Covid 19 Part XXXV-956,720 ROI (5,952 deaths) 452,946 NI (3,002 deaths) (08/01) Read OP

If that's the case then clearly people waiting on heart transplants are not going to be removed from the list. It's not like this stuff operates in a vacuum. The doctors who care for these patients, perform transplant surgery and manage clinical guidelines for waiting recipients are all part of the same small group. They're not going to advise patients against the vaccine and then remove them from the list for not getting it.

The letter posted above relates to kidney transplants.

If restrictions continue until next year I assume they will be looking to extend emergency powers past November

A lot here were sure it wouldn't be extended

Simply not true. A quick Google tells me people awaiting transplants are advised to get vaccines. The risk of covid complications far outweighing any risks from the vaccine itself.

Please dont make up false medical advice off the top of your head.

https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2021/03/05/14/38/quick-tips-and-considerations-for-covid-19-vaccination-in-heart-failure-and-transplant-patients

“We can never go back again to putting the huge imposition on frontline staff which happened in January and February. There will be constant monitoring.”

unlike the imposition on frontline staff of not sorting out the health service before covid ????

I was never pro restrictions, but was always clinging onto "just a tiny bit longer". That's gone out the window now I feel.

You stated that the vaccine risked heart complications. Your support for this is there is little safety data. If there is little safety data how can you so confidently state that there is a risk of heart complications?

Your statement is reckless and you should retract it until a safety risk is actually known. Based on other vaccines and how we understand the COVID vaccines work there is little to suggest the risk you are implying exists outweighs the benefits of the vaccine.

@[Deleted User] wrote:

What restrictions were confirmed to still be in place into next Spring?

All I see is a lot of people reading way more into a conversation and into journalists' opinions, declaring what is definitely going to happen without a roadmap.

In fact, I just rewatched the interview, and it's clear that Martin is going to great pains to avoid making any "teaser" suggestions that could be taken up the wrong way.

Nothing in the interview suggests the continuation of restrictions past Xmas, never mind into Spring. The roadmap "may" also go into next year. Virtually all closed areas will be open before Xmas - "many considerably before", according to Martin.

On masks and distancing, what he actually said was, "there will always be a need for social distancing & mask wearing in certain scenarios". One can choose to think that he's talking about pubs and shops here, but a more rational read is that he's talking about hospitals, nursing homes and other scenarios where vulnerable people may be present.

If he was saying that masks would be widespread, he would have said, "In most scenarios". "Certain scenarios" makes it clear that masks will only be required in specific settings.

No it's not impossible. However, can you prove this person wouldn't have died anyway in the same way if they didn't get the vaccine?

J&J has an associated risk to a very specific clotting disorder and the 23 year old shouldn't have got this vaccine imo if they had no underlying risk to COVID. That said, this clotting disorder should be distinguishable in a post mortem. At that point there would be an indication as to whether or not the individual died by a condition associated with the vaccine or not.

It took them several months to allow staff to wear masks who were asking to be let wear them, long after the outbreak. I know staff that were told to remove masks before this guidance was issued: New guidance extends use of face masks among healthcare workers (thejournal.ie)

Secondly, staff weren't vaccinated in the period the Taoiseach mentions. Now essentially everybody is masked and vaccinated.

I agree

'flu requires seeding in the same way that any infection does really. It's considerably less infectious than covid, which suggests that in normal circumstances a flu' season which becomes visible in October and peaks around late December, is initially seeded from August-September.

So I expect this year for 'flu to remain quite considerably suppressed because the opportunity for it to be seeded is reduced and there are still some measures in place.

We may see it peak much later and much shallower, perhaps Feb/March instead of December.

I don't think any of the experts are saying anything specific about it though except, "Let's assume it'll be a normal 'flu season and prepare accordingly". Which is the most prudent thing to do.

This is just more of the same that we heard when the kites were flying for the delay to indoor dining, I remember being told that we were reading far too much into those conversations and opinions also.

Call it a rational read all you want but its hard not to think of the conspiracy theorists "boiled frog" description.

I think that come springtime we will still be reading justifications like this.

Are restrictions that much less than last year?It seems quite similar to last summer.

Flu season typically runs from October to May. (Peak usually being December to Feb.) For most of this season last year Europe had stringent restrictions in place. I don't think the same level of restrictions will be in place for the coming flu season.