nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Coronavirus (COVID-19)

JP Liz V1

It has hit the rebel city, CUH on lockdown with restrictions (talk the carrier is a med student who was not abroad), wash hands and take care

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Pen Rua

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

If they work or teached in the one room of a positive case, are they not all close contacts forgive my stupidity but was is actually classed then as "close contact"

Close contact can mean:
spending more than 15 minutes of face-to-face contact within 2 metres of someone who has COVID-19, indoors or outdoors

living in the same house or shared accommodation as someone who has COVID-19

sitting within 2 seats of someone who has COVID-19 on public transport or an airplane

https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/coronavirus/close-contact-and-casual-contact.html#:~:text=Close%20contact%20can%20mean%3A,public%20transport%20or%20an%20airplane

JP Liz V1

ACitizenErased wrote: »

That's not how it works though, never has. If you're not a contact then you've no need to know.

If they work or teached in the one room of a positive case, are they not all close contacts

forgive my stupidity but what actually is classed then as "close contact"

JP Liz V1

Gardaí attended an incident in Blarney last night where a large gathering in excess of 100 people took place in a shed. Gardaí intervened & stopped the event & the gathered crowd was dispersed without any public order incidents.

Padraig Mor

Cape Clear wrote: »

What is the definition of a close contact?

Generally it's being within 2 metres of someone for greater than 15 minutes but public health also look at use of PPE, other control measures etc and someone that 'should' be a close contact may not necessarily be ultimately regarded as such and may be regarded as a casual contact instead. Can vary in schools etc as well. Again, not saying I agree or disagree with the way they do it, just outlining the way it works in practice. It was a major issue in my workplace - people (quite understandably IMHO) saying they should be made aware of cases (or identities of positives) in their area but it's all down to public health at the end of the day.

It's the same outside workplaces as well re identities - if you're flagged as a close contact, the contact tracers won't tell you who the positive case was.

ACitizenErased

timmyjimmy wrote: »

I don't really see why HR need to be onsite, they're certainly working from home where I work (essential services). Companies all over Ireland have adapted to the crisis by working from home. I'd imagine most people would choose to avoid a hospital where possible.

That's a fair point but ultimately it doesn't really matter, they'll all be back in the hospital at some stage

timmyjimmy

ACitizenErased wrote: »

All healthcare workers are being vaccinated. Whether people like it or not, even the people who clean the toilets in hospitals are healthcare workers and will be vaccinated.

I don't really see why HR need to be onsite, they're certainly working from home where I work (essential services). Companies all over Ireland have adapted to the crisis by working from home. I'd imagine most people would choose to avoid a hospital where possible.

ACitizenErased

timmyjimmy wrote: »

I know of someone working in the Mercy in HR who received the vaccine, anybody know if this is the case with other staff? HR aren't exactly frontline, that's a frontline worker or someone vulnerable who they've taken the place of, not exactly the best use of the limited vaccines that we currently have.

The longer the vulnerable don't get the vaccination, the longer we're in this crap.

All healthcare workers are being vaccinated. Whether people like it or not, even the people who clean the toilets in hospitals are healthcare workers and will be vaccinated.

Widdensushi

timmyjimmy wrote: »

I know of someone working in the Mercy in HR who received the vaccine, anybody know if this is the case with other staff? HR aren't exactly frontline, that's a frontline worker or someone vulnerable who they've taken the place of, not exactly the best use of the limited vaccines that we currently have.

The longer the vulnerable don't get the vaccination, the longer we're in this crap.

If they are coming in contact with multiple vulnerable people a day it's more important that they get vaccinated than one vulnerable person as they could give covid to many vulnerable people.

timmyjimmy

I know of someone working in the Mercy in HR who received the vaccine, anybody know if this is the case with other staff? HR aren't exactly frontline, that's a frontline worker or someone vulnerable who they've taken the place of, not exactly the best use of the limited vaccines that we currently have.

The longer the vulnerable don't get the vaccination, the longer we're in this crap.

ACitizenErased

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Is that in CUH?

The whole department should have been informed imho, same with schools, classes should be informed of a positive case

That's not how it works though, never has. If you're not a contact then you've no need to know.

JP Liz V1

leeside11 wrote: »

They sterilise the instruments for theatre.

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Wheres this?

Is that in CUH?

The whole department should have been informed imho, same with schools, classes should be informed of a positive case

Cape Clear

Padraig Mor wrote: »

People not deemed close contacts by public health have no 'right' to know about a case in their workplace. Even those deemed close contacts have no right to know who the positive case in their workplace was (as that's sensitive personal data under GDPR). Not saying I agree with all of that, just giving the 'official' position as someone involved in such arrangements in a large organisation. Of course, a person who tested positive may choose to disclose this to other staff (and, generally, I think they should) but there is no onus on them to do so.

What is the definition of a close contact?

Padraig Mor

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

There's close contacts being told they're not close contacts when they are. They do have a right to be told when there's covid cases in their workplace and to limit interactions and not to visit their parents or grandparents who might not be so lucky if they catch this damn virus.

People not deemed close contacts by public health have no 'right' to know about a case in their workplace. Even those deemed close contacts have no right to know who the positive case in their workplace was (as that's sensitive personal data under GDPR). Not saying I agree with all of that, just giving the 'official' position as someone involved in such arrangements in a large organisation. Of course, a person who tested positive may choose to disclose this to other staff (and, generally, I think they should) but there is no onus on them to do so.

the beer revolu

leeside11 wrote: »

Staff were in close contact with this person during working hours before they tested positive and then going home to elderly parents in the case of one staff member.

Very bad organisation in that department from the start of this pandemic there..

All close contacts of every infected person should be informed, no argument there.
I won't comment furthers as I don't know the facts of this case.
But I still argue that outside of close contacts, no one had a "right" to know.

ACitizenErased

As i mentioned yesterday -> AZ on the way
https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1347516153237823488?s=21

leeside11

the beer revolu wrote: »

If they weren't deemed as close contacts, why should they be told?
If they were close contacts, that's another matter.

People seem to think that they have a "right" to know where every infection occurs. They don't and nor should they.

Staff were in close contact with this person during working hours before they tested positive and then going home to elderly parents in the case of one staff member.

Very bad organisation in that department from the start of this pandemic there..

Away With The Fairies

the beer revolu wrote: »

If they weren't deemed as close contacts, why should they be told?
If they were close contacts, that's another matter.

People seem to think that they have a "right" to know where every infection occurs. They don't and nor should they.

There's close contacts being told they're not close contacts when they are. They do have a right to be told when there's covid cases in their workplace and to limit interactions and not to visit their parents or grandparents who might not be so lucky if they catch this damn virus.

H8GHOTI

pwurple wrote: »

The backlog wasn't some f-up or conspiracy, it was people's christmas holidays. Lab testers, admin staff, quality control etc. A lot of them still won't be back at full tilt this week I'd say, because plenty of people take planned school holidays off also.

...

They have said the backlog was due to a problem with their IT system. Sure without Christmas holidays it may have been fixed faster.

The recent posts are more about what happened to the backlog rather than why it happened in the first place. It was mentioned yesterday that’s it’s gone but 8k or so still unaccounted for. There’s confusion there.

Anyway, makes little difference. We’re in lockdown regardless. It’s curiosity more than anything. It might be explained in the coming days.

ACitizenErased

leeside11 wrote: »

They sterilise the instruments for theatre.

Wheres this?

leeside11

seefin wrote: »

HSSD?

They sterilise the instruments for theatre.

the beer revolu

leeside11 wrote: »

Staff member out in HSSD dept with a positive test, management never told the colleagues working with them about this so they're organising tests for themselves.

Incompetent isn't the word for what's going on there atm..

If they weren't deemed as close contacts, why should they be told?
If they were close contacts, that's another matter.

People seem to think that they have a "right" to know where every infection occurs. They don't and nor should they.

Away With The Fairies

seefin wrote: »

HSSD?

Instrument sterilisation department in the hospital, I think.

seefin

leeside11 wrote: »

Staff member out in HSSD dept with a positive test, management never told the colleagues working with them about this so they're organising tests for themselves.

Incompetent isn't the word for what's going on there atm..

HSSD?

leeside11

Staff member out in HSSD dept with a positive test, management never told the colleagues working with them about this so they're organising tests for themselves.

Incompetent isn't the word for what's going on there atm..

pwurple

The backlog wasn't some f-up or conspiracy, it was people's christmas holidays. Lab testers, admin staff, quality control etc. A lot of them still won't be back at full tilt this week I'd say, because plenty of people take planned school holidays off also.

I also expect a reduced service while the schools continue to be closed, working age people in labs are often in their 20's 30's 40's and have young families to support.

Pablo Escobar

H8GHOTI wrote: »

The numbers reported yesterday were what, up to midnight on the 6th? So almost 100% of swabs of the 6th were not converted to cases & all the cases announced were from the backlog.

He also said the problem was fixed, so the backlog shouldn’t be increasing. Makes no sense. Have the feeling there was some kind of f**k up & they’re trying to brush it under the carpet. Maybe the swab count between Christmas & New Year wasn’t as high as reported & the backlog wasn’t as big as they said it was.

I think we should take it that all swabs announced upto the 5th are cleared. Out of the swabs announced on 6th & 7th, there's a backlog, which I think is c.8,000, others are saying 9,000. Either way, it appears the full backlog won't actually be cleared for a few days yet.

H8GHOTI

The numbers reported yesterday were what, up to midnight on the 6th? So almost 100% of swabs of the 6th were not converted to cases & all the cases announced were from the backlog.

He also said the problem was fixed, so the backlog shouldn’t be increasing. Makes no sense. Have the feeling there was some kind of f**k up & they’re trying to brush it under the carpet. Maybe the swab count between Christmas & New Year wasn’t as high as reported & the backlog wasn’t as big as they said it was.

Pablo Escobar

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Not anymore. Backlog is gone. Those cases don't exist.

He said it was cleared up to 5th January. That does not mean the c.8,000 have disappeared. They have been working through cases in real time and backlog. That means some cases of positive swabs fall into the backlog. I would think that by that reasoning, over half of the swabs of the last 2 days are in the backlog post 5th January.

Cape Clear

marno21 wrote: »

Philip Nolan said today the backlog is cleared upto January 5th.

The exact figures behind that I don’t know.

Any backlog after Jan 5th still to be added?

marno21

Philip Nolan said today the backlog is cleared upto January 5th.

The exact figures behind that I don’t know.