if you miss 20 of the 40 the first time, you'll likely catch more of them the next time, and the next time.


He was not arguing against their use, he was arguing about where and when they should be used to maximum effect and benefit.

2smiggy

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

I thought they told you whether someone was infectious, or not? So if an asymptomatic person takes the test it would still show whether they were infectious.

I missed the slot this morning but if the HSE etc are against using them, on the grounds that they’re not great, why are they being widely used in other countries and soon to be used by universities here?

link

seems to only pick up half of asymptomatic cases. It's better than nothing, but can see why they think they are so limited.

neris

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I think that's a popular perception, but I don't think it's what actually happened. And I know the deputy CMO emphasised that strongly on a number of occasions.


Now, maybe the politicians/cabinet/government placed too much weight on what NPHET advised (and I honestly don't know if they did or not, they certainly didn't in the run up to Christmas), but that's not the same thing as NPHET making the decisions.

The government were damned if they did and damned if they didnt coming up to xmas, they were in a no win situation with regards to retail and hospitality but NPHET undermined the govt by stating they were against opening anything and the media pounced on this so after that the govt pretty much let nphet and holohan especially dictate what was going to happen. Nphet mighnt be making the decision but they are telling the govt what to do and the govt arent going against them again

HeidiHeidi

neris wrote: »

The government were damned if they did and damned if they didnt coming up to xmas, they were in a no win situation with regards to retail and hospitality but NPHET undermined the govt by stating they were against opening anything and the media pounced on this so after that the govt pretty much let nphet and holohan especially dictate what was going to happen. Nphet mighnt be making the decision but they are telling the govt what to do and the govt arent going against them again

Well, surely that's on the government then?


NPHET has one remit - public health - and they advise from that perspective.



It's the government's job to collect all other relevant information, pile it all together, and make the decision as to what to do.


If they're afraid of NPHET and/or public opinion, then that's a government problem, not NPHET's.

meeeeh

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I think that's a popular perception, but I don't think it's what actually happened. And I know the deputy CMO emphasised that strongly on a number of occasions.


Now, maybe the politicians/cabinet/government placed too much weight on what NPHET advised (and I honestly don't know if they did or not, they certainly didn't in the run up to Christmas), but that's not the same thing as NPHET making the decisions.

They have too much power. Christmas is prime example. Government is blamed for not listening to NPHET but the problem was that people were told if they hold for 6 weeks we'll have Christmas. Nobody cancelles Christmas in Ireland, it doesn't matter what Government or NPHET would say. It was handy to blame the government for just about anyone ignoring recommendations. That gave even more power to what NPHET say. The fact that advice to ministers is made public straight away is a good sign of their power. It shouldn't be, they are undermining government's ability to make decisions.

No other advisers published their advice to government before they were making decisions. We bestowed sainthood on Tony Holohan, which is fine but that means he ended with the power he was never supposed to have.

Call me Al

Roger_007 wrote: »

I think Pat is right to point out the tardiness in much of the advice coming from NPHET and NIAC despite international evidence to the contrary.
NIAC, in particular seem to think that they are more expert than the European Medicines Agency in the approval of vaccines. It seems that NIAC think that it more important to justify their existence that doing anything useful.

I actually agree with aspects of your argument. I do agree that NPHET are excessively cautious when it comes to their guidelines on opening up our society. I agree that there is an opportunity wrt antigen testing as part of that if they would be more willing to accept it.
But I don't agree with your opinion on NIAC and this idea that they aren't useful. They aren't alone in the EU in making specific decisions for their own citizens, and we are in the fortunate position in Europe where we have a high level of vaccine acceptance and uptake.

Listening to Pat you'd think all we need to do is throw antigen tests at everyone today and we'd be away with it. We wouldn't be, and I think we will need to be extremely cautious if that's the road we choose to go down while so many are waiting to be fully vaccinated.
This drum he constantly beats is tiresome at this stage.

Technocentral

What a selfish bitch all about her, what about your responsibility to society?

meeeeh

Risk averse people only trusting themselves to find the 'right' information are the bane of scientific approach.

Technocentral

Basic science and medicine really needs to be thought in school from a very young age, its terrifying the absolute ignorance.

Call me Al

Technocentral wrote: »

Basic science and medicine really needs to be thought in school from a very young age, its terrifying the absolute ignorance.

I think in many ways our education system in secondary school education system is good in the respect that practically every teenager takes at least one science subject for LC.
And basic science is taught in primary school.
We have a low level of vaccine hesitancy in Ireland in general.

Technocentral

Call me Al wrote: »

I think in many ways our education system in secondary school education system is good in the respect that practically every teenager takes at least one science subject for LC.
And basic science is taught in primary school.
We have a low level of vaccine hesitancy in Ireland in general.

Well maybe more civic responsibility lessons then.

Call me Al

Technocentral wrote: »

Well maybe more civic responsibility lessons then.

Yes I would definitely agree with this sentiment..

EmmetSpiceland

Technocentral wrote: »

Basic science and medicine really needs to be thought in school from a very young age, its terrifying the absolute ignorance.

Parents will still be the bigger “issue”. There’s a couple of anti mask, and I assume vax, parents in my kids’ school.

There’s already been a complaint about the school acknowledging ‘Pride Day’. Teachers could be teaching science from Junior Infants but a kid will still say ‘my dad says’ and that’s the end of it.

meeeeh

I don't think education is actually the problem. Where I come fro.m kids tend to score higher in international science comparisons and yet there is more vaccine hesitancy. Although it seems the idea it will be harder to get out of the country without green passport suddenly increased interest in vaccination.

What all kids would benefit is the type of training journalists get of verifying the sources, looking at what is the origin of claims, looking at original research and not just reading twitter statements about it.

The quicker is the flow information and less of it we get from traditional media which filters out obvious nonsense, more likely we will fall for some conspiracy theory without merit.

ghostdancer

Pat is becoming unhinged with his anti-gen testing stuff.
Properly off-the-deep end, frothing at the mouth kind of stuff.



Pretty funny listening to him citing 5 countries in the EU as accepting anti-gen testing being good enough proof, while willfully ignoring the other 22 in the EU that don't.

Seems the man has "had enough of experts"........unless they're experts that agree with his opinion.

Cole

If Pat was consistent in his challenging of those whose expertise and competence he thinks is questionable (like he thinks of NIAC etc.), then he wouldn't be half as irritating. For example, he did an interview with Daniella Moyles (some media 'personality') a few weeks ago and allowed her to promote her self-help book and throw around her 'expertise' on mental health and Pat just lapped it up. Not to go off topic, but this yellow pack mental health industry that various media personalities seem to be jumping on and then holding themselves up as some kind of authorities on is potentially damaging for the vulnerable imo...but she's 'expert' enough for Pat.

That interview this morning was a new low for Pat. I can't believe I'm actually considering tuning back to the pretty poor Claire Byrne show, but at least I don't have to listen to a 'know it all' ranting and sneering at those he disagrees with.

I've been listening to Pat for years and I used to have an awful lot of respect for him as a broadcaster...the best we have I always felt...but he's been losing that respect in more recent times. Not because he's challenging certain things (I think he has a point), but his inconsistency and especially his manner is just obnoxious at times.

whisky_galore

Technocentral wrote: »

What a selfish bitch all about her, what about your responsibility to society?

Yes, there was a lot of me myself and I in that piece. Buh wha abou me and my fertility...?

Supposed to be studying a science subject but asks her friends and uses Google to find info that agrees with her views. I know they've dumbed down exams but..strewth.

meeeeh

ghostdancer wrote: »

Pat is becoming unhinged with his anti-gen testing stuff.
Properly off-the-deep end, frothing at the mouth kind of stuff.



Pretty funny listening to him citing 5 countries in the EU as accepting anti-gen testing being good enough proof, while willfully ignoring the other 22 in the EU that don't.

Seems the man has "had enough of experts"........unless they're experts that agree with his opinion.

I think 5 countries are mixing vaccine (AZ with mnr). Antigen testing is more widespread and used in different situations.

HeidiHeidi

Cole wrote: »

If Pat was consistent in his challenging of those whose expertise and competence he thinks is questionable (like he thinks of NIAC etc.), then he wouldn't be half as irritating. For example, he did an interview with Daniella Moyles (some media 'personality') a few weeks ago and allowed her to promote her self-help book and throw around her 'expertise' on mental health and Pat just lapped it up. Not to go off topic, but this yellow pack mental health industry that various media personalities seem to be jumping on and then holding themselves up as some kind of authorities on is potentially damaging for the vulnerable imo...but she's 'expert' enough for Pat.

That interview this morning was a new low for Pat. I can't believe I'm actually considering tuning back to the pretty poor Claire Byrne show, but at least I don't have to listen to a 'know it all' ranting and sneering at those he disagrees with.

I've been listening to Pat for years and I used to have an awful lot of respect for him as a broadcaster...the best we have I always felt...but he's been losing that respect in more recent times. Not because he's challenging certain things (I think he has a point), but his inconsistency and especially his manner is just obnoxious at times.

Funny, I was having exactly the same thoughts this morning!


I'm rapidly running out of news/current affairs shows to listen to of a morning - can't abide Ciara Kelly early on Newstalk, Claire Byrne I think is fantastic but her morning show has become a joke, and Pat is just losing the plot lately.



For a well-educated man, with donkey's years of broadcasting experience, I just cannot believe the sheer bad manners of him sometimes.



Hopefully it's just Covid fatigue, and his equilibrium might return when it's all over......

Cole

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Funny, I was having exactly the same thoughts this morning!


I'm rapidly running out of news/current affairs shows to listen to of a morning - can't abide Ciara Kelly early on Newstalk, Claire Byrne I think is fantastic but her morning show has become a joke, and Pat is just losing the plot lately.



For a well-educated man, with donkey's years of broadcasting experience, I just cannot believe the sheer bad manners of him sometimes.



Hopefully it's just Covid fatigue, and his equilibrium might return when it's all over......

Same here (although I wouldn't be as big a fan of CB). Boucher Hayes seems to be filling in at the moment, so I think I'll just enjoy the silence this week.

Maybe Pat will be tolerable again at some point...when antigen testing has been officially rolled out, vaccines are mixed, NIAC/NPHET/HSE all apologise for being wrong about everything and when himself and Luke O'Neill are finally put in charge of the country's public health.