Provisional Vaccine Allocation - updated 31/03/21

Beasty

As it's likely to be subject to quite a lot of discussion, and it may change as the effectiveness of new vaccines across different categories become clearer I think a dedicated thread is warranted

Today's provisional allocation:
1 People aged 65 years and older who are residents of long-term care facilities (likely to include all staff and residents on site)
2 Frontline healthcare workers
3 People aged 70 and older
4 Other healthcare workers not in direct patient contact
5 People aged 65-69
6 Key workers
7 People aged 18-64 with certain medical conditions
8 Residents of long-term care facilities aged 18-64
9 People aged 18-64 living or working in crowded settings
10 Key workers in essential jobs who cannot avoid a high risk of exposure
11 People working in education sector
12 People aged 55-64
13 Other workers in occupations important to the functioning of society
14 Other people aged 18-54
15 People aged under 18 and pregnant women

More information here

Beasty

One of the interesting questions is how many people fall into each Group. I suspect the age categories will be relatively easy to establish based on Census data. I wonder if the HSE or Government will provide estimates of each Group

JP Liz V1

I just hope it is rolled out soon and is a success

touts

Its a fairly meaningless PR stunt of a list. They need to share the plan to vaccinate 4.5 million people if they even have such a plan Where will the vaccines be administered. what capacity is there weekly, monthly etc. How will they track who got it and who didn't. They just have not shared any details and that is very worrying.

Knowing you're 13th/14th on the list isn't so bad if you can also see that they expect to get to those people in say February or March. But it's a right kick in the bollocks if it turns out to be next October or November. Given the lack of ANY details of the rollout plan and the track record of the HSE I suspect I will be vaccinated closer to the latter than the former.

_Kaiser_

So I'm in group 14 per the above - mid-40s, no underlying conditions, rarely get any sort of illness, office job working from home since March.

As I'm not deemed a priority, I assume that's confirmation that I'm low risk to or from anyone.

Can I get back to living so?

gooseygander

Prisoners and incarcerated criminals (group 9) will be vaccinated before teachers (group 11). Criminals should be very last in the queue in my opinion. I mean if we are making a list surely they should be at the bottom. Am I wrong here ??, if so please tell who should be last for the jab, and why.

ceegee

gooseygander wrote: »

Prisoners and incarcerated criminals (group 9) will be vaccinated before teachers (group 11). Criminals should be very last in the queue in my opinion. I mean if we are making a list surely they should be at the bottom. Am I wrong here ??, if so please tell who should be last for the jab, and why.

A prison outbreak is highly likely to spread due to close conditions, taking up hospital resources. It's also pretty much impossible for prison guards to social distance from prisoners.

The aim of the list is to minimise the strain on our health system, not a list of who you like.

astrofool

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

So I'm in group 14 per the above - mid-40s, no underlying conditions, rarely get any sort of illness, office job working from home since March.

As I'm not deemed a priority, I assume that's confirmation that I'm low risk to or from anyone.

Can I get back to living so?

No, because until 1-13 are vaccinated, you're a vector for spreading the disease to those more vulnerable than you.

gooseygander

ceegee wrote: »

A prison outbreak is highly likely to spread due to close conditions, taking up hospital resources. It's also pretty much impossible for prison guards to social distance from prisoners.

The aim of the list is to minimise the strain on our health system, not a list of who you like.

I am not talking about the prison guards, I class them as front line and should be a priority for early vaccination. But prisoners/ criminals should be last. I mean they are mostly in a controlled environment and prison visits are currently not permitted. Leave them until last please.

astrofool

gooseygander wrote: »

I am not talking about the prison guards, I class them as front line and should be a priority for early vaccination. But prisoners/ criminals should be last. I mean they are mostly in a controlled environment and prison visits are currently not permitted. Leave them until last please.

I don't think you understand what prisons are like, and thus have formed a bad opinion.

gooseygander

astrofool wrote: »

I don't think you understand what prisons are like, and thus have formed a bad opinion.

Incorrect assumption. To date there have been no outbreaks in any Irish prision and the single digit positive cases have been controlled with very strict procedures. I am not putting them to the back of the queue because I want any person to suffer but because I believe teachers and key workers are more at risk in crowded classrooms and dealing with large masses of the public.

astrofool

gooseygander wrote: »

Incorrect assumption. To date there have been no outbreaks in any Irish prision and the single digit positive cases have been controlled with very strict procedures. I am not putting them to the back of the queue because I want any person to suffer but because I believe teachers and key workers are more at risk in crowded classrooms and dealing with large masses of the public.

What you're saying then is that you want teachers to be put above those who work in crowded settings and key workers with essential jobs, or you want a classroom to be re-classified as a crowded setting (it isn't when compared to actual crowded settings).

Atlantic Dawn

Will there be a way to bypass the ranking system by paying €250 or so to skip the q? Can't see people who pay their way in the world waiting to the back of the q for 1 year plus.

gooseygander

astrofool wrote: »

What you're saying then is that you want teachers to be put above those who work in crowded settings and key workers with essential jobs, or you want a classroom to be re-classified as a crowded setting (it isn't when compared to actual crowded settings).

No I am not saying that, I have already stated I believe that prison officers and prison staff are frontline workers and should be treated as such. I have said I believe teachers should get jab before incarcerated prisoners who I believe are in a more controlled environment with restricted movement and no visits permitted from “ outside world”. Please read posts before telling me what I am saying.

vrusinov

touts wrote: »

Knowing you're 13th/14th on the list isn't so bad if you can also see that they expect to get to those people in say February or March. But it's a right kick in the bollocks if it turns out to be next October or November. Given the lack of ANY details of the rollout plan and the track record of the HSE I suspect I will be vaccinated closer to the latter than the former.

Reading some articles estimating manufacturing capacities, my expectations it'll take over a year to vaccinate everyone willing.

However I'm hoping to see reduction of hospitalization rates soon, and gradual reduction of cases once frontline workers are vaccinated.

Unknownability

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Will there be a way to bypass the ranking system by paying €250 or so to skip the q? Can't see people who pay their way in the world waiting to the back of the q for 1 year plus.

Agreed once there is no issue with supply of the vaccine, just the government's botched roll out then I don't have any moral objections to people purchasing it privately.

It will inadvertently release pressure on the public roll out and others will as a byproduct get it quicker.

Atlantic Dawn

vrusinov wrote: »

However I'm hoping to see reduction of hospitalization rates soon, and gradual reduction of cases once frontline workers are vaccinated.

Yes if you vaccinate those in nursing homes, those over 65, those working in healthcare, others vulnerable the impact on everyone else of the virus is negligible. I'd guess this group of people is circa 1.5million or so, given they need 2 doses it's a lot at 3 million.


We do 2 million NCT tests a year that take circa 15 minutes plus each, should be far simpler to stick a syringe in an arm once stocks allow, 5 minute task at most, certainly can be done.

beachhead

gooseygander wrote: »

I am not talking about the prison guards, I class them as front line and should be a priority for early vaccination. But prisoners/ criminals should be last. I mean they are mostly in a controlled environment and prison visits are currently not permitted. Leave them until last please.

Prisoners and guards live together.a prison is about as controlled as a so called wet bar.Only difference is the guards get outside the walls for a short time.

Geuze

An alternative approach to allocation:

https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2020/12/free-market-vaccines.html

ShineOn7

This Friday, is the plan to still announce how they're going to do this? Or was yesterday their vaccine announcement a few days early?

They can't just put out a list and not say how they're going to do upto 8 million vaccinations (Pfizer shot x 2)

I realize we're using more than Pfizer and it could be more like 4-5 million vaccinations, but Mr Trampoline still needs to announce the action plan

stephenjmcd

ShineOn7 wrote: »

This Friday, is the plan to still announce how they're going to do this? Or was yesterday their vaccine announcement a few days early?

They can't just put out a list and not say how they're going to do upto 8 million vaccinations (Pfizer shot x 2)

I realize we're using more than Pfizer and it could be more like 4-5 million vaccinations, but Mr Trampoline still needs to announce the action plan

Government to get the action plan on rollout from the taskforce by Friday, to go to cabinet for approval next Tuesday.

Yesterday was just the provisional list of allocation preference

is_that_so

vrusinov wrote: »

Reading some articles estimating manufacturing capacities, my expectations it'll take over a year to vaccinate everyone willing.

However I'm hoping to see reduction of hospitalization rates soon, and gradual reduction of cases once frontline workers are vaccinated.

It really shouldn't take that long at all. You'd expect them to blitz the first 4 groups by March, that 1m Donnelly has been talking about. From then on, supplies should rise quickly and we may also have a few more vaccines to add. By mid-summer we may have more than we need, so the rollout plan coming on Friday is crucial. I think it will take 12 months and more worldwide but we should be done by September.

JeffKenna

Strange how pregnant women are so far down the list no?

is_that_so

JeffKenna wrote: »

Strange how pregnant women are so far down the list no?

I think it's because they haven't really tested on that group.

banie01

JeffKenna wrote: »

Strange how pregnant women are so far down the list no?

As is_that_so has posited, pregnant ladies are low on the list due to an abundance of caution.

It's assumed the vaccine is safe for them, but there is no data to support the assumption given:
1, that the virus is in circulation only a year. And.
2, that the trial data to date only covers an @6month window and pregnant women are excluded from trials.

Data on pregnancy and any after effects will build as women who were unknowingly pregnant at time of their vaccination report any Ill effects.

Regarding prisons, I'd be very much of the opinion that vaccination there takes place as soon as possible.
Prison in Ireland is ostensibly a means of reform.
Currently prisoners are on extended lockdown, restricted interaction and mixing and minimal visits.
Yes,the reasons for that caution are valid in that they are measure to prevent the virus entering a contained and highly spreadable population.
We should not however use the fact that someone is a felon, to bump them down the list.
If the purpose of Prison is to reform? Treating prisoners as 2nd class completely undermines that approach.
We are better than that, I hope.

I'm in group 7, and look forward to my jab.
I won't be trying to jump the list, nor arguing that anyone above me is denied the opportunity to avail of it.
Stay safe and well folks!
The end of this shítshow is nigh!

Bicyclette

Already I see an error in this:

This is the provisional order in which people in Ireland will be vaccinated against COVID-19.

1 People aged 65 years and older who are residents of long-term care facilities (likely to include all staff and residents on site)
2 Frontline healthcare workers
3 People aged 70 and older
4 Other healthcare workers not in direct patient contact
5 People aged 65-69
6 Key workers
7 People aged 18-64 with certain medical conditions
8 Residents of long-term care facilities aged 18-64
9 People aged 18-64 living or working in crowded settings
10 Key workers in essential jobs who cannot avoid a high risk of exposure
11 People working in education sector
12 People aged 55-64
13 Other workers in occupations important to the functioning of society
14 Other people aged 18-54
15 People aged under 18 and pregnant women

6 is Key workers.
10 is Key workers in essential jobs who cannot avoid a high risk of exposure.

Surely 10 and 6 are transposed.

I'm considered an essential worker, working from home. Half our team are working from home, half in the office. If our frontline team become unwell, we will be called in to person the desks. And I'm over 55. Not sure where I will fit in!!

And absolutely, when the vaccine is made available for me, I will take it. Of course there will be a level of trepidation. But at my age the risk of not taking it is far greater than the risk of taking it.

paw patrol

JeffKenna wrote: »

Strange how pregnant women are so far down the list no?

In the literature - from the vaccine developer


they advise that they have completed no testing on fertility and women should test as not pregnant prior to taking the vaccine and should not get pregnant within 2 months post vaccine

from uk gov

Here are the key points you should consider until we have more evidence:

if you are pregnant you should not be vaccinated – you can be vaccinated after your pregnancy is over
if you think you may be pregnant you should delay vaccination until you are sure you are not
if you are planning to get pregnant in the next 3 months, you should delay your vaccination
if you know you are not pregnant you can start the two-dose course now and you should avoid getting pregnant until at least 2 months after the second dose
if you have had the first dose and then become pregnant you should delay the second dose until after the pregnancy is over

given women who get pregnant are of a younger age (little risk) I wouldn't bother if I was them.

speckle

I see one glaring ommision and one potentially unusual placement that I woukd like to see the data behind the choice.

One if a country has a limited supply of doses should people who have had covid and amounted an acceptable antibody response not be put further back to free up doses for those in higher risk groups?

Two yet again those who are high risk and younger seem very low down (like most of the time during this) maybe that should be split in two depending on their co morbiditys. eg only severe asthma has a higher risk. I thought (maybe incorrectly) that apart from age and HCws that it really depends on what co morbidities you have how high risk you are? With over 91%+ of 80+ year olds surviving now are they especially if not in a nursing home still higher risk than a younger person with cancer diabetes or heart issues?

Really the should not release a list without giving the data to backup the reasons why/risk assement and then the public would be much clearer. And that information does exist. Typical.

speckle

paw patrol wrote: »

...
given women who get pregnant are of a younger age (little risk) I wouldn't bother if I was them.

Agree unless they have a high risk co morbidity... then they need to talk to their gp and make an informed decision one way or the other.

astrofool

gooseygander wrote: »

No I am not saying that, I have already stated I believe that prison officers and prison staff are frontline workers and should be treated as such. I have said I believe teachers should get jab before incarcerated prisoners who I believe are in a more controlled environment with restricted movement and no visits permitted from “ outside world”. Please read posts before telling me what I am saying.

We let the risk of exposure and consequences of exposure determine the order people get the jab, not who or what they are. While the list doesn't mention prisoners specifically at all, those who are in not crowded setting will likely be below those who are in crowded settings.

astrofool

Bicyclette wrote: »

6 is Key workers.
10 is Key workers in essential jobs who cannot avoid a high risk of exposure.

Surely 10 and 6 are transposed.

I'm considered an essential worker, working from home. Half our team are working from home, half in the office. If our frontline team become unwell, we will be called in to person the desks. And I'm over 55. Not sure where I will fit in!!

And absolutely, when the vaccine is made available for me, I will take it. Of course there will be a level of trepidation. But at my age the risk of not taking it is far greater than the risk of taking it.

I'd imagine there's a *detail key missing that better describes each group, otherwise 10 and 6 don't make sense as 10 is a sub group of 6.

"If evidence demonstrates the vaccine(s) prevent transmission, those aged 18-34 should be prioritised due to their increased level of social contact and role in transmission."

I have to say I think the above is frankly ridiculous. Current evidence strongly indicates that the single greatest risk of mortality from COVID-19 is increasing age. So Tony and co. are thinking it is likely a good idea to vaccinate an 18 year old before a 54 year old. He told this group throughout that covid is a very dangerous illness to everyone but now saying 34-54 years olds are not at risk at all. His argument seems to be vaccinate the vulnerable groups etc. (older population,sick and hcw) and then protect this group further by vaccinating younger people (18-34) as this will reduce spread greater to further protect vulnerable people etc. who have already been vaccinated, but who may not be protected from vaccine. From an economic and health point of view I feel this is totally inequitable and unfair to the 35-54 population. This group is a major cohort in its own right. Their risk to ill health/death from covid is much higher than an 18 year old and will now have to restrict their life longer than 18-34 year olds to further protect already vaccinated persons.. I personally am in this group (41) and have led a very restricted life for the last 9 months, have now lost my job during this (first time unemployed in my life). I was told by Tony in his briefings that increasing age is the main risk factor in covid and that it could kill anyone. Now he has changed the goal posts and is saying we want to protect the over 55's etc. even more and that 34-54 is at no real material risk from covid now at all. I personally think I have taken a big enough hit mentally, financially and general well being to protect the more vulnerable. I now feel effectively at the bottom of the queue with regards to vaccine. Luke O'Neill had suggested going down the age groups 80-70-60-50-40-30 etc. which I felt was fair. Even in the UK it is open to all below 50. I would settle
for UK model of less than 55 open to all (first come first served). Tony and co are trying to be "Too Smart". My view once every person gets the vaccine, it effectively turns covid into a common cold/flu like disease and that the states major role in protecting the population against covid is complete. This is not good enough for Tony and wants to protect already vaccinated people further in the short term at the expense of 35-54 year olds. Everyone should receive vaccine based on the perceived risk. I wonder would Tony and Co be waiting on their teenage sons and daughters to be vaccinated before themselves? At that stage all of NPHET will likely be vaccinated. So in a household you could have an 18 year son receiving the vaccine before his parents in their early 50's to protect his 80 year old grandmother further, while mum and dad are left to take their chances with covid. This is a bizarre idea and contradicts what NPHET have told us to date about risks etc. Tony and co have lost my vote to even suggest this might happen. Hopefully government will intervene and this will not actually happen as it comes across as Tony and Co. pulling up the drawbridge on this cohort (35-54 year olds).

Strumms

7. People aged 18-64 with certain medical conditions

Is there a comprehensive list anywhere of these medical conditions which enable you to be prioritized..? I’m about 85 - 90% recovered from an issue but unsure if I’d qualify because of the advanced stage of recovery firstly and secondly because of the nature of the problem....

Jim_Hodge

Strumms wrote: »

7. People aged 18-64 with certain medical conditions

Is there a comprehensive list anywhere of these medical conditions which enable you to be prioritized..? I’m about 85 - 90% recovered from an issue but unsure if I’d qualify because of the advanced stage of recovery firstly and secondly because of the nature of the problem....

Chronic heart disease, cardiac respiratory disease including asthma requiring continuous use of systemic steroids, diabetes type 1 or 2, chronic neurological disease, chronic kidney disease, body mass index >40, chronic liver disease, or immunosuppression due to disease or treatment.

PhoenixParker

Deleted User wrote: »

"If evidence demonstrates the vaccine(s) prevent transmission, those aged 18-34 should be prioritised due to their increased level of social contact and role in transmission."

I have to say I think the above is frankly ridiculous. Current evidence strongly indicates that the single greatest risk of mortality from COVID-19 is increasing age. So Tony and co. are thinking it is likely a good idea to vaccinate an 18 year old before a 54 year old. He told this group throughout that covid is a very dangerous illness to everyone but now saying 34-54 years olds are not at risk at all. His argument seems to be vaccinate the vulnerable groups etc. (older population,sick and hcw) and then protect this group further by vaccinating younger people (18-34) as this will reduce spread greater to further protect vulnerable people etc. who have already been vaccinated, but who may not be protected from vaccine. From an economic and health point of view I feel this is totally inequitable and unfair to the 35-54 population. This group is a major cohort in its own right. Their risk to ill health/death from covid is much higher than an 18 year old and will now have to restrict their life longer than 18-34 year olds to further protect already vaccinated persons.. I personally am in this group (41) and have led a very restricted life for the last 9 months, have now lost my job during this (first time unemployed in my life). I was told by Tony in his briefings that increasing age is the main risk factor in covid and that it could kill anyone. Now he has changed the goal posts and is saying we want to protect the over 55's etc. even more and that 34-54 is at no real material risk from covid now at all. I personally think I have taken a big enough hit mentally, financially and general well being to protect the more vulnerable. I now feel effectively at the bottom of the queue with regards to vaccine. Luke O'Neill had suggested going down the age groups 80-70-60-50-40-30 etc. which I felt was fair. Even in the UK it is open to all below 50. I would settle
for UK model of less than 55 open to all (first come first served). Tony and co are trying to be "Too Smart". My view once every person gets the vaccine, it effectively turns covid into a common cold/flu like disease and that the states major role in protecting the population against covid is complete. This is not good enough for Tony and wants to protect already vaccinated people further in the short term at the expense of 35-54 year olds. Everyone should receive vaccine based on the perceived risk. I wonder would Tony and Co be waiting on their teenage sons and daughters to be vaccinated before themselves? At that stage all of NPHET will likely be vaccinated. So in a household you could have an 18 year son receiving the vaccine before his parents in their early 50's to protect his 80 year old grandmother further, while mum and dad are left to take their chances with covid. This is a bizarre idea and contradicts what NPHET have told us to date about risks etc. Tony and co have lost my vote to even suggest this might happen. Hopefully government will intervene and this will not actually happen as it comes across as Tony and Co. pulling up the drawbridge on this cohort (35-54 year olds).

I’d disagree. There’s considerable evidence that much of Covid’s spread happens due to superspreader events. Those superspreading events are driven by people with high numbers of contacts, ie much of the 18-34 age group. If they’re not spreading it then vulnerable people won’t catch Covid either. If the vaccine prevents you spreading covid then the fastest protection for the largest number of the population, especially the most vulnerable, may well be achieved by targeting the spreaders not the vulnerable.

I'm 7 or 14. Think I'll give it at least 6 months to see what side effects there are first

PhoenixParker

PhoenixParker wrote: »

I’d disagree. There’s considerable evidence that much of Covid’s spread happens due to superspreader events. Those superspreading events are driven by people with high numbers of contacts, ie much of the 18-34 age group. If they’re not spreading it then vulnerable people won’t catch Covid either. If the vaccine prevents you spreading covid then the fastest protection for the largest number of the population, especially the most vulnerable, may well be achieved by targeting the spreaders not the vulnerable.

Are you in the 35-54 group (second last group)?

If you are I will accept your comment as this decision will affect you directly(waiting longer for a vaccine), otherwise not so much.

Some people don't mind "decisions for the greater good" as long as it does'nt adversely affect them directly.

PhoenixParker

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you in the 35-54 group (second last group)?

If you are I will accept your comment as this decision will affect you directly(waiting longer for a vaccine), otherwise not so much.

Some people don't mind "decisions for the greater good" as long as it does'nt adversely affect them directly.

Yes I am. I’m late 30s.

A big chunk of the 18-34 group are in education and that seems to be a super high contact setting. Big lectures, communal living, boyfriends & girlfriends moving between households, often working high contact casual jobs and with high contact social lives and limited ability to contact trace those contacts.

They’re a huge driver of community spread vs someone like me , married with two kids and an office job who barely goes out once every 3 months in a normal year. There are those 18-34 who lead quieter lives and those over 34 who don’t, but on average I’d say the 18-34 group are much higher sources of community spread then my age group.

eagle eye

ceegee wrote: »

A prison outbreak is highly likely to spread due to close conditions, taking up hospital resources. It's also pretty much impossible for prison guards to social distance from prisoners.

The aim of the list is to minimise the strain on our health system, not a list of who you like.

If you can't isolate prisoners who have the virus in a prison then where in the world can you?

PhoenixParker

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Yes I am.

Fair enough.

I wonder will this cohort of well in excess of a million people be as
altruistic as you?

They will lobby government and rightly so.

That lower age cohort will be less inclined to take vaccine as risk is lower.

Open all up to vaccination below 55 is the most equitable.

Let people decide themselves their own risk.

This after all is a democracy, not a totalitarian state.

PhoenixParker

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair enough.

I wonder will this cohort of well in excess of a million people be as
altruistic as you?

Once the HCW and most vulnerable are vaccinated the hospitals will be able to cope with the remaining cases since a smaller % will need treatment and treating staff won’t be as vulnerable. Waiting a bit longer will be somewhat academic. I’ll be less worried about catching it if I know I’m not going to infect the staff treating me or my parents.

There’s a significant chance, depending on uptake levels and availability that it’ll be open to 35+ within weeks of 18-24. It’s not worth stressing about now.

SOPHIE THE DOG

How long will it take to vaccinate 4 million people?
If its 50,000 a day x 80 days = 4 million and then a further 80 days for the second injection.
Thats 160 days + 21 days for everyone to be in the clear = 181 days plus 10% contingency = say 200 days.
30 weeks in round terms.
Starting at the beginning of Feb, thats towards the end of August.
Has anyone info from anyone who knows something of how these things work?

astrofool

SOPHIE THE DOG wrote: »

How long will it take to vaccinate 4 million people?
If its 50,000 a day x 80 days = 4 million and then a further 80 days for the second injection.
Thats 160 days + 21 days for everyone to be in the clear = 181 days plus 10% contingency = say 200 days.
30 weeks in round terms.
Starting at the beginning of Feb, thats towards the end of August.
Has anyone info from anyone who knows something of how these things work?

It will depend on supply, they should be able to ramp well beyond 50,000/day once the supply is there.

astrofool

eagle eye wrote: »

If you can't isolate prisoners who have the virus in a prison then where in the world can you?

The problem is that you don't know who has the virus until it's well too late and everyone in the prison then has it.

is_that_so

astrofool wrote: »

The problem is that you don't know who has the virus until it's well too late and everyone in the prison then has it.

I think we've had one case here and that was a prison officer. They had a TB issue, in 2017 I believe, and they applied those same TB protocols with COVID very successfully.

SusanC10

I have asked this on other threads but hopefully may get an answer here.

Which Category do Adults with Special Needs ie Down Syndrome or Cerebral Palsy fall into ?

odyssey06

SusanC10 wrote: »

I have asked this on other threads but hopefully may get an answer here.

Which Category do Adults with Special Needs ie Down Syndrome or Cerebral Palsy fall into ?

At the moment, I presume they would fall into their age category ranking as those conditions are not specified in the 'certain medical conditions' for ranking #7.

speckle

SusanC10 wrote: »

I have asked this on other threads but hopefully may get an answer here.

Which Category do Adults with Special Needs ie Down Syndrome or Cerebral Palsy fall into ?

It would be handy to have their medical history and look through eg if a they are family members living at home.. some people with Down Syndrome may have allied heart issues that might fall under catorgory 7? And I presume if in a residential insititute then catorgory 8. Maybe that will end up encompassing those you go to day centers. If not they are next level down at 9....
Aged 18-64 years living working in crowded accommodation where self-isolation and social distancing is difficult to maintain

Rationale

Disadvantaged sociodemographic groups more likely to experience a higher burden of infection.

Ethical Principles

The principles of moral equality, minimising harm (especially in the context of multi-generational households) and fairness are relevant. Prioritising this group recognises that structural inequalities make some people more vulnerable than others to COVID-19
It is a provisional schedule

Important for people to note...people with Down Syndrome and possibly other conditions have a shorter life expectancy. And it can be much harder for them to follow public health guidelines or self isolate etc and if they end up in hospital even with the best will in the world it can be much more difficult for both staff and patient.

speckle

the provisional schedule link

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/39038-provisional-vaccine-allocation-groups/

SusanC10

Thanks for that.

Finding it hard to believe that they would be same category as me (mid-40s, no health issues).
They were classed as High Risk by HSE for Covid.

speckle

SusanC10 wrote: »

Thanks for that.

Finding it hard to believe that they would be same category as me (mid-40s, no health issues).
They were classed as High Risk by HSE for Covid.

I agree but I think that the HSE originally wasnt clear enough on their website re high or very high risk of having a serious disease infection ie ending up in ICU versus.... being highly vulnerable to the risk of catching/transmiting it due to not necessarily having the capacity to follow public health guidelines.

Some people would fall into both the above catorgories and there is a spectrum of people with Downs Syndrome...

Been a stressful year for all carers and frustrating for those with DS who are normally active and out an about and who love meeting, talking to people. Wishing you all well and good health.