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

wadacrack

Deleted User wrote: »

That wasn't the point you made.

You said that when the body experiences side effects, it's a bad thing. That's not true.

Now you have moved the goalposts to the symptoms of COVID-19, and the side effects of a vaccine.

That's a separate question and people have to decide for themselves, true. But the health risks of continued COVID-19 infection due to lockdown coupled with individual risk from the virus itself, appears to excellent evidence in favour of taking a vaccine that has relatively mild side effects - a demonstration, if anything, that the vaccine is working because the mRNA (in the case of Pfizer and others) is triggering an immune response.

If anything, I'd want to experience those side effects for precisely that confirmatory reason.

It's a small price to pay.

And most people who are given the vaccine experience nothing to very mild effects.

Yea I should have stated negative side effects ie. the ones associated with the vaccine. I stand by the comments.

Agee with what you say, I will personally take it but I do think its fair for people to have reservations and not to labelled ignorant

wadacrack

wadacrack wrote: »

Yea I should have stated negative side effects ie. the ones associated with the vaccine. I stand by the comments.

Agee with what you say, I will personally take it but I do think its fair for people to have reservations and not to labelled ignorant

A side effect that is a sign of activation of the immune system to the vaccine is not negative. A side effect that requires medical intervention and / or impacts your ability to live a normal life is negative

Itsaduck1

titan18 wrote: »

I know my work are already talking on no vaccine means you're not allowed in the office when we're back (which will be ages anyway). I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of places do the same

What about people that can't take the vaccine?

Pregnant women, severe allergies etc?

HSE and private hospitals are not enforcing

Why would a multi national?

Your speculating or did your company make a statement?

wadacrack

wadacrack wrote: »

Agee with what you say, I will personally take it but I do think its fair for people to have reservations and not to labelled ignorant

It depends on what their reason is.

If they oppose it for some pseudoconspiratorial reason that Big Pharma is out to get them or that Bill Gates is implanting a microchip in their body, then it would be a compliment to call those people ignorant.

If they oppose it against all medical and scientific advice, yet agree with the same medical and scientific experts when it comes to medicines they prefer, then yes - they display some form of deluded cognitive dissonance.

If, upon answering their concerns with legitimate answers and they still oppose taking the vaccine, then that is worse than ignorant - that's ignorance supporting even more ignorance.

If they oppose taking the vaccine because they have a medical complaint, then that is a legitimate reason. The best antidote to that concern is to consult healthcare professionals - not personal opinion or what is doing the rounds on Reddit or other social media or blogging platforms.

When and if there are legitimate reasons not to take the vaccine based on clinical evidence, these recommendations will be posted.

mohawk

titan18 wrote: »

I know my work are already talking on no vaccine means you're not allowed in the office when we're back (which will be ages anyway). I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of places do the same

From a privacy point of view. Can this be done? What rights does a company have to employees medical data.

Malcomex

mohawk wrote: »

From a privacy point of view. Can this be done? What rights does a company have to employees medical data.

Guess this will all be thrased out as it's going to be a big issue

Same as international travel and Vaccination

Mimon

DraftDodger wrote: »

My wife works in a care facility and got the vaccine last week. Out of the the 24 members of staff dealing directly with patients 6 refused to take the vaccine. 4 of those are from affluent areas of Dublin and 2 from not so affluent or what one may call deprived.

There are stupid ignorant people from all sectors of our society.

Yes but the statistics gathered about millions of people trumps your anecdote with a sample size of 24 people methinks

If people refusing it are working in a care home I hope to hell that they will not be allowed to work there if not vaccinated.

Hector Savage

https://english.elpais.com/society/2021-01-29/the-new-debate-in-spain-should-medical-grade-face-masks-be-mandatory.html

Brilliant move by Spain, making it mandatory to wear an FFP2 mask whilst walking in a forest alone will definetely make cases plummet.

Meanwhile due to covid taking a break between 8/9.30 am and lunchtime I can go to a packed restuarant and sit maskless indoors whilst eating and drinking and shouting PERO BUEEEENNNOOOO!!!!!

complete idiocy.

titan18

Itsaduck1 wrote: »

What about people that can't take the vaccine?

Pregnant women, severe allergies etc?

HSE and private hospitals are not enforcing

Why would a multi national?

Your speculating or did your company make a statement?

Not an official statement but the CEO said it in a meeting. I'd imagine there might be exceptions like people pregnant at the time who might not be able to get it, but I think anyone choosing not to get it will be told work from home.

Qwertyminger

So we (EU) haven't agreed to buy yet another vaccine yet, Novavax.

They are really ruining the rollout for Ireland.

It's shocking to think that the top of this island will probably be better served in their vaccination programme.

How is that an all-island strategy if we're vaccines are in such short supply here.

The EU don't want normality to return, they want us to remain subjugated.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

These are normal vaccine reactions. It is what happens when the immune system responds. I for one would always be wondering did the vaccine "take" if I did not experience at least a very mild effect. They are not a chemical that just sits there waiting for the virus. The purpose of a vaccine is to trigger an immune response

I think they need to get ahead of this. My wife mentioned this too, a healthcare worker in the Mater that she spoke to, had reported feeling a bit fuzzy for two days after getting the second dose.

I explained this was perfectly normal and was in fact an indication that her immunity was active.

As more and more second doses are applied, we'll see more reports of "feeling sick" after the second dose. They should be making it clear - not just with a leaflet - that this is to be expected and is a good sign.

podgeandrodge

DraftDodger wrote: »

My wife works in a care facility and got the vaccine last week. Out of the the 24 members of staff dealing directly with patients 6 refused to take the vaccine. 4 of those are from affluent areas of Dublin and 2 from not so affluent or what one may call deprived.

There are stupid ignorant people from all sectors of our society.

Turtwig wrote: »

There may well be very legitimate reasons why a person doesn't take the vaccine. Need to be careful before we toss labels on people.

Though while it is a personal choice, I'm wondering if you can maintain that choice and be allowed by a, say, nursing home employer, to work in an area where you are dealing with patients and could pass on the virus to them? (even if they are vaccinated)?

titan18

mohawk wrote: »

From a privacy point of view. Can this be done? What rights does a company have to employees medical data.

I would assume they can as long as you're not firing people cos they won't get vaccinated (that would be a minefield), but saying you have to work from home might be what companies do.

In regards, medical data, I'd imagine that's cleared as even now you'd have company doctors, or on certain occasions having to be cleared by the company doctor to go back into work (I've had to been cleared due to mental health issues in the past), or there are people who at times (like breaking a leg) can only work on the ground floor of the building. With those, I'd assume it's legal for a company to have access where it can cause issues inside in work.

is_that_so

Qwertyminger wrote: »

So we (EU) haven't agreed to buy yet another vaccine yet, Novavax.

They are really ruining the rollout for Ireland.

It's shocking to think that the top of this island will probably be better served in their vaccination programme.

How is that an all-island strategy if we're vaccines are in such short supply here.

The EU don't want normality to return, they want us to remain subjugated.

It's not available to buy and hasn't been approved anywhere, nor have they applied for it. It's still just data from them. It's really from Q2 it may be a factor.

seamus

titan18 wrote: »

I would assume they can as long as you're not firing people cos they won't get vaccinated (that would be a minefield), but saying you have to work from home might be what companies do.

Where the employer can justify that vaccination is necessary for the performance of a job, then they can absolutely take action against an employee who does not take it.

Think of it like a training course. Imagine a company rolled a new updated safety certification for all its forklift drivers. One driver refuses to take the new course, or can't pass it.

The company can make this certification a requirement for all of their drivers, but they can't necessarily fire him for not getting it. What they can do is reassign him to non-forklift work, or if nothing suitable is available, they can make him redundant.

The same can apply with the vaccine. If it's deemed necessary, someone who won't get the vaccine can be reassigned to another role where vaccination is not necessary, or made redundant.

Eod100

https://twitter.com/Elaine_Loughlin/status/1355103002206629895?s=19

Eod100

Eod100 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Elaine_Loughlin/status/1355103002206629895?s=19

That's not too bad, enough to get all of group 3 their first dose at least you'd hope.

seamus

It's a 21% reduction. Which is not terrible.

A difference of 300,000 doses will, by September, only have delayed the programme by a week or two. If even that - extra supplies coming online from elsewhere will make up the shortfall. It feels like a lot when we're all locked down and desperate to get as many vaccinations done as possible, but in the overall context it's not a huge blow. It's not like it's going to delay the programme into 2022.

titan18

seamus wrote: »

Where the employer can justify that vaccination is necessary for the performance of a job, then they can absolutely take action against an employee who does not take it.

Think of it like a training course. Imagine a company rolled a new updated safety certification for all its forklift drivers. One driver refuses to take the new course, or can't pass it.

The company can make this certification a requirement for all of their drivers, but they can't necessarily fire him for not getting it. What they can do is reassign him to non-forklift work, or if nothing suitable is available, they can make him redundant.

The same can apply with the vaccine. If it's deemed necessary, someone who won't get the vaccine can be reassigned to another role where vaccination is not necessary, or made redundant.

We wouldn't be a nursing home or a hospital (although we are healthcare related) so bar some managers, most of us wouldn't be around a hospital as part of work, although hospital managers can be in our building for meetings too. I would assume for health and safety reasons, companies would care whether their staff are vaccinated before returning into the office around other people. At the moment, we are encouraged to share with our Occupational Health team if we test positive or a close contact.

From my own experience, I know I had to be declared fit to return to work due to some mental health issues, and Occupational Health had regular meetings with me, but the letter they write back to managers or HR don't make any mention of what the issue is, just you have to take some time off work. None of the medical information is shared with HR or your manager (unless you disclose it yourself) but company doctor or Occupational Health would know.

I'd imagine most large offices would already have policies around this for non covid illnesses like shingles/measles etc where people need to be informed someone has it just incase but they won't name who.

seamie78

this wouldt include j and j and the one announced today which could also come on stream before the end of march, am I right in saying this

is_that_so

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Though while it is a personal choice, I'm wondering if you can maintain that choice and be allowed by a, say, nursing home employer, to work in an area where you are dealing with patients and could pass on the virus to them? (even if they are vaccinated)?

There may be individual examples of this and vaccination will never find everyone. You can't force people to get vaccinated any more than you insist they get a specific vaccine.

seamie78

seamie78 wrote: »

this wouldt include j and j and the one announced today which could also come on stream before the end of march, am I right in saying this

It doesn't look like very much Novovax is scheduled for production in Q1, end of Q2 seems to be when they expect supplies to be available.

J & J first deliveries seem to be planned for April.

is_that_so

seamus wrote: »

Where the employer can justify that vaccination is necessary for the performance of a job, then they can absolutely take action against an employee who does not take it.

Think of it like a training course. Imagine a company rolled a new updated safety certification for all its forklift drivers. One driver refuses to take the new course, or can't pass it.

The company can make this certification a requirement for all of their drivers, but they can't necessarily fire him for not getting it. What they can do is reassign him to non-forklift work, or if nothing suitable is available, they can make him redundant.

The same can apply with the vaccine. If it's deemed necessary, someone who won't get the vaccine can be reassigned to another role where vaccination is not necessary, or made redundant.

Do you see companies willing to test a requirement like this for something that is voluntary? It doesn't really come under skills to do your job. There seems to a lot of ruminating on extreme approaches based onw where we currently find ourselves, some of it does not look rational.

thelad95

I think a lot of people had unrealistic expectations regarding the vaccine rollout.

When history looks back on this chapter, it will look at the incredible scientific achievement of developing a vaccine for a new disease within 12 months, allowing the world to move on from a pandemic three to four years quicker than history has shown is normally the case.

Hollywood may have scripted a different ending to this but the real world doesn't work like that and anyone who has even taken a basic supply chain module would realise how complex these things are and how many different possibilities there are for things to go askew along the way.

It's better to view this as just initial teething problems and just accept the truth that it may be the end of 2021 before there's been a meaningful number vaccinated.

It's easy to be critical of only 170k odd doses being administered so far but worth bearing in mind that we're being drip-fed these on a piece-meal basis by the EU and they are also an unholy pain to store properly (can only imagine the cost as well).

Once the other vaccines without ridiculous storage requirements come along, there's every possibility that GP surgeries and pharmacies can start administering and that will be when numbers seriously begin to pick up. If that process is delayed by a few weeks it's relatively immaterial in the context of the above.

Theboinkmaster

thelad95 wrote: »

culous storage requirements come along, there's every possibility that GP surgeries and pharmacies can start administering and that will be when numbers seriously begin to pick up. If that process is delayed by a few weeks it's relatively immaterial in the context of the above.

Yes I agree - i think the J&J vaccine will be a game changer in April.

thelad95

thelad95 wrote: »

I think a lot of people had unrealistic expectations regarding the vaccine rollout.

When history looks back on this chapter, it will look at the incredible scientific achievement of developing a vaccine for a new disease within 12 months, allowing the world to move on from a pandemic three to four years quicker than history has shown is normally the case.

Hollywood may have scripted a different ending to this but the real world doesn't work like that and anyone who has even taken a basic supply chain module would realise how complex these things are and how many different possibilities there are for things to go askew along the way.

It's better to view this as just initial teething problems and just accept the truth that it may be the end of 2021 before there's been a meaningful number vaccinated.

It's easy to be critical of only 170k odd doses being administered so far but worth bearing in mind that we're being drip-fed these on a piece-meal basis by the EU and they are also an unholy pain to store properly (can only imagine the cost as well).

Once the other vaccines without ridiculous storage requirements come along, there's every possibility that GP surgeries and pharmacies can start administering and that will be when numbers seriously begin to pick up. If that process is delayed by a few weeks it's relatively immaterial in the context of the above.

I'll admit I would be one of the people that had unrealistic expectations. Driven by companies promising massive numbers would be ready as soon as approval arrived which hasn't been the case.

I've come round to the realisation that the bulk of vaccinations will be from the months of April to October this year.

is_that_so

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll admit I would be one of the people that had unrealistic expectations. Driven by companies promising massive numbers would be ready as soon as approval arrived which hasn't been the case.

I've come round to the realisation that the bulk of vaccinations will be from the months of April to October this year.

Our communications on this have got better since the programme started and in comparison with some countries, we have managed expectations very well.

thelad95

thelad95 wrote: »

I think a lot of people had unrealistic expectations regarding the vaccine rollout.

When history looks back on this chapter, it will look at the incredible scientific achievement of developing a vaccine for a new disease within 12 months, allowing the world to move on from a pandemic three to four years quicker than history has shown is normally the case.

Hollywood may have scripted a different ending to this but the real world doesn't work like that and anyone who has even taken a basic supply chain module would realise how complex these things are and how many different possibilities there are for things to go askew along the way.

It's better to view this as just initial teething problems and just accept the truth that it may be the end of 2021 before there's been a meaningful number vaccinated.

It's easy to be critical of only 170k odd doses being administered so far but worth bearing in mind that we're being drip-fed these on a piece-meal basis by the EU and they are also an unholy pain to store properly (can only imagine the cost as well).

Once the other vaccines without ridiculous storage requirements come along, there's every possibility that GP surgeries and pharmacies can start administering and that will be when numbers seriously begin to pick up. If that process is delayed by a few weeks it's relatively immaterial in the context of the above.

I don't think this is over by a long shot yet.

We still do not really know about the long term effects of a rushed vaccine.

We do not know the outcomes of long term covid for those already infected.

TheVirus has already shown it is capable of mutating to a deadlier strain, who knows if it will mutate to a strain that the vaccines cant solve?

You talk about those who put unrealistic hopes into the vaccine time frames, I think a lot of people are putting unrealistic hopes into a vaccine we really do not know much about, or how good it really is.

Gruffalux

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Though while it is a personal choice, I'm wondering if you can maintain that choice and be allowed by a, say, nursing home employer, to work in an area where you are dealing with patients and could pass on the virus to them? (even if they are vaccinated)?

As far as I can ascertain the research is ongoing as to whether or not one who is vaccinated can still transmit virus. Again as far as I can figure out the vaccine is designed to mitigate the illness if contracted in those who are vaccinated.
If that is so - ie that the vaccinated person can still transmit - and the vulnerable person is vaccinated, then it does not matter if the other/carer is vaccinated or not in terms of transmission.
Please, before people leap on me, I am not saying the vaccine does not mitigate the illness - it is genuinely my conclusion looking at media sources that transmission post vaccination is an unknown quantity, but as of now it continues to be likely.

thelad95

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't think this is over by a long shot yet.

We still do not really know about the long term effects of a rushed vaccine.

We do not know the outcomes of long term covid for those already infected.

The Cirus has already shown it is capable of mutating to a deadlier strain, who knows if it will mutate to a strain that the vaccines cant solve?

You talk about those who put unrealistic hopes into the vaccine time frames, I think a lot of people are putting unrealistic hopes into a vaccine we really do not know much about, or how good it really is.

Yes, I do unfortunately agree.

If the vaccines only give short term Immunity, then there will need to be buy in for a good few years for people to get the vaccine periodically and this could wane pretty quickly especially amongst the "healthy" population.

The real scary thing is that there is no precedent for a vaccine being rolled out this quickly. Simply put, nobody knows how this will work out on a global scale.

It's a very romantic idea to imagine everyone vaccinated in September and packed Harcourt Street/Temple Bar but that won't be allowed for quite a while, potentially the other side of Christmas 2021.

It's an uncomfortable truth that in many ways, we're all subject to what is essentially a massive experiment and we will be used as historical precedent if anything ever happens like this again.

There is also a notable shift in policy on a European and indeed global basis that the correct thing to do is to actually close borders for all but the most essential entrants (even they will have to stay in a hotel for two weeks).

Too much lip service was paid to people's perceived god-given freedom of movement meaning people still thinking they can selfishly fùck off to Spain putting there population and ours at further risk. What people don't realise is that that freedom of movement has come about as a result of centuries of political, scientific and cultural advances and that it is actually right and proper to temporarily accept that you don't have that right for a short period of time and allow the equilibrium to return again. It's well and truly evident at this stage that people can't be trusted to do that themselves and as such mandatory hotel quarantine needs to become the new gold standard.