The annual ASTI Easter strike threat

khalessi

Wanderer78 wrote: »

its extremely important to try understand why such unions are so forth right regarding their approaches

Part of the reason was the government decided to prioritise education for multitude of reasons. Schools and unions asked for help to keep them open, because teachers prefer teaching face to face, through enhanced safety measures in light of the B117 virus being more transmissible,

Ideas such as testing in schools (done elsewhere), masks in primary, half in half out, air filtration systems and other suggestions. The Dept though claiming to prioritise education have no interest in making schools safer or should I say financing them, they suggested opening windows which most schools have done since September last year, teaching with all windows and doors open. Dept suggested opening windows fully when no one in room, despite the fact this is an airborne aerosol. There was a kerfuffle adter an article in paperwhen teachers asked for safer masks.

Wanderer78

awec wrote: »

Again the number of contacts is of no consequence once the vulnerable are vaccinated.

If a 30 year old teacher gets covid, and she gives it to the 5 other 30 year olds she lives with this is of no major consequence. They are incredibly unlikely to end up getting seriously ill, you'll just have a bunch of people suffering with covid at home. Once there is no link in the chain to an unvaccinated vulnerable person the risk and strain on the heath system is reduced enormously.

To put it another way, if the elderly and vulnerable were immune to covid from the start, and so all covid was was a very bad, very infectious flu among the non-vulnerable population, we would have likely had no lockdowns.

...but if you were that 30 year staff member, baring in mind, the educational system has none teachers also, would you simply be okay with this, i know i wouldnt?

meeeeh

Wanderer78 wrote: »

its extremely important to try understand why such unions are so forth right regarding their approaches

Actually it is not. The most important thing is speed. As long as we vaccinate quickly we can discuss and understand complexities later. Majority of eligible population will get at least one dose by the end of June. If it was 10% then you can spend longer to discuss 'complexities' and who to protect first but at the moment priority is to just do it.

JimmyVik

awec wrote: »

But by and large this is of no relevance once the vulnerable are vaccinated.

The main goal is not to stop people getting covid, it's to stop people getting hospitalised or killed by covid. That is why an age-based, fast rollout is by far the most sensible approach, we no longer have to care about who works where or who might meet who, with very few exceptions (e.g. health workers).

imo anyone who is going out to work should be vaccinated ahead of anyone who stays at home.
These are the people going out and mixing and then come home to other vulnerable people to infect them.

Get the over 65s and the people with conditions vaccinated first,

Then vaccinate all people who cant work from home next. Then work through the rest of the age groups.

Treppen

awec wrote: »

Again the number of contacts is of no consequence once the vulnerable are vaccinated.

If a 30 year old teacher gets covid, and she gives it to the 5 other 30 year olds she lives with this is of no major consequence. They are incredibly unlikely to end up getting seriously ill, you'll just have a bunch of people suffering with covid at home. Once there is no link in the chain to an unvaccinated vulnerable person the risk and strain on the heath system is reduced enormously.

To put it another way, if the elderly and vulnerable were immune to covid from the start, and so all covid was was a very bad, very infectious flu among the non-vulnerable population, we would have likely had no lockdowns.

I think you're forgetting that teachers don't just come into contact with 5 people the might live with.

FileNotFound

Wanderer78 wrote: »

...but if you were that 30 year staff member, baring in mind, the educational system has none teachers also, would you simply be okay with this, i know i wouldnt?

Tell that to everyone in Tesco, Lidl etc etc.

At the moment there is a potential risk the AZ vaccine is more dangerous for a 30 yr old than covid is..

Either way, why would we rush to vaccinate a group that will not be in work for the following few months????

This is again the real question.

Triangle

khalessi wrote: »

Part of the reason was the government decided to prioritise education for multitude of reasons. Schools and unions asked for help to keep them open, because teachers prefer teaching face to face, through enhanced safety measures in light of the B117 virus being more transmissible,

Ideas such as testing in schools (done elsewhere), masks in primary, half in half out, air filtration systems and other suggestions. The Dept though claiming to prioritise education have no interest in making schools safer or should I say financing them, they suggested opening windows which most schools have done since September last year, teaching with all windows and doors open. Dept suggested opening windows fully when no one in room, despite the fact this is an airborne aerosol. There was a kerfuffle adter an article in paperwhen teachers asked for safer masks.

I don't agree with you on the vaccination rollout to teachers as a priority over the more vulnerable.
But on this I completely agree with you. The school buildings in Ireland need a dramatic modernisation program, in ventilation, energy efficiency and IT.

onrail

Treppen wrote: »

I think you're forgetting that teachers don't just come into contact with 5 people the might live with.

Who, if vulnerable, would already be vaccinated if the teachers didn't take their place in the queue.

khalessi

awec wrote: »

Again the number of contacts is of no consequence once the vulnerable are vaccinated.

If a 30 year old teacher gets covid, and she gives it to the 5 other 30 year olds she lives with this is of no major consequence. They are incredibly unlikely to end up getting seriously ill, you'll just have a bunch of people suffering with covid at home. Once there is no link in the chain to an unvaccinated vulnerable person the risk and strain on the heath system is reduced enormously.

To put it another way, if the elderly and vulnerable were immune to covid from the start, and so all covid was was a very bad, very infectious flu among the non-vulnerable population, we would have likely had no lockdowns.

114,000 teachers got Long Covid in Uk second highest profession after HCW 122,000. It didnt just affect 30 year olds. I keep reading of these 25 year old teachers and 30 year old teachers, in Ireland 13.6% staff 30 or under but anyway. https://data.oecd.org/teachers/teachers-by-age.htm#indicator-chart

FileNotFound

JimmyVik wrote: »

imo anyone who is going out to work should be vaccinated ahead of anyone who stays at home.
These are the people going out and mixing and then come home to other vulnerable people to infect them.

Get the over 65s and the people with conditions vaccinated first,

Then vaccinate all people who cant work from home next. Then work through the rest of the age groups.

Based on the timing that would still mean all of retail before teachers as they will not be going to work for the period post over 65's etc. being vaccinated.

So this argument leaves them back where they are now.

awec

Treppen wrote: »

I think you're forgetting that teachers don't just come into contact with 5 people the might live with.

Of course, but as long as they don't come into contact with an unvaccinated, vulnerable person then the point remains the same.

Which is exactly why we need to get vaccines rolled out as fast as possible by age, as the data shows age is the biggest factor in determining vulnerability.

Treppen

FileNotFound wrote: »

Tell that to everyone in Tesco, Lidl etc etc.

At the moment there is a potential risk the AZ vaccine is more dangerous for a 30 yr old than covid is..

Either way, why would we rush to vaccinate a group that will not be in work for the following few months????

This is again the real question.

It's to get vaccinated by August before the return to school. That's the real answer.

meeeeh

JimmyVik wrote: »

Then vaccinate all people who cant work from home next. Then work through the rest of the age groups.

How many will suddenly realise it's essential that they go to the office? How do you police it? Does everyone one have to produce employers confirmation that they can't work from home. Seriously what next, rank people also by bmi?

awec

JimmyVik wrote: »

imo anyone who is going out to work should be vaccinated ahead of anyone who stays at home.
These are the people going out and mixing and then come home to other vulnerable people to infect them.

Get the over 65s and the people with conditions vaccinated first,

Then vaccinate all people who cant work from home next. Then work through the rest of the age groups.

But this is too slow! That's the problem.

Age is straightforward, we can get it done much faster and prevent a lot more deaths! In exchange, some more younger, healthy people might get covid as they have to wait for their vaccine, but it's not going to be anything too serious for them.

Treppen

awec wrote: »

Of course, but as long as they don't come into contact with an unvaccinated, vulnerable person then the point remains the same.

Which is exactly why we need to get vaccines rolled out as fast as possible by age, as the data shows age is the biggest factor in determining vulnerability.

I can think of 20 of those people in my school right now, not to mention family members.... and many not necessarily at the top of the list going by age

Quin_Dub

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i wouldnt say its necessarily wrong, just not full or complete, but it is an understandable stand point. we have not known how to deal with our psychological needs throughout all of this, in fact id argue, we never have, even pre covid. theres astonishing levels of complexities in our social structures, covid is highlighting theses, hence all the push back

its extremely important to try understand why such unions are so forth right regarding their approaches

Not really though - What we are seeing is an emotional response to a pragmatic decision.

The Pragmatic decision was one of simple logistics - "We are already behind schedule , how do we simplify this whole process to allow us to rapidly deploy the vaccine as supplies improve?" , Answer - Remove all of the extraneous filters/cohorts etc. and just use the simple measure of reverse order of DOB which delivers the most effective and efficient rollout overall.

Does that pragmatic decision leave some groups feeling hard done by with some degree of legitimacy? Yes , it probably does.

Should we reverse that logical pragmatic decision and slow down the overall deployment of the vaccine to the overall population to salve the hurt feelings of certain groups? Absolutely Categorically not.

As I said a few days and many pages ago on this - If the teachers are frustrated and angry at an earlier promise being reneged on then their pathway to address that anger & frustration lies through the ballot box. It does not lie in threatening the parents of the country with further disruption just as people are hopefully getting back to something like normality in the Autumn when the vast majority of Adults will have received their vaccination.

awec

Treppen wrote: »

I can think of 20 of those people in my school right now, not to mention family members.... and many not necessarily at the top of the list going by age

Yes, there will be exceptions. But again, the data shows that age is by far the biggest factor in vulnerability.

You do understand that teachers are not being moved to the bottom of the list right? Older teachers will get vaccinated along with their age group. Younger teachers with their age group.

What is being avoided here is the absurdity of younger teachers being vaccinated ahead of older, more vulnerable people who work in other industries.

meeeeh

Treppen wrote: »

I can think of 20 of those people in my school right now, not to mention family members.... and many not necessarily at the top of the list going by age

So vaccinate the vulnerable people. It's like we should first vaccinate kids with flu vaccine before elderly because they could transmit it to the elderly. It's completely illogical.

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

How many will suddenly realise it's essential that they go to the office? How do you police it? Does everyone one have to produce employers confirmation that they can't work from home. Seriously what next, rank people also by bmi?

I’m my Dad’s full time carer. I’m not classed as employed, I’m not classed as a healthcare worker. I suppose you could say I work from home but I don’t work in my own home.

I’m anything and everything and whilst going backwards and forwards arguing about where I should be on the list, they could have had all the over 50s vaccinated. I’ll wait my turn till it’s my turn in the 40s bracket.

Less stress - more success.

meeeeh

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I’m my Dad’s full time carer. I’m not classed as employed, I’m not classed as a healthcare worker. I suppose you could say I work from home but I don’t work in my own home.

I’m anything and everything and whilst going backwards and forwards arguing about where I should be on the list, they could have had all the over 50s vaccinated. I’ll wait my turn till it’s my turn in the 40s bracket.

Less stress - more success.

I'm in the office every Thursday. Should I be back of the list, middle of the list or should I be classed as priority? However we also have two kids who won't be vaccinated and they can bring Covid home so should we put people who don't have kids at the back of the list.

I could have some fun devising different lists.

khalessi

Would you be ok with enhanced safety measures being applied in schools?

Schools have asked for various enhanced safety measures in light of transmissibility of B117. A variety of measures were suggested such as testing in schools similar to UK, or masks in primary, or half in half out, or mobile air filtration units to filter air as ventilation very important since this is airborne.


Have you any good suggestions for safety measures that could be considered?

Lidl wants to start antigen testing of staff. Would you be ok with this being done in schools for staff and students?
https://twitter.com/lidl_ireland/status/1374381763066089487

meeeeh

I'm very much in favour of antigen testing and I don't know why is not already done, I don't mind masks but knowing young kids I think their ability to properly wear them is questionable, I don't think mobile filtration units would be mayorly realistic option in short term and there is no need for half out half in with our levels of infection. That could be an option at January numbers.

Quin_Dub

khalessi wrote: »

Would you be ok with enhanced safety measures being applied in schools?

Schools have asked for various enhanced safety measures in light of transmissibility of B117. A variety of measures were suggested such as testing in schools similar to UK, or masks in primary, or half in half out, or mobile air filtration units to filter air as ventilation very important since this is airborne.


Have you any good suggestions for safety measures that could be considered?

Lidl wants to start antigen testing of staff. Would you be ok with this being done in schools for staff and students?
https://twitter.com/lidl_ireland/status/1374381763066089487

Are you honestly expecting anyone to say no to any of the above?

You see - That's actually how the Union should have responded to the change in the schedule.

The response should have been "OK - Not happy , but understand the shift in the schedule , but help us bridge the gap here , give us access to Antigen testing in schools or increased PPE etc."

I'd suggest that there'd have been pretty much universal support for that. That would have been a logical , pragmatic response.

What we go was an emotional response and a pointless threat about a strike at some point in the future.

khalessi

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Are you honestly expecting anyone to say no to any of the above?

You see - That's actually how the Union should have responded to the change in the schedule.

The response should have been "OK - Not happy , but understand the shift in the schedule , but help us bridge the gap here , give us access to Antigen testing in schools or increased PPE etc."

I'd suggest that there'd have been pretty much universal support for that. That would have been a logical , pragmatic response.

What we go was an emotional response and a pointless threat about a strike at some point in the future.

Quin, these suggestions were put forward to Dept who refuse because basically they hung their hat on the schools are safe mantra and are afraid to reign back. They will not acknowledge schools are part of the problem.

They put forward a budget last year to deal with Covid19 in schools and waited until Decmeber 23rd (school holidays) to announce it was temporary and slashed it by 40%, knowing that B117 already had a foothold here. It has not been reversed. Hullabulloo other day after article in paper about teachers asking for proper masks so they can teach safely face to face.

If public could get behind suggestions like this, schools/teachers/unions would be delighted but most people focus on issues like teacher holidays or they only want to be vaccinated to go abroad":rolleyes: So untrue, teachers are trying to make schools safer so we can continue to teach face to face.

Unions are trying to get a guarantee from Gov by June that school staff will all be vaccinated in time for reopening of schools for new term in August. Enhanced safety measures would help but Dept refusing.

khalessi

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm very much in favour of antigen testing and I don't know why is not already done, I don't mind masks but knowing young kids I think their ability to properly wear them is questionable, I don't think mobile filtration units would be mayorly realistic option in short term and there is no need for half out half in with our levels of infection. That could be an option at January numbers.

Thank you for your fair answer. I am just interested in keeping schools open and teaching face to face. These were all suggested but we need public support to get them. Dept dont want to know. Prof Nolan said no new safety mitigations in schools just hope and optimism previous ones work. We need slightly more then hope and optimism, some of above would be nice.

FileNotFound

khalessi wrote: »

Quin, these suggestions were put forward to Dept who refuse because basically they hung their hat on the schools are safe mantra and are afraid to reign back. They will not acknowledge schools are part of the problem.

They put forward a budget last year to deal with Covid19 in schools and waited until Decmeber 23rd (school holidays) to announce it was temporary and slashed it by 40%, knowing that B117 already had a foothold here. It has not been reversed. Hullabulloo other day after article in paper about teachers asking for proper masks so they can teach safely face to face.

If public could get behind suggestions like this, schools/teachers/unions would be delighted but most people focus on issues like teacher holidays or they only want to be vaccinated to go abroad":rolleyes: So untrue, teachers are trying to make schools safer so we can continue to teach face to face.

Unions are trying to get a guarantee from Gov by June that school staff will all be vaccinated in time for reopening of schools for new term in August. Enhanced safety measures would help but Dept refusing.

Lets be fair here, the unions have made no effort to direct the public discourse in any direction other than teachers deserve to be vaccinated first.

Also the holidays is exactly relevant as its a no risk period for teachers and thus undermines the unions demands.

Nobody here cares how many days leave teachers get, they do care about vaccine priority being based on risk. If this was January and teachers were going back to the classroom we would be having a different conversation.

You should stop trying to create a tale where everyone is just after teachers, when its there issue with demands to be prioritised that don't add up.

blanch152

meeeeh wrote: »

So vaccinate the vulnerable people. It's like we should first vaccinate kids with flu vaccine before elderly because they could transmit it to the elderly. It's completely illogical.

The vulnerable are those who are older, which is what the country is doing.

There is a direct correlation between age and vulnerability, hence the most appropriate way to vaccinate is by age.

Quin_Dub

khalessi wrote: »

Quin, these suggestions were put forward to Dept who refuse because basically they hung their hat on the schools are safe mantra and are afraid to reign back. They will not acknowledge schools are part of the problem.

They put forward a budget last year to deal with Covid19 in schools and waited until Decmeber 23rd (school holidays) to announce it was temporary and slashed it by 40%, knowing that B117 already had a foothold here. It has not been reversed. Hullabulloo other day after article in paper about teachers asking for proper masks so they can teach safely face to face.

If public could get behind suggestions like this, schools/teachers/unions would be delighted but most people focus on issues like teacher holidays or they only want to be vaccinated to go abroad":rolleyes: So untrue, teachers are trying to make schools safer so we can continue to teach face to face.

Unions are trying to get a guarantee from Gov by June that school staff will all be vaccinated in time for reopening of schools for new term in August. Enhanced safety measures would help but Dept refusing.

Well then it's been a massive communications failure then by the Unions.

The messaging has been "Why are we no longer prioritized , we demand to be prioritized" hence the backlash.

The Statements put out by the unions and those representatives put forward to speak to the media have done their membership a huge disservice here.

I have long thought that the money spent on PUP payments would be far better spent on massively increasing testing availability.

Not that people shouldn't be getting paid when they are not working , but having a much more wide spread and robust testing regime would allow us to open businesses back up and remove the need for the PUP payment at all.

meeeeh

blanch152 wrote: »

The vulnerable are those who are older, which is what the country is doing.

There is a direct correlation between age and vulnerability, hence the most appropriate way to vaccinate is by age.

I know. I'm just pointing out there is no logic in vaccinating people because they live with vulnerable people if you don't vaccinate vulnerable people first.

khalessi

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Well then it's been a massive communications failure then by the Unions.

The messaging has been "Why are we no longer prioritized , we demand to be prioritized" hence the backlash.

The Statements put out by the unions and those representatives put forward to speak to the media have done their membership a huge disservice here.

I have long thought that the money spent on PUP payments would be far better spent on massively increasing testing availability.

Not that people shouldn't be getting paid when they are not working , but having a much more wide spread and robust testing regime would allow us to open businesses back up and remove the need for the PUP payment at all.

Ageed as I said elsewhere a badly put message.

Tbf the backlash against teachers has been there for years, this was just another excuse for those who have it as a hobby.