Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

I don't get that line of thought, they're already under immense pressure to pass it. If it prevents onwards transmission we should be screaming that from the roof tops as it would surely encourage people who don't feel they need it for themselves to get it in order to protect others.

 

As it stands, I won't take the vaccine but if it would stop me passing it to others I'd get it happily.

 

It's a complete unknown and will remain subject to change in the future.  It isn't and can never be a calculation that individuals can make in order to inform their decision to take or refuse the vaccine.  

 

These questions are for scientists.  None of us have the knowledge to make such a simple calculation.  If an individual is minded to accept the vaccine under some circumstances they've imagined or whatever then just get the vaccine.  That sort of calculation is way above and beyond our remit.

[Taffin]

15 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

It's a complete unknown and will remain subject to change in the future.  It isn't and can never be a calculation that individuals can make in order to inform their decision to take or refuse the vaccine.  

 

These questions are for scientists.  None of us have the knowledge to make such a simple calculation.  If an individual is minded to accept the vaccine under some circumstances they've imagined or whatever then just get the vaccine.  That sort of calculation is way above and beyond our remit.

 

I'm obviously missing something. I don't understand why it would be impossible for them to say whether it does or doesn't prevent onward transmission. I get what you're saying about future mutations etc being an unknown but if it works for what they're testing against now, it works. If it doesn't in the future against something else, then it doesn't. 

 

I totally agree it's for scientists, I'm just clearly missing why they wouldn't be able to say whether it prevents onwards transmission of what they are vaccinating against or not.

 

14 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

From what I recall reading, there had been a number of things that pointed to it reducing onward transmission, something in reducing asymptomatic cases,  whilst the vaccine works more like a traditional vaccine and is designed to prevent catching as opposed treating the impact of the virus; which Pzifer does. 
 

I’ll have little doubt more will come out when approval is achieved and we know some or the details round it. 

 

I think this part of reason of Oxford working bottom up age wise, once the most vulnerable we’re done. 

 

Fingers crossed 

[Victorian]

27 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I'm obviously missing something. I don't understand why it would be impossible for them to say whether it does or doesn't prevent onward transmission. I get what you're saying about future mutations etc being an unknown but if it works for what they're testing against now, it works. If it doesn't in the future against something else, then it doesn't. 

 

I totally agree it's for scientists, I'm just clearly missing why they wouldn't be able to say whether it prevents onwards transmission of what they are vaccinating against or not.

 

 

Fingers crossed 

 

It's only been trialled in the tens of thousands.  Roll-out hasn't yet begun.  To see if it prevents onward transmission they need to study the data regarding the contacts of the people who have been vaccinated and how they compare to contacts of others.  That's an enormously complicated study to evaluate and it will take time.  A reasonable picture regarding the prevention of transmission should begin to build in the coming months.  The main design purpose of this vaccine is to prevent infection in the vaccinated person so it stands to reason that onward transmission should at least be greatly reduced.  But none of this means much if further mutations evade the infection prevention properties of this vaccine.

 

Onward transmission prevention will dictate what level of virus remains in the community.  It is by no means certain that an all singing all dancing vaccine resulting in very,  very low levels of residual virus is going to be more beneficial than a higher level reservoir of virus.  Another highly complex and scientific issue.

 

It's not a criticism but laymen like us are nowhere near qualified enough to use the issue of onward transmission as a simple YES/NO switch to decide whether or not to accept a vaccine.  It just doesn't work like that.  Anyone minded to take the vaccine should probably take it.  Those minded not to will decide their own way,  albeit imo everyone should participate in order that the short term recovery occurs sooner and more sustainably.

[redjambo]

Scottish numbers: 27 December 2020

Summary

• 740 new cases of COVID-19 reported [-409]
• 6,793 new tests for COVID-19 that reported results – 12.3% of these were positive [-8,618; +4.1%]

[Taffin]

16 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

It's only been trialled in the tens of thousands.  Roll-out hasn't yet begun.  To see if it prevents onward transmission they need to study the data regarding the contacts of the people who have been vaccinated and how they compare to contacts of others.  That's an enormously complicated study to evaluate and it will take time.  A reasonable picture regarding the prevention of transmission should begin to build in the coming months.  The main design purpose of this vaccine is to prevent infection in the vaccinated person so it stands to reason that onward transmission should at least be greatly reduced.  But none of this means much if further mutations evade the infection prevention properties of this vaccine.

 

Onward transmission prevention will dictate what level of virus remains in the community.  It is by no means certain that an all singing all dancing vaccine resulting in very,  very low levels of residual virus is going to be more beneficial than a higher level reservoir of virus.  Another highly complex and scientific issue.

 

It's not a criticism but laymen like us are nowhere near qualified enough to use the issue of onward transmission as a simple YES/NO switch to decide whether or not to accept a vaccine.  It just doesn't work like that.  Anyone minded to take the vaccine should probably take it.  Those minded not to will decide their own way,  albeit imo everyone should participate in order that the short term recovery occurs sooner and more sustainably.

 

Cheers appreciate the explanation 👍

 

I thought they'd just test whether those in the trial were contagious to others, or not, after having been given the vaccine. I didn't realise it wasn't that simple.

 

 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

Cheers appreciate the explanation 👍

 

I thought they'd just test whether those in the trial were contagious to others, or not, after having been given the vaccine. I didn't realise it wasn't that simple.

 

 

 

I dare say they will have a fair amount of evidence already with lots more to follow when they start vaccinations.

 

Stuff like this is just above our pay grade.  The modern way is that people want to absorb information / data and imbue themselves with a competency that they simply don't have.  To inadventently turn a highly scientific thing into a trivial decision.  

 

"A man's gots to know his limitations"

 

Dirty Harry.

[Nucky Thompson]

26 minutes ago, redjambo said:

Scottish numbers: 27 December 2020

Summary

• 740 new cases of COVID-19 reported [-409]
• 6,793 new tests for COVID-19 that reported results – 12.3% of these were positive [-8,618; +4.1%]

I'm guessing that the higher positivity percentage and lower tests carried out are down to only people with symptoms getting tested during the Christmas holidays

[redjambo]

12 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

I'm guessing that the higher positivity percentage and lower tests carried out are down to only people with symptoms getting tested during the Christmas holidays

 

That's my take on it as well, Nucky. There has probably been a hiatus on the "regular" checks.

[coconut doug]

5 hours ago, Nucky Thompson said:

It's a two way thing JD. There are also people on here who constantly defend the SNP to the hilt no matter what.

 

Some of the things posted the other night were disgusting, saying it's your own fault for putting your relatives into care homes.

 

You were critical of some of their decisions up until a few weeks ago. What's changed?

 

Assuming this is directed at me then I can’t understand your outrage. I was trying to explain to another poster why, for moral, legal and practical reasons it was not acceptable to allow individuals to decide whether or not care home residents should have visitors.

 

       The issue revolved around the individual’s right to choose which I asserted was not appropriate in this situation. To be precise the statement I was challenging was “Surely they have the capacity anc right to choose ? Sadly they haven’t due to the over arching principle of keeping them alive at all costs irrespective of quality of life .” Now I don’t know about you but to me that seems both morally repugnant, hypocritical and stupid. However your moral compass was not activated by this statement so I assume that either you missed it or you agree with it. Since you feel obliged to comment on my response to the statement you should tell us whether you agree with the original statement or not. It seems to me to be a lose/lose situation whichever way you go but complaining about a policy because it keeps people alive at all costs and irrespective of quality of life is inhuman in my view.

 

  Your response, such as it is “A new low for the SNP ass lickers. Blaming people for having their elderly parents in care homes, to cover for the SNP criminal feck up” Is ludicrous. Don’t you see that I am defending the rights of those in care homes against those who would diminish their rights as human beings. The SNP may be culpable too and no doubt they will claim ignorance and extenuating circumstances but as of now they are not criminals as you suggest. I would think that allowing visitors to care homes now would be criminal and certainly in contravention of any Human Rights Act. How could a care home owner explain multiple deaths in his home after allowing visitors?  Is it in any way tenable to say that residents wanted to see their families so I had to let them? Could a care home owner actually say he didn’t think things would be that bad after what has happened over the last 9 months.

 

How does your outrage at the SNP sit with your attitude to the notion that the “over arching principle of keeping them alive” being a problem?  I really would like to know how you can reconcile these apparently contradictory views.

 

It seems to me you want to blame the SNP for everything that has happened around Covid and that you and others want to invite care home residents to take a ticket for the involuntary euthanasia lottery on the false pretext of them having the right to choose. Of course if I have misinterpreted your view I would be delighted to hear what you actually do think.

 

     I didn’t of course claim as you suggest that I was “Blaming people for having their elderly parents in care homes” unless of course you can find a quote to the contrary. What I did do was point out that an inevitable consequence of putting people in a care home is that relatives no longer have sole responsibility for what happens to them and that if they did not like this situation they could remove their relatives as some people have already done. I do realise that in most cases this is not practical and presents a difficult situation for many. Care homes have made significant efforts to help the situation but their collective responsibility to all their residents trumps any individual needs.  

[Governor Tarkin]

^^^^ It's been a long time coming, but it appears that Kickback has finally bottomed out.

[GinRummy]

Round about April/May time, neither government prioritised protecting people in care homes. No political backtracking or revisionist excuses will change that. Politicians at that point were expecting, or at least preparing for overflowing hospital wards and dead bodies being warehoused in portacabins. They couldn’t give a **** about care homes. 
 

I hope, as many of us will be future care home residents, we all remember this. 

Edited December 27, 2020 by GinRummy

[Victorian]

20 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

Round about April/May time, neither government prioritised protecting people in care homes. No political backtracking or revisionist excuses will change that. Politicians at that point were expecting, or at least preparing for overflowing hospital wards and dead bodies being warehoused in portacabins. They couldn’t give a **** about care homes. 
 

I hope, as many of us will be future care home residents, we all remember this. 

 

Some of that is true.  They didn't know the scale of what was coming and,  in hindsight,  mistakes were made regarding care homes.  The exact nature of the mistakes will be determined by the full public inquiries to come.  Mistakes with good intentions with mitigating excuses or something nearer to negligence.  Judge led inquiries will decide that.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

7 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Some of that is true.  They didn't know the scale of what was coming and,  in hindsight,  mistakes were made regarding care homes.  The exact nature of the mistakes will be determined by the full public inquiries to come.  Mistakes with good intentions with mitigating excuses or something nearer to negligence.  Judge led inquiries will decide that.

 

There was also an element of pure panic as well.

Like you say those in authority didn't have a clue what was coming, and they panicked.

[Victorian]

4 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

There was also an element of pure panic as well.

Like you say those in authority didn't have a clue what was coming, and they panicked.

 

We'll see idc.

[CJGJ]

6 hours ago, Taffin said:

 

I don't get that line of thought, they're already under immense pressure to pass it. If it prevents onwards transmission we should be screaming that from the roof tops as it would surely encourage people who don't feel they need it for themselves to get it in order to protect others.

 

As it stands, I won't take the vaccine but if it would stop me passing it to others I'd get it happily.

As long as you isolate where nec, keep social distancing, accept you may not be able to attend events others can that's fine by me....oh and after a short while wear a tshirt telling the world you refused the vaccine just so we can keep away from you as you clearly care for others

 

Otherwise what a silly stance, happy to know they may catch it and use up precious resources to treat you just to prove a stupid point given you would if it helped stop the spread

[Dagger Is Back]

34 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

There was also an element of pure panic as well.

Like you say those in authority didn't have a clue what was coming, and they panicked.

In this rollercoaster we’re all going through, it does make you wonder what exactly they’d rehearsed and planned for in terms of CV. 
 

I don’t envy any of them in terms of the role they’ve undertaken but where and what was the plan? 
 

The public inquiry will be a fascinating watch/listen

[Victorian]

You need to remember that there was no specific,  reliable and scaled up test available in the very early stage of this.  The USA were even worse off than the UK because they failed to introduce testing until later

 due to some bureaucratic fannying about.

 

Should people have been punted into care homes untested?  Dunno.  Was testing available?  Should they have remained in hospitals?  Dunno.  Would they have been safe?  Was there anywhere else they could have gone out of danger?  Dunno.  Was anywhere safe for them?  Was it remotely feasible to retain some kind of contingency accomodation for people where they could be moved to and taken care of by carers who themselves could avoid infecting vulnerable people?

[The Real Maroonblood]

15 minutes ago, Dagger Is Back said:

In this rollercoaster we’re all going through, it does make you wonder what exactly they’d rehearsed and planned for in terms of CV. 
 

I don’t envy any of them in terms of the role they’ve undertaken but where and what was the plan? 
 

The public inquiry will be a fascinating watch/listen

If you Google Cygnus 2016.

This was a rehearsal for a Flu epidemic. 

 

Edited December 27, 2020 by The Real Maroonblood

[Taffin]

39 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

As long as you isolate where nec, keep social distancing, accept you may not be able to attend events others can that's fine by me....oh and after a short while wear a tshirt telling the world you refused the vaccine just so we can keep away from you as you clearly care for others

 

Are you unable to read? I clearly said if it stops me passing it to others I'd take it. 

 

Quote

Otherwise what a silly stance, happy to know they may catch it and use up precious resources to treat you just to prove a stupid point given you would if it helped stop the spread

 

The odds of me requiring some kind of treatment appear to be pretty consistent with, or without the vaccine. 

 

 

 

Edit: this is exactly why arguments break out on here because the dogmatic either don't read what people post or choose to ignore the key parts. Victorian quite evidently has a different take on this to me but took the time to engage and discuss where my thinking was flawed which was amiable, interesting and enjoyable. 

Edited December 27, 2020 by Taffin

[FWJ]

7 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Definitely a case for the experts to be mulling over all possibilities which i'm more than confident they already will be. And regarding the young super spreaders being tardy when it comes to being vaccinated there may already be an answer to that in the pipeline.

I have a suspicion that many employers are going to insist that all employees and most definitely any new hires be vaccinated. It may become a requirement just to get a job.

Then there's other activities like simply boarding a plane. The airlines have already begun insisting that passengers carry proof of vaccination. Nation states around the world may insist anyone entering their country carry proof of vaccination.

Such restrictions may radiate out to all manner of everyday activities making it a necessity to be vaccinated if you want to take part in life.

I needed a Heaf test (TB) before I started my job and was required to have the Hep B vaccine when it became available (mid ‘80s).  No biggy.

[GinRummy]

24 minutes ago, Victorian said:

You need to remember that there was no specific,  reliable and scaled up test available in the very early stage of this.  The USA were even worse off than the UK because they failed to introduce testing until later

 due to some bureaucratic fannying about.

 

Should people have been punted into care homes untested?  Dunno.  Was testing available?  Should they have remained in hospitals?  Dunno.  Would they have been safe?  Was there anywhere else they could have gone out of danger?  Dunno.  Was anywhere safe for them?  Was it remotely feasible to retain some kind of contingency accomodation for people where they could be moved to and taken care of by carers who themselves could avoid infecting vulnerable people?

The contingency plan you talk about was probably not feasible. If they were showing symptoms of Covid they should have remained in hospital and not sent back to care homes. If they were in another setting and showing symptoms of Covid they should not have been sent to care homes. It’s that simple. As you mentioned earlier there may have been other pressures or considerations that could explain the thinking behind decisions but mistakes were made. I think Nicola Sturgeon had the grace to admit that. 
 

edit. It has been confirmed that 78 patients were transfers from hospital to care homes after actually testing positive. 

Edited December 27, 2020 by GinRummy

[3fingersreid]

36 minutes ago, Dagger Is Back said:

In this rollercoaster we’re all going through, it does make you wonder what exactly they’d rehearsed and planned for in terms of CV. 
 

I don’t envy any of them in terms of the role they’ve undertaken but where and what was the plan? 
 

The public inquiry will be a fascinating watch/listen

Well they certainly didn’t watch the film  , Contagion 

 

we won’t be able to afford a public enquiry 

 

 

[Dagger Is Back]

2 hours ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

If you Google Cygnus 2016.

This was a rehearsal for a Flu epidemic. 

 

Thanks for this. Couldn’t remember what the exercise was called. 
 

All of the recommendations were implemented though so we’re all OK

[Enzo Chiefo]

After a couple of days break with the Brexit deal and Her Maj pulling in a bumper audience with her annual Christmas message, we're back to the dull Covid scaremongering on BBC, wheeling out all and sundry to tell us how busy the NHS is and how it could be "overwhelmed " if the whole world turns up. They really need to give it a rest.

[FWJ]

9 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

After a couple of days break with the Brexit deal and Her Maj pulling in a bumper audience with her annual Christmas message, we're back to the dull Covid scaremongering on BBC, wheeling out all and sundry to tell us how busy the NHS is and how it could be "overwhelmed " if the whole world turns up. They really need to give it a rest.

Or maybe the BBC are reporting what organisations like the London Ambulance Service or the Scottish Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties (professionals such as anaesthetists, GPs and surgeons) are saying.

But what do they know, eh?

[Enzo Chiefo]

1 minute ago, FWJ said:

Or maybe the BBC are reporting what organisations like the London Ambulance Service or the Scottish Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties (professionals such as anaesthetists, GPs and surgeons) are saying.

But what do they know, eh?

Very little by the sounds of it.  We've heard it all before. 228/360 ICU beds in Scotland are occupied, only 60+ due to Covid. Leitch said they can "double, triple or quadruple" the capacity if needed. It's scaremongering propaganda and the BBC can choose to ignore the dullards who are pedalling it.

[Weakened Offender]

4 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Very little by the sounds of it.  We've heard it all before. 228/360 ICU beds in Scotland are occupied, only 60+ due to Covid. Leitch said they can "double, triple or quadruple" the capacity if needed. It's scaremongering propaganda and the BBC can choose to ignore the dullards who are pedalling it.

 

You calling someone a dullard is up there on this thread. 😁

[Enzo Chiefo]

3 minutes ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

You calling someone a dullard is up there on this thread. 😁

But still you reply, yet again, our resident Covid-phile.

[Ulysses]

13 hours ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

 

I would much rather concentrate on the lack of speed in the vaccination programme or what the figures are for traffic volume, an early lockdown measure that seems to have been forgotten. 

 

Try living here.  First Pfizer shots arrived Saturday, and will sit in a freezer until either Tuesday or Wednesday.  Meanwhile other EU countries are getting their supplies at the same rate that we are, but launched their vaccinations yesterday and today.  Why?  Because our Health minister and his advisers don't seem to be able to get their arses in gear.

[Shanks said no]

8 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Try living here.  First Pfizer shots arrived Saturday, and will sit in a freezer until either Tuesday or Wednesday.  Meanwhile other EU countries are getting their supplies at the same rate that we are, but launched their vaccinations yesterday and today.  Why?  Because our Health minister and his advisers don't seem to be able to get their arses in gear.

 

There was a doctor / hospital executive on the BBC earlier saying progress was slow in their hospital, they were only managing 200 vaccines a day. Now unless that's due to lack of vaccines or just sheer incompetence I don't know but they need to get their act together. Mrs F actually came through to see why I was swearing at the TV. I know they have only been vaccinating for a couple of weeks but they have had 9 months to plan for this.

 

On traffic my suspicions were correct, current private vehicle rates are around 80-90% of pre lockdown. During the real lockdown it was 20-30%

[Ulysses]

12 hours ago, kila said:

 

Hopefully the Oxford vaccine will be the one to restore normality because it is so cheap and easy to store. It is no good some countries being fully vaccinated while others not and mutations still happening.

 

My worry is the vaccination rollout will divide the world as poorer/conflicted countries get left behind, and the vaccine passport idea will accelerate that division.  No flights to parts of the world because they cannot afford to the vaccine, or are struggling to deploy it. Which will feed radicalisation.

 

 

 

Johnson & Johnson could get the edge on everybody, especially for distribution in poorer countries, even though their vaccine will probably not come to market until February.  It will be a single-dose vaccine, which is logistically a lot simpler, and it can be stored for 3 months at refrigerator temperatures.

 

 

11 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

I don’t think any of us will mate, it’s been a proper crap time. I was maybe a bit like you a few months back, literally seething and fuming at every restriction and rule change. They’ll no tell me what to do and that kind of attitude. The sooner I let it go and tried to forget it the better I felt. Avoiding this thread helps a lot as well, it’s toxic and destroyed by a small number of posters imo who try to make it all about something else entirely just compounding the misery of a shite situation we’re all in. 
 

 

Well said.  This will eventually pass, and the restrictions will pass too.  What we may be left with is an annoying and possibly expensive annual vaccination programme - we won't know how the longevity of protection for a while yet.  But if that's what it takes then we'll get on with it.

[Ulysses]

2 minutes ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

 

There was a doctor / hospital executive on the BBC earlier saying progress was slow in their hospital, they were only managing 200 vaccines a day. Now unless that's due to lack of vaccines or just sheer incompetence I don't know but they need to get their act together. Mrs F actually came through to see why I was swearing at the TV. I know they have only been vaccinating for a couple of weeks but they have had 9 months to plan for this.

 

On traffic my suspicions were correct, current private vehicle rates are around 80-90% of pre lockdown. During the real lockdown it was 20-30%

 

I read somewhere this morning (pls don't ask for a link) that the Israelis will be doing 70,000 jabs a day from next week.  That's for a population of 9 million.  In Ireland, we'd need to be doing about 38,500 a day to match that rate of progress.  I'll believe that when I see it.

 

The talk here is that traffic volumes haven't changed so much, but patterns are quite different.  The work commutes using private and public transport have dropped off dramatically, but there are a lot more suburban runs in cars because of the amount of "essential" retail that was still open in our "lockdown".

[Shanks said no]

19 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

I read somewhere this morning (pls don't ask for a link) that the Israelis will be doing 70,000 jabs a day from next week.  That's for a population of 9 million.  In Ireland, we'd need to be doing about 38,500 a day to match that rate of progress.  I'll believe that when I see it.

 

The talk here is that traffic volumes haven't changed so much, but patterns are quite different.  The work commutes using private and public transport have dropped off dramatically, but there are a lot more suburban runs in cars because of the amount of "essential" retail that was still open in our "lockdown".

Now this is how you do it, it would appear

https://www.timesofisrael.com/over-quarter-million-israelis-said-vaccinated-another-3994-virus-cases-found/

Israel aims to vaccinate 25% of population in a month; 250,000 had shots so far

[Ulysses]

2 minutes ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

Now this is how you do it, it would appear

https://www.timesofisrael.com/over-quarter-million-israelis-said-vaccinated-another-3994-virus-cases-found/

Israel aims to vaccinate 25% of population in a month; 250,000 had shots so far

 

If you get the right 25% you can ease off a lot of your restrictions.

 

And if you're aiming for an uptake of (say) 70% you can get there by the end of March, which allows you to lift pretty much all of your remaining restrictions.

 

If someone told us that we could get to that point by the 31st of March, I'd say most of us would regard that as a good policy outcome.  Ireland won't.  Will the UK?

[Shanks said no]

6 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

If you get the right 25% you can ease off a lot of your restrictions.

 

And if you're aiming for an uptake of (say) 70% you can get there by the end of March, which allows you to lift pretty much all of your remaining restrictions.

 

If someone told us that we could get to that point by the 31st of March, I'd say most of us would regard that as a good policy outcome.  Ireland won't.  Will the UK?

 

source https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

might be worth keeping an eye on

Edited December 27, 2020 by The Frenchman Returns

[Ulysses]

1 minute ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

 

Cheers.  We need to see the number of jabs as part of these daily updates the health authorities provide.

[Shanks said no]

12 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Cheers.  We need to see the number of jabs as part of these daily updates the health authorities provide.

As other countries start vaccinating we will see how progress goes, here I have added Scotland (before I am accused of making a political point, the dates are different)

[Newton51]

Tier 5 trending on Twitter even though only goes up to 4 at present 

[FWJ]

8 hours ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Very little by the sounds of it.  We've heard it all before. 228/360 ICU beds in Scotland are occupied, only 60+ due to Covid. Leitch said they can "double, triple or quadruple" the capacity if needed. It's scaremongering propaganda and the BBC can choose to ignore the dullards who are pedalling it.

So the experts aren’t saying / BBC aren’t reporting what you want to hear.

 

Fair enough.

[The Mighty Thor]

21 hours ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

I would much rather concentrate on the lack of speed in the vaccination programme.

This is a very much overlooked point for me.

 

The scale of the vaccination programme and the physical logistics of it blows holes in the spurious claims being trotted out by Johnson and his coterie of lying shitehawks about being vaccinated by Easter.

 

Apparently it takes approx 15 minutes per vaccination with the Pfizer jab. So a qualified health worker will get through 32 people in an 8 hour shift. There's around 3.5 million Scots to be vaccinated or 7 million vaccinations if you like. So back. of fag packet that's over 43,000 working weeks of a health worker/GP/practice nurses. Theres 14 weeks til Easter so we need to have over 3000 people working full time on administering vaccines. 

 

 

[Dazo]

31 minutes ago, FWJ said:

So the experts aren’t saying / BBC aren’t reporting what you want to hear.

 

Fair enough.

Its the angle of truth on what is being said I think is the problem. I know a few people who work in the nhs, a couple frontline in the royal. All they do is moan, they were like this before Covid and obviously during. It will continue long after COVID too.  There are never enough beds, equipment or staff regardless of Government, time of year or actual state of the hospitals. Fair play to our frontline nhs staff who do an amazing job but **** me they never seem happy. 

[The Real Maroonblood]

9 hours ago, Dagger Is Back said:

Thanks for this. Couldn’t remember what the exercise was called. 
 

All of the recommendations were implemented though so we’re all OK

[DETTY29]

33 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

This is a very much overlooked point for me.

 

The scale of the vaccination programme and the physical logistics of it blows holes in the spurious claims being trotted out by Johnson and his coterie of lying shitehawks about being vaccinated by Easter.

 

Apparently it takes approx 15 minutes per vaccination with the Pfizer jab. So a qualified health worker will get through 32 people in an 8 hour shift. There's around 3.5 million Scots to be vaccinated or 7 million vaccinations if you like. So back. of fag packet that's over 43,000 working weeks of a health worker/GP/practice nurses. Theres 14 weeks til Easter so we need to have over 3000 people working full time on administering vaccines. 

 

 

I'm sure I read we (Scotland) were 'recruiting' c.2k vaccinators.

 

I'm in L9 for over 50s and not expecting to be done until summer at earliest.

 

May even have to be pushed back if the 'likely spreader' categories are re-prioritised from L10 and upwards.

 

 

Edited December 28, 2020 by DETTY29

[Governor Tarkin]

25 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

Just had a look at that doesn’t seem to be much of a source outside a express story a few days ago. 
 

This new period of restrictions will be much more akin to March lockdown. I wouldn’t be surprised to see tougher measures come into place this week in Scotland. 
 

Not sure what they would be but my guess would be continued school closures, additional closure of some workplaces ie. Construction, curfews and possible reductions/removal of people being allowed to meet in any setting.
 

We don’t have many more restrictions to bring in but they could undoubtably expand what we already have. 
 

The govts are in a blind panic about the NHS over the next period they are actively trying to invent new supply changes to manufacture/produce a lot of very basic medical equipment ie. hospital beds. They are expecting pressure worse than we have seen before on the NHS. We will face increased restrictions and imo it might be stricter than March 

 

[ri Alban]

Sounds like covid only at Hospital soon.

[Enzo Chiefo]

1 hour ago, FWJ said:

So the experts aren’t saying / BBC aren’t reporting what you want to hear.

 

Fair enough.

My mistake,  the "experts" are scaremongering and the BBC are giving them the platform to do so

[Harry Potter]

4 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Sounds like covid only at Hospital soon.

nightmare bud, 

[Governor Tarkin]

6 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

My mistake,  the "experts" are scaremongering and the BBC are giving them the platform to do so

 

The BBC is ****ing doom TV this morning.

[Harry Potter]

29 minutes ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

The BBC is ****ing doom TV this morning.

Had the missfortune to turn the tv on and BBC was the last one watched, doom and gloom

hospitals will be toiling, cases rising, ☹️.

[The Real Maroonblood]

5 minutes ago, Harry Potter said:

Had the missfortune to turn the tv on and BBC was the last one watched, doom and gloom

hospitals will be toiling, cases rising, ☹️.

It’s been a long time since I’ve watched it.

So nothing has changed then.