Without Exemption


This afternoon.

Orla writes:

A colleague of mine cannot access indoor dining because she doesn’t have a Covid-19 certificate.

She doesn’t have a vaccine certificate because she can’t get the vaccine for medical reasons. I was shocked to find out that there is no exemption for people who can’t get the vaccine.

I’ve tried to find politicians discuss this and can only find this reference to Senator Denis O’Donvon raising the case of a woman, a pharmaceutical worker with Jannsen and lecturer, who can’t get the cert after she had an adverse reaction to her first shot. There is no mention of her having any underlying condition. The senator relayed to the Senate what she told him:

‘I am not a crackpot anti-vaxxer. I want to do my part in reducing the risk. But right now, the only way I can have a normal life like the rest of my family is to get Covid-19 myself and recover in order to get a Covid-19 certificate.’

In response, the Minister for Health Stephen Donnelly said:

“Covid passes for those who cannot be vaccinated is something we have discussed previously. It is a difficult balance. In many cases the reason people cannot be vaccinated is that there are underlying conditions that put them at higher risk. When I have discussed this with officials and public health doctors previously they have pointed out that it is not fair to say to people who cannot get vaccinated, the vast majority of whom would choose to be vaccinated, that they cannot avail of pubs and restaurants indoors.

“The counter to that is that while it may not be fair, if they have an underlying condition that puts them at higher risk of Covid-19, there is a real risk to them in some of these situations. There is no clean or easy answer to this. It is a deeply unfair situation. It is a small number of people, but it is an unenviable position. The current position is based solely on their health and safety and minimising the risk of exposing them to Covid.”

So health officials say it’s unfair and even NPHET strongly recommended in its letter of October 18 to Minister Donnelly that the Rapid Testing Expert Advisory Group examine “the potential role and feasibility of rapid testing as a component of the COVID pass for those for whom, on medical grounds, it is not been possible to get fully vaccinated.”

Has this not happened? If not, why not? How is this fair?



Sponsored Link

101 thoughts on “Without Exemption

  1. Micko

    Silly lady.

    Your government’s knows what’s best for you.

    We can’t have you risking your fragile life, by actually living it.

    Please stay indoors and go back to sleep. Covid is here to stay and so are the passes.

    1. Chuckenstein

      As the great Mr. Hicks would say.…..go back to bed, America. Everything is OK…….here’s Gladiators!

      1. Johnny 'Diego' Keenan

        Carlin was the last fighting Irish to stand on a stage and carry the fight for common sense

  2. SOQ

    Having a condition which prevents someone from having a vaccine is not the same as someone who is at a higher risk of CoVid-19 Dumbo- they are two separate risks.

    Also, if someone cannot get vaccinated then that is the end of it- whether they wanted to or not is irrelevant. This is supposed to be based on science- not the faith based beliefs of the Covid cult.

  3. Gay Fawkes

    This certainly is wrong and there should be a HSE medical note issued to people in this category to allow them to access the same public places as vaccinated people. I’m glad she clarified that she’s not a “crackpot anti-vaxxer” though.

    1. Nigel

      It’s unfortunate for her, and yes, unfair, but not sure it’s a great idea during a massive wave of infections with ICU beds disproportionately full of unvaccinated people who also face disporportionate mortality rates.

          1. Nigel

            One is an outbreak of disease, the other is the response to that outbreak. Seems pretty clear to me.

      1. Micko

        “ with ICU beds disproportionately full of unvaccinated people ”

        Ah. I bet YOU have those stats handy.

        The other two couldn’t find em for me

          1. Chris

            Who knows why they’re wheeling the unvaccinated into ICU (political?) but as you can see, they’re far more likely to leave it alive as compared to the jabbed.

          2. Nigel

            ‘Who knows why’

            Now who’s being weaselly.

            ‘they’re far more likely to leave it alive as compared to the jabbed.’

            Oct-Nov they represented 15% of people who died, out of a total of 82, and they are less than 10% of the population. Bit grim.

          3. Chris

            Weaselly? No, I doubt all official intentions in this charade. Also, people aren’t considered ‘vaccinated’ post 2nd dose or booster for 14 days. Weasel central.

          4. Nigel

            Well, of course, you just make stuff up about actions and motivations to account for inconsistencies in your conspiracy theory.

            What’s weaselly about it? They’re still unvaccinated.

          5. Chris

            They’re not ‘unvaccinated’ – they’ve taken them, gotten ill & are shunted into an arbitrary category based on 14 days.

          6. Nigel

            Well, you claim it’s arbitrary, like you claim a lot of things, even though it’s unclear how that would even affect the figures, because oh boy:

            ‘unvaccinated individuals were 3 times more likely to be hospitalised with laboratory
            confirmed COVID-19 than fully vaccinated individuals
            unvaccinated individuals were 11 times more likely to be admitted to ICU with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 than fully vaccinated individuals’

          7. Nigel

            ‘79.7% Covid deaths vaccinated
            69% population fully vaccinated’

            That grand reopening really worked out well for them, but 21% of the population making up 31% of deaths isn’t great, proportion-wise.

          1. Nigel

            ’90 people dying in a month is an emergency’

            From the same thing? With measures in place? Your myopia is showing again.

          2. Nigel

            ‘Some can’t let go of the drama’

            ‘Who knows why they’re wheeling the unvaccinated into ICU (political?)’

          3. Cui Bono?

            “It’s a public health emergency,”

            Sounds like a great excuse to bring in totalitarianism. Brainwashed loons will be begging for it just to keep them “safe”.

          4. Cui Bono?

            Are you happy to live like this forever?

            Would you start to question a conspiracy if it continues for 5 more years? or 10? 20? 30? How many?

          5. Nigel

            ‘Would you start to question a conspiracy if it continues for 5 more years’

            Depends on the conspiracy. There are so many to choose from.

            ‘A pandemic of ignorance and stupidity.’

            Took the words etc.

          6. Cui Bono?

            So you are happy to live like this forever then?

            It’s a shame you would never look at anything people like me share. This is why you will stay ignorant.

          7. benblack

            Nigel, the pandemic was declared by the WHO and, subsequently, by national governments worldwide.

            Are you agreeing with me that the WHO and governments worldwide are operating from a baseline of ignorance and stupidity?

            If so, then, yes – you took the words right out of my mouth, it must have been when you were kissing me.☺

          8. benblack

            All joking aside, the dumbing down, reality T.V. shows, history as an optional subject in schools, etc. are not random occurrences, but are part of the short, medium, and long-term policy of creating an ignorant and stupid public/electorate.

          9. Nigel

            ‘So you are happy to live like this forever then?’

            What does that even mean? I live in comfort, with my family. Long may it last.

            ‘Are you agreeing with me that the WHO and governments worldwide are operating from a baseline of ignorance and stupidity?’

            They know more about pandemics than you.

            ‘and long-term public policy.’

            Mostly it’s capitalism, but vote in better governments for better public policy to counteract it.

          10. benblack

            “They know more about pandemics than you.”

            So much so they had to change the definition of a pandemic to suit future narratives back in 2009 after the failed H1N1 influenza ‘pandemic’ lie.

          11. Nigel

            ‘So much so they had to change the definition of a pandemic to suit future narratives’

            To prepare for future pandemics based on past experience and current knowledge, yes. They know more about pandemics than you.

          12. benblack

            I have many addictions, Nigel.

            Cognitive bias is not one them, thankfully.

            Or, if you prefer, visualise me sucking on the pipe of my cognitive bias, exhaling my poison into a den of right-minded people.

          13. benblack

            Therein lies the cognitive bias for the impressionable.

            “Behavioral scientists call it the first impression bias: a limitation in human information processing that causes us to make quick and incomplete observations about others based on the first piece of information we perceive.”


          14. benblack

            Therein lies the impression cognitive bias.

            “Behavioral scientists call it the first impression bias: a limitation in human information processing that causes us to make quick and incomplete observations about others based on the first piece of information we perceive.”


          15. benblack

            Therein lies the impression cognitive bias.

            “Behavioral scientists call it the first impression bias: a limitation in human information processing that causes us to make quick and incomplete observations about others based on the first piece of information we perceive.”


  4. Kim Cardassian

    I was away for a weekend in Belgium one time back in the old days. Met this lovely guy, a real charmer. Anyway one thing led to another and we were about to get it on. He told me he was allergic to condoms and couldn’t wear them. He said he was clean all that and as long as I was on the pill it’s be grand.

    Needless to say I didn’t sleep with him. I’d be a right pleb if I did.

    1. Paulus

      So this Belgian guy spun a canard
      That the chance of his lad getting hard
      Would fade with the tactic
      Of a donned prophylactic
      Thus becoming his Get out of Jail card.

    2. GiggidyGoo

      So you weren’t on the pill then? You wanted to do it, but wouldn’t take something that would protect you from getting pregnant. That’s kinda anti-vaxxish or something like that. It’s anti-something anyway. :-)

    3. 1-2-1-2

      There was this young bolx from Ghent
      Invited Kim back to his tent
      But he couldn’t wear johnnies
      So they didn’t it on. He’s
      Now hiring his honeys to rent.

  5. Gavin

    It’s amazing how divisive and polarising this issue is, if you’re not completely onboard with government policy you’re an anti-vaxxer loon, if you’re with government policy you’re a lemming who can’t think for themselves. There are grey areas in both camps, but the media seems to be doing its best to present it as a black and white issue, you’re either with us or against us, and questioning any part of the narrative gets you lumped in the anti-vaxxer loon camp

    1. Chris

      Divide and concur. I think the mammy’s march caused a bit of a stir, so the media/politicians tries to turn the spotlight back on the great unjabbed.

    1. John Smith

      Unfair, RuilleBuille? Get with the correct narrative! Shutting the unvaccinated out of places is not a punishment for lack of obedience. It’s to protect them so they won’t catch the virus, develop Covid-19 and end up in hospital, etc, and is an example of how much the Government cares for everyone.

      All unvaccinated people need to be protected in the same way, especially if they have a medical condition which might or might not put them even more at risk.

      Giving special passes to people who cannot have the vaccine undermines this narrative. After all, they have as much right (if not more) to protection as those who have chosen not to have the vaccine for other reasons and, for their own sakes, a caring government cannot allow them to put themselves at risk.

      1. Gavin

        Is it not their choice if they want that protection, if you take that choice away it seems to me it has nothing to do with protecting others. The narrative that this is about protecting everyone runs a bit thin when you look a the number of homeless, if so many people care so much for their fellow man, surely homelessness wouldn’t be an issue.

        1. John Smith

          ‘Is it not their choice if they want that protection’

          Absolutely, Gavin, and I have now taken my tongue out of my cheek. That’s not my narrative, of course. It’s the one that was put forward for the imposition of the vaccine pass system. A ‘your Government cares’ sort of idea. It was at odds, of course, with Varadkar’s assertion that people would have the vaccine when they found they couldn’t do the things they wanted to without it (as reported way back on Broadsheet) but, then, Varadkar is somewhat of a loose canon, at the best of times. The protection narrative provided a more acceptable picture. Under this narrative you can justify all sorts of curtailment of human rights and it gives an excuse – sorry, a rationale – for not making special allowances.

          1. Steph Pinker

            Hahaha, John Smith; ‘…Varadkar is somewhat of a loose canon, at the best of times.’

            This has so many connotations it’s sublime!

  6. Dr.Fart

    bodger, you’re obsessed with covid stuff. to the extent you’ve turned broadsheet into some kind of Covid Times. I promise you it’ll do you the world of good to turn off your wi-fi and ignore the news for two weeks. Even just two weeks.

    1. Micko

      “you’re obsessed with covid stuff.”

      In fairness, if your government mandated in law that you couldn’t go to places others can and were literally being demonised by the leader of the country in national newspapers – then you might have a teeny bit of an issue too.

      Just saying…

      1. Dr.Fart

        yea alright, Emmet Kirwan… but yea its defo every news site. the media are loving it. they encourage it. like up until the restrictions announcement the media were constantly saying “rumours of a lockdown” but they were the only ones peddling the rumour. they’d love one, lots of outrage to report on.

    2. GiggidyGoo

      Some people are obsessed with reading BS to see how many articles are about Covid.

      but just in passing
      One page, 9 articles about covid. 12 about other subjects.
      BS has 5 Covid articles today, 10 about other subjects

  7. Sailor Gerry

    Vaccine passes will not make people comply, despite the hysteria. There is always a work around and there is a fair few that I have met that were jabbed under duress and regret it; booster uptake may be significantly less than the govt wants.

    I think it is pretty clear at this point that the experimental gene therapy only benefits big pharma and is generally injurious to humans.


      1. benblack

        It doesn’t work and the long term effects have yet to be established, Lilly.

        But, mainly, it doesn’t even work.

        Risk versus hazard.

        1. Lilly

          How can you say it doesn’t work, Ben? I know people who caught Covid from both camps, vaxxed and unvaxxed. The former were scarcely affected, the latter wiped out for weeks. That, in my mind, is a result.

          Do you really think Luke O’Neill, for example, would get in line for the jab if he had reservations about long-term effects? In the main, those who seem worried are people who have never set foot in a lab.

          1. benblack

            Both survived, Lilly – in your example.

            I think Luke O’Neill would get in line for anything, if he thought there was a paycheck at the end of it for him – be that a monetary paycheck or the public exposure a minor celebrity craves.

            Anyway, Luke O’Neill could not possibly know about any long-term effects of the vaccine, because there are no long-term studies on the effects of the long-term effects of the vaccine – so, he is, at best, taking a risk on an unconfirmed medical treatment. A gambler – not a scientist.

          2. Lilly

            @Jono – That first article you link to refers to the disease, not the vaccine. The disease impairs DNA damage repair. Read it again.

  8. Sailor Gerry

    One of the guys wanted to watch Ireland play at an international rugby match at Landsdown and was willing to take a jab he really did not want to, just to make that happen. He missed the match in the end, but he cannot remove the jab and is gutted over it.

    A female I met and got to know, wanted to travel and get out of Ireland for a while. As a back packer on a budget, she could not afford the additional testing after every flight, it was short term expedience to travel with less hassle.

    Neither fully believed the govt narrative but could not articulate why, but neither were going back for a booster , or so they said.

    The big push to jab the planet will not make the world safer from a disease that 99.7% of people recover from. It is a massive, disproportionate reaction to something akin to the seasonal flu in a hard / strong year.

    Add into it, that it is a leaky jab that promotes variant mutation, with no long term immunity conferred, which quite possibly damages the immune system.

    We are blessed to live in interesting times.

      1. Micko

        Me too.

        Barely knew I had it. Everyone’s different I guess

        The bad news is that looks like with Omicron, natural immunity doesn’t stop you from getting it again.

        So probably gonna get it again now.

        Ah well. It does appear to be mild

  9. Sailor Gerry

    Everyone is different and every normal year people get sick whilst some do not barely notice it.
    My wife and kids all tested positive recently.
    The kids are still running around like headless chucks, with boundless energy.
    My wife is on the couch, Lemsip in hand, blanket and fire on, feeling aches and pains, classic flu symptoms.
    She is loaded on vitamins and the only odd ball symptom is loss of smell.
    Hopefully it clears up after a week, which would be normal for a flu in a bad year, if you had not been exposed to something similar the year before.
    I would rather have the disease than the jab, based on a simple risk / reward equation, for a person in a low risk group. That is just me, and each to their own.

    1. benblack

      What about the importance of a control group as an explanation for not wanting to be inoculated, Sailor Gerry?

      Has that changed since your family tested positive? – to a virus that has yet to be completely genomically identified and cannot be, scientifically, isolated?

  10. Sailor Gerry

    I have the sniffles now but still managed a couple of pints at my local, with my hooky pass and no mask.
    They will not be jabbed down the track, and I will not either, ever.
    We will be part of the control group until the day I die.
    This is the interesting bit…
    They will not be getting the recovered persons QR code, which is only valid for 6 months, because I will not buy into the mark of the beast system. It will be opposed at every juncture. The mark, cannot be forced on you, you must take it willingly, according to that Old Testament stuff that they love.
    Dark times are ahead but people are waking to the scam, optimism scents the air of resistance from my perspective. Their plan will fail, and I pledge every positive energy I possess to counter and break their evil spell, no matter the cost in this world.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link