16 family members given vaccine

mariaalice

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.

That is all very sensible but you will always have a situation even with a backup list to the backup list, where some even if it is only one person that not turn up. Who gets the vaccine dose and once it drawn it only last a fine amount of time.

The optics of how this was done are arguably poor. I've also heard stories which I have no reason to doubt of the operators of private facilities adding relatives to their payroll for the purpose of getting them access to a vaccine sooner than they otherwise would. I find any element of nepotism in providing access to medical services to be very distasteful and people are fully entitled to express a moral judgment of anyone involved in such behaviour.

However people also need to remember that optics are optics and in the grand scheme of things, this particular incident has had no real practical effect.

There are more important points of substance to be dealing with in the current circumstances in which we find ourselves.

mariaalice

ecoli3136 wrote: »

The optics of how this was done are arguably poor. I've also heard stories which I have no reason to doubt of the operators of private facilities adding relatives to their payroll for the purpose of getting them access to a vaccine sooner than they otherwise would. I find any element of nepotism in providing access to medical services to be very distasteful and people are fully entitled to express a moral judgment of anyone involved in such behaviour.

However people also need to remember that optics are optics and in the grand scheme of things, this particular incident has had no real practical effect.

There are more important points of substance to be dealing with in the current circumstances in which we find ourselves.

If you have evidence of that you should be going to the media evidence not here say.

Ash.J.Williams

No matter who gets the vaccine there’s always more deserving so we should print their names and photos in public and hound them



I saw one politician refer to “some builders in Kerry” and bla bla bla frontline workers

The “some builders” were in a clean room building a Covid ward , that’s front line enough:)

CiboC

PO!NT wrote: »

I have 0 proof but I dont believe this is an isolated event.

Proof?! Who needs proof?? Proof is overrated - get the pitchforks out and light the fires....!

Seriously, the doses were going to be useless if not used there and then - is it not better that they wern't wasted?

is_that_so

ecoli3136 wrote: »

The optics of how this was done are arguably poor. I've also heard stories which I have no reason to doubt of the operators of private facilities adding relatives to their payroll for the purpose of getting them access to a vaccine sooner than they otherwise would. I find any element of nepotism in providing access to medical services to be very distasteful and people are fully entitled to express a moral judgment of anyone involved in such behaviour.

However people also need to remember that optics are optics and in the grand scheme of things, this particular incident has had no real practical effect.

There are more important points of substance to be dealing with in the current circumstances in which we find ourselves.

Optics can have a very disproportionate effect on some people, especially those who have a poor view of the process or of vaccination itself. That's the risk this decision has thrown up and you need to continually convince people it's all above board and going well.

blackbox

The words mountain and molehill come to mind.

lucernarian

seamus wrote: »

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

How are failings of the HSE "out of scope" when I pointed out these issues last week and made the exact same criticisms at the time? It's easy to think I'm blaming the staff at the Coombe when in fact I'm doing the exact opposite. The HSE were the ones in charge of this "liquid document", these issues were foreseen by me and I'm not a member of NIAC.

The rollout is still ongoing and I've nothing but the word of boardsies as to what the since-released HSE "guidance" is. Transparency how are ye

I note with interest the words of the consultant based in OLOH and since, the head of the midwifery unit (who still haven't been given new appointment dates). He wondered why doses of the vaccine were given to hubs (i.e. acute hospitals) in areas that had lower community prevalence of covid-19, well in advance of those in areas with the highest prevalence of patients. The effects (new infections) of such decisions are exponentially magnified by the staff who cannot avoid being exposed through their frontline role, and secondarily through unavoidably exposing the family or people they live with in turn.

mariaalice

You need your PRSI number to get the vaccine so if someone had been added to the payroll it could have income tax implications for them if it is happening.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

If you have evidence of that you should be going to the media evidence not here say.

Evidence of private operators adding family members to their own payrolls? Why? Who would care? I don't care?

mariaalice wrote: »

You need your PRSI number to get the vaccine so if someone had been added to the payroll it could have income tax implications for them if it is happening.

Yes...they would be liable for income tax on money they earned. And their employer would have to comply with their revenue obligations. How bizarre.

is_that_so wrote: »

Optics can have a very disproportionate effect on some people, especially those who have a poor view of the process or of vaccination itself. That's the risk this decision has thrown up and you need to continually convince people it's all above board and going well.

above board and going well does not equal perfect. And some people will never be convinced no matter what you do.

As I said, if it is the case that somebody pulls a fast one to get access to a medical service (any medical service) to which they would not otherwise be entitled, that may be worthy of sanction that is proportionate to what was done.

16 doses of a vaccine being delivered like this wouldn't get me overly excited.

lucernarian

mariaalice wrote: »

That is all very sensible but you will always have a situation even with a backup list to the backup list, where some even if it is only one person that not turn up. Who gets the vaccine dose and once it drawn it only last a fine amount of time.

Ok, this is blatant whataboutery. The HSE had no guidance when this event and presumably others of the sort took place. They now do, after the horse has bolted. Are you suggesting because *someone* might miss out on their place in the queue, we should run the risk of not having anyone around who could get a spare dose?

mariaalice

ecoli3136 wrote: »

Evidence of private operators adding family members to their own payrolls? Why? Who would care? I don't care?

You know very well the media would be very interested in this. Plus if you are talking about nursing homes the vaccine is not given in secret so all the staff would see the relative of the company owner who is not employees getting the vaccine it would be in the media within hours.

lucernarian

lucernarian wrote: »

Ok, this is blatant whataboutery. The HSE had no guidance when this event and presumably others of the sort took place. They now do, after the horse has bolted. Are you suggesting because *someone* might miss out on their place in the queue, we should run the risk of not having anyone around who could get a spare dose?

Full tribunal of enquiry. Come on people. You know it makes sense.

mariaalice wrote: »

You know very well the media would be very interested in this. Plus if you are talking about nursing homes the vaccine is not given in secret so all the staff would see the relative of the company owner who is not employees getting the vaccine it would be in the media within hours.

No need for me to go yammering down the phone about it so. Wait and see.

bucketybuck

ecoli3136 wrote: »

Evidence of private operators adding family members to their own payrolls? Why? Who would care? I don't care?



Yes...they would be liable for income tax on money they earned. And their employer would have to comply with their revenue obligations. How bizarre.

You can be on the payroll without receiving much or even any money at all.

Pythagorean

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.

The media are partly responsible for unleashing some of the torrent, they jumped on this story, and keep hammering away at it, giving it a significance way beyond what is warranted.

mariaalice

lucernarian wrote: »

Ok, this is blatant whataboutery. The HSE had no guidance when this event and presumably others of the sort took place. They now do, after the horse has bolted. Are you suggesting because *someone* might miss out on their place in the queue, we should run the risk of not having anyone around who could get a spare dose?

Of course not, they made mistakes now it's more or less sorted as much as it can be anyway.

I am very pro the vaccine role out and while it's not perfect it's going very well in the main.

is_that_so

Pythagorean wrote: »

The media are partly responsible for unleashing some of the torrent, they jumped on this story, and keep hammering away at it, giving it a significance way beyond what is warranted.

His apologising for it makes it a story, plus it's now got the hospital board and the MoH involved. Not his finest hour.

lucernarian

ecoli3136 wrote: »

Full tribunal of enquiry. Come on people. You know it makes sense.

Jesus wept, half of the reason I post in these threads at all is in the hopes that people who read this can reflect on issues before they become a problem, and counteract the whataboutery and lack of transparency in the decision-making process.

Lynch mobs and tribunals will provide just the chilling effect on teams to bin that last vial instead of using it.

Of course, if you're being sarcastic, maybe my sense of humour isn't dark enough

is_that_so

is_that_so wrote: »

His apologising for it makes it a story, plus it's now got the hospital board and the MoH involved. Not his finest hour.

As with all such matters, the issue as reported on by the media will now become whether the person in the crosshairs has given a full and correct account of how this came to be. As I understand it, the explanation given is that nothing could have been done other than provide these vaccines to the people who received them, the alternative was to pour them down the drain...hmmmm...but that's essentially a matter between him and his employers, albeit the public will take an interest.

lucernarian wrote: »

Jesus wept, half of the reason I post in these threads at all is in the hopes that people who read this can reflect on issues before they become a problem, and counteract the whataboutery and lack of transparency in the decision-making process.

Lynch mobs and tribunals will provide just the chilling effect on teams to bin that last vial instead of using it.

Of course, if you're being sarcastic, maybe my sense of humour isn't dark enough

^This. 1000 times this.

Privacy Notice

Mimon wrote: »

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

And what do you do when you have leftover vaccines after everyone on that list who is available has been vaccinated? Do you want the vaccinators to have to weigh up the risks of unintentionally stirring up another shítstorm because they tried to do what they thought was right by vaccinating a "non-priority" person.

The vaccinators will be under enough pressure as is, they shouldn't be subjected to the guilt of binning a vaccine or the criticism for using their best judgement (even if that judgment isn't up to the standards of your classic internet whinger).

iamwhoiam

His colleagues have come out and said he is the kindest and most supportive
He was so pleased to be getting his staff vaccinated and excited to know it was being done
Thats good enough for me , he made a bad call with very little time to sort it out
and under pressure after a long day
So in the grand scheme of things I will cut him some slack and move on
We will all get it one day soon hopefully and we have to see that the frontline staff are under enormous strain

plodder

Privacy Notice wrote: »

And what do you do when you have leftover vaccines after everyone on that list who is available has been vaccinated? Do you want the vaccinators to have to weigh up the risks of unintentionally stirring up another shítstorm because they tried to do what they thought was right by vaccinating a "non-priority" person.

The vaccinators will be under enough pressure as is, they shouldn't be subjected to the guilt of binning a vaccine or the criticism for using their best judgement (even if that judgment isn't up to the standards of your classic internet whinger).

Hopefully, going forward the problem can be largely avoided by only diluting vials when you are sure the right people are there to receive them. If vials are left over, then they should be kept un-opened in the fridge and used then for the standby list the next day.

steddyeddy

seamus wrote: »

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.

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.

Seamus you should read the bits in bold in a linear order.

This wasn't a binary choice that you're presenting it as i.e inject non-frontline relatives of staff vs throw them in the bin.

In terms of the advance situation they should have had a vaccination list and a back up list. Like they have for seasonal flu and as they have in all the other developed countries.

In terms of the day that was in it I fail to believe that the highest priority persons available by some strange chance happened to be the master's sons. That's just not plausible. The NHS alert local care homes in the case of excess vaccines.

As the ex master at the Coombe stated:

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

This isn't about a few vaccines being granted via nepotism. It's about transparency in the vaccination system. That is key. We need to know it's being distributed fairly and that there's a maximum uptake of people who need it. There's a big proportion of vaccine sceptics in most countries today and the last thing we need is for a hunt of corruption.

lucernarian

steddyeddy wrote: »

Seamus you should read the bits in bold in a linear order.

This wasn't a binary choice that you're presenting it as i.e inject non-frontline relatives of staff vs throw them in the bin.

In terms of the advance situation they should have had a vaccination list and a back up list. Like they have for seasonal flu and as they have in all the other developed countries.

In terms of the day that was in it I fail to believe that the highest priority persons available by some strange chance happened to be the master's sons. That's just not plausible. The NHS alert local care homes in the case of excess vaccines.

As the ex master at the Coombe stated:



This isn't about a few vaccines being granted via nepotism. It's about transparency in the vaccination system. That is key. We need to know it's being distributed fairly and that there's a maximum uptake of people who need it. There's a big proportion of vaccine sceptics in most countries today and the last thing we need is for a hunt of corruption.

Very well said. Some folks would make you think you're trying to sabotage the rollout by suggesting practical measures like you've said the NHS are doing. I don't blame the Coombe for making mostly the right call, in fact it's a huge success to see most of the 120 doses used in such a correct way and in a situation where they had to make it up as they went along. 6 hour clock on a diluted vial, the hospital has to act fast. This shouldn't be used as an excuse to defend the HSE themselves for not forseeing this issue.

steddyeddy

lucernarian wrote: »

Very well said. Some folks would make you think you're trying to sabotage the rollout by suggesting practical measures like you've said the NHS are doing. I don't blame the Coombe for making mostly the right call, in fact it's a huge success to see most of the 120 doses used in such a correct way and in a situation where they had to make it up as they went along. 6 hour clock on a diluted vial, the hospital has to act fast. This shouldn't be used as an excuse to defend the HSE themselves for not forseeing this issue.

Exactly. So it's either vaccinate sons or throw them in the bin.

The other option is do it like every other developed nation does it by priority, organisation and effective planning.

Privacy Notice

iamwhoiam wrote: »

His colleagues have come out and said he is the kindest and most supportive
He was so pleased to be getting his staff vaccinated and excited to know it was being done
Thats good enough for me , he made a bad call with very little time to sort it out
and under pressure after a long day
So in the grand scheme of things I will cut him some slack and move on
We will all get it one day soon hopefully and we have to see that the frontline staff are under enormous strain

https://mobile.twitter.com/NoContextDunphy/status/1226497649895002118

bucketybuck

I would have no problem with a hospital making a call regarding some spare doses if I had faith and trust that it was an isolated incident and not a sign of some deeper systemic problem.

Are we really sure that this was an isolated incident? I don't believe it is, and its better to ask the question than to stick fingers in ears and pretend everything is fine.

jill_valentine

steddyeddy wrote: »

This isn't about a few vaccines being granted via nepotism. It's about transparency in the vaccination system. That is key. We need to know it's being distributed fairly and that there's a maximum uptake of people who need it. There's a big proportion of vaccine sceptics in most countries today and the last thing we need is for a hunt of corruption.

So why then have you persistently made this about the Coombe specifically, and this man quite personally?

I haven't seen a single person say the HSE rollout was flawless and we should go back to what they were doing on the 8th, when this happened.

Indeed I and several others have specifically pointed at the HSE at fault for the disparity of distribution, slow response to the Coombe's heads up on spare capacity and lack of guidance. The conversation then became about nepotism again, in the Coombe, and in association with this particular guy, a subject you in particular have pursued enthusiastically as if it is indeed about a few vaccines granted by nepotism.

It only seems to become about the bigger HSE picture when it's a convenient redoubt from challenge, when the numbers and practical considerations suggest to me the Coombe did a terrific job of maximising resources under unprecedented high pressure circumstances in a dynamic situation.

steddyeddy

jill_valentine wrote: »

So why then have you persistently made this about the Coombe specifically, and this man quite personally?

I haven't seen a single person say the HSE rollout was flawless and we should go back to what they were doing on the 8th, when this happened.

Indeed I and several others have specifically pointed at the HSE at fault for the disparity of distribution, slow response to the Coombe's heads up on spare capacity and lack of guidance. The conversation then became about nepotism again, in the Coombe, and in association with this particular guy, a subject you in particular have pursued enthusiastically as if it is indeed about a few vaccines granted by nepotism.

It only seems to become about the bigger HSE picture when it's a convenient redoubt from challenge, when the numbers and practical considerations suggest to me the Coombe did a terrific job of maximising resources under unprecedented high pressure circumstances in a dynamic situation.

With respect that's rubbish. I constantly stated that the primary incompetence was the fact that they had no list. Even in the post you quoted.

As regards personal responsibility the man is responsible for nepotism. He shouldn't have been in that position but he shouldn't have made such a stupid call in this regard.

Hitchens

If we think things are bad now, wait until the Ebola virus gets here!