Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Steven W]

8 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

Jason Leitch for one:

I mean, that 'at risk' group being vaccinated by summer is not going to be enough people to ease restrictions in any meaningful way. How many people fall under 'at risk?'

Was wondering that myself.

If, for argument's sake, let's say the summer is 1st June. Completing vaccinating the 'at risk' group by then must equate to 'X' amount of vaccinations per day.

I'd suspect that 'X' therefore wouldn't amount to very much. And that being the case I'd be asking why?

 

[bendan]

20 hours ago, Wee Bully said:

What exactly do you mean by “adult conversation”?

I can't speak for anyone else, but to me it means having a discussion about the level of death from illness and disease that we are willing to accept (and acknowledging that before Covid we were already doing this) and trying to find a sensible balance between continuing our lives and managing health risks. 

[Marshmallo]

5 minutes ago, Steven W said:

Was wondering that myself.

If, for argument's sake, let's say the summer is 1st June. Completing vaccinating the 'at risk' group by then must equate to 'X' amount of vaccinations per day.

I'd suspect that 'X' therefore wouldn't amount to very much. And that being the case I'd be asking why?

 

We've already seen people on here saying "so and so wouldn't be best pleased going for a vaccination at 4am". A lot of people can't be arsed, which is truly baffling to me.

[renton]

1 minute ago, djchapsticks said:

We were initially being told end of January for a million doses at first, and then probably by end of spring....we are now getting told summer for 'at risk' groups but only if manufacturing and regulation goes to plan. 

If not, it's delayed even further. Bear in mind that it's not even 2021 yet and the delivery date of a significant chunk of vaccines has already been stealthily shifted out 6 months without any press scrutiny as to why.

And you can't see why 2021 is to all intents, already being provisionally written off?

Well, with Pfizer it's because they more or less lied through their teeth as to how much they could deliver over a given time frame. 10 million doses by end of 2020 became 4 million.

Was Leitch commenting on a plan that assumed for vaccines already approved? Ox/Az will change a lot of that if it gets approved as suspected.

I dont really read a lot into that Leitch comment. Its too vague to be useful as commentary on current policy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-55218679

Like, this article has jabs being offered to all at risk groups in the "first few months" of 2021, dependent on Az/Oxford.

[djchapsticks]

Just now, renton said:

Well, with Pfizer it's because they more or less lied through their teeth as to how much they could deliver over a given time frame. 10 million doses by end of 2020 became 4 million.

Was Leitch commenting on a plan that assumed for vaccines already approved? Ox/Az will change a lot of that if it gets approved as suspected.

I dont really read a lot into that Leitch comment. Its too vague to be useful as commentary on current policy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-55218679

Like, this article has jabs being offered to all at risk groups in the "first few months" of 2021, dependent on Az/Oxford.

See, you're so close to agreeing with my entire point.

Why do the SG insist on sending him out as a mouthpiece if he's too vague and shouldn't be read into or habitually gives out duff information?

He's nothing but an advisor. He has no authority. So why would they be enabling him to go out and spout things that are potentially harmful to their election chances?

[Sergeant Wilson]

2 minutes ago, renton said:

 

I dont really read a lot into that Leitch comment. Its too vague to be useful as commentary on current policy.

 

From someone presented as a non-politician it was a very political answer and could easily be represented as true regardless of the future developments.

[Bairnardo]

See, you're so close to agreeing with my entire point.
Why do the SG insist on sending him out as a mouthpiece if he's too vague and shouldn't be read into or habitually gives out duff information?
He's nothing but an advisor. He has no authority. So why would they be enabling him to go out and spout things that are potentially harmful to their election chances?

Thing is, we are all planning our lives and our 2021 on a best guess of whose official advice we can follow. That's quite obviously not good enough.

I mean, take holidays as an example. Something you could have had this year but were taking a big chance. I'd be looking to book something for a family of four now or soon. Why am I instead debating whether or not to trust the current advice? Because you know for sure if it turns out that summer is indeed written off, I would be met with nothing but told you so from the likes of Leitch, or more importantly, insurance companies. This isnt a time for vague and cautionary speculations. This is a time for hard decisions to be made and monumental, superhuman effort.

[effeffsee_the2nd]

Just read back and feel genuinely sorry for those people claiming the summer was anything close to normal as they must live a very sheltered and boring life.

I think lockdowns have fucked with peoples heads if they think that was normal. More normal compared to what came before and after but definitely not normal.

[dirty dingus]

3 minutes ago, Tynierose said:

One of the reasons may be that the SNP do not have many good public speakers, hence Sturgeon doing so much front of house so to speak.

I mean Swinney is a walking sleeping tablet, Freeman isn't great either.  Also chuck into the mix that wee Jase is rather keen on raising his own profile then they are probably happy to have him waffle on.

 

They should have Dr Pip Whitford do it, she is like a cuddly mammy who doesn't take any shit of the media.

[Sergeant Wilson]

17 minutes ago, Tynierose said:

One of the reasons may be that the SNP do not have many good public speakers, hence Sturgeon doing so much front of house so to speak.

I mean Swinney is a walking sleeping tablet, Freeman isn't great either.  Also chuck into the mix that wee Jase is rather keen on raising his own profile then they are probably happy to have him waffle on.

 

I think that they think this is how should be communicated with. We'll be more inclined to listen to blokey, good natured advice. He softens the more stringent tone of Sturgeon. Hence his residency on Off the Ball to reach what the SG think is a huge demographic.

If we need a bit of fairy dust sprinkled on us Devi is wheeled out.

 

Edited December 27, 2020 by Sergeant Wilson

[Todd_is_God]

As soon as the Oxford vaccine is green lighted, I would like to see a new routemap produced, which ends with full normality.

Each step along the way should have the criteria clearly listed (prevelance and vaccination numbers, whichever is reached first).

I wouldn't expect an end date on there, though with vaccination numbers a driver of easing resing restrictions, it could be argued that a target should be set.

I don't see why that isn't something a decent journalist would press for, then continually ask about if it is taking too long.

Once the Oxford vaccine is rolling out, "What will it take for us to be able to do x, and when is a realistic timeframe for this?" is a much fairer and answerable question that it was in May.

That is what the most pressing issue in Scotland is right now, and should have close to 100% attention. I don't want to hear about another independence referendum until I know when I will be able to do the things I enjoy doing again.

Edited December 27, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[bendan]

6 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

As soon as the Oxford vaccine is green lighted, I would like to see a new routemap produced, which ends with full normality.

Each step along the way should have the criteria clearly listed (prevelance and vaccination numbers, whichever is reached first).

I wouldn't expect an end date on there, though with vaccination numbers a driver of easing resing restrictions, it could be argued that a target should be set.

I don't see why that isn't something a decent journalist would press for, then continually ask about if it is taking too long.

Once the Oxford vaccine is rolling out, "What will it take for us to be able to do x, and when is a realistic timeframe for this?" is a much fairer and answerable question that it was in May.

One problem they have is that there are a lot of unanswered questions about all of the vaccines, but the Oxford one in particular. If efficacy is only in the 60-70% range, what are the implications? We also don't seem to know whether the vaccines prevent people from spreading the virus, which seems a pretty crucial bit of information.

[Sergeant Wilson]

4 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

As soon as the Oxford vaccine is green lighted, I would like to see a new routemap produced, which ends with full normality.

Each step along the way should have the criteria clearly listed (prevelance and vaccination numbers, whichever is reached first).

I wouldn't expect an end date on there, though with vaccination numbers a driver of easing resing restrictions, it could be argued that a target should be set.

I don't see why that isn't something a decent journalist would press for, then continually ask about if it is taking too long.

Once the Oxford vaccine is rolling out, "What will it take for us to be able to do x, and when is a realistic timeframe for this?" is a much fairer and answerable question that it was in May.

At the risk of over simplification, it's fairly basic project management to set milestones as numbers vaccinated against restrictions lifted to the end point of normality. Build in some flexibility to allow for vaccine supply of other logistical issues.

[Ron Aldo]

One problem they have is that there are a lot of unanswered questions about all of the vaccines, but the Oxford one in particular. If efficacy is only in the 60-70% range, what are the implications? We also don't seem to know whether the vaccines prevent people from spreading the virus, which seems a pretty crucial bit of information.

[Todd_is_God]

3 minutes ago, bendan said:

One problem they have is that there are a lot of unanswered questions about all of the vaccines, but the Oxford one in particular. If efficacy is only in the 60-70% range, what are the implications? We also don't seem to know whether the vaccines prevent people from spreading the virus, which seems a pretty crucial bit of information.

If the vaccine is effective at reducing the severity of disease to a relatively mild illness then it makes the bit in bold largely redundant.

[Todd_is_God]

6 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

At the risk of over simplification, it's fairly basic project management to set milestones as numbers vaccinated against restrictions lifted to the end point of normality. Build in some flexibility to allow for vaccine supply of other logistical issues.

I was trying to give them a little bit of slack, as setting hard targets like that (or at least making them public) is something they have completely avoided to date, so I have no expectation they would suddenly start now.

[bendan]

Just now, Todd_is_God said:

If the vaccine is effective at reducing the severity of disease to a relatively mild illness then it makes the bit in bold largely redundant.

It makes the bit in bold redundant once everyone has been offered a vaccination, but in the transitional period it creates a lot of doubt. People who've been vaccinated will relax, which would increase risk for those who haven't.

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

I was trying to give them a little bit of slack, as setting hard targets like that (or at least making them public) is something they have completely avoided to date, so I have no expectation they would suddenly start now.

I know I am over simplifying it, but at each milestone you can have a few variables and you can adjust the next one.

[bendan]

6 minutes ago, Ron Aldo said:

I read that this morning (from an interview with the ASZ boss) but the new data to back that up would need to be properly reviewed before it becomes part of government planning. The balls-up they made of their initial trials hasn't helped their credibility.

[Todd_is_God]

Just now, bendan said:

It makes the bit in bold redundant once everyone has been offered a vaccination, but in the transitional period it creates a lot of doubt. People who've been vaccinated will relax, which would increase risk for those who haven't.

The SG plan on offering a vaccine to everyone deemed at risk due to health conditions, as well as everyone over 50.

To date there have been just 27 deaths of people aged 44 and under. The risk to that group is incredibly small.

Given that there will still be restrictions of some kind in place (almost certainly masks and distancing) until the "at risk" groups have been vaccinated, then if there is a couple of months where people who are not due a vaccine, or have not yet reached their point in the queue, have to decide if they want to take part in an activity they consider "risky" then that becomes their choice.