Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
Absolutely. This Schools Week article gives useful insight and data:
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/ons-covid...ve-average-but-not-statistically-significant/
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/ons-covid...ve-average-but-not-statistically-significant/
roubaixtuesday
self serving virtue signaller
Perhaps deprivation makes you much more likely to be exposed: crowded housing, can't afford to isolate, likely to have a high risk occupational.
Health makes you more likely to suffer a severe or fatal case.
Of course the two go together as a double whammy.
kingrollo
Guru
How long before we do away with priority groups and just let people turn up with an NHS number ? - I know this is happening informally anyway.
One large centre by me, vaccinated under 100 people in one 12 hour shift.
Edit:- numbers of vaccinations well down today - per ITV news.
One large centre by me, vaccinated under 100 people in one 12 hour shift.
Edit:- numbers of vaccinations well down today - per ITV news.
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
Forgive the I said/ you said.
"The [BBC] interviewer did, I'm pleased to say, get the clear message across: the ONS statistics for 2020 show that teachers are no more (or less) at risk than the general working age population (corrected for age). NB I identify the source of her 'message'.
You asked "Is it proper that the interviewer put the government message across and was it made clear that it was the government message?" NB your introduction of the term "government message".
I said: "This is not the "government message". This is what the ONS stats tell them (and us)."
It's by and by that the ONS stats show that teachers (as a profession) are not at greater risk than those of the same age and sex in the wider population. Secondary school teachers a bit worse (especially men), primary and early settings a bit less risky (death being the harsh and tragic metric used).
And for the avoidance of doubt, I have every respect for the expertise, dedication and stoicism of teachers in these last 10 months, and am sad to see that over a hundred teachers died last year. And similarly sad that nearly 50 teaching assistants and educational support assistants died. I do not know what the rates are for catching COVID-19 amongst those who provide our children with an education, compared with those of the same age and sex in the wider population.
Did I "deny that 'schools are safe' is/was been a government message? Who do you not want to discuss the safety of schools with?
Edit: deleted
Schools Week:
"The ONS has today published its analysis of Covid-related deaths by occupation. It found that 139 teachers, senior education professionals, education advisers and school inspectors died between March 9 and December 29. Over the same period, 46 teaching assistants and educational support assistants died."
ONS: "Rates of death involving COVID-19 for [teaching and educational professionals] were statistically significantly lower than the rates of death involving COVID-19 among those of the same age and sex, with 18.4 deaths per 100,000 males (66 deaths) and 9.8 deaths per 100,000 females (73 deaths), compared with 31.4 and 16.8 deaths per 100,000 in the population among males and females respectively."
"The [BBC] interviewer did, I'm pleased to say, get the clear message across: the ONS statistics for 2020 show that teachers are no more (or less) at risk than the general working age population (corrected for age). NB I identify the source of her 'message'.
You asked "Is it proper that the interviewer put the government message across and was it made clear that it was the government message?" NB your introduction of the term "government message".
I said: "This is not the "government message". This is what the ONS stats tell them (and us)."
Perhaps you would have been less boggled if I'd said: "the interviewer repeatedly referred to the ONS stats and asked Rayner whether she thought the stats were wrong / had been misinterpreted." (Which is more or less what I said in the first place.)
It's by and by that the ONS stats show that teachers (as a profession) are not at greater risk than those of the same age and sex in the wider population. Secondary school teachers a bit worse (especially men), primary and early settings a bit less risky (death being the harsh and tragic metric used).
And for the avoidance of doubt, I have every respect for the expertise, dedication and stoicism of teachers in these last 10 months, and am sad to see that over a hundred teachers died last year. And similarly sad that nearly 50 teaching assistants and educational support assistants died. I do not know what the rates are for catching COVID-19 amongst those who provide our children with an education, compared with those of the same age and sex in the wider population.
Did I "deny that 'schools are safe' is/was been a government message? Who do you not want to discuss the safety of schools with?
Edit: deleted
Schools Week:
"The ONS has today published its analysis of Covid-related deaths by occupation. It found that 139 teachers, senior education professionals, education advisers and school inspectors died between March 9 and December 29. Over the same period, 46 teaching assistants and educational support assistants died."
ONS: "Rates of death involving COVID-19 for [teaching and educational professionals] were statistically significantly lower than the rates of death involving COVID-19 among those of the same age and sex, with 18.4 deaths per 100,000 males (66 deaths) and 9.8 deaths per 100,000 females (73 deaths), compared with 31.4 and 16.8 deaths per 100,000 in the population among males and females respectively."
Last edited:
BoldonLad
Not part of the Elite
- Location
- South Tyneside
No objection, in principle, but, if we were to avoid a social distancing nightmare, and sundry "Black Friday" type problems, I think, we may need just slightly more planning and organisation than "just turn up".
Julia9054
Guru
- Location
- Knaresborough
From 1.9x higher for primary and secondary school teachers up to 7x higher for teaching assistants in special schools
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/fact-check-are-school-staff-at-greater-risk-from-covid-19/
A member of JCVI was on news night last night. Asked about this he explained that the remit given was to reduce death in at risk groups. Not to reduce cases. If the government ask's JCVI to revisit it with cases in mind than teachers may have a case. He did basally say that would be totally political. He also made it clear that to move teachers up the list which are at relative low risk means moving other groups at higher risk down the list.
I've said in the past that if we start setting access to health purely based on social worth. It set's us done a really dark path.
Access to public health has to be based on sound clinical evidence and taken by trained medical professionals. Guided by clear, debated and sound clinical and moral ethics. Not based on what is a vote winner health is not about being popular but on clinical and health needs. So many public health intervention in the last few years have started as targeted ones. Only to be open up a free for all to get a more votes then when cuts come they go due to the escalating cost of opening them up to all. Vaccines are too important to start down this road.
If anything a sound clinical case can be made to move up all BEME groups. Given that before any other factors are added are at biggest risk of covid death. But I can't see that winner votes neither would be moving the most poorest in society up the list. Which again a case can made. We could even make a case that as men are at bigger risk so how ever you set the access they get it 1st in each group. Again no one is calling for that.
Before we even think about messing about with the list can be get the current one done 1st. Then check and check again that we really have done every one as many are still no way near getting the 1st dose. We have to be real about this we don't have enough supply and that's not going to change for some time. We either use it wisely and aim it the right health outcomes or we may as well say if you want one you can buy one. So much of this pandemic has seen political choice taken over public health ones with all the fall it brings. Do we really want yet another made that way with all the public health fall out it would being ?
I've said in the past that if we start setting access to health purely based on social worth. It set's us done a really dark path.
Access to public health has to be based on sound clinical evidence and taken by trained medical professionals. Guided by clear, debated and sound clinical and moral ethics. Not based on what is a vote winner health is not about being popular but on clinical and health needs. So many public health intervention in the last few years have started as targeted ones. Only to be open up a free for all to get a more votes then when cuts come they go due to the escalating cost of opening them up to all. Vaccines are too important to start down this road.
If anything a sound clinical case can be made to move up all BEME groups. Given that before any other factors are added are at biggest risk of covid death. But I can't see that winner votes neither would be moving the most poorest in society up the list. Which again a case can made. We could even make a case that as men are at bigger risk so how ever you set the access they get it 1st in each group. Again no one is calling for that.
Before we even think about messing about with the list can be get the current one done 1st. Then check and check again that we really have done every one as many are still no way near getting the 1st dose. We have to be real about this we don't have enough supply and that's not going to change for some time. We either use it wisely and aim it the right health outcomes or we may as well say if you want one you can buy one. So much of this pandemic has seen political choice taken over public health ones with all the fall it brings. Do we really want yet another made that way with all the public health fall out it would being ?
Johnno260
Guru
- Location
- East Sussex
Sorry I meant school staff.
True but it's an opinion, it means people can be freed up to work.
I never said it would be easy, whatever choices are made, someone else will suffer.
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
Really good analysis, @tom73
So many different aspects to balance. Risk of death or serious illness is a very clear metric which JCVI based their decision on.
"The JCVI advises that the first priorities for the current COVID-19 vaccination programme should be the prevention of COVID-19 mortality and the protection of health and social care staff and systems. Secondary priorities could include vaccination of those at increased risk of hospitalisation and at increased risk of exposure, and to maintain resilience in essential public services."
The JCVI also shared their assessment of the impact on and implications for health inequalities in the prioritisation of COVID-19 vaccines (at Annex A).
Offering a broad comment on the deaths in various occupations etc stats, ONS analyst Ben Humberstone said: "As the pandemic has progressed, we have learnt more about the disease and the communities it impacts most. There are a complex combination of factors that influence the risk of death; from your age and your ethnicity, where you live and who you live with, to pre-existing health conditions."
So many different aspects to balance. Risk of death or serious illness is a very clear metric which JCVI based their decision on.
"The JCVI advises that the first priorities for the current COVID-19 vaccination programme should be the prevention of COVID-19 mortality and the protection of health and social care staff and systems. Secondary priorities could include vaccination of those at increased risk of hospitalisation and at increased risk of exposure, and to maintain resilience in essential public services."
The JCVI also shared their assessment of the impact on and implications for health inequalities in the prioritisation of COVID-19 vaccines (at Annex A).
Offering a broad comment on the deaths in various occupations etc stats, ONS analyst Ben Humberstone said: "As the pandemic has progressed, we have learnt more about the disease and the communities it impacts most. There are a complex combination of factors that influence the risk of death; from your age and your ethnicity, where you live and who you live with, to pre-existing health conditions."
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
Johnno: Who do you think should suffer, please? People who are at more risk of dying? Not disagreeing, just asking. There's a good argument, in the likely circumstances in the spring, where school staff generally might be given a specific place in the priority table, given the prime importance of getting our children back to proper schooling (and the secondary beneficial effects of that).
Last edited:
deptfordmarmoset
Full time tea drinker
- Location
- Armonmy Way
One thing that intrigues me about the excess death figures is how much social distancing has depressed flu viruses. And then how much a lower incidence of flu and related cases of pneumonia make a the covid death rate less visible.
kingrollo
Guru
No objection, in principle, but, if we were to avoid a social distancing nightmare, and sundry "Black Friday" type problems, I think, we may need just slightly more planning and organisation than "just turn up".
Fair point But maybe move in that direction. Under 100 in 12 hours at one of the major centres is very poor.
Johnno260
Guru
- Location
- East Sussex
In an ideal situation no one.
People like me I suppose should bear the brunt of being at the bottom on the vaccine list, I’m relatively young, I don’t have any known medical conditions, I’m not a key worker or a teacher.
I never said it was an easy choice, and I’m not qualified to make them.
I will just bow out of the conversation here as I’m tired and probably not making any sense, I wasn’t considering moving teachers up means moving high risk down, any high risk/elderly take priority.
Sorry again I was being a dunce.
Last edited:
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
Agree. I side with @tom73 here. Empower the local health organisation and get local buy-in and organised community support. And encourage the local papers to track and publish how their community is doing.
Weather the next few days will not help. Do you want 75 year olds waiting, socially distanced outside in the wind and rain, or slipping on snow /ice (not down here in Devon, mind)? Will they want to risk that? Some will. Some will leave it till the weather's less malign.
classic33
Leg End Member
Why does expressing your opinion, as valid as any other on here, make you a dunce?
We're all drawing our information from the same places, and basing our opinions on what we feel and what we've read or heard.
