Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

expectationlost

Corholio wrote: »

Sigh. Can't help you anymore.

They say his comments to @IrishTimes was the first they heard of the idea. https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1383382755245924355

Corholio

expectationlost wrote: »

They say his comments to @IrishTimes was the first they heard of the idea. https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1383382755245924355

One last time. The 'idea' you are quoting is not what the article is talking about. It's not the original idea of younger being vaccinated, it's the idea that the rollout could now be changed to it. The line before states they are perplexed at it being head of schedule.

Boggerman12

So Donnelly proves his ego outdoes his abilities and his lack of popularity by having a brain fart of an idea.must be really getting to him that his constituency colleague Harris is more popular than him.
Donnelly out of his depth and should be fired.

castletownman

In fairness to Donnelly, his logic probably was that more people in the 18-30 age group are likely to use trampolines at gatherings, and we all know how potentially dangerous he finds them.

Lumen

expectationlost wrote: »

They say his comments to @IrishTimes was the first they heard of the idea.

People need to stop using the term "they" to apply in a handwaving sense to anyone and everyone in a position of responsibility.

The document linked above was published by the Department of Health.

The quote about not having seen it before was from "senior government figures".

It is perfectly possible that "senior government figures" hadn't read the document. Whose fault is that? Dunno. Does it matter? Dunno.

Vicxas

expectationlost wrote: »

They say his comments to @IrishTimes was the first they heard of the idea. https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1383382755245924355

Makes sense in some ways, seeing as 18-34 year olds seem to be the driving force of infections.

expectationlost

Lumen wrote: »

People need to stop using the term "they" to apply in a handwaving sense to anyone and everyone in a position of responsibility.

The document linked above was published by the Department of Health.

The quote about not having seen it before was from "senior government figures".

its the national strategy its a cabinet approved document.

Lumen

expectationlost wrote: »

its the national strategy its a cabinet approved document.

So then the "senior government figures" hadn't read the document that they'd approved? And that's Donnelly's fault?

I just want to be sure that we're flinging poo at the right targets.

Maxface

I'm a firefighter in my thirties. We obviously have been working as normal throughout and attend medical calls in addition to normal calls. We haven't been vaccinated yet and are part of the normal cohorts. I'd be annoyed if younger people got the vaccine ahead just because of age.

hmmm

Lumen wrote: »

So then the "senior government figures" hadn't read the document that they'd approved? And that's Donnelly's fault?

I just want to be sure that we're flinging poo at the right targets.

If a group of randomners on an Internet forum could see straight away that this would cause serious political controversy, a Minister should not have gone on a solo run with this without informing and getting the backing of their cabinet colleagues. No matter what a document from a few months ago said.

Now this kite has been well and truly shot out of the sky, and even if it was a good idea it will be far more difficult to get public support because the groundwork wasn't done to prepare.

Donnelly is some spanner.

This will come to nothing, but he really is a very akward politician. A tendency to say the wrong thing. Of all ministers I wish he was gone and never heard of again. He's a wrong one as they say in my part of the world.

Covid is a risk as is trampolines.

He makes my skin crawl tbh.

stephenjmcd

hmmm wrote: »

If a group of randomners on an Internet forum could see straight away that this would cause serious political controversy, a Minister should not have gone on a solo run with this without informing and getting the backing of their cabinet colleagues. No matter what a document from a few months ago said.

Now this kite has been well and truly shot out of the sky, and even if it was a good idea it will be far more difficult to get public support because the groundwork wasn't done to prepare.

A minister doesn't need to get the backing of his cabinet colleagues to ask his own department to report on something to him. He'd then take that report to cabinet where it could be consider and could very well be dismissed.

As much as he's gone about it the wrong way by saying it in an interview with the Times he's not actually done anything wrong in terms or informing the cabinet.

Now I'm not defending him here because its gone public in a messy manner and an unneeded manner but the rational behind his request to the department to at least look into it has fairly sound basis.

expectationlost

hmmm wrote: »

If a group of randomners on an Internet forum could see straight away that this would cause serious political controversy, a Minister should not have gone on a solo run with this without informing and getting the backing of their cabinet colleagues. No matter what a document from a few months ago said.

Now this kite has been well and truly shot out of the sky, and even if it was a good idea it will be far more difficult to get public support because the groundwork wasn't done to prepare.

its not just a document it was the National Strategy

expectationlost

expectationlost wrote: »

its not just a document it was the National Strategy

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/39038-provisional-vaccine-allocation-groups/&ved=2ahUKEwiFpdTct4XwAhVASBUIHflNAv0QFjABegQIGhAC&usg=AOvVaw2Y03Ei4OMyEy3LhpztSyfD

It was being the important word. Another important world when published in December was provisional. Provisional doesnt mean final. Its a rough draft at best.

Can I ask what age you are by the way.

I have a sneaking suspicion you are are not a 49 year old :rolleyes:.

expectationlost

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/39038-provisional-vaccine-allocation-groups/&ved=2ahUKEwiFpdTct4XwAhVASBUIHflNAv0QFjABegQIGhAC&usg=AOvVaw2Y03Ei4OMyEy3LhpztSyfD

It was being the important word. Another important world when published in December was provisional. Provisional doesnt mean final. Its a rough draft at best.

Can I ask what age you are by the way.

I have a sneaking suspicion you are are not a 49 year old :rolleyes:.

changing to under 30/35's doesn't benefit me, I just don't like lying politicians or people who buy their lies.

ACitizenErased

https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1383421734712274944?s=21

ACitizenErased

ACitizenErased wrote: »

https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1383421734712274944?s=21

Brilliant.

Its a good vaccine.

Just getting alot of bad press at present.

In time the efficacy and safety issues will clear.

ebbsy

Maxface wrote: »

I'm a firefighter in my thirties. We obviously have been working as normal throughout and attend medical calls in addition to normal calls. We haven't been vaccinated yet and are part of the normal cohorts. I'd be annoyed if younger people got the vaccine ahead just because of age.

That is a disgrace.

ACitizenErased

I thought Dublin fire brigade got vaccinated? Why wouldn’t other fire brigades?

stephenjmcd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It does come across a little bit your not against what he's said in the last 24 hours.

Are you in your 20s/ 30s by any chance :pac:

Why do you keep asking people their ages ? People can have an opinion on it either way based on emerging evidence.

Yup I'm in my 20s no health issues so I'll wait until whenever I'm called, I've no issue with a department being asked to look into it based on the evidence of vaccines providing reduced transmission.

Ultimately whatever the department come back with can be rejected by NIAC, the vaccine task force and government but there's no harm.in the question being posed to them.

Am I not allowed to agree with it being looked into because I'm in my 20s ?

Ps he's a woeful minister

celt262

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Donnelly is some spanner.

This will come to nothing, but he really is a very akward politician. A tendency to say the wrong thing. Of all ministers I wish he was gone and never heard of again. He's a wrong one as they say in my part of the world.

Covid is a risk as is trampolines.

He makes my skin crawl tbh.

The night he was on prime time before Christmas and was asked who would be responsible for deaths and increases in cases after opening up against Nephet's advice and he said "the virus would be responsible" was the time for the government to kick him into touch.

The man isnt up to it.

hmmm

I saw the media pushing the story below as a scare story about AZ not being effective against the South African variant. If anything as the tweet says it's the reverse - a very vulnerable group got infected, and (fingers crossed) their symptoms appear to be relatively mild. Which is what you'd expect - if the vaccine also prevents them from getting infected in the first place that's a bonus, but not the key benefit.

ACitizenErased wrote: »

https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1383421734712274944?s=21

stephenjmcd

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Why do you keep asking people their ages ? People can have an opinion on it either way based on emerging evidence.

Yup I'm in my 20s no health issues so I'll wait until whenever I'm called, I've no issue with a department being asked to look into it based on the evidence of vaccines providing reduced transmission.

Ultimately whatever the department come back with can be rejected by NIAC, the vaccine task force and government but there's no harm.in the question being posed to them.

Am I not allowed to agree with it being looked into because I'm in my 20s ?

It will come to nothing.

If it didn't suit your own interests you might not have been as supportive:rolleyes:.

There is harm.

It causes confusion.

In UK 40 year olds are being vaccinated and everyone unvaccinated knows roughly where they are in the queue.

Here it is an utter rollercoaster each day never mind each week.

There should be a quiet orderly vaccination process.

Here its people trash talking every other day. Going on solo runs etc.

You can have too much discourse on something like this.

We are definitely in that realm.

Not good.

He probably is one of the worst cabinet ministers of all time. His department works best when he is annoymous.

The best thing you can do with Donnelly is ignore all utterances.

Turtwig

ACitizenErased wrote: »

https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1383421734712274944?s=21

If we're going to be consistent we have to recognise that this sample is tiny. Ten random people with no indications of the age, gender or underlying health of the residents either. If this had gone the opposite way and 8 of them had died we'd be lambasting the media for scare mongering about the variants. You can't draw any conclusion either way.

We can't have the cake and eat it.
This inference is almost as bad as some of the hydroxychloroquine ones that were emerging last year.

Corholio

godzilla89 wrote: »

Vaccine efficacy aside

Bit of selection bias going on with reporting?

That's also a small size and missing many details as was SA study, yet we disregarded SA study for those reasons and don't disregard this one?

Disregard? Some have been endlessly quoting that study for weeks now as 'proof'.

I'm not saying this is any type of proof either but long as people know it's far from any kind of misery finality that some have claimed.

GazzaL

Beasty wrote: »

With your record in this forum I would suggest you cut out the trolling

On a serious note, I've been offered vaccines by two different people.

TomOnBoard

km79 wrote: »

We were told just a few weeks ago that the medical advice had changed and that the science said it must be age based and that the science must be followed

What has changed ?

Look at it this way.

The lastest information available is suggesting that ppl in the 18-30 age group are socializing more, now that their elderly relatives whom they've been trying to protect are steadily getting vaccinated. As more of the at-risk ppl are vaccinated, the younger folk have less of a drive to stay apart, and more and more need to get on with being young folks. So that greater mixing leaves them at greater risk of catching Covid. Once caught, they then are at high risk of spreading Covid. They are still at the same risk as last week of getting seriously ill and/or dying, which is low, but could become super-spreaders.

On the other hand, the more elderly you are, the greater is the risk of developing serious Illness and/or death, if you catch Covid, but less prone to spreading it, coz if you catch it, you'll most likely know it and wont be as likely to spread it.

trellheim

High points of daily shots first, second, all types


5 March 19449
24 Mar 23330
25 March 27490
1 April 30915

New high:
15 April 34596

Turtwig

godzilla89 wrote: »

Vaccine efficacy aside

Bit of selection bias going on with reporting?

That's also a small size and missing many details as was SA study, yet we disregarded SA study for those reasons and don't disregard this one?

The most damming bit is they've justified tweeting what they tweeted because people are quoting this much maligned South African study. It's like:
here's one piece of flawed reasoning so to counter that I'm going to use an equally, possibly worse piece, of flawed reasoning

You cannot say vaccines are effective because ten people didn't get sick. It's completely undermined that tweeters credibility in my eyes. This was a very poor judgement. I hope in a few hours or so they'll see the sense and retract it.

titan18

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Look at it this way.

The lastest information available is suggesting that ppl in the 18-30 age group are socializing more, now that their elderly relatives whom they've been trying to protect are steadily getting vaccinated. As more of the at-risk ppl are vaccinated, the younger folk have less of a drive to stay apart, and more and more need to get on with being young folks. So that greater mixing leaves them at greater risk of catching Covid. Once caught, they then are at high risk of spreading Covid. They are still at the same risk as last week of getting seriously ill and/or dying, which is low, but could become super-spreaders.

On the other hand, the more elderly you are, the greater is the risk of developing serious Illness and/or death, if you catch Covid, but less prone to spreading it, coz if you catch it, you'll most likely know it and wont be as likely to spread it.

So the same argument for why teachers and guards etc should be prioritized which the government threw out. They've a higher chance of catching it due to their work environments and if they do catch it, a very big chance of having a mass spread coming out of it.

The younger cohort only have a chance of spreading it cos they're ignoring the restrictions. People like teachers and guards can be obeying restrictions and still have a high chance of spreading it.