COVID Vaccine !

[Craig the cyclist]

No, you are right Craig. One should accept every policy decision made by the government without question. One should never be questioning whether a policy decision is made because it is the most effective thing to do rather than because it is easier or politically expedient.

And the second bit of my post to you?

What ages? What risk factors? Which ethnic group? Where would you vaccinate them? What is the time frame? How long before you start? Would you allow them to socialise in the meantime? How would you gain consent for some? Come on, you need to sort your policy and offering, not just say younger people in hotspot areas. If you are 80, then 35 years olds are younger, if you are 35, 18 is younger, if you are 18, 10 is younger.......

Details please, spell out your policy to show us who and how you would implement your policy. Or continue to point out it is all wrong, but offer no solution. Specifics please, or admit you couldn't do it any better and let others get on with it.

What is your policy and plan exactly? Just so we can helpfully critique your plan, which will obviously be better than what we have already.

Or is your plan to keep saying 'That was rubbish, they shouldn't have done that' over and over again to every decision made?

 

[roubaixtuesday]

I'm with @Julia

The acceleration of doses in those already vaccinated makes no sense in the situation we're in.

One dose gives good protection against infection and symptoms.

A second dose makes a decent, but incremental improvement to that.

But the risk here is a major 3rd spike. That risk is *massively* reduced in a highly non- linear fashion by vaccinating the unvaccinated, who have no immunity.

I'd have a very simple policy at this point.

Hang second doses, get them done later if need be.

Open vaccinations to u40s across the board and get as many into arms as possible. Let local areas decide how to prioritise.

It would get us as fast as possible to herd immunity, and actually protect the people denied second doses on time more, because they'd be far less likely to get exposed.

Jab, jab, jab.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

First jab doesn't do a whole lot to reduce transmission, that effect kicks in two weeks after second jab is how I read it

One dose gives good protection against infection and symptoms.

Tricky this eh?

Open vaccinations to u40s across the board and get as many into arms as possible. Let local areas decide how to prioritise.

Better attempt than Julia's. But, and you know have the advantage of knowing what I do for a job, if local areas are deciding, then who decides who gets the vaccine? If Yourtown decides to vaccinate everyone over 12, and has 750000 in that category, Mycity decides all over 18s and has 500000 of them, Thatville goes for everyone over 21 and has 250000 of them, what happens to Ourvillage who can't any vaccine for its over 30s because it has all been delivered to the other places? Then you have the logistics of getting the stuff everywhere.

Also, who decides? The council, the local health teams, the GPs? This has 'post-code lottery' and 'Boris makes local councils responsible for deaths of care-home residents' written all over it! What about the council who decide everyone over 16, except the residents of the local special needs home, who never leave the grounds of the home, after all, if the staff are all vaccinated, then they are relatively safe aren't they?

Hang second doses, get them done later if need be.

Of course, that isn't what the science says, as I know you are well aware.

At the end of the day, this is a moral, healthcare and logistical bloody nightmare with no answer that isn't able to be shown to be problematic, as @Julia9054 is realising.

 

[Julia9054]

Tricky this eh?


Better attempt than Julia's. But, and you know have the advantage of knowing what I do for a job, if local areas are deciding, then who decides who gets the vaccine? If Yourtown decides to vaccinate everyone over 12, and has 750000 in that category, Mycity decides all over 18s and has 500000 of them, Thatville goes for everyone over 21 and has 250000 of them, what happens to Ourvillage who can't any vaccine for its over 30s because it has all been delivered to the other places? Then you have the logistics of getting the stuff everywhere.

Also, who decides? The council, the local health teams, the GPs? This has 'post-code lottery' and 'Boris makes local councils responsible for deaths of care-home residents' written all over it! What about the council who decide everyone over 16, except the residents of the local special needs home, who never leave the grounds of the home, after all, if the staff are all vaccinated, then they are relatively safe aren't they?



Of course, that isn't what the science says, as I know you are well aware.

At the end of the day, this is a moral, healthcare and logistical bloody nightmare with no answer that isn't able to be shown to be problematic, as @Julia9054 is realising.

It's certainly easier logistically to just contact those already in the system than it is to go after the hard to reach, but that doesn't necessarily make it more effective at stopping the spread from hotspot areas to nationwide.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

It's certainly easier logistically to just contact those already in the system than it is to go after the hard to reach, but that doesn't necessarily make it more effective at stopping the spread from hotspot areas to nationwide.

So tell us your plan in detail then..........

Seriously, I started by clearly the pi55, but have a go. What would your proper plan look like?

 

[Julia9054]

So tell us your plan in detail then..........

Seriously, I started by clearly the pi55, but have a go. What would your proper plan look like?

As you are obviously aware, I am not qualified to outline a plan in detail. It is legitimate, though, for me to question whether it is the right policy decision to go for what is easy rather than what is effective.
I don't know what you do for a living but if you have inside knowledge of why bringing forward 2nd vaccinations for over 50s nationally (bearing in mind that the very vulnerable groups 1 - 4 will already have had their 2nd dose) is more effective than concentrating resources into hotspots in order to contain spread, I would be interested to hear it.

 

[midlife]

AFAIK vaccination is still being primarily used to prevent hospitalisation and death not reduce transmission. Protecting in age order nationally probably top trumps vaccinating young people in hot spots.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

It is legitimate, though, for me to question whether it is the right policy decision to go for what is easy rather than what is effective.

So you presume that the bringing forward jabs from 12 weeks to 8 is easier than offering first jabs to people in lower age groups? Why would you think that? And why would you think that it would be less effective?

You see, you are not qualified to do this, but still feel you can criticise (not question) those that do. You haven't questioned, you have stated that the policy is wrong.

is it just another unworkable Boris platitude.

It would seem more sensible to me to prioritise younger people's first dose in hotspot areas.

They still need to prioritise. Hotspot areas would be my priority.

In an attempt to prevent spread to areas where rates are currently very low.

It's certainly easier logistically to just contact those already in the system than it is to go after the hard to reach,

But have no alternative as you aren't qualified to outline a plan apparently.

As you are obviously aware, I am not qualified to outline a plan in detail

Look, no-one is going to hold you to it, and Boris is certainly not going to revise it to @Julia9054 's plan. But have a go, tell us, in reasonable detail what you would do, and please try to avoid just saying 'not this'.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Of course, that isn't what the science says, as I know you are well aware

I disagree actually. AFAIK there's no evidence that delaying affects efficacy.

AFAIK vaccination is still being primarily used to prevent hospitalisation and death not reduce transmission

I argue that now is the time to change that policy.

At the end of the day, this is a moral, healthcare and logistical bloody nightmare with no answer that isn't able to be shown to be problematic,

Absolutely. Given the change in circumstances, with transmission now critical to prevent spread of the new variant *and* likely relatively few first doses to get us to herd immunity, to focus on second doses seems nonsensical to me.

I'm very willing to change my mind if other arguments make more sense.

[Edited for typos]

 

[roubaixtuesday]

On transmission and protection from vaccinating.

Latest real world evidence from PHE

 

[Julia9054]

So you presume that the bringing forward jabs from 12 weeks to 8 is easier than offering first jabs to people in lower age groups? Why would you think that?

Because those people are already in the system and in favour of being vaccinated and, for most I imagine, would welcome being fully vaccinated earlier.
Are you qualified to say which approach would be more effective? Not which would be logistically easier.

 

[classic33]

So tell us your plan in detail then..........

Seriously, I started by clearly the pi55, but have a go. What would your proper plan look like?

I think we're all aware it's a David and goliath battle, with a Price to pay. As far as I'm aware, this hasn't been left to one person too sort out. Private companies have had a part to play. Both in getting their "product to market" and Regulating how their products are used. Some for profit.

Any plan on this scale, brought to bear by just the one person, would and should be open to questioning.

 

[lane]

Let's stop all flights and boats from entering the UK, that will do it. Absolutely no-one in or out, ever, until Covid is eradicated from the rest of the world forever, that will nail it.

But I will let you go with this, as I suggested to Julia, be very specific, how will you deal with another variant?

We need you to be absolutely clear with your plan, and how each step will be implemented and by who and in what time frame. But you don't get to know how it will get in the UK, where it will come from or if it is more lethal or more transmissable. On you go please, the floor is yours..........

I would have done what Australia did. That is a nice simple answer to you long request for details.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

I would have done what Australia did. That is a nice simple answer to you long request for details.

What did Australia do?

 

[lane]

If you really want to know you can easily Google it.