16 family members given vaccine

Sofa King Great

mariaalice wrote: »

Who is the best in class at this?

I dont know- but what is wrong with wanting it to be us?

Wanderer78

odyssey06 wrote: »

We have a priority listing. Seems like basic stuff to think we need to adhere to it.
Nothing to do with 'not feeling right', so spare me your amateur psychology guff seems like it should stay on the schoolyard as it's about that level your comments have originated from.

It's not completely irrational - pointing out these people now need a second dose. They are in a low risk group. They will now get the second dose ahead of someone the proper authorities have determined has a far higher need for vaccination. Some vaccines help a helluva lot more than others, those who are high risk either if they get it or in terms of their contacts. That's what the priority listing is about.

I repeat, at this stage it's not about rolling out the most number of vaccines, it's about vaccinating the most important \ vulnerable first.

its simply not possible to have all of the highest priority people, in the one place at a particular time, when a vile is opened, it must be used immediately, waiting for the highest priority all of the time, will dramatically slow the whole process down, just plough the vaccine into whoever is there at that particular time

Multipass

odyssey06 wrote: »

We have a priority listing. Seems like basic stuff to think we need to adhere to it.
Nothing to do with 'not feeling right', so spare me your amateur psychology guff seems like it should stay on the schoolyard as it's about that level your comments have originated from.

It's not completely irrational - pointing out these people now need a second dose. They are in a low risk group. They will now get the second dose ahead of someone the proper authorities have determined has a far higher need for vaccination. Some vaccines help a helluva lot more than others, those who are high risk either if they get it or in terms of their contacts. That's what the priority listing is about.

I repeat, at this stage it's not about rolling out the most number of vaccines, it's about vaccinating the most important \ vulnerable first.
Vacctinating the key 1% is more important than 10% of low risk people, especially when we have uncertainty about how effective they are re: transmission.

I don’t see why they should get a second dose - the first confers a % immunity, so it isn’t wasted, good enough for now. Their turn will come around when it comes. Give the next available dose to an elderly person at Several multiples more risk. This isn’t doling out candy, it’s potentially saving a life.

steddyeddy

odyssey06 wrote: »

We have a priority listing. Seems like basic stuff to think we need to adhere to it.
Nothing to do with 'not feeling right', so spare me your amateur psychology guff seems like it should stay on the schoolyard as it's about that level your comments have originated from.

It's not completely irrational - pointing out these people now need a second dose. They are in a low risk group. They will now get the second dose ahead of someone the proper authorities have determined has a far higher need for vaccination. Some vaccines help a helluva lot more than others, those who are high risk either if they get it or in terms of their contacts. That's what the priority listing is about.

I repeat, at this stage it's not about rolling out the most number of vaccines, it's about vaccinating the most important \ vulnerable first.
Vacctinating the key 1% is more important than 10% of low risk people, especially when we have uncertainty about how effective they are re: transmission.

You're 100% right. For their vaccine to be effective they will need a second dose issued at a specified time after the first dose. They will of course knock higher priortity down the list.

steddyeddy

mariaalice wrote: »

Generally, I take boards with a pinch of salt.

But it really bothers me that people would use the vaccine role out to get at the HSE because of their own chips on their shoulder or whatever is going on with them.

The HSE is not perfect by any mean but this is not one of their mess-ups

I guess the ex head of the coombe must have a chip on his shoulder.

Prof Fitzpatrick, a consultant obstetrician at the Coombe, said he was “deeply concerned” to learn non-frontline relatives of staff had received vaccines.

“It is essential that the public receive greater reassurance, and that the rollout of a lifesaving vaccination programme during this very difficult time is conducted with transparency, equity and accountability, and in accordance with national guidelines,” he said. There needed to be an independent investigation “undertaken quickly to clarify the facts”, he added.

agoodpunt

need more info on the 16 connections etc otherwise there will be a continued loss of confidence here worse than straying outside the 5k imo

odyssey06

Wanderer78 wrote: »

its simply not possible to have all of the highest priority people, in the one place at a particular time, when a vile is opened, it must be used immediately, waiting for the highest priority all of the time, will dramatically slow the whole process down, just plough the vaccine into whoever is there at that particular time

Nobody from a low priority grouping should be getting a vaccine now.

Fitting in such people into a second dose ahead of people in groups 1-4 is going to slow down people in those groups getting the vaccine.
Those groups are the key ones in terms of 'bang per buck' vaccine delivery for severe cases and fatality reduction.

Focus on groups 1-4 or 1-6.

odyssey06

Multipass wrote: »

I don’t see why they should get a second dose - the first confers a % immunity, so it isn’t wasted, good enough for now. Their turn will come around when it comes. Give the next available dose to an elderly person at Several multiples more risk. This isn’t doling out candy, it’s potentially saving a life.

I'm assuming they would get a second dose - would be good to know either way.

Could there be a concern like antibiotics if you don't finish the dose, the lower level of immunity leaves more scope for virus to survive and mutate?
Maybe I'm overthinking it.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

Do you have any evidence of this happening in Ireland? The media would be having a field day.

Some of the media are hand in glove with powerful people.

Bass Reeves

Wanderer78 wrote: »

its simply not possible to have all of the highest priority people, in the one place at a particular time, when a vile is opened, it must be used immediately, waiting for the highest priority all of the time, will dramatically slow the whole process down, just plough the vaccine into whoever is there at that particular time

TBH Wanderer I seldom agree with you. However you are trying to reason with a brick wall. Most of the lads that are indigent cannot understand basics. They prefer that all the bottles go in the bin than someone get vaccinated ahead of them.

Look at the comments about not vaccinating before systems in place. Most of the lads spouting you would not put in hem incharge of a wheelbarrow. They have not even the cop on to read back through a few pages of those and most of the bullsh!t they are spouting gas been hashed and rehashed ten times. They did not even read the IT article of which the headline was a disgrace.

You never out any of these lads incharge of a project definitely not in charge of a new project. They be nothing ever done with the attitude of some here.

Just a few statics
If we had the UK excess death rates we have about 7.5k excess deaths rath than death rather than 2500 COVID deaths that translates to about 1800 excess deaths.

If the UK had managed the pandemic like we did instead of 95k excess deaths they have about 23k COVID deaths.

But then what's is 5k extra deaths as long as the nobody get a vaccine a day early. This the excess doses in the bin even for the 104 priority that the Coombe found as they were ahead of the qué as well

lucernarian

odyssey06 wrote: »

Nobody from a low priority grouping should be getting a vaccine now.

Fitting in such people into a second dose ahead of people in groups 1-4 is going to slow down people in those groups getting the vaccine.
Those groups are the key ones in terms of 'bang per buck' vaccine delivery for severe cases and fatality reduction.

Focus on groups 1-4 or 1-6.

I would have thought 1-8 made more sense, as there are large cohorts of people who are extremely vulnerable but aren't aged 65 yet, and people unable to self isolate due to living in institutions or the likes.

elefant

Bass Reeves wrote: »

TBH Wanderer I seldom agree with you. However you are trying to reason with a brick wall. Most of the lads that are indigent cannot understand basics. They prefer that all the bottles go in the bin than someone get vaccinated ahead of them.

Can people stop saying this in here? Almost nobody has suggested anything of the sort.

bucketybuck

jill_valentine wrote: »

What you're talking about here is doing something completely irrational and damaging to the overall rollout just because on some basic schoolyard level it doesn't "feel" right that a few individuals might get vaxxed out of turn. There's a far bigger picture than that.

The bigger picture that you don't seem to grasp is that a properly planned and adhered to system will be more efficient in distributing the vaccine than one where people are repeatedly winging it and chasing their tails.

You might save 16 doses now but in the long term you could have saved 16000 doses by insisting that management do their ****ing jobs properly.

But why should management do their jobs properly when the reaction to clear evidence that the system is open to abuse, is for people to say "sure look, its grand, nothing to see here".

odyssey06

lucernarian wrote: »

I would have thought 1-8 made more sense, as there are large cohorts of people who are extremely vulnerable but aren't aged 65 yet, and people unable to self isolate due to living in institutions or the likes.

I was thinking that 7-8 could be difficult logistically at short notice.

seamus

elefant wrote: »

Can people stop saying this in here? Almost nobody has suggested anything of the sort.

But they haven't provided any alternative suggestion of what should have been done in this instance.

Everything that could have been done, was done. The option was literally to find 16 more random people to inject or throw them in the bin.

The argument that 16 other people will now lose out because of second doses, doesn't hold water. Everyone will get injected one way or another. In the grand scheme someone might get their first dose 24 hours later than they otherwise would have.

bucketybuck wrote: »

The bigger picture that you don't seem to grasp is that a properly planned and adhered to system will be more efficient in distributing the vaccine than one where people are repeatedly winging it and chasing their tails.

Why does it have to be binary? Why is it "adhere rigidly to the rules" or "random chaos"?

You cannot cover every edge case. There is a limit to how prescriptive the guidance can be, before you start binning unused doses. Every now and again a hospital will end up with a small number of doses that need to be used, and they have reached the limit of the guidance.

In that case the guidance should state "pick any suitable individual that is available at short notice and inject them". And leave it at that.

Ash.J.Williams

Vaccine watch 2021:

crossman47

elefant wrote: »

Can people stop saying this in here? Almost nobody has suggested anything of the sort.

But it is what would have happened. They had 120 extra and got 104 priority cases. They were then left with 16 doses and, after contacting the HSE, had nobody for them. I don't think the Master should even have apologised for a judgement call made under pressure.

Privacy Notice

elefant wrote: »

Can people stop saying this in here? Almost nobody has suggested anything of the sort.

The real question is how many will now go in the bin in fear of rousing the perpetually offended and their torrents of shít.

jill_valentine

elefant wrote: »

Can people stop saying this in here? Almost nobody has suggested anything of the sort.

Several users have suggested it, and others have suggested we should have waited an additional day to start dosing rather than allow the Coombe staff get to work before the electronic booking system was in place. For the sake of seven doses.

mariaalice

If you are on the fall backlist ( for want of a better word ) you have to drop everything and get to the vaccine place within an hour a fair few would not be able to do this, work child care or anything really. There is no perfect system.

If the famous Israeli pizza guy had been in Ireland and a nurse had grabbed him and give him the vaccine, unlikely for legal reasons in Ireland leaving that aside, the chatter would have been he is the fourth cousin once removed of the last CEO don't you know.

Again the HSE is not perfect but some of the posts here are nonsense.

lucernarian

seamus wrote: »

But they haven't provided any alternative suggestion of what should have been done in this instance.

Though I've seen some hairbrained ideas in this thread, your claim is untrue. NHS guidance was already quoted, where staff from nearby care homes are put on a standby list.

Additionally, HSE guidance was issued after this incident in the Coombe - my own suggestion, as I said last week before this news broke, was to have this guidance in place before the rollout began. It's an amateurish mistake to have made and I don't blame the Master of the Coombe for this situation.

Mimon

Privacy Notice wrote: »

The real question is how many will now go in the bin in fear of rousing the perpetually offended and their torrents of shít.

Yeh because everything has to go to the extreme :rolleyes:

How about a sensible reaction where there is a fair backup list of people available to be vaccinated using any excess doses.

In fair I mean someone who would be vaccinated shortly anyway and having no relation to anyone making the decisions of who is on the list.

mariaalice

lucernarian wrote: »

Though I've seen some hairbrained ideas in this thread, your claim is untrue. NHS guidance was already quoted, where staff from nearby care homes are put on a standby list.

Additionally, HSE guidance was issued after this incident in the Coombe - my own suggestion, as I said last week before this news broke, was to have this guidance in place before the rollout began. It's an amateurish mistake to have made and I don't blame the Master of the Coombe for this situation.

What do you do if someone on the fall backlist does not turn up? because they cant for a variety of reasons mainly to do how quickly they are required to turn up who gets the vaccines then?.

bucketybuck

seamus wrote: »

You cannot cover every edge case.

With respect, this is not an edge case. Having doses left over in a mass vaccine roll out is not an edge case, it is an expected outcome.

If I started any project whatsoever that involved meeting with a large number of people I would expect from the start that some of those people not show up for their appointment, for any of a host of reasons. I would expect it and account for it.

mariaalice

So who should be getting it if some on the fall backlist can not turn up?

is_that_so

mariaalice wrote: »

What do you do if someone on the fall backlist does not turn up? because they cant for a variety of reasons mainly to do how quickly they are required to turn up who gets the vaccines then?.

We are at 71,000 of Group 2, Group 4 is a known size and all the rest will be part of the mass vaccination programme so this will no longer be a major problem.

lucernarian

mariaalice wrote: »

What do you do if someone on the fall backlist does not turn up? because they cant for a variety of reasons mainly to do how quickly they are required to turn up who gets the vaccines then?.

A list with presumably far more recepients than available doses? These are not unknown or unsolvable problems. How are the NHS managing it already?

My own take would be to notify the first 20 that confirm availability to come forward as they may be able to receive a spare, and of that cohort the first 16 got the leftovers. If I was one of the remaining 4, I'd be grateful for the opportunity and I'd still be on the standby list.

But what do I know, the data scientists will have their own hot take coming up.

mariaalice

Deleted User wrote: »

Some of the media are hand in glove with powerful people.

Including RTE?

seamus

lucernarian wrote: »

NHS guidance was already quoted, where staff from nearby care homes are put on a standby list.

That's a different country. Why would staff at the Coombe follow an NHS document.

It's an amateurish mistake to have made and I don't blame the Master of the Coombe for this situation.

Right. So what you're saying is that nothing wrong was done in this case, because the staff had no guidance to work with and could only do their best.

And thus continuing to bang on about these 16 doses is pointless because the right call was made at the time based on what was available to the staff. It was either use these 16 doses or throw them in the bin.

Still, everyone has failed to outline any other option that was available to Coombe staff, at that time.

Failings of the HSE are out of scope here since you can't rewrite history. The question of the second dose for these individuals is moot, since they've had their first dose now.

bucketybuck wrote: »

With respect, this is not an edge case. Having doses left over in a mass vaccine roll out is not an edge case, it is an expected outcome.

You're right, it's a corner case. They had spare doses left over from their left overs.

crossman47

lucernarian wrote: »

A list with presumably far more recepients than available doses? These are not unknown or unsolvable problems. How are the NHS managing it already?

My own take would be to notify the first 20 that confirm availability to come forward as they may be able to receive a spare, and of that cohort the first 16 got the leftovers. If I was one of the remaining 4, I'd be grateful for the opportunity and I'd still be on the standby list.

But what do I know, the data scientists will have their own hot take coming up.

But they did get 104 to come forward before still haveing 16 left over. Bad planning maybe but not a hanging offence.