Covid 19 Part XXXIII-231,484 ROI(4,610 deaths)116,197 NI (2,107 deaths)(23/03)Read OP

Igotadose

So, per the RTE:https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0319/1204863-astra-zeneca-resume-nphet/ we're now waiting on NPHET to issue an update before resuming vaccines? Or are they resumed and the update merely a formality? Why wait another day, there are vaccines (seemingly about 45000 doses in storage or due in the next few days) that could be in people's arms.

More deaths and potential lifelong misery due to waffling. Pathetic.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A pay freeze would be a kick in the teeth to the people working in the health service going above and beyond for over a year at this stage.

Why? You have jobs while 700000 don’t.
You should be happy with that surely?

Pay freezes will be necessary as we have a huge debt to service for the restrictions that you support.

Pay cuts may well be needed.

Atlantic Dawn

is_that_so wrote: »

It is factual, some may not produce the immune response and it also may not be quite as effective on others. The vast majority can expect a level of protection of some kind.

If we are going with the approach that we need to continue restrictions indefinetely because the vaccine might not work on some people then we should roll out assisted suicide to the population for those who no longer wish to live under such conditions.

Igotadose

Igotadose wrote: »

So, per the RTE:https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0319/1204863-astra-zeneca-resume-nphet/ we're now waiting on NPHET to issue an update before resuming vaccines? Or are they resumed and the update merely a formality? Why wait another day, there are vaccines (seemingly about 45000 doses in storage or due in the next few days) that could be in people's arms.

More deaths and potential lifelong misery due to waffling. Pathetic.

What's worse is that the risk of death from COVID-19 in these vulnerable groups is far, far higher than the risk of developing a blood clot.

This decision by NPHET will lead to deaths that could have been avoided.

Northernlily

Now the slow drip information to the Independent of restrictions to June.

6 months of the year, would never have believed it coming into 2021. What a farce.

Northernlily

Northernlily wrote: »

Now the slow drip information to the Independent of restrictions to June.

6 months of the year, would never have believed it coming into 2021. What a farce.

The key phrase is always, "until at least...[insert month]", or "at the earliest...[insert month]".

This offers NPHET the delicious possibility of extending restrictions if they deem it necessary, which inevitably they might.

Doctor Jimbob

Northernlily wrote: »

Now the slow drip information to the Independent of restrictions to June.

6 months of the year, would never have believed it coming into 2021. What a farce.

People were called paranoid for saying things would get pushed back once April got closer and here we are. Over two weeks until April 5th and we're already getting talk of no significant changes until June.

What happens in June? It gets pushed back until August?

Busi_Girl08

Igotadose wrote: »

So, per the RTE:https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0319/1204863-astra-zeneca-resume-nphet/ we're now waiting on NPHET to issue an update before resuming vaccines? Or are they resumed and the update merely a formality? Why wait another day, there are vaccines (seemingly about 45000 doses in storage or due in the next few days) that could be in people's arms.

More deaths and potential lifelong misery due to waffling. Pathetic.

You'd thnk the 3 groups could have come to some consensus *before* EMA's decision so they could take action quicker?

e.g.
"If EMA determines the vaccine is safe for use we are agreed that we will proceed with the following steps"

not
"We need to wait for EMA to make their decision before we can discuss"
"Now EMA has made their decision NPHET needs to discuss"
"Now EMA has made their decision NIAC need to discuss"
"Now EMA have made their decision HPRA need to discuss"
"Now all the above have discussed now all three need to discuss everything again"

is_that_so

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

If we are going with the approach that we need to continue restrictions indefinetely because the vaccine might not work on some people then we should roll out assisted suicide to the population for those who no longer wish to live under such conditions.

I don't think that's implied at all but if experts are asked a question about vaccines it's a factual answer. They expect cases but in a way that can be mitigated and managed. Vaccines do work for a whole lot of people and are part of the mitigation and protection strategy.

AdamD

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Those vaccinated can't travel because the vaccine 'doesn't work on everyone' according to Ronan Glynn

By that logic we can never travel so .

Ronan Glynn inadvertently doing his best promotion for anti-vaccers

crossman47

Deleted User wrote: »

What's worse is that the risk of death from COVID-19 in these vulnerable groups is far, far higher than the risk of developing a blood clot.

This decision by NPHET will lead to deaths that could have been avoided.

I'm sure our ability to run to the courts if anything goes wrong was a factor. If I go by the rubbish spoken on Cervical Check, Even one death after a vaccine would have led to demands for a public inquiry and politicians and media looking for scapegoats while the lawyers rubbed their hands.

is_that_so

Deleted User wrote: »

What's worse is that the risk of death from COVID-19 in these vulnerable groups is far, far higher than the risk of developing a blood clot.

This decision by NPHET will lead to deaths that could have been avoided.

At the rate at which they seem to occur, people are more at risk from clots from other issues. Regardless of what they decide, a formality IMO, the warning is out there to vaccinators to be alert for such adverse reactions.

crossman47

Deleted User wrote: »

Huge mistakes were made.

We chose to cancel treatments, screenings as well as forcing half a million out of work and borrowing billions to keep the lights on.

Hopefully someone is held to account for this

What was the alternative? Refuse to admit Covid patients to hospital?

Sweet.Science

is_that_so wrote: »

I don't think that's implied at all but if experts are asked a question about vaccines it's a factual answer. They expect cases but in a way that can be mitigated and managed. Vaccines do work for a whole lot of people and are part of the mitigation and protection strategy.

He wasn't asked a question about vaccines . He was asked about travel . Then stated as vaccines don't work good enough on an individual basis they won't agree to it .

Can you not see how much of an issue this is ?

is_that_so

is_that_so wrote: »

At the rate at which they seem to occur, people are more at risk from clots from other issues. Regardless of what they decide, a formality IMO, the warning is out there to vaccinators to be alert for such adverse reactions.

That's simply untrue.

There were 19 thromboembolic events with the AZ-Oxford vaccine, but 18 reported with the Pfizer vaccine.

There were 15 cases of DVT (deep vein thrombosis) with AZ-Oxford vaccine, but 9 with the Pfizer vaccine.

Yet one gets targeted as potentially unsafe, meanwhile the other is safe to administer.

What's the difference?

I think we all know.

namloc1980

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

People were called paranoid for saying things would get pushed back once April got closer and here we are. Over two weeks until April 5th and we're already getting talk of no significant changes until June.

What happens in June? It gets pushed back until August?

Yeah and then the schools will be reopening in September so we'll have to stay in lockdown. Then the autumn will mean increased risk of illness and we'll have to see if the vaccine remains effective for the vulnerable who got vaccinated and we'll probably have a booster rollout. It's never ending.

is_that_so

Sweet.Science wrote: »

He wasn't asked a question about vaccines . He was asked about travel . Then stated as vaccines don't work good enough on an individual basis they won't agree to it .

Can you not see how much of an issue this is ?

Yeah, medicine v politics. It's always been the issues with vaccines. These proposed passports are aimed at getting tourism and travel going this summer. You'll still have the negative PCR option anyway.

is_that_so

Deleted User wrote: »

That's simply untrue.

There were 19 thromboembolic events with the AZ-Oxford vaccine, but 18 reported with the Pfizer vaccine.

There were 15 cases of DVT (deep vein thrombosis) with AZ-Oxford vaccine, but 9 with the Pfizer vaccine.

Yet one gets targeted as potentially unsafe, meanwhile the other is safe to administer.

What's the difference?

I think we all know.

My post referred to the occurrence of blood clots in general, not those associated with vaccines. You seem to be implying a 12-24 hour delay will kill people.

Igotadose

Busi_Girl08 wrote: »

You'd thnk the 3 groups could have come to some consensus *before* EMA's decision so they could take action quicker?

e.g.
"If EMA determines the vaccine is safe for use we are agreed that we will proceed with the following steps"

not
"We need to wait for EMA to make their decision before we can discuss"
"Now EMA has made their decision NPHET needs to discuss"
"Now EMA has made their decision NIAC need to discuss"
"Now EMA have made their decision HPRA need to discuss"
"Now all the above have discussed now all three need to discuss everything again"

In my (admittedly limited) experience with the HSE, if they did what you suggested, it'd be the first time.

*Before* NPHET et al recommended suspending AZ, this discussion should have happened. Dollars to donuts it didn't.

So, we have another day wasted, letting the virus mutate away.

stephenjmcd

Northernlily wrote: »

Now the slow drip information to the Independent of restrictions to June.

6 months of the year, would never have believed it coming into 2021. What a farce.

Again another newspaper that's taken Glynns comments out of context. He even made the point of saying at the briefing yesterday that he wasn't saying the tough restrictions that are in place now. He said some sort of restrictions. He preempted the headline by basically dismissing it, but if course they went ahead with the headline anyway.

Reporter- isn't it possible to say then that people should expect tight restrictions to the end of June

Glynn - "I'm not going to say we need tight restrictions because the headline tomorrow morning will be NPHET says no easing of restrictions"

is_that_so

Igotadose wrote: »

In my (admittedly limited) experience with the HSE, if they did what you suggested, it'd be the first time.

*Before* NPHET et al recommended suspending AZ, this discussion should have happened. Dollars to donuts it didn't.

So, we have another day wasted, letting the virus mutate away.

It was NIAC who recommended it and you can't just get it up and running again at a couple of hours' notice.

Sweet.Science

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Again another newspaper that's taken Glynns comments out of context. He even made the point of saying at the briefing yesterday that he wasn't saying the tough restrictions that are in place now. He said some sort of restrictions. He preempted the headline by basically dismissing it, but if course they went ahead with the headline anyway

Part of me feels sorry for Ronan Glynn . He is front and centre as leader of the country at the moment

Government nowhere to be seen .

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

That's simply untrue.

There were 19 thromboembolic events with the AZ-Oxford vaccine, but 18 reported with the Pfizer vaccine.

There were 15 cases of DVT (deep vein thrombosis) with AZ-Oxford vaccine, but 9 with the Pfizer vaccine.

Yet one gets targeted as potentially unsafe, meanwhile the other is safe to administer.

What's the difference?

I think we all know.

That a cluster was observed in Norway triggering a review, which concluded it was ok

Even if it were true that there was an increased risk of cerebral sinus vein thrombosis, the rate is currently 5 people per 11 million vaccinations in the UK.

That would extrapolate out to 30 people in the entire 65 million UK population.

Now compare the damage that COVID-19 would do in these unvaccinated groups. And this is under the questionable assumption that there is more than a correlation at work. In fact, even if the risk of this rare thrombosis was 10x higher with the AZ-Oxford vaccine, it would still be unsound grounds not to continue vaccination.

But all the evidence shows that there is nothing more than a correlation at work; in precisely the same way that we have seen with the Pfizer vaccine, but that side of the vaccine data equation never gets told.

The decision to suspend the vaccine was a catastrophic decision that has eroded public confidence in taking vaccines at a critical phase in the pandemic.

stephenjmcd

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Part of me feels sorry for Ronan Glynn . He is front and centre as leader of the country at the moment

Government nowhere to be seen .

Beyond the point that was being made tbh.

Point was that he preempted the headlines this morning yesterday evening, clarified it and still the papers went with them

iamwhoiam

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Part of me feels sorry for Ronan Glynn . He is front and centre as leader of the country at the moment

Government nowhere to be seen .

I agree , no leadership, no road map , no way out and they leave it to Ronan to sort it

shamco

is_that_so wrote: »

It was NIAC who recommended it and you can't just get it up and running again at a couple of hours' notice.

Why?. That's what's happening in Germany

namloc1980

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Beyond the point that was being made tbh.

Point was that he preempted the headlines this morning yesterday evening, clarified it and still the papers went with them

Simon Harris floated the idea there'd be no change to the 5km limit a couple of days ago. This is how it has always been. 2-3 weeks out from the next review the kites start being flown to soften us up for more of the same lockdown.

Sweet.Science

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Beyond the point that was being made tbh.

Point was that he preempted the headlines this morning yesterday evening, clarified it and still the papers went with them

Yes but the papers may not be wrong

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/cabinet-divided-on-easing-5km-travel-restriction-1098644.html

If the 5k rule isnt going to be ease on April 5th i cant see much else changing

stephenjmcd

Azatadine wrote: »

Did he really say that? Jesus....he said that?

No he didn't, said he didn't expect an update to the non essential travel recommendations until June.

He pointed to the high rates in other EU countries currently, and he's probably right. Those with high rates won't be opening up to anyone, EU travel system or not. Countries just won't risk it.