16 family members given vaccine

Russman

bucketybuck wrote: »

Thats not the point, do you trust that what they did is not open to abuse?

That if this is allowed that no doctor or nurse will contrive a scenario that leaves some vials "going to waste"?

Yes I do trust the medical professionals. Can I be 100% sure ? Of course not.
Just because something can be abused doesn't always mean it will be.

If they had someone less competent doing the injecting they may not have been able to have any extra doses - what would they have told the people they could have potentially lined up, if they were somehow abusing things.

In any system where the exact number of doses is not known til the end of the day, there's always going to be variances.

Mrsmum

For the master himself, it's kindof a case of Caesar's wife having to be above suspicion. And that's why he has apologised.

jill_valentine

PO!NT wrote: »

It will be 32 doses

These 16 require a second dose.

They went from requiring 32 doses to only requiring 16, for "free". Later down the line we will now have 16 doses available ahead of time. Win-win.

Christy42

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Well then bring those frontline workers to the hospital

Those front line workers are busy. There is a reason they aren't at home being safe you know. They don't go to hospitals for a chat.

They need to ensure someone will do their jobs while they are gone and I believe they are rather busy at the moment.

hynesie08

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Well then bring those frontline workers to the hospital

Go find a hospital that can give up 16 on shift staff at short notice, I'll wait.....

Russman

elefant wrote: »

I'm not talking about calling up other stations or hospitals.

I mean that if there were 7 people in the whole hospital over 70 years old who received surplus vaccines, it seems quite the coincidence that 2 of them were the children of the person in charge.

I don't think the 2 children were over 70. My understanding is that the 2 children worked there. I don't know if they were on site or called in. I wouldn't say you'd find too many people over 70 in a Maternity Hospital tbh though, I assumed all 16 were brought or called in at short notice after they got the initial 104 extra people done but open to correction.

KaneToad

It's the lack of judgement exercised by the medic that is the problem. He has since apologised which indicates he sees the error of his ways.

But it does raise the question about other 'little' incidents where vaccines are not ending up with the most needy first.

I have first hand knowledge of admin staff in private hospitals getting vaccines and of retired hospital workers being offered vaccines.

Also, there appears to be a plan to provide blanket vaccination coverage for entire organisations. I would question this approach... not everyone in the HSE needs to jump a queue...not everyone in the guards needs to jump a queue...not everyone in education needs to jump a queue...not everyone in the Prison service needs to jump a queue...

The most vulnerable - those at most risk of dying with the virus need to be dealt with as a priority.

plodder

There's always going to be wastage. It's unlikely you'll have the exact number number at the end of the day, to use up the last vial. But, it has to be possible to do better than 120 left over.

is_that_so

jill_valentine wrote: »

The article states:



Which reads to me that yes, there is such a system now, but there was not at the time.

Again, they got 120 other people dosed after dosing 1000+ others and had 16 left with an hour to spare only after exhausting all other available avenues. 9 of 16 were over 70 and at least two of the others actually work for the HSE, one as a volunteer.

It's scandalous to feed HSE staff to the wolves over this when reading into it makes it clear they went above and beyond to use their resources responsibly.

There are now a whole lot of questions about how this was all done. For now all we have is a headline view of it, a pretty bad one at that. It's actually his decision on that small number of doses that will get the attention and that is generating all the heat. Feeling a need to resort to family is bad enough, but throwing the two kids of the decision makers into the mix is absolutely guaranteed to magnify the decision and have repercussions.

Mrsmum

Russman wrote: »

I don't think the 2 children were over 70. My understanding is that the 2 children worked there. I don't know if they were on site or called in. I wouldn't say you'd find too many people over 70 in a Maternity Hospital tbh though, I assumed all 16 were brought or called in at short notice after they got the initial 104 extra people done but open to correction.

Yes it is far more likely that they were called in. If they were working in the hospital in any serious capicity they would already have been on the original list.

elefant

Russman wrote: »

I don't think the 2 children were over 70. My understanding is that the 2 children worked there. I don't know if they were on site or called in. I wouldn't say you'd find too many people over 70 in a Maternity Hospital tbh though, I assumed all 16 were brought or called in at short notice after they got the initial 104 extra people done but open to correction.

Of the 16 family members who received the surplus vaccine only 7 were under 70. Two of this 7 were children of the Master.

edit: Apologies, I see my under/over mistake in the post you quoted now!

Nozebleed

NIMAN wrote: »

Optics : bad
Decision : correct

delusional. defending the indefensible. The decision was wrong. It was corrupt. and he has been caught..he has no option but resign.

Russman

Mrsmum wrote: »

For the master himself, it's kindof a case of Caesar's wife having to be above suspicion. And that's why he has apologised.

I agree with this, the optics are bad and he should have known how it would be perceived, but much of it is outrage for outrage's sake IMO.

Seems we can't do much here before someone declares something "an absolute disgrace Joe"

basill

This country is so full of victims. Its the inherent problem with the current vaccine that it has a relatively short expiry and has to be kept at a sub zero temperature. Think of it this way. There are hopefully 16 people less likely now to get a bad dose of the virus and place additional burden on the health system.

An Ri rua

hynesie08 wrote: »

16 out of 1100+ is a tenth of a %, that's not scale.

Sure 16 dead out of 5m is a lot less. Sure what about it eh?

jill_valentine

plodder wrote: »

There's always going to be wastage. It's unlikely you'll have the exact number number at the end of the day, to use up the last vial. But, it has to be possible to do better than 120 left over.

It's about on track as they'd just dosed about a thousand people. Vials officially have about 5 doses, reports are they have just short of an extra dose in every vial. So for 200 vials, 120 scrap doses is about right.

Russman

KaneToad wrote: »

Also, there appears to be a plan to provide blanket vaccination coverage for entire organisations. I would question this approach... not everyone in the HSE needs to jump a queue...not everyone in the guards needs to jump a queue...not everyone in education needs to jump a queue...not everyone in the Prison service needs to jump a queue...

The most vulnerable - those at most risk of dying with the virus need to be dealt with as a priority.

But is it not a lot easier to do a full facility or hospital in one go, say, a week, rather than do all the Group 1s in the various locations, then go back and do all the Group 2s etc ? Logistically I think it makes sense to do a full hospital at the one time.

hynesie08

Nozebleed wrote: »

delusional. defending the indefensible. The decision was wrong. It was corrupt. and he has been caught..he has no option but resign.

Resign? His vaccination rate is 110%, give that man a raise...

ThewhiteJesus

bucketybuck wrote: »

16 that you know about.



5 that you know about.

Again, if it is as easy as this to game the system then we will be talking about a lot more than 5 or 16.

You know it's such a silly and twisted argument i'm not sure what to say.
I applaud their common sense and good luck to those family members over 70 that got their first shot, i hope we all get it soon and get back to normal.

is_that_so

basill wrote: »

This country is so full of victims. Its the inherent problem with the current vaccine that it has a relatively short expiry and has to be kept at a sub zero temperature. Think of it this way. There are hopefully 16 people less likely now to get a bad dose of the virus and place additional burden on the health system.

Doses are good but what people will see is the family side of things and what appears to be a random but self-serving decision.

blanch152

This is Ireland.

There are always going to be some people complaining no matter how the vaccines are distributed.

Sixteen vaccines did not go to waste, that is a good thing.

jill_valentine

is_that_so wrote: »

Feeling a need to resort to family is bad enough, but throwing the two kids of the decision makers into the mix is absolutely guaranteed to magnify the decision and have repercussions.

Ok. I want you to tell me how you'd come up with 16 people in reach of your workplace, that you can be confident would get there in an hour, at short notice, at 9 at night. And none of them can be related, under 70, or work for the same company.

What's the first call you make?

RoryMac

plodder wrote: »

There's always going to be wastage. It's unlikely you'll have the exact number number at the end of the day, to use up the last vial. But, it has to be possible to do better than 120 left over.

It's an extra 120 doses from the supplied amount not 120 left over

Christy42

is_that_so wrote: »

Doses are good but what people will see is the family side of things and what appears to be a random but self-serving decision.

Sure they will but when you have tried front line workers you get whoever you can or you throw out the vials. They obviously focused on elderly/Hse working relatives as best they could.

Sometimes you have to make the right decision even if the optics are bad.

Mrsmum

If he understood the value of not appearing to be abusing his position, then his own children would be the very last people he would call forward.

hynesie08

jill_valentine wrote: »

Ok. I want you to tell me how you'd come up with 16 people in reach of your workplace, that you can be confident would get there in an hour, at short notice, at 9 at night. And none of them can be related, under 70, or work for the same company.

What's the first call you make?

Hit the panic alarm, hide behind the door, when the gardai show up, BAM, surprise vaccination......

How did noone think of that?

is_that_so

jill_valentine wrote: »

Ok. I want you to tell me how you'd come up with 16 people in reach of your workplace, that you can be confident would get there in an hour, at short notice, at 9 at night. And none of them can be related, under 70, or work for the same company.

What's the first call you make?

It would speak to very bad planning on my part if they weren't already there.

Dressoutlet

Wah Wah Wah I'm a victim, why didn't My aunty's dogs breeder get a spare dose she is 167 years old.

As a high risk mother of 4 small children, IDGAF who got the vaccine, they didn't end in the bin, yes it could have been abused but it's more people vaccinated than there was and more people adding to the herd immunity we need. Honest to god go stand outside a hospital and tell them your available for any excess doses if there's any. Instead of moaning that excess doses were used. There's nothing stopping you doing so

Christy42

Mrsmum wrote: »

If he understood the value of not appearing to be abusing his position, then his own children would be the very last people he would call forward.

Indeed for the sake of optics they should have been avoided. However from a practical point of view they were likely the furthest up the queue anyway given they worked in a hospital.

This is a question of how much we want things to look right vs how much we want things to be right.

KaneToad

Russman wrote: »

But is it not a lot easier to do a full facility or hospital in one go, say, a week, rather than do all the Group 1s in the various locations, then go back and do all the Group 2s etc ? Logistically I think it makes sense to do a full hospital at the one time.

My argument would be that it shouldn't be the easier candidates that are addressed first. It should be those in most danger.

Disclosure: I'm not in any risk groups and am not arguing for a quicker vaccine for myself.