Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Michael W]

There's been a lot of disagreeable things Sturgeon has done this pandemic, but her failure to personally ensure people wear masks at Hampden is the nadir. She must be sacked immediately. 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

36 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

So brave.

Just thought id show wee dawson that its not that hard. 

[effeffsee_the2nd]

Just thought id show wee dawson that its not that hard. 

Well done, you care so much more

[Thereisalight..]

Heard that Janey Godley advert on the radio twice within half an hour earlier after the football. It was bad enough without seeing the TV version. 

I really hate how much of a parody we are as a country at times. Cant believe a government would put out something as cringy as that 

[Thereisalight..]

3 hours ago, Lyle Lanley said:

The state of these fannies. 

A reply to that Christopher character- "No masks at the game , few on the train home. We are doomed, wont be doing this again

heads gone stuff. Enjoy life living behind your sofa 

Edited September 5, 2021 by Thereisalight..

[The_Kincardine]

9 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said:

Heard that Janey Godley advert on the radio twice within half an hour earlier after the football. It was bad enough without seeing the TV version. 

I really hate how much of a parody we are as a country at times. Cant believe a government would put out something as cringy as that 

All part of turning Scotland in to a country of neds. 

[Lyle Lanley]

14 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said:

Heard that Janey Godley advert on the radio twice within half an hour earlier after the football. It was bad enough without seeing the TV version. 

I really hate how much of a parody we are as a country at times. Cant believe a government would put out something as cringy as that 

It has more dislikes than likes on YouTube which says it all  

[Dawson Park Boy]

6 hours ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Just thought id show wee dawson that its not that hard. 

It was!!

The situation here in Spain seems about the same as in Scotland regarding masks.

Businesses are going through the motions trying to enforce it but not with any enthusiasm.

[101]

8 hours ago, Lyle Lanley said:

The state of these fannies. 

Having a Chris McEleny tweet in this thread really is a terrible disappointment @Chairman Mao seemed sensible in his contributions in comparison.

[Elixir]

The replies to this. 

Definitely not too wee or too poor, but at the present time definitely too stupid, I'm afraid. 

 

[ICTChris]

[Aladdin]

When considering whether to recommend vaccinating a group of the population, do the JCVI only consider data on health outcomes for an average individual from that group (likelihood of negative outcome from disease v likelihood of negative outcome from vaccination) or can they also consider the benefit to the wider population?

[RH33]

Having had the side effects I had with moderna, not quiet as bad as our above friend, and the day two of mine under weather and one asymptomatic, I'd have to say I wouldn't vaccinate if it's moderna.

Also if politicians overrule jcvi, I'd rather go with the scientists.

[welshbairn]

54 minutes ago, Aladdin said:

When considering whether to recommend vaccinating a group of the population, do the JCVI only consider data on health outcomes for an average individual from that group (likelihood of negative outcome from disease v likelihood of negative outcome from vaccination) or can they also consider the benefit to the wider population?

They specifically don't consider the wider population, just the individual, which surprised me. And they don't consider any non physical factors like missing out on education and social interaction from having to self isolate etc.

Edited September 5, 2021 by welshbairn

[Michael W]

2 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

They specifically don't consider the wider population, just the individual, which surprised me.

I think it's the only way to do it, to be honest. If there was a correlation of adverse events in younger age groups, then recommending that this group take the jag because it'll mean less 85 year olds die or that case rates might be a bit lower in winter would provoke uproar. They can only assess the merits on the group itself before making the recommendation. 

Determining that under 30s and then under 40s should not get AZ/Oxford for example did not focus on the societal benefit either. It was purely on the risk of relative harm of covid to those age groups and the risk of adverse events. That allowing AZ to be given would've sped up the vaccination programme and in turn preventing cases, hospitalisations and deaths was not the determining factor. 

The societal impact is the government's job. I am not really comfortable with them ignoring the JVCI and proceeding regardless, I have to say. I know other European countries have chosen to vaccinate 12 year olds, but it if the conclusion is that there are not adequate grounds for vaccinating this age group I don't think that we should just ignore that because it's not the decision that many people expected. In particular, certain groups that have raged the entire pandemic about "the science" not being followed are now desperate for the government to ignore it because the JVCI reached a conclusion they don't like. 

Saying that, I fully expect the decision to be made to vaccinate over 12s within the next couple of weeks when England does a Scotland with the schools all back. Unlike the JVCI, politicians do tend to panic. 

[Bairnardo]

2 minutes ago, Michael W said:

I think it's the only way to do it, to be honest. If there was a correlation of adverse events in younger age groups, then recommending that this group take the jag because it'll mean less 85 year olds die or that case rates might be a bit lower in winter would provoke uproar. They can only assess the merits on the group itself before making the recommendation. 

Determining that under 30s and then under 40s should not get AZ/Oxford for example did not focus on the societal benefit either. It was purely on the risk of relative harm of covid to those age groups and the risk of adverse events. That allowing AZ to be given would've sped up the vaccination programme and in turn preventing cases, hospitalisations and deaths was not the determining factor. 

The societal impact is the government's job. I am not really comfortable with them ignoring the JVCI and proceeding regardless, I have to say. I know other European countries have chosen to vaccinate 12 year olds, but it if the conclusion is that there are not adequate grounds for vaccinating this age group I don't think that we should just ignore that because it's not the decision that many people expected. In particular, certain groups that have raged the entire pandemic about "the science" not being followed are now desperate for the government to ignore it because the JVCI reached a conclusion they don't like. 

Saying that, I fully expect the decision to be made to vaccinate over 12s within the next couple of weeks when England does a Scotland with the schools all back. Unlike the JVCI, politicians do tend to panic. 

I do wonder how parents will be treated when the uptake is inevitably slow among kids. The scientists looking at the medical side of it have basically said don't do it. It will be an enormous brass neck for the govt/media to see folk getting shamed into vaccinating their kids against medical advice using the same "selfish" patter that young adults are being targeted with.

[welshbairn]

19 minutes ago, Michael W said:

I think it's the only way to do it, to be honest. If there was a correlation of adverse events in younger age groups, then recommending that this group take the jag because it'll mean less 85 year olds die or that case rates might be a bit lower in winter would provoke uproar. They can only assess the merits on the group itself before making the recommendation. 

Determining that under 30s and then under 40s should not get AZ/Oxford for example did not focus on the societal benefit either. It was purely on the risk of relative harm of covid to those age groups and the risk of adverse events. That allowing AZ to be given would've sped up the vaccination programme and in turn preventing cases, hospitalisations and deaths was not the determining factor. 

The societal impact is the government's job. I am not really comfortable with them ignoring the JVCI and proceeding regardless, I have to say. I know other European countries have chosen to vaccinate 12 year olds, but it if the conclusion is that there are not adequate grounds for vaccinating this age group I don't think that we should just ignore that because it's not the decision that many people expected. In particular, certain groups that have raged the entire pandemic about "the science" not being followed are now desperate for the government to ignore it because the JVCI reached a conclusion they don't like. 

Saying that, I fully expect the decision to be made to vaccinate over 12s within the next couple of weeks when England does a Scotland with the schools all back. Unlike the JVCI, politicians do tend to panic. 

The JCVI specifically said it was not a recommendation and the CMOs would have to consider the other factors that were beyond their remit, not just community transmission but education, social interaction etc that directly affect the 12-15 year olds. They also said there was a marginal medical benefit to vaccination, just not enough to recommend it taken on its own. That said, I have no idea what I would do if I was responsible for children of that age.

Edited September 5, 2021 by welshbairn

[Rugster]

It’s bothering me more than it should the amount of people who are calling them the JVCI. 

[Left Back]

36 minutes ago, RH33 said:

Having had the side effects I had with moderna, not quiet as bad as our above friend, and the day two of mine under weather and one asymptomatic, I'd have to say I wouldn't vaccinate if it's moderna.

Also if politicians overrule jcvi, I'd rather go with the scientists.

Strictly speaking it shouldn’t be the politicians overruling the scientists.  The CMO’s take the science and also factor in the wider societal impact and make a recommendation to the politicians.  You can argue about whether that is an independent and medically based recommendation but it can certainly be framed as so.

If the CMO says don’t jag them and the government goes ahead anyway then there should be uproar.  Can’t see that happening though as the CMO’s will be under huge pressure to give the go ahead.

[Michael W]

10 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

The JVCI specifically said it was not a recommendation and the CMOs would have to consider the other factors that were beyond their remit, not just community transmission but education, social interaction etc that directly affect the 12-15 year olds. They also said there was a marginal medical benefit to vaccination, just not enough to recommend it taken on its own. That said, I have no idea what I would do if I was responsible for children of that age.

It did sound a bit of a cop out. 

Not a decision that I would like to make either. I would probably veer towards it generally , but at the same time if the experts are stopping short of recommending it, then I generally don't know. Probably take the shitebag option and leave it open whilst expressing little option of my own other than that I'd had it 

14 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

I do wonder how parents will be treated when the uptake is inevitably slow among kids. The scientists looking at the medical side of it have basically said don't do it. It will be an enormous brass neck for the govt/media to see folk getting shamed into vaccinating their kids against medical advice using the same "selfish" patter that young adults are being targeted with.

They'll be branded school closing scum, most likely.