Relaxation of Restrictions, Part IX *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

Keyzer wrote: »

How do you know this?

Are you saying the decision from multiple countries who put a temporary block on the use of the AZ vaccine was not based on concerns it could potentially cause blood clots?

If so, you are saying this was a political decision made by approximately 12 countries?

What were they hoping to achieve. Please, enlighten me.

Whilst I’d agree that using the term ‘political’ is problematic, there are nuances to the term that may be applicable

I do think that one thing many people have ignored in the Covid crisis is how sensitive and reactive those in positions of authority are when it comes to the idea of liability. We hear a lot of “why would the government just happily crash the economy? / what do they achieve from this?” as a way of saying that the government is just doing its best in a bad situation. Often, people in positions of authority will act out of the desire to avoid being blamed — even if avoidance of blame means acting in a way that is not necessarily to the benefit of society. They will find whatever authorities they can stand behind, and cling to them for dear life (i.e. we crashed the economy yes but we were acting on medical advice etc.). Companies and state agencies pay enormous fees to lawyers for this very reason.

So even when faced with a vaccine process that is one of the most important rollouts of medication in modern history, and even when the risk of certain side effects is so minimal as to be almost negligible against the ‘greater good’ of a fast and efficient vaccination process (bearing in mind that lockdown ‘advocates’ themselves have engaged in the very same moral grey areas in deeming the present and future destruction of lockdown to be a ‘greater good’), the fear of liability still gnaws at the minds of those in authority. What if I get blamed? What if there is litigation and they come after me? What good is the faster reopening society if I’m just going to be cross-examined by lawyers for the next 5 years?

So when we talk about “political” decisions, it can come often just come right down to the politics of liability in organisations — and how one plays the game in those micro-arenas of political manoeuvring. If someone else is deeming the vaccine potentially dangerous, even if the risk is infinitesimally small, the mind of the person responsible flicks to being hauled in front of a public inquiry, even if in their heart they know slowing the vaccine process down is harmful in the main. It becomes a chain reaction - a game of politics to make sure you aren’t the one sitting in the cross-examination chair.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's the director of the EMA saying something, not an official report from the EMA saying that it is safe. Whilst it's more than likely based off preliminary data that he has access to.

The EMA hasn't officially come out and ruled that it definitively isn't something to worry about.

but the general feeling amongst the WHO and EMA is that clots aren't a cause for concern. if we're not going to listen to them then what's the point?

LameBeaver wrote: »

Police state? You have to be taking the piss right? Listen carefully chief. If this country was a police state you would know about it.

watch it fintan you've an internet tough guy on your case

Deleted User wrote: »

That's the director of the EMA saying something, not an official report from the EMA saying that it is safe. Whilst it's more than likely based off preliminary data that he has access to.

The EMA hasn't officially come out and ruled that it definitively isn't something to worry about.

Given the urgency of the whole situation, if the Director know the outcome , what is so special about Thursday and losing a vital days , its the lack of urgency and mixed messaging that I find appaling - given the state of the pandemic in Europe, with its rising cases.

COVID-19 Vaccines Ireland - Latest Data
(Monday / 15-03-21)

‣ First dose: 455,182 (+2,628)
‣ Second dose: 165,398 (+902)
‣ Total: 620,580 (+3,530)

‣ Pfizer: 471,756
‣ AZ: 129,177
‣ Moderna: 19,647

‣ % pop. with first dose: ~9.1%
‣ % pop. fully vaccinated: ~3.3%

rob316 wrote: »

Stay safe, Stay off the keyboard and get back under your bed.

Lols I was being sarcastic trust me.

Multipass wrote: »

Same here, given the urgency why not plan as if the go ahead will happen Thursday, and have everything in the right place to vaccinate on Friday. All we get is excuses, and hopes that it will resume next week. It’s almost as if lives aren’t really at stake...

Its the lack of urgency about things that I find shocking - same thing when they should have banned flights from North Italy 12 months ago , they could have if they wanted , but somehow EU bureacracy thrwated it. I'm assuming the EU are paying for everything , so we just have to shut up and accept the bureacracy.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I had to laugh at this one. It was an attempt at a stylistic end to the post Boggles — it wasn’t meant to be an all-encompassing definitive catch-all point.

And Lord above, even if it was definitive, I never mentioned personal litigation so it’s not “exactly” what I said even with a broad interpretation. It can refer to anything from some sort of campaign or case launched by injured parties and people in positions of authority can end up being cross examined in courts or inquiries. This can have damaging effects on their reputations or careers even if they aren’t personally being litigated against.

It is getting to a point with you where almost every post one writes has to come with various disclaimers as you take everything in the most insanely narrow literal form imaginable. That would be slightly less frustrating if you then didn’t somehow still contrive to completely misrepresent my post — but alas.

So you did say what you claimed you didn't but now you are claiming it was "stylistic"?

:pac:

Maybe have another stab at your original post and base it on reality.

We could engage then.

Also pick A or B, Yes or No as you did in your previous post is not something I tend to entertain when debating.

Boggles wrote: »

So you did say what you claimed you didn't but now you are claiming it was "stylistic"?

:pac:

Maybe have another stab at your original post and base it on reality.

We could engage then.

Also pick A or B, Yes or No as you did in your previous post is not something I tend to entertain when debating.

Well no, I’m just telling you that you misrepresented what I said. You went for a ludicrously narrow interpretation of one single sentence of my post and still managed to somehow erroneously say that my entire post meant that the only thing a person in a role of authority fears is “personal litigation”. I’m not sure you even understand what personal litigation even means to be honest — and I’m not sure you understand that being cross-examined or drawn into an investigation does not mean one is a respondent to personal litigation.

This is childish stuff Boggles. You’ve done this a couple of times with my posts — you conjure up holes in arguments that don’t exist, and then press them home as if you have utterly undermined it. I’m not arrogant enough to believe that there aren’t holes in my arguments — I’ve come across posters in these debates like Arghus and LuckyLloyd who make good points and expose holes in my views. I do often find it a better a mental exercise to debate with people who point out the existing holes in my argument (even if I might disagree occasionally) rather than just getting drawn into tit-for-tat exchanges with people who mis-paraphrase and misrepresent what I say in order to find wee make-believe holes.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Well no, I’m just telling you that you misrepresented what I said.

We are back to that?

But you did say it, but you have since explained you were being "stylistic" saying it.

So if there is "misrepresentation", it's hardly my fault is it?

Anyway, the big stick from all sides to beat the Minister of Health with recently is the slow vaccine roll out.

The narrative you are trying to paint is he didn't over rule the committee tasked with the vaccines because of some hypothetical reputational damage or potential litigation that implements him in the future that won't happen - (Mary Harney says Hi) and decided to take the damage now when he is under colossal pressure and further slow down the roll out.

Does that pass the smell test?

I'm going to suggest no.

Keyzer wrote: »

This is the problem, feelings don't count. Facts count.

If you suspected there was something wrong with your car, brought it to your mechanic and, without checking anything, he tells you there's nothing wrong and its all in your imagination. Would you accept this judgement?

If countries have concerns over a vaccine they have every right to suspend the use of it until their concerns are addressed.

the WHO and EMA aren't basing it off feeling though are they? you're taking my use of the word out of context either deliberately or accidentally. also your mechanic analogy isn't appropriate considering the mechanic in this story being the WHO and EMA whose advice has been ignored and there's no conclusive proof the vaccines had anything to do with the clots

Boggles wrote: »

We are back to that?

But you did say it, but you have since explained you were being "stylistic" saying it.

So if there is "misrepresentation", it's hardly my fault is it?

Anyway, the big stick from all sides to beat the Minister of Health with recently is the slow vaccine roll out.

The narrative you are trying to paint is he didn't over rule the committee tasked with the vaccines because of some hypothetical reputational damage or potential litigation that implements him in the future that won't happen - (Mary Harney says Hi) and decided to take the damage now when he is under colossal pressure and further slow down the roll out.

Does that pass the smell test?

I'm going to suggest no.

No, simply that the rollout of the Covid vaccine is one of the most important national exercises ever carried out in this country and has been affected by a decision which seems to have rolled across Europe by virtue of mere “what if” rather than by virtue of all the other national and private health bodies agreeing that there is no notable danger at all.

It has been pointed out by other people who I am sure you would be quick to call conspiracy theorists. Dr. Anna Durban, Professor of International Health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health stated “What we’re seeing is a domino effect...Nobody wants to be the country that didn’t stop [vaccinating] and then find out that the side effects are really related [to the vaccine]. In other words, it’s not a case that countries like Ireland have identified any particular danger, it’s that someone is doing something and a counterpart in another country is saying “f**k if they are right then we should do it too because what if they are right and we get slaughtered for it”.* Dr. Paul Offit, who sits on the vaccine advisory committee for the US FDA, also made fairly critical remarks about the decision to suspend. Maybe he’s a quack too — along with all the other highly qualified quacks who criticised it — including the WHO who urged for there to be no pause.

It’s ultra-cautiousness that is damaging not just to the vaccine rollout logistically, but also to the willingness of people to take it. But they suspended it anyway, even if it proves to be temporary across the board, because the massive benefit to society of getting the vaccine rolled out as efficiently as possible suddenly became secondary to the gnawing question of “what if they are onto something and it turns out we didn’t do anything about it?”. The European governments have been using the term “an abundance of caution” while scientists both in Europe and around the world scratch their heads. So is it caution based on a genuine sincere and entirely selfless concern, or caution based on a domino effect of “if they do it we should do it too just in case”? I can’t entirely prove the allegation, but one wonders what drove the caution when the bulk of scientific evidence suggests that it was not justified. The Guardian were even suggesting that it provided a convenient foil for EU governments in the context of the order debacle for AZ vaccines — a newspaper well known for conspiracy theories eh?!

*before you start, this is called an analogy. A way of describing a process in deliberately simplistic terms — please don’t take it literally!

endacl wrote: »

I left the other half in and out of work for a few days when her car was out of action last month.

According to all the Guards I met on checkpoints those trips did indeed qualify as essential journeys.

I wasn't 'out and about'. I was 'in and out'.

Seems the Garda didn't know the regulations either then. No surprise as most people haven't the foggiest around them anymore. Good to see the Garda using a bit of common sense though.

Anyway I was going to crack a joke about being "in and out" with the missus but this may not be the forum for it