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

ArthurDayne wrote: »

No, simply that the rollout of the Covid vaccine is one of the most important national exercises ever carried out in this country

This we agree.

But you are playing checkers not chess.

No one knows yet what coverage of the population is needed to make this thing not a major problem going forward, whether that be country or worldwide.

That's why every single approved vaccine is as important as the next.

Now the potential problem is there may come a time in the not too decent future that the issue with getting a required level of vaccinations has nothing to do with supply of available and approved vaccines. That could be major issue.

AZ is an excellent vaccine, based on the real world data, I'd be beyond shocked if it were pulled.

But it does have a reputational problem, most of that has fúck all to do with what's in the actual vile, but it has a problem none the less.

So the last thing we need is for it to have safety concerns hanging over it, how do you remedy that?

Hide the signals? Pretend they don't exist? Until someone blows the whistle.

Or be open and transparent, allow PRAC to investigate and declare (hopefully) the problems have nothing to do with the actual vaccine, wonky needles or over worked vaccinators, etc.

The problem is people are trying to apply drama to a situation that is the definition of standard.

Luke O'Neill wasnt happy they suspended the AstraZen !!

JRant wrote: »

Grand so, pull up the essential journey exemption that says giving the missus a lift to work is okay.

Are you suggesting the restrictions ban people who have no access to public transport or their own vehicle from going to work?

Walk or quit?

Boggles wrote: »

This we agree.

But you are playing checkers not chess.

No one knows yet what coverage of the population is needed to make this thing not a major problem going forward, whether that be country or worldwide.

That's why every single approved vaccine is as important as the next.

Now the potential problem is there may come a time in the not too decent future that the issue with getting a required level of vaccinations has nothing to do with supply of available and approved vaccines. That could be major issue.

AZ is an excellent vaccine, based on the real world data, I'd be beyond shocked if it were pulled.

But it does have a reputational problem, most of that has fúck all to do with what's in the actual vile, but it has a problem none the less.

So the last thing we need is for it to have safety concerns hanging over it, how do you remedy that?

Hide the signals? Pretend they don't exist? Until someone blows the whistle.

Or be open and transparent, allow PRAC to investigate and declare (hopefully) the problems have nothing to do with the actual vaccine, wonky needles or over worked vaccinators, etc.

The problem is people are trying to apply drama to a situation that is the definition of standard.

This will cost lives though, that is the problem. No hiding from that.

Deleted User wrote: »

If you have 2 cars - one which you are 100% confident, while someone suggested the 2nd may have dodgy brakes, and the mechanic is looking at it right now. And two patients who must travel separately, one of whom is potentially going to die, the other one with a wrist sprain. I think you wait for the mechanic to finish looking the the Hyundi to bring the wrist sprain, and send the first off in the Merc

That makes no sense, change your analogy to both potentially could die. Both vaccines are treating the same disease.

big syke wrote: »

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/covid19/living_with_covid19_plan.html

Domestic travel

You should only leave your home if you have a 'reasonable excuse' for doing so.

From the very link you provided and not a mention of giving the missus a lift.

"The following list gives examples of reasonable excuses for leaving your home, as set out in Statutory Instrument 701 of 2020, as amended:

Exercise within 5 km of your home
Traveling to work if you cannot work from home
Giving care to a vulnerable person or attending to other vital family matters
Shopping at essential retailers
Farming and other agricultural activities
Going to school or bringing your child to school
Going to college where it is necessary to attend in person
Accessing childcare services
Travelling to visit your children as part of an access arrangement, or travelling to allow access to children
Attending a medical or dental appointment, or going to a medical or dental appointment with a vulnerable person or someone you live withGoing to another person’s house if you are in a support bubble with them
Seeking essential medical help for yourself, someone you live with or for a vulnerable personDonating bloodGoing to the vet
Going to a wedding or funeral
Going to court, obeying your bail instructions, attending court offices to initiate emergency legal proceedings
Moving accommodation where it is necessary
Travel to the airport or port to leave Ireland if you normally live in another country
Fleeing domestic abuse or escaping danger"

Boggles wrote: »

Are you suggesting the restrictions ban people who have no access to public transport or their own vehicle from going to work?

Walk or quit?

I suggested no such thing.

JRant wrote: »

From the very link you provided and not a mention of giving the missus a lift.

"The following list gives examples of reasonable excuses for leaving your home, as set out in Statutory Instrument 701 of 2020, as amended:

Exercise within 5 km of your home
Traveling to work if you cannot work from home
Giving care to a vulnerable person or attending to other vital family matters
Shopping at essential retailers
Farming and other agricultural activities
Going to school or bringing your child to school
Going to college where it is necessary to attend in person
Accessing childcare services
Travelling to visit your children as part of an access arrangement, or travelling to allow access to children
Attending a medical or dental appointment, or going to a medical or dental appointment with a vulnerable person or someone you live withGoing to another person’s house if you are in a support bubble with them
Seeking essential medical help for yourself, someone you live with or for a vulnerable personDonating bloodGoing to the vet
Going to a wedding or funeral
Going to court, obeying your bail instructions, attending court offices to initiate emergency legal proceedings
Moving accommodation where it is necessary
Travel to the airport or port to leave Ireland if you normally live in another country
Fleeing domestic abuse or escaping danger"

Oh would you cop on.

So if you have a broken leg and cannot drive to your medical appointment and get your partenr to drive is that breaking restrictions?

Examples are given not an exhaustive list.

Boggles wrote: »

This we agree.

But you are playing checkers not chess.

No one knows yet what coverage of the population is needed to make this thing not a major problem going forward, whether that be country or worldwide.

That's why every single approved vaccine is as important as the next.

Now the potential problem is there may come a time in the not too decent future that the issue with getting a required level of vaccinations has nothing to do with supply of available and approved vaccines. That could be major issue.

AZ is an excellent vaccine, based on the real world data, I'd be beyond shocked if it were pulled.

But it does have a reputational problem, most of that has fúck all to do with what's in the actual vile, but it has a problem none the less.

So the last thing we need is for it to have safety concerns hanging over it, how do you remedy that?

Hide the signals? Pretend they don't exist? Until someone blows the whistle.

Or be open and transparent, allow PRAC to investigate and declare (hopefully) the problems have nothing to do with the actual vaccine, wonky needles or over worked vaccinators, etc.

The problem is people are trying to apply drama to a situation that is the definition of standard.

But there need be no hiding of data to avoid suspension — simply if a scare is raised but the bulk of good reputable evidence suggests that the scare is vastly likely to not be a justifiable reason to suspend or for people to be scared to such an extent that they should reconsider taking it, then the scientific consensus and the strength of the evidence should be hammered home. Suspending validates the concerns and gives them greater weight than they are due, when you scare people it is hard to unscare them and that is precisely what decisions like this threaten to do.

This is the whole point — this is why it is not outrageous or a conspiracy theory to put forward the idea that authorities in certain EU countries saw potential risk and a potential source of future liability / blame and they went for over-caution rather than bearing in mind that the bulk of scientific (even their own evidence!) Did not suggest an issue. They simply saw what one authority had done and, like Dr Durbin very neatly put it, it was like a domino effect. A domino effect which ran counter to the weight of scientific evidence yet which still was allowed to cause delay and further “reputation” harm to the vaccine at a time when we absolutely need older and vulnerable people to be chomping at the bit to get this vaccine in their arm ASAP.

I would argue that the “domino effect” that Durbin talks about can actually be applied very widely to the Covid crisis in general and the manner in which authorities reacted. I appreciate that you might not agree, but this very low threshold and quick-fire approach you take towards deeming things “conspiracy theories” or verging thereon is wildly hyperbolising what are perfectly rational opinions — whether they are perfectly correct or otherwise.

Boggles wrote: »

Unfortunately Arthur, people don't always gauge their decisions on scientific evidence.

We will agree on this Boggles

NPHET and the government they advise via Twitter are notorious for not factoring scientific evidence into their decision’s

Construction, outdoor activities etc

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm just going to drop this here largely without comment, and hope that the people who accuse those against restrictions of being concerned with "pints" will digest, understand and reflect on it next time their fingers are itching for a pithy retort.

Fortunately we copped on pretty quickly and prioritized children in this country after the 1st wave.

We could have done more if we had an Educational Minister who was not inept and decided belligerence was the best way to tackle the unions.

Sadly some countries in Europe are closing schools again or will have to make that decision soon.