Covid 19 Part XXIX-85,394 ROI(2,200 deaths) 62,723 NI (1,240 deaths) (26/12) Read OP

wadacrack

wadacrack wrote: »

You don't need 9 contacts. The chain of transmission may have lead to 9 people becoming infected

If its a chain, its multiple infection cycles over multiple weeks

stephenjmcd

caveat emptor wrote: »

With regards the vaccine rollout, Listening to Simon coveny on the radio there. He says we are part of the EU purchasing power deal etc. He mentioned that it's good and mentioned something of PPE.

Do we not remember what happened with that. France was pulling medicine off trucks. Germany banned the export of PPE. Freedom of travel suspended etc. Saying we are part of the bloc does not mean we won't be at the back of the queue. We need concrete assurances and someone should ask pertinent questions and not appease the platitudes being rolled out currently.

PPE was initially each country for itself which is where the issues came in.

Vaccine distribution and purchasing is being coordinated for member states by the EU commission.

Russman

caveat emptor wrote: »

With regards the vaccine rollout, Listening to Simon coveny on the radio there. He says we are part of the EU purchasing power deal etc. He mentioned that it's good and mentioned something of PPE.

Do we not remember what happened with that. France was pulling medicine off trucks. Germany banned the export of PPE. Freedom of travel suspended etc. Saying we are part of the bloc does not mean we won't be at the back of the queue. We need concrete assurances and someone should ask pertinent questions and not appease the platitudes being rolled out currently.

The cynic in me thinks he knows full well that the HSE will make an absolute balls of the roll out, as expected, and he's kicking for touch, whereas the optimist in me thinks he's up to speed on our planning and is happy we've as much done as we can at this point, and we're just waiting on the doses to arrive.
I don't know which voice to listen to !

Thats me

Goldengirl wrote: »

It is pretty unbelievable , to think that people would believe that a review of literature from the 1980s and the 1990s would have that much relevance today ? Seriously?
Obviously medicine and science never mind technology has advanced in light years since this article was written ..2000.
No denying errors do occur but even checking and tracking and recording of iatrogenic complications is so much better now ..not even a tablet can be omitted without alarm bells going off in hospital pharmacies!
I think those respiratory deaths while not of Covid directly must be attributable somehow, or maybe these patients stayed out of hospital for fear of Covid when they would normally have attended A&E ?

I didn't notice the year of publication
But anyway, HAI is still with us because of hygienics was not taken seriously for many years - with covid it become visible that usual hospitals (not specialised infectious diseases hospitals) are have no protection from infections and often have no clue how to handle it. I'd hope some of protection measures taken against covid will persist past period of pandemics because covid is not the only infection in the world.

caveat emptor

caveat emptor wrote: »

With regards the vaccine rollout, Listening to Simon coveny on the radio there. He says we are part of the EU purchasing power deal etc. He mentioned that it's good and mentioned something of PPE.

Do we not remember what happened with that. France was pulling medicine off trucks. Germany banned the export of PPE. Freedom of travel suspended etc. Saying we are part of the bloc does not mean we won't be at the back of the queue. We need concrete assurances and someone should ask pertinent questions and not appease the platitudes being rolled out currently.

stephenjmcd wrote: »

PPE was initially each country for itself which is where the issues came in.

Vaccine distribution and purchasing is being coordinated for member states by the EU commission.

Ok. That was essentially a suspension of free movement of goods. Totally against EU regulations and nobody batted an eyelid.

What does the bold part actually mean? i.e if there are an initial 10 million doses, where do they go. My bet is Germany and France. Haven't heard or seen anything to the contrary. Saying we are part of the EU leaves out the fact we are a tiny almost insignificant part of the bloc.

Russman

caveat emptor wrote: »

Ok. That was essentially a suspension of free movement of goods. Totally against EU regulations and nobody batted an eyelid.

What does the bold part actually mean? i.e if there are an initial 10 million doses, where do they go. My bet is Germany and France. Haven't heard or seen anything to the contrary. Saying we are part of the EU leaves out the fact we are a tiny almost insignificant part of the bloc.

There's an EU document or statement, I think it was posted in the vaccine thread a few weeks ago, basically saying that each country gets their allocation at the same time and no country will get anything ahead of another. Equality and fairness and all that.

stephenjmcd

caveat emptor wrote: »

Ok. That was essentially a suspension of free movement of goods. Totally against EU regulations and nobody batted an eyelid.

What does the bold part actually mean? i.e if there are an initial 10 million doses, where do they go. My bet is Germany and France. Haven't heard or seen anything to the contrary. Saying we are part of the EU leaves out the fact we are a tiny almost insignificant part of the bloc.

Each member state got the option to sign up to a central EU deal where the commission would purchase in bulk for the bloc and distribute fairly.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/eu-agrees-on-distribution-process-for-vaccines/2024059

There's other articles similar from reuters but this one pulls most of it together with additional quotes.

"Member states will receive the vaccines simultaneously, under the same conditions and according to their populations"

caveat emptor

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Each member state got the option to sign up to a central EU deal where the commission would purchase in bulk for the bloc and distribute fairly.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/eu-agrees-on-distribution-process-for-vaccines/2024059

There's other articles similar from reuters but this one pulls most of it together with additional quotes.

"Member states will receive the vaccines simultaneously, under the same conditions and according to their populations"

That's great news. Thanks for pointing to it. Really is feeling close now.

https://twitter.com/DrZoeHyde/status/1333325417852276737?s=20

fly_agaric

caveat emptor wrote: »

Ok. That was essentially a suspension of free movement of goods. Totally against EU regulations and nobody batted an eyelid.

What does the bold part actually mean? i.e if there are an initial 10 million doses, where do they go. My bet is Germany and France. Haven't heard or seen anything to the contrary. Saying we are part of the EU leaves out the fact we are a tiny almost insignificant part of the bloc.

People did bat an eyelid. That is why you are posting about it & it got etched in your mind.
Afair (without going looking there was a pow wow between the EU leaders/council about it & they agreed to share resources.
After all you can hang separately or hang together. It might be your country that needs something vital from EU country x during the pandemic after you shafted country x by denying them something they badly needed at an earlier date.

There seems to have been a bit more foresight on the vaccines and as far as I understand the available doses are to be supplied to the countries according to population. I don't think your cynicism about this is justified. Whatever about trying to prevent export of PPE because your own hospitals are running badly short would imagine there will be absolute murder if any EU country tries to breach this agreement. You mention Germany or France but I think it would be Poland or Hungary [or other former "Eastern European" EU accession states] that would be more likely to try & break (or bend) it for their own benefit. They are threatening to veto the EU budget at the moment.

caveat emptor

I'm not cynical I trust it but I prefer verification. Usually when two or more parties make an agreement there is a legal document or a statute to fall back on or some other form of recourse. As we saw we PPE there was none so it was a case of suck it up buttercup.

That led us to have to say masks are not effective (because we couldn't source them ) then we subsequently said you should wear them (after we could source them). This led to a massive amount of people being extremely resistant to the idea when in fact it was in their best interests to wear them.

ElJeffe

didyoufart? wrote: »

Cases in Kilkenny linked back to a primary school.

One specific case in my locality the parent got infected by the child and passed it onto 9 work colleagues.

Mass tested the school now as well. No wonder the numbers are so high when there covering up the school data like theirs no tomorrow.

There is no cover up or conspiracy. Go out and get some fresh air.

ElJeffe

I'll be front of any queue for a vaccine if I get a chance but its the sheer amount of nutters out there who will refuse to take it that is the big worry.

ixoy

ElJeffe wrote: »

I'll be front of any queue for a vaccine if I get a chance but its the sheer amount of nutters out there who will refuse to take it that is the big worry.

I wonder if their vaccine strategy will give us targets on this: "If x% of people are immunised, we can move to Level 1, if y% do it then it's life back to normal."

It could encourage people to take vaccination more so if there's a "carrot" there.

MerlinSouthDub

caveat emptor wrote: »

I'm not cynical I trust it but I prefer verification. Usually when two or more parties make an agreement there is a legal document or a statute to fall back on or some other form of recourse. As we saw we PPE there was none so it was a case of suck it up buttercup.

That led us to have to say masks are not effective (because we couldn't source them ) then we subsequently said you should wear them (after we could source them). This led to a massive amount of people being extremely resistant to the idea when in fact it was in their best interests to wear them.

We could always source cotton masks. And when they finally did recommend we wear masks, we were told to wear cotton masks rather than medical grade. I put the bad advice down to incompetence by NPHET rather than a desire to protect mask supplies.

didyoufart?

ElJeffe wrote: »

I'll be front of any queue for a vaccine if I get a chance but its the sheer amount of nutters out there who will refuse to take it that is the big worry.

I won't as in my 20's. Don't need it.

ixoy

ixoy wrote: »

I wonder if their vaccine strategy will give us targets on this: "If x% of people are immunised, we can move to Level 1, if y% do it then it's life back to normal."

It could encourage people to take vaccination more so if there's a "carrot" there.

I have no doubt that an immunisation certificate will be required to travel outside of the EU. That will be a big incentive for many

And for non EU citizens to travel into the EU

is_that_so

didyoufart? wrote: »

I won't as in my 20's. Don't need it.

Most people in the 20-45 group will be last anyway and not likely to be addressed till summer of beyond.

is_that_so

Deleted User wrote: »

I have no doubt that an immunisation certificate will be required to travel outside of the EU. That will be a big incentive for many

And for non EU citizens to travel into the EU

EU don't plan to do it and are against the notion. They'll continue with the traffic lights.

is_that_so

is_that_so wrote: »

EU don't plan to do it and are against the notion. They'll continue with the traffic lights.

Within the EU, yes. I’m talking about outside of the EU.

What Username Guidelines

is_that_so wrote: »

EU don't plan to do it and are against the notion. They'll continue with the traffic lights.

I wonder how it would work. If it was to be implemented, they’d need to figure out the format of it before the first person gets a shot. If they decide against it and go with traffic light system, that puts responsibility on the collective, as opposed to the individual incentive of a cert.

I’m not even sure I agree with the cert tbh, just wondering how it will pan out.

is_that_so

Deleted User wrote: »

Within the EU, yes. I’m talking about outside of the EU.

Even there, they don't like the idea of it. IMO, the enthusiasm in some quarters for it is really to get aviation up and running and really depends on how quickly vaccines do their work. It is seen as an "easy fix" and you can see why people might be planning it but there are huge issues to iron out first. I can see it encountering a lot of resistance and quietly dying a death.

Eod100

didyoufart? wrote: »

I won't as in my 20's. Don't need it.

Vaccine needs to reach 60-70% of population to be effective so not really about whether someone personally needs it or not. It's about people doing their bit to protect others and limit transmission as much as possible.

Russman

Eod100 wrote: »

Vaccine needs to reach 60-70% of population to be effective so not really about whether someone personally needs it or not. It's about people doing their bit to protect others and limit transmission as much as possible.

That bit is lost on a lot of people these days unfortunately.

OwenM

Eod100 wrote: »

Vaccine needs to reach 60-70% of population to be effective........

Where did you get that figure?

ElJeffe

didyoufart? wrote: »

I won't as in my 20's. Don't need it.

It's not just about you. We need social responsibility.

ElJeffe

Russman wrote: »

That bit is lost on a lot of people these days unfortunately.

I'm alright Jack generation

is_that_so

OwenM wrote: »

Where did you get that figure?

That's the herd immunity number they've been using.

Strumms

Russman wrote: »

That bit is lost on a lot of people these days unfortunately.

Completely, you only have to see the anti restrictions crowd, same shower or some certainly will be be anti vaccination..

is_that_so

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

I wonder how it would work. If it was to be implemented, they’d need to figure out the format of it before the first person gets a shot. If they decide against it and go with traffic light system, that puts responsibility on the collective, as opposed to the individual incentive of a cert.

I’m not even sure I agree with the cert tbh, just wondering how it will pan out.

The attraction of the cert is that it solves an obvious problem for airlines and is appealing to some countries as they are eager to get normal movement. What we should see by next year as well are better means of detection, even pretty accurate home kits. In conjunction with vaccines that should do away with the need to create a brand new "invasive" system like this.

JDD

didyoufart? wrote: »

I won't as in my 20's. Don't need it.

The government might make the vaccine mandatory. There may be a fine if you choose not to get the vaccine with no valid medical reason.

I don't want to freak anyone out. And I know that libertarians will be raging about this. But if there's a low uptake of the vaccine (like, less than 70%) it is certainly open to the government to make the vaccine mandatory. Our constitution protects bodily integrity, but only to the point where the interference is not validly justified, or is disproportionate. The courts have - pre-Covid - stated in the past that mandatory vaccination could be justified in circumstances where there is an outbreak of a contagious disease. So it's really unlikely that the courts would shoot down any mandatory vaccination law.

So if you don't want to take the vaccine, I'd keep that fairly quiet. I'd be telling all and sundry that you are absolutely going to take the vaccine and how selfish it would be not to take it. And then hope that enough people do take the vaccine so that no mandatory law comes in.