iamwhoiam wrote: » Or GPs stepping up and taking care of their at risk patients . . And what was the HSEs excuse before the ransomware attack ? There was a serious flaw long before that happened It must be accepted or we will never learn from it
is_that_so wrote: » I agree on that first one. TBF it looks like a multitude of factors, the first one being the HSE assuming that Group 7 would be taken care of by GPs. While some aspects of the rollout may seem slow, it's no easy task to add up to 150K into the vaccine management programme. Even so the levels we are up to now would likely care of that group very fast, once they are in the system.
Marine Layer wrote: » Smaller gps outside Dublin just got fed up of the stop start supplies and having to cancel and rebook vaccine patients for which they are paid up to €15 a head less A situation that impacted their normal gp services and income because of having to devote 2 days to it and on days that they've had to cancel,getting very few of their non cohort patients in
Daniel2021 wrote: » Age: 32 Location: Cork Registered: Didn't register with HSE but GP had excess doses and allowed any patients 30+ to register. Registered on their site last night. Appointment: Today Vaccine: Pfizer
Marine Layer wrote: » Meanwhile in Cork This was posted in the vaccine appointment thread this evening
fun loving criminal wrote: » How does a GP have a surplus? If they have their vulnerable patients vaccinated, the most logical thing to do is ring another medical practice and see if they have any patients that need a vaccine. Christ, they're really giving the two fingers to those in cohort 7.
Wolf359f wrote: » GP could have a surplus simply down to the fact there's 6 doses in a vial and they could have 57 patients, meaning 3 spare doses. It seems the easiest thing to do is just pick random patients etc... than choose their highest risk (assuming they are finishing up 70+ and not doing cohort 4/7) I don't criticize GP's for opting out of Cohort 4/7 due to constantly being let down by deliveries and their staff being inundated with calls and being harassed etc... But there should have been a system in place for all Cohort 4/7 to be identified well in advance and any GP opting out could just send their list off to a MVC to arrange appointments etc...
is_that_so wrote: » GPs too have also received more than expected. Not sure how you imagine two groups with very disparate health issues, who had never been quantified before would be identified in a manner to be added to a national system. GPs may not be fully to blame but there was a plan that they would be doing Groups 4 & 7 and then many of them weren't so some of this group then fell through the cracks. You might also fault the HSE but in fairness to them you can't just produce a new process or pathway overnight, when it turns out the system you thought was in place is falling apart.
odyssey06 wrote: » The system was never in place though... it should have been up well before the hack. The gap between them knowing gps werent doing the cohorts and the hack was too long. When the system went down a fallback process with letters should have been adopted.
is_that_so wrote: » And I made the point that it is neither quick nor easy to do that, not from a systems perspective. The HSE say they had started on that pathway. The vaccination programme had enough to deal with from unreliable suppliers to managing groups that were in the system.
is_that_so wrote: » And I made the point that it is neither quick nor easy to do that, not from a systems perspective. The HSE say they had started on that pathway. The vaccination programme had enough to deal with from unreliable suppliers to managing groups that were in the system. It is designed, as we've seen, to go through age groups in descending order and is doing so pretty well.
iamwhoiam wrote: » They should have started last year not waited until the rollout was started . I would think that was glaringly obvious . As for having enough to do then delegate delegate delegate
odyssey06 wrote: » I reject that really. Of course they could have been accomodated if they were made a priority and they were not. Cohort 4 and 7 are higher risk than healthy 50 somethings. The system is not designed well if it fails to deal with one of its priorities and cant respond to events. Yet we have seen mvcs reallocated because of regional mismatches. These cohorts have been handled dreadfully by the hse and the gps that abandoned them.
is_that_so wrote: » Last year we didn't even know when it was all going to start and they had a huge Number 1 priority, vaccination of care homes and frontline staff. As Groups 4 & 7 were to be done by GPs and hospitals in a sort of separate system it was up to them to identify the groups, the main plan didn't need to concern itself with them.
iamwhoiam wrote: » They could have sorted the lists of high risk group and organised the GPs and hospital consultants to start organising the lists long before vaccines arrived . They lesser detail of how and where would then have run smoother if the ground work was done.I thought that would be obvious that doing the groundwork first will always aid the process when the time comes . The lists were not even ready when the plan was put in place and cohorts chosen by NIAC . They decided that they would have two cohorts and out them in groups 4 and 7 ahead of all other groups with almost nothing in place to insure it ran smoothly . We now end up with young cancer patients etc waiting while GP's are vaccinating 30 year olds with extra doses
is_that_so wrote: » NHPET worked on the vaccination group lists, NIAC didn't exist at the time and they did offer a health rationale for each group. I don't disagree with some of your ideas here but when you've got such a very wide range of conditions, a simple hospital or GP approach would have been favoured. This is what they chose so if there are failings it's there.
fun loving criminal wrote: » Stephen Donnelly received his vaccine and was privileged to receive it. He makes me sick as minister for health while those in group 7 continue to wait.
iamwhoiam wrote: » Personally I think all Ministers should have had it long ago .
PCeeeee wrote: » With respect, that makes no sense if they are young and healthy.
iamwhoiam wrote: » It does to me . We need to have a functioning Government in a pandemic . I object to HSE staff who work at home getting it months ago , I personally know of 2-3 young men who work from home in Hse who got it in February . The rational for that was so the HSE could continue to function But yes I think higher Government and NPHET should have been vaccinated early I have a huge issue with how cohort 4 and 7 were let down but have no problem with Ministers being safe to be honest
is_that_so wrote: » GPs too have also received more than expected. Not sure how you imagine two groups with very disparate health issues, who had never been quantified before would be identified in a manner to be added to a national system.
is_that_so wrote: » GPs may not be fully to blame but there was a plan that they would be doing Groups 4 & 7 and then many of them weren't so some of this group then fell through the cracks. You might also fault the HSE but in fairness to them you can't just produce a new process or pathway overnight, when it turns out the system you thought was in place is falling apart.
brendanwalsh wrote: » Donnelly the absolute parasite getting a jab while thousands of those more vulnerable are still waiting to get one. No problem with him getting it, but he has skipped the queue because those more vulnerable are still waiting