The annual ASTI Easter strike threat

PuddingBreath

For Forks Sake wrote: »

lol, very good.

but i feel sorry for you if u have faith in the political system and don't see the politicans as the enemy of the people.

just look at what else is on the news this morning, people getting F***ed when trying to buy a home... you would have thought after 2008 and then the tracker mortage thefts that the government would, you know, change something, but no, just thinkering around the edges an carrying on. banks before people. hse before people. TD's pay restoration before ventilation in kids classrooms.

History Queen

Lillyfae wrote: »

According to: https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/ireland-vaccine-queue

"Based on your profile, there are between 713,218 and 955,580 people in front of you in the queue for a COVID vaccine across Ireland.
📅 Given a vaccination rate of 129,227 a week and an uptake of 74%, you should expect to receive your first dose of vaccine between 22/6/2021 and 19/7/2021.

Depending on the date of the first inoculation, you should then get your second dose by between 13/7/2021 and 9/8/2021."

That's based on a 21 year old with no underlying conditions.

I don't think that site is accurate. I just checked for 32 year old with a no to everything else, and it said this:

Based on your profile, there are between 1,749,545 and 2,204,208 people in front of you in the queue for a COVID vaccine across Ireland.
📅 Given a vaccination rate of 129,227 a week and an uptake of 74%, you should expect to receive your first dose of vaccine between 13/10/2021 and 1/12/2021.

Depending on the date of the first inoculation, you should then get your second dose by between 3/11/2021 and 22/12/2021.

Bubbaclaus

History Queen wrote: »

I don't think that site is accurate. I just cheked for 32 year old with a no to everything else, and it said this:

Based on your profile, there are between 1,749,545 and 2,204,208 people in front of you in the queue for a COVID vaccine across Ireland.
📅 Given a vaccination rate of 129,227 a week and an uptake of 74%, you should expect to receive your first dose of vaccine between 13/10/2021 and 1/12/2021.

Depending on the date of the first inoculation, you should then get your second dose by between 3/11/2021 and 22/12/2021.

It's an inaccurate and unofficial website. Beats me why anyone references it.

History Queen

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

It's an inaccurate and unofficial website. Beats me why anyone references it.

Well yes, that was my feeling on it too.

Treppen

BettyS wrote: »

The hourly rate for a post-primary exceeds that of a medical doctor with 6 years experience

Except a medical doctor doesn't have to survive on 6hrs per week spread out over a full week.


Get yourself educated before making inane ill-informed comments.

Lillyfae

History Queen wrote: »

I don't think that site is accurate. I just checked for 32 year old with a no to everything else, and it said this:

Based on your profile, there are between 1,749,545 and 2,204,208 people in front of you in the queue for a COVID vaccine across Ireland.
�� Given a vaccination rate of 129,227 a week and an uptake of 74%, you should expect to receive your first dose of vaccine between 13/10/2021 and 1/12/2021.

Depending on the date of the first inoculation, you should then get your second dose by between 3/11/2021 and 22/12/2021.

You need to fill in "yes" for "living/working in a crowded setting".

EDIT: Also, I assume that the speed of the rollout so far is part of the basis for the calculation. If/ when speeds up then the dates will change.

PuddingBreath

meep wrote: »

I'm not sure where we are relative to each other on lifes great journey, but my take is that this is not the case, I always assume that everyone is mostly incompetent , or just lazy, and thats the main driving force behind what we observe.

unfortunatly, i think it's malice. everything is a fight with the government if your kid has even the slightest need.

History Queen

Lillyfae wrote: »

You need to fill in "yes" for "living/working in a crowded setting".

Why? It's not an accurate website and even if it was the definition of "living/working in a crowded setting" didn't apply to teachers per the old priority list.

Lillyfae

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

It's an inaccurate and unofficial website. Beats me why anyone references it.

I just had a quick look and that's what I found, I'm not verifying it. They have linked back to their sources of information though, so it's a useful point of reference for lack of anything better imo.

Richard tea

Said it before and I'll say it again. This all comes down to money. Shameful act from the unions and a minority of teachers.

Bubbaclaus

Treppen wrote: »

Except a medical doctor doesn't have to survive on 6hrs per week spread out over a full week.


Get yourself educated before making inane ill-informed comments.

How do you know how many hours a locum doctor might have in a week?

History Queen

Richard tea wrote: »

Said it before and I'll say it again. This all comes down to money. Shameful act from the unions and a minority of teachers.

How is it linked to money?

History Queen

Lillyfae wrote: »

I just had a quick look and that's what I found, I'm not verifying it. They have linked back to their sources of information though, so it's a useful point of reference for lack of anything better imo.

But how is it a useful reference if it isn't accurate?

thebaz

So many teachers think they are better than others - therfore feal more entitled - are they really more entitled than ordinary people who work in shops , I know some think they are, like most had a few good teachers , but most were at best average, thinking of ther long holidays.

Lillyfae

History Queen wrote: »

But how is it a useful reference if it isn't accurate?

The information that they are using comes from the HSE, after that it's a simple data input- why would it be terribly inaccurate? The date ranges would be accurate enough, don't you think? I used the 21 age as the last group of teachers on the list to be considered, although I don't know how many teachers would fall into that category, possibly only those who are undertaking teacher training. Obvs the older teachers and those with vulnerability due to underlying conditions would be captured in another earlier cohort.

As to the point re: crowded settings, why wouldn't teachers come under that definition now? I can't find a definition for it on the HSE website. Since the cohorts have been rearranged it seems likely.

Bubbaclaus

Lillyfae wrote: »

The information that they are using comes from the HSE, after that it's a simple data input- why would it be terribly inaccurate? The date ranges would be accurate enough, don't you think? I used the 21 age as the last group of teachers on the list to be considered, although I don't know how many teachers would fall into that category, possibly only those who are undertaking teacher training. Obvs the older teachers and those with vulnerability due to underlying conditions would be captured in another cohort.

As to the point re: crowded settings, why wouldn't teachers come under that definition now? I can't find a definition for it on the HSE website. Since the cohorts have been rearranged it seems likely.

It appears to be assuming a static vaccine roll out, just as we are significantly ramping up, which in itself makes the entire calculator pointless.

Lillyfae

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

It appears to be assuming a static vaccine roll out, just as we are significantly ramping up, which in itself makes the entire calculator pointless.

I've already pointed that out- if/when the process is ramped up, then that would mean the date range would be even earlier, right?

History Queen

Lillyfae wrote: »

The information that they are using comes from the HSE, after that it's a simple data input- why would it be terribly inaccurate? The date ranges would be accurate enough, don't you think? I used the 21 age as the last group of teachers on the list to be considered, although I don't know how many teachers would fall into that category, possibly only those who are undertaking teacher training. Obvs the older teachers and those with vulnerability due to underlying conditions would be captured in another earlier cohort.

As to the point re: crowded settings, why wouldn't teachers come under that definition now? I can't find a definition for it on the HSE website. Since the cohorts have been rearranged it seems likely.

Because they specifically said teachers don't. Even under new rollout.

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1377218727394078720?s=19

So do you accept then that if you want to take the site as a guide teachers will not be vaccinated even well in to the next school year? Or do you only take the site as a guide when it suits your argument?

Edit: I don't think you can use that site as a guide at all.

Lillyfae

History Queen wrote: »

Because they specifically said teachers don't. Even under new rollout.

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1377218727394078720?s=19

So do you accept then that if you want to take the site as a guide teachers will not be vaccinated even well in to the next school year? Or do you only take the site as a guide when it suits your argument?

Ok, fair enough- but the calculator is based on a not-up-to-full-speed vaccination rollout, so I do think that the range will change as the rollout speed does. As pointed out, the government are hoping to have everyone vaccinated by August, which would make no change whatsoever for the youngest cohort of teachers, and probably improve it for the oldest.

BettyS

Treppen wrote: »

Except a medical doctor doesn't have to survive on 6hrs per week spread out over a full week.


Get yourself educated before making inane ill-informed comments.

Well, the substance of my argument is factually correct. Breakdown the doctors’ hourly salary, and it is less than the teachers’ salary. Your use of the word inane, as well as the notion that my argument (based on publicly available pay-scales) is incorrect is not correct

Geuze

History Queen wrote: »

So do you accept then that if you want to take the site as a guide teachers will not be vaccinated even well in to the next school year? Or do you only take the site as a guide when it suits your argument?

Edit: I don't think you can use that site as a guide at all.

According to the SBP, all people over 25 should receive first dose by the start of July.

So most/all teachers should have first dose by start of July?



https://twitter.com/ElaineByrne/status/1379106473318440967/photo/1

realdanbreen

The sad thing about threads like these is that those wa vested interest will scrutinise posts they don't agree with for anything that might be deemed uncivil, then they will report them. I'm not sure if they also have a say on who moderates their threads but that's another matter.

meeeeh

How many holidays, what pay, how law respecting, how nice, how pretty, how hard working or any other criteria people seem to think is important is completely irrelevant in comparison to how best to save lives and protect people from going to hospital. The usual union whinging is tiring but so is the usual pay conditions and holidays nonsense. And both have very little to do with what is actually best for the country.

History Queen

Geuze wrote: »

According to the SBP, all people over 25 should receive first dose by the start of July.

So most/all teachers should have first dose by start of July?



https://twitter.com/ElaineByrne/status/1379106473318440967/photo/1

I'm not disputing projected roll out dates. I was just pointing out the inaccuracies on that particular website.

yabadabado

lulublue22 wrote: »

That’s not what I asked - I’m interested in the link to the fact that teachers under the age based system will be vacc by Aug/ Sep tks

Sorry , Michael Martin said in his address last week that they indended to have 80% of the adult population vaccinated by end of June .

The minister for health said similar,if the pharma companies keep the supply as promised, I'd see no reason why all teachers wouldn't be vaccinated by the time they return to the class room considering the youngest teachers would be probably 21/ 22 ?

History Queen

Lillyfae wrote: »

Ok, fair enough- but the calculator is based on a not-up-to-full-speed vaccination rollout, so I do think that the range will change as the rollout speed does. As pointed out, the government are hoping to have everyone vaccinated by August, which would make no change whatsoever for the youngest cohort of teachers, and probably improve it for the oldest.

I'm not disputing the rollout. I'm not as confident as the Government are that they'll meet their targets but I'm mostly happy with the new rollout if it will indeed be significantly faster

Lillyfae

History Queen wrote: »

I'm not disputing projected roll out dates. I was just pointing out the inaccuracies on that particular website.

I used it as a guide, not as proof.

History Queen wrote: »

I'm not disputing the rollout. I'm not as confident as the Government are that they'll meet their targets but I'm mostly happy with the new rollout if it will indeed be significantly faster

Nobody has much confidence that the rollout is happening the way it should, anywhere- the lack of availability of vaccines is the biggest problem. But there will be anger amongst people generally if one group, who are low risk for hospitalisation and serious illness and who will be under no risk whatsoever between June and August are demanding priority and threatening strike action if they don't get it.

It's also very difficult to understand the point of view of someone who says that they think the new proposed rollout is fair but still opposes anyone who doesn't agree with the union regardless.

History Queen

Lillyfae wrote: »

I used it as a guide, not as proof.



Nobody has much confidence that the rollout is happening the way it should, anywhere- the lack of availability of vaccines is the biggest problem. But there will be anger amongst people generally if one group, who are low risk for hospitalisation and serious illness and who will be under no risk whatsoever between June and August are demanding priority and threatening strike action if they don't get it.

It's also very difficult to understand the point of view of someone who says that they think the new proposed rollout is fair but still opposes anyone who doesn't agree with the union regardless.

People working in primary schools and/or doing July provision might disagree with your assertion they'll be under no risk whatsoever during June and July.

If your comment about opposing anyone who doesn't agree with the union is aimed at me I'm not sure what you mean? I will usually try defend misrepresentations of union actions or misinformation here as I do think, rightly or wrongly, that there is often an ill-informed negative attitude towards teachers. That being said I have absolutely no problem criticising my own union if I disagree with them or other unions in the education sector if I'm knowledgeable about the topic and disagree with their stance. And I have done both on boards and by contacting my own union directly.

Kivaro

Listening to teacher representatives complain about the media response to their ballot action is strange. The airwaves is totally inundated with teachers and their reps with their point of view. The very first item on the RTE news this morning was about this threatened strike by teachers, and the word "bombshell" was used by RTE (not the teachers) to describe the vaccine rollout change from cohort to age.

Since I have a teacher in the family, I was always sympathetic to teacher issues. But if teachers vote for industrial action, while the country is on a knife's edge trying to survive this worldwide pandemic, they will lose support from people like me all over the country. And this is something that we will never forget. Imagine how dignified they would have been and the respect that they would have earned; respect that they could have banked, if they just accepted the scientific and medical advice to do the rollout by age. A few minutes ago I heard a teacher on the radio telling us that he is skeptical of the National Immunisation Advisory Committee's (NIAC) advice to vaccinate by age. This is ludicrous. Age is the defining factor in Covid-19 risk, not profession.

Lillyfae

History Queen wrote: »

People working in primary schools and/or doing July provision might disagree with your assertion they'll be under no risk whatsoever during June and July.

They're not the majority of teachers, and the risk has proven to be low thus far. Has even one teacher picked Covid-19 up at school and been seriously ill or hospitalized by it?

History Queen wrote: »

If your comment about opposing anyone who doesn't agree with the union is aimed at me I'm not sure what you mean? I will usually try defend misrepresentations of union actions or misinformation here as I do think, rightly or wrongly, that there is often an ill-informed negative attitude towards teachers. That being said I have absolutely no problem criticising my own union if I disagree with them or other unions in the education sector if I'm knowledgeable about the topic and disagree with their stance. And I have done both on boards and by contacting my own union directly.

Where is the misinformation about the ASTI threatening strike action? It's great that you contact your own union directly, but when the union makes statements on behalf of their members it has to be assumed that that is what their members want. If it's not then the union is unfit for purpose. The negative attitude is borne out of the representation of the unions much of the time. If that's not the narrative that the majority of teachers hold then the union is lying- is that the case? Why aren't members leaving the ASTI in their droves if the ASTI are totally at odds with their members?