Private school teachers prioritised for vaccinations

First Up · 14-04-2021 8:12pm

astrofool wrote:

They cover the series of calls to the principal here:

You claimed the Beacon called the school early in the day. Nothing in that article supports that.

AndrewJRenko · 14-04-2021 8:48pm

First Up wrote: »

Nobody disputes it was not in line with guidance. What we would all like to know is how the system created a situation where that looked the best way to use the 20 vaccines

Best for who, though?

First Up · 14-04-2021 9:02pm

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Best for who, though?

A fair question but sometimes you have to make one the less than perfect choices available.

astrofool · 14-04-2021 9:28pm

First Up wrote: »

You claimed the Beacon called the school early in the day. Nothing in that article supports that.

One of the tabloids had the full timing, but I wouldn't quite count it as a "source", however we know that the junior principal was called first and that there was 5 shots "available", then later more, and later again even more, with 20 in total. It also seems (speculation but likely) that most of the teachers were already at home and they were called by the principals directly to go in. The amount of preparation certainly sounds like they had plenty of time to make decisions and organise it, going against the emergency must be used angle.

However, I would put the tabloids and social media sources from teacher above your makey up "injected into teachers 12+KM away or into the bin" narrative you keep on pushing, the known facts don't support it, and we'll see what the investigation brings.

First Up · 14-04-2021 9:36pm

astrofool wrote:

.....we'll see what the investigation brings.

So maybe you should hold off your allegations of corruption until it we do.

astrofool · 14-04-2021 9:39pm

First Up wrote: »

So maybe you should hold off your allegations of corruption until it we do.

Well that's what a discussion forum is for, but it is a lot more likely than bin or teachers 12KM away that you keep on peddling, the actual facts of the case disagree there and have been admitted as wrong by the Beacon.

First Up · 14-04-2021 10:02pm

astrofool wrote:

Well that's what a discussion forum is for, but it is a lot more likely than bin or teachers 12KM away that you keep on peddling, the actual facts of the case disagree there and have been admitted as wrong by the Beacon.

You don't seem interested in discussing anything. You have accused the Beacon of corruption. If you feel that strongly about it, accuse them of the same thing under your real name.

Annasopra · 14-04-2021 11:05pm

Staff who work in numerous disability services were asked to fill in the HSE Vaccine portal

https://healthservice.hse.ie/filelibrary/staff/guidelines-for-sequencing-and-registration-process-for-hcw-covid-vaccination.pdf

They were told to classify themselves into 2a - 2g. The HSE then called everyone together in these organisations for their vaccines and now there is news stories that they gamed the system but they didnt. The staff went along with what the HSE did. The HSE gamed the system not the workers.

2 (a) Healthcare workers who are working in a congregated care setting (unit/ward/service) in contact with a known or suspected COVID 19 patient/service user where there is potential for active transmission of COVID-19. These are patient/service user facing HCWs in units, wards or
services:
• with known or suspected COVID-19 patients/service user in an inpatient clinical setting.
• with current COVID-19 outbreaks.
• who work in COVID-19 assessment hubs or who work in or are called to attend to patients in an emergency department or similar setting;
• who work in COVID-19 swabbing centres with patient/service user contact.
• dealing with end of life care for the care of COVID patients/service users in an acute or home settings
• COVID-19 Vaccinators
Paramedics and others who respond to emergency calls to deliver healthcare to non-triaged individuals in non-healthcare settings.

2 (b) Healthcare workers who deal with unscheduled care patients/service user on a regular basis in an uncontrolled environment
• First Responders in the community.
• HCWs working in Emergency Child Protection services

2 (c) Healthcare workers who deal with unscheduled care patients/service users in a semicontrolled environment on a regular basis. These are HCWs who mainly see patients/service users by appointment but who may from time to time need to see urgent unscheduled patients/service users
• Urgent care facility clinical staff.
• GP practice staff - GPs/Practice Nurses
• Dentists and dental nurses providing urgent dental care.
• Some public health nurse providing urgent unscheduled care

2 (d) Healthcare workers who deal with unscheduled care patients in a controlled environment on a regular basis
• Patient facing staff who work in in-patient/residential care areas that provide care for unscheduled care /service users and community settings providing walk in access for patients/service users. For example walk-in community services, Addiction services, homeless service, walk-in mental health facilities.

2 (e) Healthcare workers who deal with scheduled care patients in an uncontrolled environment on a regular basis where there is no known COVID- diagnosis
• Delivery of care by appointment in a patient/service user’s home, for example home support, community delivered services, public health services and social care services, nonemergency patient/service user transport, residential and respite services,

2 (f) Healthcare workers who deal with scheduled care patients/service users in a controlled setting on a regular basis where there is no known COVID diagnosis
• Delivery of scheduled care by appointment in a clinic, outpatient clinic or hospital
• Provision of such therapies as physiotherapy, occupational therapy, podiatry
• Provision of face to face appointments, for example Occupational Health, Psychiatry, Counselling/Therapy services .

2(g) All other healthcare workers without direct patient care but working in a healthcare facility with the potential to meet patients/service users, who are not captured in 2a – 2f
• Examples are Laboratory staff, pharmacists, catering, household staff, general support staff, ICT, maintenance staff.
• Statutory/Regulatory workers e.g. HIQA inspectors, EHOs and others
• Critical management posts particularly on COVID response teams who provide on-going daily support to multiple locations.

TheTruth21 · 14-04-2021 11:13pm

First Up wrote: »

So maybe you should hold off your allegations of corruption until it we do.

We all know its corruption. Its whether the powers to be want to act or are they in on it all.

How can the Govt not tell us who got the extra vaccines.

Is it a case we know how many vaccines were given but don't know who got them?

astrofool · 14-04-2021 11:53pm

First Up wrote: »

You don't seem interested in discussing anything. You have accused the Beacon of corruption. If you feel that strongly about it, accuse them of the same thing under your real name.

Why are you getting personal? If you're that staunch a defender of the Beacon, why don't you do it under your real name?

What happened at the Beacon is a pretty clear cut case of corruption happening, the CEO, Michael Cullen is a corrupt CEO, if the investigation bears this out, then he should lose his position and all the privileges that he's been abusing along with it. I don't know how anyone could think that their children's teachers should be on the priority list for a vaccine when you work for a hospital, there is a lot of mental gymnastics going on to justify that position. The actions taken by the HSE in censuring the Beacon and the investigation going on will likely bear this out.

TheTruth21 · 15-04-2021 12:16am

First Up wrote: »

You don't seem interested in discussing anything. You have accused the Beacon of corruption. If you feel that strongly about it, accuse them of the same thing under your real name.

They were worse than corrupt. They stole medication during a pandemic and handed it out to there mates.

All other places who done the same are all scumbags and inquirys need to set up by Govt to know what happened but they wont be because the Govts mates stole them

First Up · 15-04-2021 7:13am

astrofool wrote:

Why are you getting personal? If you're that staunch a defender of the Beacon, why don't you do it under your real name?

i am putting what happened in context. I'm not not hiding behind a pseudonym while accusing named people of corruption.

The Beacon/St Gerard's incident was a questionable decision made under time pressure caused by a series of mistakes and system failures. It is being investigated and I'll suspend judgement until that is done.

But this is Boards so do carry on.

Lumen · 15-04-2021 7:20am

First Up wrote: »

i am putting what happened in context. I'm not not hiding behind a pseudonym while accusing named people of corruption.

The Beacon/St Gerard's incident was a questionable decision made under time pressure caused by a series of mistakes and system failures. It is being investigated and I'll suspend judgement until that is done.

But this is Boards so do carry on.

But you haven't suspended judgement. You have stated that "The Beacon/St Gerard's incident was a questionable decision made under time pressure caused by a series of mistakes and system failures". That's a judgement.

First Up · 15-04-2021 8:06am

Lumen wrote:

But you haven't suspended judgement. You have stated that "The Beacon/St Gerard's incident was a questionable decision made under time pressure caused by a series of mistakes and system failures". That's a judgement.

No. it's a summary of what we know, and what else we need to find out.

Lumen · 15-04-2021 8:10am

First Up wrote: »

No. it's a summary of what we know, and what else we need to find out.

No, it's a summary of what you've chosen to believe. The wording is classic whitewash "mistakes were made, there were systematic process issues, it's complicated, move on" stuff.

Here's a question for you: in your view, what facts discovered during an inquiry would require the CEO of The Beacon to resign?

First Up · 15-04-2021 8:30am

Lumen wrote:

No, it's a summary of what you've chosen to believe. The wording is classic whitewash "mistakes were made, there were systematic process issues, it's complicated, move on" stuff.

Too complicated for you anyway.

The HSE has admitted they got numbers wrong. I expect the investigation will look into the systemic issues that caused that and the Beacon's version will be checked. Nobody has said to move on.

Lumen wrote:

Here's a question for you: in your view, what facts discovered during an inquiry would require the CEO of The Beacon to resign?

A bit early to say but if it is shown that the Beacon by-passed 20 nominated vaccine recipients in order to give them to St Gerard's that would be enough.

First Up · 15-04-2021 8:34am

First Up wrote:

A bit early to say but if it is shown that the Beacon by-passed 20 nominated vaccine recipients in order to give them to St Gerard's that would be enough.

Or if they had access to a list of available and more deserving recipients but chose not to use it.

astrofool · 15-04-2021 9:43am

First Up wrote: »

i am putting what happened in context. I'm not not hiding behind a pseudonym while accusing named people of corruption.

The Beacon/St Gerard's incident was a questionable decision made under time pressure caused by a series of mistakes and system failures. It is being investigated and I'll suspend judgement until that is done.

But this is Boards so do carry on.

You're literally hiding behind a pseudonym yourself, but anyway.

But at least you're at the point now where you admit that it shouldn't have happened and that the bin or teachers at least 12KM away isn't a believable story.

This is corruption by CEO Michael Cullen, the question is whether it's stupid corruption ("Stupid Beacongate") where the CEO of a hospital didn't realise that prioritising teachers of his children shouldn't be prioritised ahead of actual cancer patients in his hospital and that the CEO was stupidly getting involved in the day to day running of the vaccination program, in which case Michael Cullen probably isn't capable of being a hospital CEO, or wilful corruption, which would be indicated by a series of calls being made, for the CEO to get involved to prioritise against his own list and ignoring the list provided by the HSE, including cancer patients at his own hospital, in which case Michael Cullen also shouldn't be CEO anymore.

The big question is how many he tries to bring down with him, will he blame the supervisor(s) he put in place that was running the vaccinations and try and let them take the fall for him.

The school are also complicit, but have tried to put the blame back on the Beacon, their reputation is in tatters (if that's a catholic ethos, no wonder the church lurches from scandal to scandal), it will be interesting to see if we can find out the scale of the complicity or if the teachers will try and put up walls and protect themselves, the fact that a few teachers have given their story to the tabloids indicates this has leaked anyway, so a story will be spun that doesn't make sense.

First Up wrote: »

A bit early to say but if it is shown that the Beacon by-passed 20 nominated vaccine recipients in order to give them to St Gerard's that would be enough.

We actually factually know this, as a few of the patients in the hospital have come out to say they were there on the day, are close to the hospital and are on the priority list.

First Up · 15-04-2021 10:29am

astrofool wrote:

You're literally hiding behind a pseudonym yourself, but anyway.

But I'm not libelling anyone

astrofool wrote:

But at least you're at the point now where you admit that it shouldn't have happened and that the bin or teachers at least 12KM away isn't a believable story.

I said the justification needs to be investigated.

astrofool wrote:

We actually factually know this, as a few of the patients in the hospital have come out to say they were there on the day, are close to the hospital and are on the priority list.

And I presume they will be giving details to McCague.

astrofool · 15-04-2021 11:25am

First Up wrote: »

But I'm not libelling anyone

There's a legal forum on this site where you can express your concerns about covering for a corrupt CEO and if a case goes to court then commentary on the cases will be restricted.

There's numerous articles in multiple broadsheets covering the corruption that went on (and numerous commentary on multiple sites).

First Up · 15-04-2021 11:33am

astrofool wrote:

There's a legal forum on this site where you can express your concerns about covering for a corrupt CEO and if a case goes to court then commentary on the cases will be restricted.

I don't have any concerns but I think you should be careful.

JDD · 15-04-2021 11:59am

I think everyone understands that no-one should be fired until the outcome of the investigation.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for posters to state their opinion that the CEO of a private corporation should resign in circumstances where his position has become untenable and decisions that he personally made - whether intending to bypass the system, or mistakenly bypassed the system - has brought the reputation of that private entity into disrepute. Certainly if I was a shareholder and on the board of the Beacon, a for-profit entity which relies on customers choosing to use its services, I would have serious concerns about allowing my CEO to continue in his position where I believed the Beacon brand had been materially damaged.

I also don't think we should just "wait for the outcome of the inquiry, and only comment then" because - given the history of inquiries in Ireland - the outcome could be months away. It is likely that media interest will have moved on by then, and perhaps the report will not receive the scrutiny that it should. It is important for people in Ireland to keep the pressure on where instances of potential corruption have been identified. Corruption is a blight on our country and has been holding us back economically and socially for decades.

No-one wants to defame the CEO's reputation unjustly, and there is of course the chance that any report will exonerate him. However, I don't think that it is defamatory to state that, given the facts that are in the public domain, you cannot see how such an inquiry would come to that conclusion. And, should the inquiry come to the conclusion that his acts were likely to have been intentional, what the outcome for him should be.

astrofool · 15-04-2021 12:07pm

First Up wrote: »

I don't have any concerns but I think you should be careful.

I don't think people should be fearful of making commentary on a public interest story, if you don't have any concerns you wouldn't be following up asking someone to be careful, if you want to shut down discussion on this story, then say that and make your case, but thinly veiling threats isn't going to last too long.

Cyrus · 15-04-2021 12:10pm

JDD wrote: »

I think it's perfectly reasonable for posters to state their opinion that the CEO of a private corporation should resign

its nothing to do with them, i disagree, he isnt a public servant.

First Up · 15-04-2021 12:12pm

JDD wrote:

I think everyone understands that no-one should be fired until the outcome of the investigation.

The Beacon is a private business. If its board thinks the CEO should be fired it is free to do so. They may decide to do so more for commercial than ethical reasons but that is their entitlement .

JDD wrote:

No-one wants to defame the CEO's reputation unjustly, and there is of course the chance that any report will exonerate him. However, I don't think that it is defamatory to state that, given the facts that are in the public domain, you cannot see how such an inquiry would come to that conclusion. And, should the inquiry come to the conclusion that his acts were likely to have been intentional, what the outcome for him should be.

Some posters here are delighted to defame the CEO, the Beacon, St Gerard's or anyone else they can include in their grump against society in general. They think that an anonymous Internet forum means they can let of steam without having to prove anything. That's fine but I wouldn't confuse it with due process and they should pay attention to how technology and the legal system are adapting to social media.

Lumen · 15-04-2021 12:12pm

Cyrus wrote: »

its nothing to do with them, i disagree, he isn't a public servant.

Since when are only shareholders permitted to comment on the ethics of how businesses are run?

Cyrus · 15-04-2021 12:14pm

Lumen wrote: »

Since when are only shareholders permitted to comment on the ethics of how businesses are run?

you can comment on anyone any time if you feel like it, doesnt mean its any of your business.

Lumen · 15-04-2021 12:19pm

Cyrus wrote: »

you can comment on anyone any time if you feel like it, doesnt mean its any of your business.

So I can comment but I shouldn't?

First Up · 15-04-2021 12:19pm

astrofool wrote:

I don't think people should be fearful of making commentary on a public interest story, if you don't have any concerns you wouldn't be following up asking someone to be careful, if you want to shut down discussion on this story, then say that and make your case, but thinly veiling threats isn't going to last too long.

Commentary is fine. Flat out allegations of corruption might result in more than a bit of egg on the accuser's face if found to be untrue - or unproven.

Cyrus · 15-04-2021 12:20pm

Lumen wrote: »

So I can comment but I shouldn't?

thats up to you to decide, as i said anyone can say anything about anyone, doesnt mean they should or that its any of their business.

The only people who will decide on that mans future is the shareholders and thats the way it should be, everything else is noise.

astrofool · 15-04-2021 12:54pm

First Up wrote: »

Commentary is fine. Flat out allegations of corruption might result in more than a bit of egg on the accuser's face if found to be untrue - or unproven.

It's interesting to see that your latest defence has moved to legal threats against people saying mean things about Michael Cullen, CEO of the Beacon Hospital Group. Not a route I would have gone down as it completely invalidates all your previous arguments, but so be it.

First Up · 15-04-2021 1:20pm

astrofool wrote:

It's interesting to see that your latest defence has moved to legal threats against people saying mean things about Michael Cullen, CEO of the Beacon Hospital Group. Not a route I would have gone down as it completely invalidates all your previous arguments, but so be it.

Not for the first time, your thought process eludes me.

You have accused the Beacon CEO of corruption but offered only a misreading of a newspaper article as evidence.

You have misinterpreted my warning you against committing libel as a threat.

And to cap it all, you claim my mentioning the latter contradicts the former.

Good, even by Boards standards.

JDD · 15-04-2021 1:37pm

Cyrus wrote: »

you can comment on anyone any time if you feel like it, doesnt mean its any of your business.

Not quite. I would perhaps agree with you if the behaviour in this case was solely to do with provision of private services, but in this case the Beacon has a contract with the State to provide public services - services paid for by the Irish taxpayer. So in normal circumstances where only the shareholders are affected by mismanagement of a firm's business, in this case it has an affect on a wider set of stakeholders.

And even if it didn't, I don't think it is solely the remit of the Beacon's board or shareholders to hold an opinion. If your position held true, no newspaper or ordinary citizen could comment on how the banks handled tracker mortgage customers, or how Davy's bought their own client's shares anonymously. I'm not a tracker mortgage customer, or a bank shareholder, or a client/shareholder of Davys, but I think it is most certainly my business to comment on how I believe they have run their business.

Exactly the same with the Beacon, if not more so because the behaviour here has the potential to undermine trust in the entire manner of the vaccine rollout, which has consequences for everyone.

astrofool · 15-04-2021 2:11pm

First Up wrote: »

Not for the first time, your thought process eludes me.

You have accused the Beacon CEO of corruption but offered only a misreading of a newspaper article as evidence.

You have misinterpreted my warning you against committing libel as a threat.

And to cap it all, you claim my mentioning the latter contradicts the former.

Good, even by Boards standards.

These are the facts accepted by everyone:

Beacon ended up with extra vaccines
Beacon didn't use the priority list (bypassing multiple patients of the hospital)
CEO got involved for whatever reason
CEO chose to ring the school where his children go to offer them vaccines 3 times, increasing the offer of vaccines each time, this school neither being on the priority list or near the hospital

Those are indisputable.

And there is very little reading of them that doesn't imply corruption, the question then is was it wilful corruption or accidental corruption.

Neither paints the CEO in a good light.

You're the poster who started insinuating legal threats and asking for people's names, for whatever reason.

You've also told people to hold off on opinions before the inquiry is finished despite offering your own ludicrous scenario of bin vs. Gerard's teachers as an explanation.

First Up · 15-04-2021 2:25pm

astrofool wrote:

Neither paints the CEO in a good light.

None of it paints anyone in a good light. Plenty of blame to be distributed

astrofool wrote:

You're the poster who started insinuating legal threats and asking for people's names, for whatever reason.

I did neither.

astrofool wrote:

You've also told people to hold off on opinions before the inquiry is finished despite offering your own ludicrous scenario of bin vs. Gerard's teachers as an explanation.

I didn't offer that as an "explanation" either. I'm happy to discuss this but could you ever take the trouble to read things more carefully before you reply to them?

Cyrus · 15-04-2021 2:31pm

JDD wrote: »

I'm not a tracker mortgage customer, or a bank shareholder, or a client/shareholder of Davys, but I think it is most certainly my business to comment on how I believe they have run their business.

why?

and i didnt say no one could comment, i just said it doesnt mean its any of your business.

steddyeddy · 15-04-2021 2:38pm

First Up wrote: »

None of it paints anyone in a good light. Plenty of blame to be distributed

I did neither.

I didn't offer that as an "explanation" either. I'm happy to discuss this but could you ever take the trouble to read things more carefully before you reply to them?

That's not true. You stated that this course of action looked like the best one at the time and that the vaccines would have been wasted anyway.

astrofool · 15-04-2021 2:50pm

First Up wrote: »

None of it paints anyone in a good light. Plenty of blame to be distributed

I did neither.

I didn't offer that as an "explanation" either. I'm happy to discuss this but could you ever take the trouble to read things more carefully before you reply to them?

It's going to be difficult for Michael Cullen to pass the buck on this one seeing as he was the one picking up the phone and ringing his kids school.

Great, you're not worried about legal action now, we can move on and keep on discussing the corruption of the Beacon Hospital and St. Gerard's school.

JDD · 15-04-2021 3:51pm

Cyrus wrote: »

why?

and i didnt say no one could comment, i just said it doesnt mean its any of your business.

Because corruption is a crime. Whether it is in the context of conducting private business or public business.

I'm not sure if it needs any more explanation than that?

Cyrus · 15-04-2021 3:53pm

JDD wrote: »

Because corruption is a crime. Whether it is in the context of conducting private business or public business.

I'm not sure if it needs any more explanation than that?

but alleged corruption is not, correct?

JDD · 15-04-2021 3:58pm

First Up wrote: »

None of it paints anyone in a good light. Plenty of blame to be distributed

You keep pushing this back to the HSE's mess up with the double booking.

As if to say "well, Mr Cullen wouldn't have had extra vaccines to distribute if the HSE hadn't messed up the bookings, and therefore we should not blame Mr Cullen for being tempted to give the vaccines to his children's teachers, and rather place the blame on the HSE for trusting the Beacon to follow protocol".

I mean, if a drunk Securicor driver crashes his van, is it okay for me to steal the money out of the back of the van? I wouldn't be able to if the driver hadn't been drunk, but the two crimes are separate. One does not excuse the other.

Unless of course you are suggesting that the HSE made the double bookings on purpose, so as to give the Beacon the additional vaccines and a wink and nudge that they could give them to whomever they wished? That's a big stretch.

First Up · 15-04-2021 4:54pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's not true. You stated that this course of action looked like the best one at the time and that the vaccines would have been wasted anyway.

After the HSE left them with five and then a further fifteen vaccines unused and time running out, I can understand why the Beacon saw giving them to schoolteachers as the best course of action available. Without having the full picture, neither of us are in a position to say what they could or should have done better.

As I said before, the Beacon was left in a situation where none of the remaining options was ideal. They made a decision and they can justify it or not to the investigation.

Treppen · 15-04-2021 4:57pm

First Up wrote: »

After the HSE left them with five and then a further fifteen vaccines unused and time running out, I can understand why the Beacon saw giving them to schoolteachers as the best course of action available. Without having the full picture, neither of us are in a position to say what they could or should have done better.

As I said before, the Beacon was left in a situation where none of the remaining options was ideal. They made a decision and they can justify it or not to the investigation.

Was there a protocol in place for spare vaccines?

First Up · 15-04-2021 5:06pm

JDD wrote: »

You keep pushing this back to the HSE's mess up with the double booking.

As if to say "well, Mr Cullen wouldn't have had extra vaccines to distribute if the HSE hadn't messed up the bookings, and therefore we should not blame Mr Cullen for being tempted to give the vaccines to his children's teachers, and rather place the blame on the HSE for trusting the Beacon to follow protocol".

I mean, if a drunk Securicor driver crashes his van, is it okay for me to steal the money out of the back of the van? I wouldn't be able to if the driver hadn't been drunk, but the two crimes are separate. One does not excuse the other.

Unless of course you are suggesting that the HSE made the double bookings on purpose, so as to give the Beacon the additional vaccines and a wink and nudge that they could give them to whomever they wished? That's a big stretch.

I did't say any such thing. Put your imagination away and stick to the facts.

Through no fault of theirs, the Beacon was left holding 20 perishable vaccines and they found a way to use them in the short time available. An investigation is underway into why they made the decision they did. I hope that investigation also looks at why it was left to them to make such a decision, how well equipped they were to make it, and what help they got from the HSE, whose oversight caused the problem in the first place.

caveat emptor · 15-04-2021 5:07pm

I wonder how the non investigation is going........
Lots of developments I'm sure. (sarcasm)

Brendan Bendar · 15-04-2021 5:09pm

caveat emptor wrote: »

I wonder how the non investigation is going........
Lots of developments I'm sure. (sarcasm)

Smart move by the ‘participants’...... go to ground and say nowt.

First Up · 15-04-2021 5:14pm

Treppen wrote: »

Was there a protocol in place for spare vaccines?

I believe there is and seeing as they designed it, I'd have hoped the HSE would be able to use it properly. (Instead of leaving 20 vaccines sitting there about to expire.)

astrofool · 15-04-2021 5:17pm

First Up wrote: »

I did't say any such thing. Put your imagination away and stick to the facts.

Through no fault of theirs, the Beacon was left holding 20 perishable vaccines and they found a way to use them in the short time available. An investigation is underway into why they made the decision they did. I hope that investigation also looks at why it was left to them to make such a decision, how well equipped they were to make it, and what help they got from the HSE, whose oversight caused the problem in the first place.

The pertinent fact is that in no world is the fastest way to find 20 people for a vaccine going to be to ring up a school after hours that's 12KM away, there is no logic in the world that would lead to that course of action as correct. Just the fact alone that Michael Cullen was getting himself involved in this should be setting off alarm bells all over the place.

Can I ring up a school 12KM away and get 20 people in an hour, sure, but if I wanted them quickly, I would ring a closer school (if I was being a big idiot and wanted to give them to a school, which I shouldn't be doing anyway unless I was incompetent), or follow the priority list and go to the patients who live nearby or are already in the hospital who would be there even faster.

They already admitted they didn't follow the priority list and have already lost the public contract, so they have already admitted to doing the wrong thing and been sanctioned for it, you're trying to defend an action that the hospital itself has already admitted was wrong. Don't worry, I'll pass this information on for the investigation as you seem so worried about.

First Up · 15-04-2021 5:37pm

astrofool wrote: »

The pertinent fact is that in no world is the fastest way to find 20 people for a vaccine going to be to ring up a school after hours that's 12KM away, there is no logic in the world that would lead to that course of action as correct. Just the fact alone that Michael Cullen was getting himself involved in this should be setting off alarm bells all over the place.

Can I ring up a school 12KM away and get 20 people in an hour, sure, but if I wanted them quickly, I would ring a closer school (if I was being a big idiot and wanted to give them to a school, which I shouldn't be doing anyway unless I was incompetent), or follow the priority list and go to the patients who live nearby or are already in the hospital who would be there even faster.

They already admitted they didn't follow the priority list and have already lost the public contract, so they have already admitted to doing the wrong thing and been sanctioned for it, you're trying to defend an action that the hospital itself has already admitted was wrong. Don't worry, I'll pass this information on for the investigation as you seem so worried about.

You would cover half the distance from St Gerard's to the Beacon on the M50 in the time it would take to find another school (and someone to talk to.)

The Beacon's actions will be fully explored, including any mitigating circumstances. I hope the HSE's are too. When both are done, we will know what happened - and why.

Brendan Bendar · 15-04-2021 5:41pm

First Up wrote: »

You would cover half the distance from St Gerard's to the Beacon on the M50 in the time it would take to find another school (and someone to talk to.)

The Beacon's actions will be fully explored, including any mitigating circumstances. I hope the HSE's are too. When both are done, we will know what happened - and why.

One would have to surmise a lot of time taken to ‘explore’ what should be, in my opinion a fairly run of the mill ‘inquiry’. ??

Private school teachers prioritised for vaccinations

Comments