Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[ayrmad]

3 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Well... no. The SG have defended (and been defended on) how slow their roll out has been by saying they were prioritising care homes first.

England, on the other hand, appear to have managed to get through much more per capita whilst also managing to get through their care homes too.

When your flagship defence is exposed for the smokescreen it is, then criticism is absolutely fair.

Ive said it before but it's genuinely is staggering how far people are willing to bend over backwards to avoid criticising the SG. 

Tbf, the Scottish approach was defendable at the time, it's the lack of ramping up in comparison over the past week or so that's the problem. 

[No_Problemo]

23 minutes ago, Snafu said:

I was unaware this is a competition.

Maybe the actual vaccination program should be more on peoples minds than who looks bad or who looks good.

It's about saving lives not a talent contest.

A faster roll out saves lives,  and quickens restrictions easing. 
 

Literally no idea why people wanting a faster rollout has been likened to a talent contest. 

[Todd_is_God]

Just now, GiGi said:

Has it actually gotten through their care homes or are you just managing the narrative on your own based "offered to"?

"Offered to" to me means exactly that. If someone says no thanks, or can't have it because they currently have, or recently had, covid then they obviously won't have been vaccinated, but that's the same as here and therefore irrelevant.

[Michael W]

Has there been any data published on refusal rates amongst the age groups being vaccinated currently? Inevitably there will be missed appointments as well. 

I'd imagine over 80s are less likely to refuse a vaccine on the basis of half-baked conspiracy theories, but it would be good to know what the refusal rate is and if it's in line with expectations. 20% of staff in care homes refusing is unfortunately quite alarming. 

[GiGi]

Just now, Todd_is_God said:

"Offered to" to me means exactly that. If someone says no thanks, or can't have it because they currently have, or recently had, covid then they obviously won't have been vaccinated, but that's the same as here and therefore irrelevant.

So everyone in care homes in England, that wanted it, have been vaccinated? Well done to NHS England if that's the case but this looks like reach to continue your wee daily rant tbh. FWIW I'm also unhappy about the speed of the vaccine rollout in Scotland and pies need to be booted until we're hitting a capacity that will see us all jabbed by April but you post on here about 'the cult' every single day even though I don't see that vociferous a defence of Scot Gov's performance here at all.

[ICTChris]

What medical conditions preclude people from taking the vaccine?  I'd assume that more elderly people might have a condition that would mean they can't take it.

[Paco]

‘Offered’ could mean they’re booked in for an appointment in three weeks time. A relatively useless phrase but I’m willing to bet we’ll start seeing it here as well if (when?) the SG are looking like wildly missing the mid-Feb target.

We had the ‘start of Feb’ target for an estimated 555,000 people from JCVI groups 1 & 2 (care homes, NHS workers, over 80s). Using raw numbers we’re at 566k as of close of play Saturday 30th Jan. I’m sure there’ll be some individuals to be picked up over the next week but we can probably say the target there is hit. Hooray.

We need to be at broadly 40k per day from now on though to get through Groups 3 & 4 by ‘mid Feb’. I’ve used Monday 15th Feb as the finishing date. 580,000 people (more than we’ve done in total so far). I just don’t see it happening at all.

[Dunning1874]

4 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

"Offered to" to me means exactly that. If someone says no thanks, or can't have it because they currently have, or recently had, covid then they obviously won't have been vaccinated, but that's the same as here and therefore irrelevant.

Or the most likely scenario, it's been offered to them but won't actually be administered for another couple of weeks, which would make it entirely relevant.

There are multiple reasons to criticise the SG's management of the rollout without massively reaching like this. We don't judge the SG's progress based on how many letters have been sent, we judge it on how many people have actually been vaccinated. Therefore if you're making a comparison to somewhere else you compare to how many have been vaccinated as well, not how many have been 'offered' one.

[craigkillie]

1 minute ago, Paco said:

We need to be at broadly 40k per day from now on though to get through Groups 3 & 4 by ‘mid Feb’. I’ve used Monday 15th Feb as the finishing date. 580,000 people (more than we’ve done in total so far). I just don’t see it happening at all.

No idea how much impact they'll have on numbers, but the mass vaccination centres around the country seem to be opening today.

[Todd_is_God]

1 minute ago, Dunning1874 said:

Or the most likely scenario, it's been offered to them but won't actually be administered for another couple of weeks, which would make it entirely relevant.

There are multiple reasons to criticise the SG's management of the rollout without massively reaching like this. We don't judge the SG's progress based on how many letters have been sent, we judge it on how many people have actually been vaccinated. Therefore if you're making a comparison to somewhere else you compare to how many have been vaccinated as well, not how many have been 'offered' one.

Reaching whilst telling someone else they are reaching is quite a tactic tbf.

[TheScarf]

'The events leading up to the Second World War do not include the Second World War'

[effeffsee_the2nd]

That's the isle of man just binned mask wearing and social distancing.  the likes of Australia may have gotten a bit jittery with their lockdown in perth over 1 case but they too had been able to enjoy the old normal for many months.

it's good news for the rest of us, because the more countries that allow normality to return , the more people will begin to demand it here.  They won't be able to use the " it's the same everywhere else" line any more

[Todd_is_God]

14 minutes ago, No_Problemo said:

Literally no idea why people wanting a faster rollout has been likened to a talent contest. 

Because if it were a talent contest, far from winning, the SG are bottom of the pile in 1st vaccines, and 2nd bottom in 2nd doses.

Just a coincidence, i'm sure.

[Todd_is_God]

8 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

What medical conditions preclude people from taking the vaccine?  I'd assume that more elderly people might have a condition that would mean they can't take it.

Covid is definitely one, but I don't think any others were actually listed in the booklet that came with my vaccine letter.

[Billy Jean King]

'Offered' is unusual wording. 

It was suggested in a couple of interviews with PHE this morning they are counting "appointment letters" rather than needles in arms and the representatives neither accepted or denied it, they seemed to totally ignore the question !

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

4 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

That's the isle of man just binned mask wearing and social distancing.  the likes of Australia may have gotten a bit jittery with their lockdown in perth over 1 case but they too had been able to enjoy the old normal for many months.

it's good news for the rest of us, because the more countries that allow normality to return , the more people will begin to demand it here.  They won't be able to use the " it's the same everywhere else" line any more

The only thing about that is Isle of Man pretty much locked down, the real pressure will come from countries which have similar vaccine rates loosening restrictions. 

[Billy Jean King]

"Offered to" to me means exactly that. If someone says no thanks, or can't have it because they currently have, or recently had, covid then they obviously won't have been vaccinated, but that's the same as here and therefore irrelevant.

See above. It looks like offered means sent a letter inviting them to make an appointment at a vaccination centre but as I said PHE simply didn't answer the very direct questions on what it meant.

[Dunning1874]

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

Reaching whilst telling someone else they are reaching is quite a tactic tbf.

Yeah, understanding that "offered" means "told they can get the vaccine without being given it yet" and why the government would use that term instead of, say, "administered" or "vaccinated" is not reaching in the same way as concluding that "offered" means "everyone who wants it has had it already."

It's entirely correct to criticise the SG in pointing out that they're on course to comfortably miss their target without a significant and immediate ramp up in numbers. It's not valid to criticise them for falling behind on care homes when there is no evidence that they have done so.

If you're going to count being "offered" the vaccine as being given it, then you should be including however many letters are being sent by the SG in the daily vaccination totals. You don't however, because being given an offer of a vaccine and actually getting it are different things and that would be ridiculous.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

29 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

"Offered to" to me means exactly that. If someone says no thanks, or can't have it because they currently have, or recently had, covid then they obviously won't have been vaccinated, but that's the same as here and therefore irrelevant.

'Offered' could also mean that they've had letters advising that they'll be vaccinated in 3 weeks time. As pointed out, Westminster wasn't shy when counting mailed testing kits as 'completed tests'. 

Have the UK government said anywhere that 98% of care home residents have definitely been vaccinated, as the SG has ? Maybe they have, I don't know. 

Edit to say that I didn't see the posts above that seem to confirm that being 'offered' the vaccine is not the same as actually getting it. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Bob Mahelp

[Billy Jean King]

The currently circulating strains of the virus have such a high natural R number (3 they quote) that without any restrictions like SD mitigation ie restrictions lifted in full as some demand (by late spring / early summer), the sheer volume of new infections IF (not yet established) the vaccination has limited ability to prevent transmission will be such that just through volume alone the number of people still susceptible be that through vaccine efficacy or refusal of vaccination will be such that hospitalisations and deaths will not fall to a low enough level.

The theory is plausible but given what we saw last summer with the behaviour of the virus it seems unlikely in the time scale they are predicting but I suppose in autumn and winter months it's possible.

Again it's all going to boil down to perception at what is an acceptable level of NHS strain and ultimately deaths v The Economy. I suspect we may see some restrictions like SD and masks a fair bit longer than many thought when vaccines were first announced.