Private school teachers prioritised for vaccinations

astrofool

First Up wrote: »

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

I don't think people should be fearful of making commentary on a public interest story, if you don't have any concerns you wouldn't be following up asking someone to be careful, if you want to shut down discussion on this story, then say that and make your case, but thinly veiling threats isn't going to last too long.

Cyrus

JDD wrote: »

I think it's perfectly reasonable for posters to state their opinion that the CEO of a private corporation should resign

its nothing to do with them, i disagree, he isnt a public servant.

First Up

JDD wrote:

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

The Beacon is a private business. If its board thinks the CEO should be fired it is free to do so. They may decide to do so more for commercial than ethical reasons but that is their entitlement .

JDD wrote:

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.

Some posters here are delighted to defame the CEO, the Beacon, St Gerard's or anyone else they can include in their grump against society in general. They think that an anonymous Internet forum means they can let of steam without having to prove anything. That's fine but I wouldn't confuse it with due process and they should pay attention to how technology and the legal system are adapting to social media.

Lumen

Cyrus wrote: »

its nothing to do with them, i disagree, he isn't a public servant.

Since when are only shareholders permitted to comment on the ethics of how businesses are run?

Cyrus

Lumen wrote: »

Since when are only shareholders permitted to comment on the ethics of how businesses are run?

you can comment on anyone any time if you feel like it, doesnt mean its any of your business.

Lumen

Cyrus wrote: »

you can comment on anyone any time if you feel like it, doesnt mean its any of your business.

So I can comment but I shouldn't?

First Up

astrofool wrote:

I don't think people should be fearful of making commentary on a public interest story, if you don't have any concerns you wouldn't be following up asking someone to be careful, if you want to shut down discussion on this story, then say that and make your case, but thinly veiling threats isn't going to last too long.

Commentary is fine. Flat out allegations of corruption might result in more than a bit of egg on the accuser's face if found to be untrue - or unproven.

Cyrus

Lumen wrote: »

So I can comment but I shouldn't?

thats up to you to decide, as i said anyone can say anything about anyone, doesnt mean they should or that its any of their business.

The only people who will decide on that mans future is the shareholders and thats the way it should be, everything else is noise.

astrofool

First Up wrote: »

Commentary is fine. Flat out allegations of corruption might result in more than a bit of egg on the accuser's face if found to be untrue - or unproven.

It's interesting to see that your latest defence has moved to legal threats against people saying mean things about Michael Cullen, CEO of the Beacon Hospital Group. Not a route I would have gone down as it completely invalidates all your previous arguments, but so be it.

First Up

astrofool wrote:

It's interesting to see that your latest defence has moved to legal threats against people saying mean things about Michael Cullen, CEO of the Beacon Hospital Group. Not a route I would have gone down as it completely invalidates all your previous arguments, but so be it.

Not for the first time, your thought process eludes me.

You have accused the Beacon CEO of corruption but offered only a misreading of a newspaper article as evidence.

You have misinterpreted my warning you against committing libel as a threat.

And to cap it all, you claim my mentioning the latter contradicts the former.

Good, even by Boards standards.

JDD

Cyrus wrote: »

you can comment on anyone any time if you feel like it, doesnt mean its any of your business.

Not quite. I would perhaps agree with you if the behaviour in this case was solely to do with provision of private services, but in this case the Beacon has a contract with the State to provide public services - services paid for by the Irish taxpayer. So in normal circumstances where only the shareholders are affected by mismanagement of a firm's business, in this case it has an affect on a wider set of stakeholders.

And even if it didn't, I don't think it is solely the remit of the Beacon's board or shareholders to hold an opinion. If your position held true, no newspaper or ordinary citizen could comment on how the banks handled tracker mortgage customers, or how Davy's bought their own client's shares anonymously. I'm not a tracker mortgage customer, or a bank shareholder, or a client/shareholder of Davys, but I think it is most certainly my business to comment on how I believe they have run their business.

Exactly the same with the Beacon, if not more so because the behaviour here has the potential to undermine trust in the entire manner of the vaccine rollout, which has consequences for everyone.

astrofool

First Up wrote: »

Not for the first time, your thought process eludes me.

You have accused the Beacon CEO of corruption but offered only a misreading of a newspaper article as evidence.

You have misinterpreted my warning you against committing libel as a threat.

And to cap it all, you claim my mentioning the latter contradicts the former.

Good, even by Boards standards.

These are the facts accepted by everyone:

• Beacon ended up with extra vaccines
• Beacon didn't use the priority list (bypassing multiple patients of the hospital)
• CEO got involved for whatever reason
• CEO chose to ring the school where his children go to offer them vaccines 3 times, increasing the offer of vaccines each time, this school neither being on the priority list or near the hospital

Those are indisputable.

And there is very little reading of them that doesn't imply corruption, the question then is was it wilful corruption or accidental corruption.

Neither paints the CEO in a good light.

You're the poster who started insinuating legal threats and asking for people's names, for whatever reason.

You've also told people to hold off on opinions before the inquiry is finished despite offering your own ludicrous scenario of bin vs. Gerard's teachers as an explanation.

First Up

astrofool wrote:

Neither paints the CEO in a good light.

None of it paints anyone in a good light. Plenty of blame to be distributed

astrofool wrote:

You're the poster who started insinuating legal threats and asking for people's names, for whatever reason.

I did neither.

astrofool wrote:

You've also told people to hold off on opinions before the inquiry is finished despite offering your own ludicrous scenario of bin vs. Gerard's teachers as an explanation.

I didn't offer that as an "explanation" either. I'm happy to discuss this but could you ever take the trouble to read things more carefully before you reply to them?

Cyrus

JDD wrote: »

I'm not a tracker mortgage customer, or a bank shareholder, or a client/shareholder of Davys, but I think it is most certainly my business to comment on how I believe they have run their business.

why?

and i didnt say no one could comment, i just said it doesnt mean its any of your business.

steddyeddy

First Up wrote: »

None of it paints anyone in a good light. Plenty of blame to be distributed


I did neither.



I didn't offer that as an "explanation" either. I'm happy to discuss this but could you ever take the trouble to read things more carefully before you reply to them?

That's not true. You stated that this course of action looked like the best one at the time and that the vaccines would have been wasted anyway.

astrofool

First Up wrote: »

None of it paints anyone in a good light. Plenty of blame to be distributed

I did neither.

I didn't offer that as an "explanation" either. I'm happy to discuss this but could you ever take the trouble to read things more carefully before you reply to them?

It's going to be difficult for Michael Cullen to pass the buck on this one seeing as he was the one picking up the phone and ringing his kids school.

Great, you're not worried about legal action now, we can move on and keep on discussing the corruption of the Beacon Hospital and St. Gerard's school.

JDD

Cyrus wrote: »

why?

and i didnt say no one could comment, i just said it doesnt mean its any of your business.

Because corruption is a crime. Whether it is in the context of conducting private business or public business.

I'm not sure if it needs any more explanation than that?

Cyrus

JDD wrote: »

Because corruption is a crime. Whether it is in the context of conducting private business or public business.

I'm not sure if it needs any more explanation than that?

but alleged corruption is not, correct?

JDD

First Up wrote: »

None of it paints anyone in a good light. Plenty of blame to be distributed

You keep pushing this back to the HSE's mess up with the double booking.

As if to say "well, Mr Cullen wouldn't have had extra vaccines to distribute if the HSE hadn't messed up the bookings, and therefore we should not blame Mr Cullen for being tempted to give the vaccines to his children's teachers, and rather place the blame on the HSE for trusting the Beacon to follow protocol".

I mean, if a drunk Securicor driver crashes his van, is it okay for me to steal the money out of the back of the van? I wouldn't be able to if the driver hadn't been drunk, but the two crimes are separate. One does not excuse the other.

Unless of course you are suggesting that the HSE made the double bookings on purpose, so as to give the Beacon the additional vaccines and a wink and nudge that they could give them to whomever they wished? That's a big stretch.

First Up

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's not true. You stated that this course of action looked like the best one at the time and that the vaccines would have been wasted anyway.

After the HSE left them with five and then a further fifteen vaccines unused and time running out, I can understand why the Beacon saw giving them to schoolteachers as the best course of action available. Without having the full picture, neither of us are in a position to say what they could or should have done better.

As I said before, the Beacon was left in a situation where none of the remaining options was ideal. They made a decision and they can justify it or not to the investigation.

Treppen

First Up wrote: »

After the HSE left them with five and then a further fifteen vaccines unused and time running out, I can understand why the Beacon saw giving them to schoolteachers as the best course of action available. Without having the full picture, neither of us are in a position to say what they could or should have done better.

As I said before, the Beacon was left in a situation where none of the remaining options was ideal. They made a decision and they can justify it or not to the investigation.

Was there a protocol in place for spare vaccines?

First Up

JDD wrote: »

You keep pushing this back to the HSE's mess up with the double booking.

As if to say "well, Mr Cullen wouldn't have had extra vaccines to distribute if the HSE hadn't messed up the bookings, and therefore we should not blame Mr Cullen for being tempted to give the vaccines to his children's teachers, and rather place the blame on the HSE for trusting the Beacon to follow protocol".

I mean, if a drunk Securicor driver crashes his van, is it okay for me to steal the money out of the back of the van? I wouldn't be able to if the driver hadn't been drunk, but the two crimes are separate. One does not excuse the other.

Unless of course you are suggesting that the HSE made the double bookings on purpose, so as to give the Beacon the additional vaccines and a wink and nudge that they could give them to whomever they wished? That's a big stretch.

I did't say any such thing. Put your imagination away and stick to the facts.

Through no fault of theirs, the Beacon was left holding 20 perishable vaccines and they found a way to use them in the short time available. An investigation is underway into why they made the decision they did. I hope that investigation also looks at why it was left to them to make such a decision, how well equipped they were to make it, and what help they got from the HSE, whose oversight caused the problem in the first place.

caveat emptor

I wonder how the non investigation is going........
Lots of developments I'm sure. (sarcasm)

Brendan Bendar

caveat emptor wrote: »

I wonder how the non investigation is going........
Lots of developments I'm sure. (sarcasm)

Smart move by the ‘participants’...... go to ground and say nowt.

First Up

Treppen wrote: »

Was there a protocol in place for spare vaccines?

I believe there is and seeing as they designed it, I'd have hoped the HSE would be able to use it properly. (Instead of leaving 20 vaccines sitting there about to expire.)

astrofool

First Up wrote: »

I did't say any such thing. Put your imagination away and stick to the facts.

Through no fault of theirs, the Beacon was left holding 20 perishable vaccines and they found a way to use them in the short time available. An investigation is underway into why they made the decision they did. I hope that investigation also looks at why it was left to them to make such a decision, how well equipped they were to make it, and what help they got from the HSE, whose oversight caused the problem in the first place.

The pertinent fact is that in no world is the fastest way to find 20 people for a vaccine going to be to ring up a school after hours that's 12KM away, there is no logic in the world that would lead to that course of action as correct. Just the fact alone that Michael Cullen was getting himself involved in this should be setting off alarm bells all over the place.

Can I ring up a school 12KM away and get 20 people in an hour, sure, but if I wanted them quickly, I would ring a closer school (if I was being a big idiot and wanted to give them to a school, which I shouldn't be doing anyway unless I was incompetent), or follow the priority list and go to the patients who live nearby or are already in the hospital who would be there even faster.

They already admitted they didn't follow the priority list and have already lost the public contract, so they have already admitted to doing the wrong thing and been sanctioned for it, you're trying to defend an action that the hospital itself has already admitted was wrong. Don't worry, I'll pass this information on for the investigation as you seem so worried about.

First Up

astrofool wrote: »

The pertinent fact is that in no world is the fastest way to find 20 people for a vaccine going to be to ring up a school after hours that's 12KM away, there is no logic in the world that would lead to that course of action as correct. Just the fact alone that Michael Cullen was getting himself involved in this should be setting off alarm bells all over the place.

Can I ring up a school 12KM away and get 20 people in an hour, sure, but if I wanted them quickly, I would ring a closer school (if I was being a big idiot and wanted to give them to a school, which I shouldn't be doing anyway unless I was incompetent), or follow the priority list and go to the patients who live nearby or are already in the hospital who would be there even faster.

They already admitted they didn't follow the priority list and have already lost the public contract, so they have already admitted to doing the wrong thing and been sanctioned for it, you're trying to defend an action that the hospital itself has already admitted was wrong. Don't worry, I'll pass this information on for the investigation as you seem so worried about.

You would cover half the distance from St Gerard's to the Beacon on the M50 in the time it would take to find another school (and someone to talk to.)

The Beacon's actions will be fully explored, including any mitigating circumstances. I hope the HSE's are too. When both are done, we will know what happened - and why.

Brendan Bendar

First Up wrote: »

You would cover half the distance from St Gerard's to the Beacon on the M50 in the time it would take to find another school (and someone to talk to.)

The Beacon's actions will be fully explored, including any mitigating circumstances. I hope the HSE's are too. When both are done, we will know what happened - and why.

One would have to surmise a lot of time taken to ‘explore’ what should be, in my opinion a fairly run of the mill ‘inquiry’. ??

First Up

Brendan Bendar wrote:

One would have to surmise a lot of time taken to ‘explore’ what should be, in my opinion a fairly run of the mill ‘inquiry’. ??

That depends on how many factors have occurred to you.

astrofool

First Up wrote: »

You would cover half the distance from St Gerard's to the Beacon on the M50 in the time it would take to find another school (and someone to talk to.)

The Beacon's actions will be fully explored, including any mitigating circumstances. I hope the HSE's are too. When both are done, we will know what happened - and why.

If this isn't corruption then we'll have to redefine what the word corruption means because nothing will be corruption anymore.

I would also note that, according to the teacher source, most of the teachers were already at home, so it took even longer to get the people together and get them to the hospital. I'm sure Mr. McCague is on it tho!