Private school teachers prioritised for vaccinations

steddyeddy

First Up wrote: »

Nobody disputes it was not in line with guidance. What we would all like to know is how the system created a situation where that looked the best way to use the 20 vaccines that the HSE were unable to find a use for.

But where are you getting that information from? Who is saying that?

steddyeddy

First Up wrote: »

I hope you have passed your evidence of all this to Eugene McCague. It should make his investigation much quicker

But evidence of what? You're the one making the claims to the contrary here. You're making statements that aren't being reported like "it looked like the best choice at the time".

First Up

steddyeddy wrote:

But where are you getting that information from? Who is saying that?

That sequence of events has been reported in the media, drawn from what the Beacon, St Gerards and the HSE have said.

I summarised it earlier in this thread, including the questions that remain unanswered but Eugene McCague is investigating it all so let's see what he finds.

steddyeddy

First Up wrote: »

That sequence of events has been reported in the media, drawn from what the Beacon, St Gerards and the HSE have said.

I summarised it earlier in this thread, including the questions that remain unanswered but Eugene McCague is investigating it all so let's see what he finds.

No it hasn't. You're contradicting yourself every second post. Earlier on the thread you postulated the the teachers might have secret medical reasons for being vaccinated.

First Up

steddyeddy wrote:

But evidence of what? You're the one making the claims to the contrary here. You're making statements that aren't being reported like "it looked like the best choice at the time".

The HSE has admitted that they left the Beacon with surplus vaccines. What the Beacon did with them (and why) will emerge from McCague's investigation.

Astrofool alleges a conspiracy and has cited a series of calls from the Beacon to the school that he seems to know about. If he has evidence, I hope he knows what to do with it.

First Up

steddyeddy wrote:

But evidence of what? You're the one making the claims to the contrary here. You're making statements that aren't being reported like "it looked like the best choice at the time".

The HSE has admitted that they left the Beacon with surplus vaccines. What the Beacon did with them (and why) will emerge from McCague's investigation.

Astrofool alleges a conspiracy and has cited a series of calls from the Beacon to the school that he seems to know about. If he has evidence, I hope he knows what to do with it.

First Up

steddyeddy wrote:

No it hasn't. You're contradicting yourself every second post. Earlier on the thread you postulated the the teachers might have secret medical reasons for being vaccinated.

I did? That's news to me.

astrofool

First Up wrote: »

The HSE has admitted that they left the Beacon with surplus vaccines. What the Beacon did with them (and why) will emerge from McCague's investigation.

Astrofool alleges a conspiracy and has cited a series of calls from the Beacon to the school that he seems to know about. If he has evidence, I hope he knows what to do with it.

They cover the series of calls to the principal here:
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/beacon-hospital-chief-said-it-had-hse-permission-letter-from-st-gerards-school-in-fallout-over-vaccination-of-teachers-40256988.html

Hopefully the independent sent on their sources...

First Up

astrofool wrote:

They cover the series of calls to the principal here:

You claimed the Beacon called the school early in the day. Nothing in that article supports that.

AndrewJRenko

First Up wrote: »

Nobody disputes it was not in line with guidance. What we would all like to know is how the system created a situation where that looked the best way to use the 20 vaccines

Best for who, though?

First Up

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Best for who, though?

A fair question but sometimes you have to make one the less than perfect choices available.

astrofool

First Up wrote: »

You claimed the Beacon called the school early in the day. Nothing in that article supports that.

One of the tabloids had the full timing, but I wouldn't quite count it as a "source", however we know that the junior principal was called first and that there was 5 shots "available", then later more, and later again even more, with 20 in total. It also seems (speculation but likely) that most of the teachers were already at home and they were called by the principals directly to go in. The amount of preparation certainly sounds like they had plenty of time to make decisions and organise it, going against the emergency must be used angle.

However, I would put the tabloids and social media sources from teacher above your makey up "injected into teachers 12+KM away or into the bin" narrative you keep on pushing, the known facts don't support it, and we'll see what the investigation brings.

First Up

astrofool wrote:

.....we'll see what the investigation brings.

So maybe you should hold off your allegations of corruption until it we do.

astrofool

First Up wrote: »

So maybe you should hold off your allegations of corruption until it we do.

Well that's what a discussion forum is for, but it is a lot more likely than bin or teachers 12KM away that you keep on peddling, the actual facts of the case disagree there and have been admitted as wrong by the Beacon.

First Up

astrofool wrote:

Well that's what a discussion forum is for, but it is a lot more likely than bin or teachers 12KM away that you keep on peddling, the actual facts of the case disagree there and have been admitted as wrong by the Beacon.

You don't seem interested in discussing anything. You have accused the Beacon of corruption. If you feel that strongly about it, accuse them of the same thing under your real name.

Annasopra

Staff who work in numerous disability services were asked to fill in the HSE Vaccine portal

https://healthservice.hse.ie/filelibrary/staff/guidelines-for-sequencing-and-registration-process-for-hcw-covid-vaccination.pdf

They were told to classify themselves into 2a - 2g. The HSE then called everyone together in these organisations for their vaccines and now there is news stories that they gamed the system but they didnt. The staff went along with what the HSE did. The HSE gamed the system not the workers.

2 (a) Healthcare workers who are working in a congregated care setting (unit/ward/service) in contact with a known or suspected COVID 19 patient/service user where there is potential for active transmission of COVID-19. These are patient/service user facing HCWs in units, wards or
services:
• with known or suspected COVID-19 patients/service user in an inpatient clinical setting.
• with current COVID-19 outbreaks.
• who work in COVID-19 assessment hubs or who work in or are called to attend to patients in an emergency department or similar setting;
• who work in COVID-19 swabbing centres with patient/service user contact.
• dealing with end of life care for the care of COVID patients/service users in an acute or home settings
• COVID-19 Vaccinators
Paramedics and others who respond to emergency calls to deliver healthcare to non-triaged individuals in non-healthcare settings.

2 (b) Healthcare workers who deal with unscheduled care patients/service user on a regular basis in an uncontrolled environment
• First Responders in the community.
• HCWs working in Emergency Child Protection services

2 (c) Healthcare workers who deal with unscheduled care patients/service users in a semicontrolled environment on a regular basis. These are HCWs who mainly see patients/service users by appointment but who may from time to time need to see urgent unscheduled patients/service users
• Urgent care facility clinical staff.
• GP practice staff - GPs/Practice Nurses
• Dentists and dental nurses providing urgent dental care.
• Some public health nurse providing urgent unscheduled care

2 (d) Healthcare workers who deal with unscheduled care patients in a controlled environment on a regular basis
• Patient facing staff who work in in-patient/residential care areas that provide care for unscheduled care /service users and community settings providing walk in access for patients/service users. For example walk-in community services, Addiction services, homeless service, walk-in mental health facilities.

2 (e) Healthcare workers who deal with scheduled care patients in an uncontrolled environment on a regular basis where there is no known COVID- diagnosis
• Delivery of care by appointment in a patient/service user’s home, for example home support, community delivered services, public health services and social care services, nonemergency patient/service user transport, residential and respite services,

2 (f) Healthcare workers who deal with scheduled care patients/service users in a controlled setting on a regular basis where there is no known COVID diagnosis
• Delivery of scheduled care by appointment in a clinic, outpatient clinic or hospital
• Provision of such therapies as physiotherapy, occupational therapy, podiatry
• Provision of face to face appointments, for example Occupational Health, Psychiatry, Counselling/Therapy services .

2(g) All other healthcare workers without direct patient care but working in a healthcare facility with the potential to meet patients/service users, who are not captured in 2a – 2f
• Examples are Laboratory staff, pharmacists, catering, household staff, general support staff, ICT, maintenance staff.
• Statutory/Regulatory workers e.g. HIQA inspectors, EHOs and others
• Critical management posts particularly on COVID response teams who provide on-going daily support to multiple locations.

TheTruth21

First Up wrote: »

So maybe you should hold off your allegations of corruption until it we do.

We all know its corruption. Its whether the powers to be want to act or are they in on it all.

How can the Govt not tell us who got the extra vaccines.

Is it a case we know how many vaccines were given but don't know who got them?

astrofool

First Up wrote: »

You don't seem interested in discussing anything. You have accused the Beacon of corruption. If you feel that strongly about it, accuse them of the same thing under your real name.

Why are you getting personal? If you're that staunch a defender of the Beacon, why don't you do it under your real name?

What happened at the Beacon is a pretty clear cut case of corruption happening, the CEO, Michael Cullen is a corrupt CEO, if the investigation bears this out, then he should lose his position and all the privileges that he's been abusing along with it. I don't know how anyone could think that their children's teachers should be on the priority list for a vaccine when you work for a hospital, there is a lot of mental gymnastics going on to justify that position. The actions taken by the HSE in censuring the Beacon and the investigation going on will likely bear this out.

TheTruth21

First Up wrote: »

You don't seem interested in discussing anything. You have accused the Beacon of corruption. If you feel that strongly about it, accuse them of the same thing under your real name.

They were worse than corrupt. They stole medication during a pandemic and handed it out to there mates.

All other places who done the same are all scumbags and inquirys need to set up by Govt to know what happened but they wont be because the Govts mates stole them

First Up

astrofool wrote:

Why are you getting personal? If you're that staunch a defender of the Beacon, why don't you do it under your real name?

i am putting what happened in context. I'm not not hiding behind a pseudonym while accusing named people of corruption.

The Beacon/St Gerard's incident was a questionable decision made under time pressure caused by a series of mistakes and system failures. It is being investigated and I'll suspend judgement until that is done.

But this is Boards so do carry on.

Lumen

First Up wrote: »

i am putting what happened in context. I'm not not hiding behind a pseudonym while accusing named people of corruption.

The Beacon/St Gerard's incident was a questionable decision made under time pressure caused by a series of mistakes and system failures. It is being investigated and I'll suspend judgement until that is done.

But this is Boards so do carry on.

But you haven't suspended judgement. You have stated that "The Beacon/St Gerard's incident was a questionable decision made under time pressure caused by a series of mistakes and system failures". That's a judgement.

First Up

Lumen wrote:

But you haven't suspended judgement. You have stated that "The Beacon/St Gerard's incident was a questionable decision made under time pressure caused by a series of mistakes and system failures". That's a judgement.

No. it's a summary of what we know, and what else we need to find out.

Lumen

First Up wrote: »

No. it's a summary of what we know, and what else we need to find out.

No, it's a summary of what you've chosen to believe. The wording is classic whitewash "mistakes were made, there were systematic process issues, it's complicated, move on" stuff.

Here's a question for you: in your view, what facts discovered during an inquiry would require the CEO of The Beacon to resign?

First Up

Lumen wrote:

No, it's a summary of what you've chosen to believe. The wording is classic whitewash "mistakes were made, there were systematic process issues, it's complicated, move on" stuff.

Too complicated for you anyway.

The HSE has admitted they got numbers wrong. I expect the investigation will look into the systemic issues that caused that and the Beacon's version will be checked. Nobody has said to move on.

Lumen wrote:

Here's a question for you: in your view, what facts discovered during an inquiry would require the CEO of The Beacon to resign?

A bit early to say but if it is shown that the Beacon by-passed 20 nominated vaccine recipients in order to give them to St Gerard's that would be enough.

First Up

First Up wrote:

A bit early to say but if it is shown that the Beacon by-passed 20 nominated vaccine recipients in order to give them to St Gerard's that would be enough.

Or if they had access to a list of available and more deserving recipients but chose not to use it.

astrofool

First Up wrote: »

i am putting what happened in context. I'm not not hiding behind a pseudonym while accusing named people of corruption.

The Beacon/St Gerard's incident was a questionable decision made under time pressure caused by a series of mistakes and system failures. It is being investigated and I'll suspend judgement until that is done.

But this is Boards so do carry on.

You're literally hiding behind a pseudonym yourself, but anyway.

But at least you're at the point now where you admit that it shouldn't have happened and that the bin or teachers at least 12KM away isn't a believable story.

This is corruption by CEO Michael Cullen, the question is whether it's stupid corruption ("Stupid Beacongate") where the CEO of a hospital didn't realise that prioritising teachers of his children shouldn't be prioritised ahead of actual cancer patients in his hospital and that the CEO was stupidly getting involved in the day to day running of the vaccination program, in which case Michael Cullen probably isn't capable of being a hospital CEO, or wilful corruption, which would be indicated by a series of calls being made, for the CEO to get involved to prioritise against his own list and ignoring the list provided by the HSE, including cancer patients at his own hospital, in which case Michael Cullen also shouldn't be CEO anymore.

The big question is how many he tries to bring down with him, will he blame the supervisor(s) he put in place that was running the vaccinations and try and let them take the fall for him.

The school are also complicit, but have tried to put the blame back on the Beacon, their reputation is in tatters (if that's a catholic ethos, no wonder the church lurches from scandal to scandal), it will be interesting to see if we can find out the scale of the complicity or if the teachers will try and put up walls and protect themselves, the fact that a few teachers have given their story to the tabloids indicates this has leaked anyway, so a story will be spun that doesn't make sense.

First Up wrote: »

A bit early to say but if it is shown that the Beacon by-passed 20 nominated vaccine recipients in order to give them to St Gerard's that would be enough.

We actually factually know this, as a few of the patients in the hospital have come out to say they were there on the day, are close to the hospital and are on the priority list.

First Up

astrofool wrote:

You're literally hiding behind a pseudonym yourself, but anyway.

But I'm not libelling anyone

astrofool wrote:

But at least you're at the point now where you admit that it shouldn't have happened and that the bin or teachers at least 12KM away isn't a believable story.

I said the justification needs to be investigated.

astrofool wrote:

We actually factually know this, as a few of the patients in the hospital have come out to say they were there on the day, are close to the hospital and are on the priority list.

And I presume they will be giving details to McCague.

astrofool

First Up wrote: »

But I'm not libelling anyone

There's a legal forum on this site where you can express your concerns about covering for a corrupt CEO and if a case goes to court then commentary on the cases will be restricted.

There's numerous articles in multiple broadsheets covering the corruption that went on (and numerous commentary on multiple sites).

First Up

astrofool wrote:

There's a legal forum on this site where you can express your concerns about covering for a corrupt CEO and if a case goes to court then commentary on the cases will be restricted.

I don't have any concerns but I think you should be careful.

JDD

I think everyone understands that no-one should be fired until the outcome of the investigation.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for posters to state their opinion that the CEO of a private corporation should resign in circumstances where his position has become untenable and decisions that he personally made - whether intending to bypass the system, or mistakenly bypassed the system - has brought the reputation of that private entity into disrepute. Certainly if I was a shareholder and on the board of the Beacon, a for-profit entity which relies on customers choosing to use its services, I would have serious concerns about allowing my CEO to continue in his position where I believed the Beacon brand had been materially damaged.

I also don't think we should just "wait for the outcome of the inquiry, and only comment then" because - given the history of inquiries in Ireland - the outcome could be months away. It is likely that media interest will have moved on by then, and perhaps the report will not receive the scrutiny that it should. It is important for people in Ireland to keep the pressure on where instances of potential corruption have been identified. Corruption is a blight on our country and has been holding us back economically and socially for decades.

No-one wants to defame the CEO's reputation unjustly, and there is of course the chance that any report will exonerate him. However, I don't think that it is defamatory to state that, given the facts that are in the public domain, you cannot see how such an inquiry would come to that conclusion. And, should the inquiry come to the conclusion that his acts were likely to have been intentional, what the outcome for him should be.