Covid 19 Part XXXIV-249,437 ROI(4,906 deaths) 120,195 NI (2,145 deaths)(01/05)Read OP

Sweet.Science

cheezums wrote: »

well first of all GAA is a full contact sport, probably just behind rugby in terms of risk.

and most of the country cannot play intercounty GAA.

i would imagine the GAA were pushing other lobby groups out of the way to get in Martin's ear. the same organisation that made an absolute mess of their organizations covid controls before christmas if you recall.

I think you have an issue with GAA in general and no amount of science or facts will change your mind. So i will leave it.

is_that_so

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

If that's accurate, the fact that they're considering allowing vaccinated people to meet indoors as early as April 12th gives me a good bit of hope that they'll stick to a rapid reopening once a good amount of people are vaccinated.

It's a small point, but it's once of the best indicators of reasons to be hopeful for the coming month's I've seen in quite a while.

And yet it's really only care homes and whatever HCWs have been fully vaccinated, so it's a bit of an empty gesture. Not sure how the rest of us great unwashed are supposed to feel about that idea, especially those who won't be done for up to 6 months.

big syke

KrustyUCC wrote: »

What mess was that?

Can you point to a single case from GAA matches or training last year?

Not after the match or training but thanks to training or matches themselves

And thats the problem. Leo hiding behind what happens before and after matches.

Solution - No matches or training. No! Bold population!

is_that_so

big syke wrote: »

And thats the problem. Leo hiding behind what happens before and after matches.

Solution - No matches or training. No! Bold population!

That would be a NPHET recommendation not Leo nor anyone else.

Sofa King Great

is_that_so wrote: »

And yet it's really only care homes and whatever HCWs have been fully vaccinated, so it's a bit of an empty gesture. Not sure how the rest of us great unwashed are supposed to feel about that idea, especially those who won't be done for up to 6 months.

Could we end up with a situation where people are reluctant to get astra zenaca because that means they cannot meet for 14 weeks (12 weeks between vaccines plus 2 weeks to get the immunity) vs the j&j which would have them meeting people after two?

Either way, it's a positive sign that things are moving the right direction I suppose

KrustyUCC

is_that_so wrote: »

That would be a NPHET recommendation not Leo nor anyone else.

Not a NPHET recommendation

NPHET weren't consulted when the government pulled the plug on intercounty GAA being elite sport

is_that_so

Sofa King Great wrote: »

Could we end up with a situation where people are reluctant to get astra zenaca because that means they cannot meet for 14 weeks (12 weeks between vaccines plus 2 weeks to get the immunity) vs the j&j which would have them meeting people after two?

Either way, it's a positive sign that things are moving the right direction I suppose

I'd think most people will take what they are given.
I think there are other ways of doing the same thing, an actual roadmap. Apart from being discriminatory that indoor proposal is premature given that very few of us will be in a position to do so. Relaxing restrictions is a far more equitable way to give people hope and it's not as if we have been there before.

stephenjmcd

Significant change coming

https://twitter.com/Philip_Ryan/status/1376889911849193476?s=20

KrustyUCC

Ooh interesting

That will push me further down the line cohort wise but makes sense in fairness

Only issue will be the most socially active age group as the last down the line

stephenjmcd

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Significant change coming

https://twitter.com/Philip_Ryan/status/1376889911849193476?s=20

That’s the correct approach IMO. Simpler = faster. In the UK, all attempts by various bodies to get priority (police, teachers, transport workers etc) have been rejected

Bridge93

So can somebody explain what that practically means? What changes from the plan at the minute? I'm out of the loop with the cohorts

iamwhoiam

I have a feeling I will have a vaccine passport before I get my actual passport renewed . Will it get me to Croatia this year !

is_that_so

Bridge93 wrote: »

So can somebody explain what that practically means? What changes from the plan at the minute? I'm out of the loop with the cohorts

Probably after Groups 7/8 it will be by age and all the other groups will merge into one big blob.

Doctor Jimbob

is_that_so wrote: »

Probably after Groups 7/8 it will be by age.

That'd be my guess as well.

Groups are listed here for those who aren't familiar with them: https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/39038-provisional-vaccine-allocation-groups/

KrustyUCC

Bridge93 wrote: »

So can somebody explain what that practically means? What changes from the plan at the minute? I'm out of the loop with the cohorts

We're currently doing over 70s and the vulnerable

After that vaccines would be based on age

So 60-69
50-59
40-49
30-39
20-29
18-19

Could be new bracket

It does cut out vital workers cohort 10 and teachers cohort 11 for example

all to be based on age

stephenjmcd

Here's the full article

https://twitter.com/Independent_ie/status/1376894063316774917?s=20

Turtwig

KrustyUCC wrote: »

We're currently doing over 70s and the vulnerable

After that vaccines would be based on age

So 60-69
50-59
40-49
30-39
20-29
18-19

Could be new bracket

It does cut out vital workers cohort 10 and teachers cohort 11 for example

all to be based on age

Much easier. More resources would be spent on figuring out the order of who's job is key than just going through the age ranges. This should be easier to sort too as all you need is date of birth and some other identifier.

The UK got hammered by lobby groups. I suspect they're trying to avoid that here.

big syke

is_that_so wrote: »

That would be a NPHET recommendation not Leo nor anyone else.

Leo came out in the press and said it. so its coming from his big mouth.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/leo-varadkar-shares-ireland-lockdown-23604784

"And the second thing that we need to bear in mind is that it's often not just the sporting event itself, or the mass, or the particular event that people are attending that causes the virus to spread. It's all the stuff around it, it's people meeting up after matches to go to somebody's house, or in the car together, that's where the virus spreads, unfortunately.

KrustyUCC

Turtwig wrote: »

Much easier. More resources would be spent on figuring out the order of who's job is key than just going through the age ranges. This should be easier to sort too as all you need is date of birth and some other identifier.

The UK got hammered by lobby groups. I suspect they're trying to avoid that here.

Easier yes undoubtedly

I don't buy this reasoning though

"“It will be fairer and will hopefully get more public buy in,” a Government source said.

You now have frontline staff who cannot avoid a high risk of exposure to be pushed to the bottom/or near the bottom of the queue for vaccines yet you have retired people who will get the vaccines based on age

That's the way it will be but that's not fair either

namloc1980

KrustyUCC wrote: »

We're currently doing over 70s and the vulnerable

After that vaccines would be based on age

So 60-69
50-59
40-49
30-39
20-29
18-19

Could be new bracket

It does cut out vital workers cohort 10 and teachers cohort 11 for example

all to be based on age

The teachers unions will have a meltdown.

celt262

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Easier yes undoubtedly

I don't buy this reasoning though

"“It will be fairer and will hopefully get more public buy in,” a Government source said.

You now have frontline staff who cannot avoid a high risk of exposure to be pushed to the bottom/or near the bottom of the queue for vaccines yet you have retired people who will get the vaccines based on age

That's the way it will be but that's not fair either

You can please some of the people some of the time but you cannot please all the people all the time. (or something like that)

KrustyUCC

namloc1980 wrote: »

The teachers unions will have a meltdown.

True that

They're not going to be happy at all

giveitholly

KrustyUCC wrote: »

True that

They're not going to be happy at all

When are they ever happy?

KrustyUCC

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Easier yes undoubtedly

I don't buy this reasoning though

"“It will be fairer and will hopefully get more public buy in,” a Government source said.

You now have frontline staff who cannot avoid a high risk of exposure to be pushed to the bottom/or near the bottom of the queue for vaccines yet you have retired people who will get the vaccines based on age

That's the way it will be but that's not fair either

But if the frontline staff are vulnerable (including teachers and police etc) then they will have already been vaccinated. No rationale to complicate the rollout to cater for those that are not vulnerable

KrustyUCC

celt262 wrote: »

You can please some of the people some of the time but you cannot please all the people all the time. (or something like that)

Absolutely but frontline staff who cannot avoid a high risk of exposure will be fuming about this change

In my own job 5/7 will be shifted to second last or last on the list now yet we will still be expected to do the same job

It is much easier for the HSE in fairness

seamus

Turtwig wrote: »

Much easier. More resources would be spent on figuring out the order of who's job is key than just going through the age ranges.

This is probably the rationale behind it.

We already introduced cohort 4, which will protect the most vulnerable in all age groups below 65. Which will include any vulnerable people in "essential worker" roles.

I expect cohorts 5 - 8 will still exist and will be prioritised. That is, if you're 18 and in cohort 8 (Long-term care), you will get vaccinated along with the rest of your facility rather than having to wait.

The only thing is that they might reverse the age brackets as the allocation had suggested, so as to vaccinate the most mobile young people. So it'll go

60-69
50-59
16-29
30-39
40-49

KrustyUCC

giveitholly wrote: »

When are they ever happy?

100%

Turtwig

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Easier yes undoubtedly

I don't buy this reasoning though

"“It will be fairer and will hopefully get more public buy in,” a Government source said.

You now have frontline staff who cannot avoid a high risk of exposure to be pushed to the bottom/or near the bottom of the queue for vaccines yet you have retired people who will get the vaccines based on age

That's the way it will be but that's not fair either

Yeah. Frontline essential workers are being shafted here. If we go off studies based in the UK and assume here is similar teachers are actually the lowest risk profession in this group. Yet, they'll undoubtedly be the loudest opposition to this change.

I agree with your remarks about public buy in. It's going to be hard sell. Administration wise it's the most efficient. Presuming the supply is seamless and the age groups are moved through swiftly.

is_that_so

seamus wrote: »

This is probably the rationale behind it.

We already introduced cohort 4, which will protect the most vulnerable in all age groups below 65. Which will include any vulnerable people in "essential worker" roles.

I expect cohorts 5 - 8 will still exist and will be prioritised. That is, if you're 18 and in cohort 8 (Long-term care), you will get vaccinated along with the rest of your facility rather than having to wait.

The only thing is that they might reverse the age brackets as the allocation had suggested, so as to vaccinate the most mobile young people. So it'll go

60-69
50-59
16-29
30-39
40-49

I'd even consider moving them to just below the 60-69 group, after all they are a risk to everyone else!

Doctors room ghost

Michaeleen Martin going to address the nation later on with a load of waffle,that has already been leaked in bits and pieces by nobody journalists and jumped up politicians.
A fcukin jokeshop of a setup.