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

muddypuppy

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.

I'm a lot more optimistic on that. I think that just by vaccinating nursing home resident and staff we'll see a huge drop in mortality. After that it would be hospital staff and all/at risk patients in them.
Yes, you need a good percentage of the population if you want to achieve herd immunity, but that's probably several months (at least) down the road. In the meanwhile, I'm pretty confident that life could get a lot more normal with some lighter restriction plus good, targeted vaccination.

(and yes, I'm in my 20s and I do plan to get vaccinated whenever I can)

didyoufart?

didyoufart? wrote: »

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

To return to normal as many people as possible need it, even if it wont make a difference to the individual. We are all part of a society and everyone needs to think of the needs of society rather than on a purely selfish basis

is_that_so

JDD wrote: »

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.

No vaccine is mandatory. If they were we wouldn't have measles outbreaks so why do you imagine they'd do it here?

OwenM

muddypuppy wrote: »

I'm a lot more optimistic on that. I think that just by vaccinating nursing home resident and staff we'll see a huge drop in mortality. After that it would be hospital staff and all/at risk patients in them.
Yes, you need a good percentage of the population if you want to achieve herd immunity, but that's probably several months (at least) down the road. In the meanwhile, I'm pretty confident that life could get a lot more normal with some lighter restriction plus good, targeted vaccination.

(and yes, I'm in my 20s and I do plan to get vaccinated whenever I can)

I'm thinking the same, once you vaccinate the most vulnerable sectors + HCW and get to 20-30% coverage then there is plenty of scope to open up.

BringBackMick

Ireland's 14 day rate sitting at 88.5, second lowest in the countries measured in Europe/EEA/UK

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/cases-2019-ncov-eueea

JDD

is_that_so wrote: »

No vaccine is mandatory. If they were we wouldn't have measles outbreaks so why do you imagine they'd do it here?

You are correct. We have no mandatory vaccination laws here, but there are laws in place in other EU countries. There are two reasons why we have not brought in mandatory laws for the childhood vaccinations here:
- While the number of parents vaccinating their children is dropping, and there have been a few outbreaks of measles over the past five years, there is still approximate herd immunity in the country. The vaccination levels have not dropped to a point that would justify a mandatory vaccination law; and
- There is an additional protection for the decisions of parents regarding their children under Articles 41 and 42 of the Constitution. Any interference with that right would have be exceptional. That's a much higher bar for any law to cross.

In the case of a mandatory vaccination law for Covid, it would only be implemented where the uptake did not lead to herd immunity. And if we leave out under-18's (which is probably right anyway as afaik children weren't included in the covid vaccine studies) there is no additional protection under the Constitution. And the courts seem to be amenable to such a law, in the right circumstances.

Wolf359f

BringBackMick wrote: »

Ireland's 14 day rate sitting at 88.5, second lowest in the countries measured in Europe/EEA/UK

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/cases-2019-ncov-eueea

Let's hope the level 3 we open on will be similar in effect to the previous one. I know it's a little different, but if it keeps cases low, we may have a chance.
Plenty of people believe the previous level 3 was enough to lower cases, let's hope this one at best keeps cases level or very low growth. Wishful thinking, I know.

podgeandrodge

[Deleted User] wrote: »

To return to normal as many people as possible need it, even if it wont make a difference to the individual. We are all part of a society and everyone needs to think of the needs of society rather than on a purely selfish basis

Assuming the vaccine goes to elderly and expressly vulnerable, death rates should plummet close to zero no? Vast majority of deaths over 80.

So in a scenario where deaths are negligible in terms of normal mortality rates, I can't see it being mandatory for those others who are unlikely to have severe symptoms.

I'm not anti vax, bit would be very anti mandatory vax.

Can see airlines making it mandatory though in which case it might be something that isn't legally mandatory but mandatory in practical terms.

MOR316

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.

You have no power or control over what anyone else does so I wouldn't be worrying about it

is_that_so

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Assuming the vaccine goes to elderly and expressly vulnerable, death rates should plummet close to zero no? Vast majority of deaths over 80.

So in a scenario where deaths are negligible in terms of normal mortality rates, I can't see it being mandatory for those others who are unlikely to have severe symptoms.

I'm not anti vax, bit would be very anti mandatory vax.

Can see airlines making it mandatory though in which case it might be something that isn't legally mandatory but mandatory in practical terms.

Until social media or court cases take them to task!

fly_agaric

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.

There is information about agreement between EU Commission and member states on how the vaccine doses will be distributed on the Europa website.
Below are links I found but have not read the pdf (2nd link below) in detail.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_1903

https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/vaccination/docs/2020_strategies_deployment_en.pdf

However as I understand it, the EU has no competency for public health in the member states so there is no EU "treaty" to refer to here, no regulations/directives etc.

growleaves

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.

Except its wrong to lie, and to advocate for something you yourself don't believe in.

is_that_so

Article on the CSO data on how people are coping.

A survey by the Central Statistics Office on the well-being and lifestyle of people under Level 5 restrictions has found that 11.5% of respondents felt downhearted, or depressed, all or most of the time.

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/1130/1181399-cso-covid-19/

wes

JDD wrote: »

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.

No need to make it mandatory. The government can make it legal for employers to fire people who refuse to take one without a medical reason, and they can refuse social welfare for those who refuse one without a medical reason etc.

Also, there will be peer pressure as well that can be encouraged via ad campaigns etc, where they can vilify anti-vaxers the same way drunk drivers are.

JDD

growleaves wrote: »

Except its wrong to lie, and to advocate for something you yourself don't believe in.

It's also wrong to do nothing to prevent yourself from infecting a vulnerable person with a serious illness. But I suppose there are scales of wrong here.

JDD

is_that_so wrote: »

Until social media or court cases take them to task!

Courts could do nothing. Discrimination on the basis of health status is allowed.

JDD

wes wrote: »

No need to make it mandatory. The government can make it legal for employers to fire people who refuse to take one without a medical reason, and they can refuse social welfare for those who refuse one without a medical reason etc.

Also, there will be peer pressure as well that can be encouraged via ad campaigns etc, where they can vilify anti-vaxers the same way drunk drivers are.

You are probably right. The above scenarios are way more likely than a mandatory vaccination law.

terenc

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

Absolutely , a huge chunk of the population will have no other choice but to vaccinate if they want to travel to another country in Europe or else where in the world whether it is the Cheltenham Festival (the English will not allow that to happen again when vaccination will be available) or a skiing holiday in Italy.

podgeandrodge

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Assuming the vaccine goes to elderly and expressly vulnerable, death rates should plummet close to zero no? Vast majority of deaths over 80.

So in a scenario where deaths are negligible in terms of normal mortality rates, I can't see it being mandatory for those others who are unlikely to have severe symptoms.

I'm not anti vax, bit would be very anti mandatory vax.

Can see airlines making it mandatory though in which case it might be something that isn't legally mandatory but mandatory in practical terms.

The higher the number of people who remain unvaccinated, the more infections will occur, and no matter how minor these are, the chance of a mutation that impacts how the virus infects its host emerging is increasing all the time. What a new variant resistant to the vaccine needs to emerge is lots of hosts for chance mutations to occur and one of these strains to become endemic. If a large majority have been vaccinated the odds of one of these strains emerging is lowered and the odds of one of these strains becoming endemic if it does emerge are also lower.

I don't believe in mandatory vaccination either, however I do believe in highlighting the selfishness or ignorance of those who refuse vaccination

eagle eye

30 years ago almost everybody would get the vaccine as soon as it became available. Social media has changed that because many less intelligent people are easily influenced by agenda driven organisers.

growleaves

Stephen Donnelly rejected making the vaccine mandatory 2 hours ago.

growleaves

growleaves wrote: »

Stephen Donnelly rejected making the vaccine mandatory 2 hours ago.

There is zero legal basis for making any vaccine mandatory.

What there will be is a series of restrictions on unvaccinated individuals that will likely encourage most to get it. That may include restrictions on foreign travel, attendance at large events such as concerts and sports events, access to employment in certain areas such as healthcare, teaching, food processing.

JDD

the chance of a mutation that impacts how the virus infects its host emerging is increasing all the time.

Isn't it much more likely that the virus would mutate into something less serious rather than more serious? I'm not saying that it's impossible for it to get more serious, but I think it's more likely that it would mutate in the other direction.

Mandatory vaccination is an uncomfortable subject for any government to talk about. It conjures ideas of doctors holding you down and jabbing you, when in fact it is more likely to be a once off €50 fine. Not enough of a fine to encourage those who truly believe that its a bad idea to take the vaccine, but enough for the "I couldn't be bothered" brigade to turn up at the pharmacy.

That being said, it's not a law I would want to be in place unless we really really needed it.

ACitizenErased

Throw the tinfoil hats away lads, it won't be mandatory.

eigrod

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1333417661548670976?s=21

Could be high number tonight. I make out there were 237 more positive swabs announced than cases announced in the 7 days to Saturday 28th

MerlinSouthDub

eigrod wrote: »

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1333417661548670976?s=21

Could be high number tonight. I make out there were 237 more positive swabs announced than cases announced in the 7 days to Saturday 28th

Could be, but we don't know either yesterday or today's swabs yet.

is_that_so

JDD wrote: »

Courts could do nothing. Discrimination on the basis of health status is allowed.

It's not even done with measles which needs 90%+ for herd immunity, so that's shaky ground. Any government trying to push us down that path is onto a loser politically and unquestionably would see legal challenges, never mind a media onslaught. They'd struggle just to get it through the Dail. As an approach it's like taking mallet to flatten a pancake because we will get to at least 50% and above.

ACitizenErased

eigrod wrote: »

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1333417661548670976?s=21

Could be high number tonight. I make out there were 237 more positive swabs announced than cases announced in the 7 days to Saturday 28th

The HPSC must take weeks off sometimes

PMBC

I think one of the Sunday papaers carried a survey that showed a very high percentage of people planned to take the vaccine

Stheno

PMBC wrote: »

I think one of the Sunday papaers carried a survey that showed a very high percentage of people planned to take the vaccine

The Indo think it was 74%