Covid 19 Part XXXII-215,743 ROI (4,137 deaths)111,166 NI (2,036 deaths)(22/02)Read OP

igCorcaigh

People with underlying health issues moved up the list for vaccination. Rte.

I thought that already been the case.

So who gets pushed down?

stephenjmcd

Oranage2 wrote: »

You tried to skewer the figures and failed.

Eh no, I literally forgot to hit plus on the calculator for today, deleted the post about a minute later btw when I noticed the error.

Nice try at trolling though

MerlinSouthDub

igCorcaigh wrote: »

People with underlying health issues moved up the list for vaccination. Rte.

That's really good news for the people involved. It also might be the thing that makes the biggest difference to hospitalisation rates in the coming months.

Van.Bosch

Oranage2 wrote: »

You tried to skewer the figures and failed.

You reckon? Why would someone want to skew figures on a discussion forum? More likely a mistake by someone trying to outline facts.

igCorcaigh

MerlinSouthDub wrote: »

That's really good news for the people involved. It also might be the thing that makes the biggest difference to hospitalisation rates in the coming months.

Who gets deprioritised though?
(obviously, those without underlying issues, but why now?)

Ficheall

Van.Bosch wrote: »

You reckon? Why would someone want to skew figures on a discussion forum? More likely a mistake by someone trying to outline facts.

Well, people skewing the figures on the forum is not beyond the bounds of possibility to be fair, but stephen is hardly one of them.

cameramonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

Churchtown, Dublin, is in my catchment area, and when I got there to shop there are lots of gathering gs of people huddled together outside Number of takeaway coffee shops. All they are lacking is official seating, but a wall serves adequately. Same in my immediate area, lots and lots of folk lined on a wall by a riverside park opposite a takeaway coffee shop. I don't know if these are all from same household etc, which would be ok, but some are sitting extremely close together.

I suppose when a coffee shop is close to a park or a wall low enough for people to gather then that will happen. This is particularly prevalent in Miltown and Churchtown. At least they dont have outdoor covered seating where customers are sitting down to drink their beverages like an establishment not too far away in Rathfarnham.

iamwhoiam

igCorcaigh wrote: »

People with underlying health issues moved up the list for vaccination. Rte.

I thought that already been the case.

So who gets pushed down?

So the 65-70 will be delayed then ?

stephenjmcd

Ficheall wrote: »

Well, people skewing the figures on the forum is not beyond the bounds of possibility to be fair, but stephen is hardly one of them.

Missed a day on the calculator, hit = instead of adding in today's. Simple mistake quickly corrected & original post deleted

UrbanFret

hynesie08 wrote: »

How will the North be vaccinated in 2 months when they are waiting 12 weeks between shots and they are only planning on half having their fist shot by the end of March?

The first shot will be enough to stop it in its tracks.
Approx 25% of the population have got a first shot already.

igCorcaigh

iamwhoiam wrote: »

So the 65-70 will be delayed then ?

Maybe?

I had thought that people with underlying conditions were already factored into the prioritisation list? What has changed?

vienne86

iamwhoiam wrote: »

So the 65-70 will be delayed then ?

It looks like it. That's group 5 (my group). And as there aare 370,000 in group 7, it looks like we will be waiting quite a while.

Jim_Hodge

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Didn't apply to anyone else, did it?
(honest question)

It did and does actually.

Ficheall

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Maybe?

I had thought that people with underlying conditions were already factored into the prioritisation list? What has changed?

I think previously it was a "65+ with underlying conditions" as opposed to "18+ with underlying conditions" type of thing. Presumably due to variants allegedly being more problematic for younger people. I could be mistaken.

iamwhoiam

vienne86 wrote: »

It looks like it. That's group 5 (my group). And as there aare 370,000 in group 7, it looks like we will be waiting quite a while.

Just re read it and I am in 5 too
It looks like group 7 will be moved to group 5 . So maybe they will run parallel and at the same time . Then it doesn’t say the original group 5 is moved down

hynesie08

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Missed a day on the calculator, hit = instead of adding in today's. Simple mistake quickly corrected & original post deleted

The idea of oranange2 of all people accusing someone of making up numbers would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

rosiem

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Maybe?

I had thought that people with underlying conditions were already factored into the prioritisation list? What has changed?

People with underlying conditions were only in group 7 below healthy 60-65 year old if I remember correctly so it is the right decision to move them up in my opinion as they are definitely more at risk.

igCorcaigh

rosiem wrote: »

People with underlying conditions were only in group 7 below healthy 60-65 year old if I remember correctly so it is the right decision to move them up in my opinion as they are definitely more at risk.

I see. That makes sense.
Why wasn't it that way from the beginning?

Has the definition of underlying condition changed?

boardise

jams100 wrote: »

Well done this post pretty much sums up this entire thread over the past year.

The solution to avoiding another lockdown is to stay in an endless lockdown.

At least when we first went into and came out of lockdown it was evidenced based (e.g outdoors is pretty safe) now everyone is just afraid to make a decision in case the twitter mob and zero covids freak out. I'm still to see a piece of evidence that golf courses (not clubhouses) are unsafe. Anyway looks like the golf club I'm a member of is going to close down, from what I've heard only 33% have paid membership fees so there is another business thats probably going to go which is sad because I'll repeat there is no evidence of any spread on golf courses.

Could never understand why golf was closed-made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
People can walk around my course for exercise -but members can't with a bag of clubs In addition ,golf last summer was strictly controlled as to timings and groupings with two stewards on duty at all times. Did anyone provide evidence that they were sources of infection ?
Another puzzle to me was (outdoor) garden centres being closed . People can shop indoors at a Co-Op I know of but can't enter their garden centre yards away outdoors -where numbers are always small anyway and could be controlled if need be.
These activities are maximally safe and should have continued to function with benefit to people's health and wellbeing.

iamwhoiam

rosiem wrote: »

People with underlying conditions were only in group 7 below healthy 60-65 year old if I remember correctly so it is the right decision to move them up in my opinion as they are definitely more at risk.

Question is if they will be done before the 65-70 now though ?

Jim_Hodge

rosiem wrote: »

People with underlying conditions were only in group 7 below healthy 60-65 year old if I remember correctly so it is the right decision to move them up in my opinion as they are definitely more at risk.

No. Below healthy 65+

Original schedule here

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/39038-provisional-vaccine-allocation-groups/#your-quick-guide-to-the-provisional-vaccine-allocation-groups

vienne86

RTE says 370,000 in group 7. Is this right?

iamwhoiam

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

No. Below healthy 65+

Original schedule here

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/39038-provisional-vaccine-allocation-groups/#your-quick-guide-to-the-provisional-vaccine-allocation-groups

It never said healthy 65-70
They also may have underlying conditions

rosiem

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Question is if they will be done before the 65-70 now though ?

I personally think they should be if you are 65-70 with no underlying health conditions I imagine you are not at as high risk.

Benimar

stephenjmcd wrote: »

I miss added in the original post, deleted and corrected but I've 5605 for the week before unless that's wrong?
4851 for this week alright

I didn't check last weeks tbh. I just felt this weeks was too low (less than 700 per day) so checked that one. I certainly won't argue the 5,605!

igCorcaigh

I'm just curious if they think their previous decision was wrong, or if they are informed by new data.

stephenjmcd

Benimar wrote: »

I didn't check last weeks tbh. I just felt this weeks was too low (less than 700 per day) so checked that one. I certainly won't argue the 5,605!

Yeah this week's was definitely wrong, missed today there. Updated that.

Anyway a reduction on last week

iamwhoiam

rosiem wrote: »

I personally think they should be if you are 65-70 with no underlying health conditions I imagine you are not at as high risk.

There will be quite a few in the Group 65-70 with underlying conditions . It never differentiate between healthy or ill in that group . They are not all healthy

I presume those originally in group 5 with health issue will be prioritised and go in the group who are in group 7
That would be my understanding anyway

rosiem

igCorcaigh wrote: »

I'm just curious if they think their previous decision was wrong, or if they are informed by new data.

I know the Irish Cancer Society among other had recently campaigned the government this may have had a bearing.

vienne86

rosiem wrote: »

People with underlying conditions were only in group 7 below healthy 60-65 year old if I remember correctly so it is the right decision to move them up in my opinion as they are definitely more at risk.

I agree that it makes sense. It's just a pity that they didn't do this from the start.