Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

Yes. Over a period of 4 months.

Where did you get that from? They started in October and aimed to be finished at the end of this month.

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, Distant Doonhamer said:

Not sure who “we” are in this.
Not Scotland though surely. That would be 44% of the Scottish population. That can’t be correct surely.

Quote

We have enough flu vaccine doses for everyone who's eligible - around 2.4 million people.

Scotland has a good track record of delivering the flu vaccine. During the 2019/20 flu season, 74% of people over 65 were given the vaccine - a higher number than the rest of the UK, and any other EU country. This year, we expect 90% of people over 65 to be vaccinated.

https://www.nhsinform.scot/healthy-living/immunisation/vaccines/flu-vaccine#overview

[Todd_is_God]

2 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

6 weeks.

Assuming a 7 day week, that equates to a rate of around 24,000 per day.

It appears do-able, but would require nurses doing nothing but covid vaccines for (quite literally, thanks for agreeing) weeks on end.

Given we are being told repeatedly how stretched the NHS is atm (hence why we are in this Level 4 nonsense), how many nurses do you think they can spare for 6 weeks whilst still maintaining an adequate standard of care?

[John MacLean]

15 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

That's fair.

What you can do, though, is evaluate each government individually against a few key metrics.

Did they interpret and use the available data correctly?

Were the measures implemented proportionate and consistent?

Were the measures effective?

Were measures relaxed or tightened appropriately?

If the data changed, did they update their approach accordingly?

Did they make promises they didn't keep, or did they avoid making emotive statements they could not possibly have known would be true or not?

Judgements based on a large number of  your "key metrics" would be highly subjective and would inevitably be coloured by bias. 

I mean we all know that you are approaching this with a preset narrative and even they way you've presented your "key metrics" reeks of bias but to play along with you for a second how do you, just as an example, measure "were the measures effective" when you can't possibly know what the outcome would have been had the measures not been implemented? Especially as you've agreed that mortality and infection rates can't be used to rate one government's performance against another. Similarly how can you know if "measures were relaxed or tightened appropriately"? 

What one person considers an "emotive statement" another might not so how do you quantify that? 

How do you measure how data was interpreted? 

You've picked a number of areas where you feel the SG have failed. And in some respects you are probably correct but your take on things has always been incredibly jaundiced and biased and doesn't allow for nuance or balance. Nor do your "key metrics". 

[Distant Doonhamer]

https://www.nhsinform.scot/healthy-living/immunisation/vaccines/flu-vaccine#overview

Cheers. I’m amazed by that. It’s an impressive figure to be honest.

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

Assuming a 7 day week, that equates to a rate of around 24,000 per day.

It appears do-able, but would require nurses doing nothing but covid vaccines for (quite literally, thanks for agreeing) weeks on end.

Given we are being told repeatedly how stretched the NHS is atm (hence why we are in this Level 4 nonsense), how many nurses do you think they can spare for 6 weeks whilst still maintaining an adequate standard of care?

God this is boring. There are about 60 thousand nurses in Scotland, they don't have to close down the NHS to administer flu vaccines.

[Todd_is_God]

1 minute ago, John MacLean said:

Judgements based on a large number of  your "key metrics" would be highly subjective and would inevitably be coloured by bias. 

I mean we all know that you are approaching this with a preset narrative and even they way you've presented your "key metrics" reeks of bias but to play along with you for a second how do you, just as an example, measure "were the measures effective" when you can't possibly know what the outcome would have been had the measures not been implemented? Especially as you've agreed that mortality and infection rates can't be used to rate one government's performance against another. Similarly how can you know if "measures were relaxed or tightened appropriately"? 

What one person considers an "emotive statement" another might not so how do you quantify that? 

How do you measure how data was interpreted? 

You've picked a number of areas where you feel the SG have failed. And in some respects you are probably correct but your take on things has always been incredibly jaundiced and biased and doesn't allow for nuance or balance. Nor do your "key metrics". 

[LongTimeLurker]

2 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Assuming a 7 day week, that equates to a rate of around 24,000 per day.

It appears do-able, but would require nurses doing nothing...

Are they not getting the army involved?

[Todd_is_God]

5 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

God this is boring. There are about 60 thousand nurses in Scotland, they don't have to close down the NHS to administer flu vaccines.

It's only boring because it's dawning on you that the idea that it "shouldn't take too long" to deliver 1m vaccines in Scotland is utter pish.

[Todd_is_God]

4 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Are they not getting the army involved?

No we have loads of spare nurses so they aren't needed.

[John MacLean]

3 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

That's a pretty bizarre response, even by your standards, when I'm neither defending or criticising the performance of the SG in their handling of an ongoing public health crisis but merely pointing out flaws in your "key metrics". 

 

[Todd_is_God]

6 minutes ago, Distant Doonhamer said:

Cheers. I’m amazed by that. It’s an impressive figure to be honest.

Having 2.4m doses available =/= 2.4 doses administered.

[Todd_is_God]

Just now, John MacLean said:

That's a pretty bizarre response, even by your standards, when I'm neither defending or criticising the performance of the SG in their handling of an ongoing public health crisis but merely pointing out flaws in your "key metrics". 

I don't think they are flawed, and I deliberately made no reference to my thoughts.

If someone wants to go through that list and arrive at the conclusion that the SG have done well with those points then that's up to them.

They'd be wrong, of course, but if they feel like that 8 months down the line there's little point arguing.

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

Having 2.4m doses available =/= 2.4 doses administered.

Another brilliant insight from the Todder! I think you'd agree that 70-90% of that is a considerable number though.

[Distant Doonhamer]

Having 2.4m doses available =/= 2.4 doses administered.

Yep I understand that. It’s still a way higher figure than I thought and even if say 80% of that delivered imho that would be an impressive example of healthcare delivery. You’ll most likely disagree with that view.

[John MacLean]

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

I don't think they are flawed, and I deliberately made no reference to my thoughts.

If someone wants to go through that list and arrive at the conclusion that the SG have done well with those points then that's up to them.

They'd be wrong, of course, but if they feel like that 8 months down the line there's little point arguing.

Your "key metrics" were little more than a rehash of all your criticisms of the SG performance and I think you know that. 

I wasn't arguing that the SG have done well. I think they have in some respects. Less well in others. I don't see these things as purely binary which apparently you do. Nor do I have the arrogance to assume that I'm right. Apparently you do. 

But in response to your first bit, of course they are flawed. How can they not be when two people could pass judgement on them in completely different ways? Each highly subjective and each predetermined by existing biases? 

[Todd_is_God]

9 minutes ago, Distant Doonhamer said:

Yep I understand that. It’s still a way higher figure than I thought and even if say 80% of that delivered imho that would be an impressive example of healthcare delivery. You’ll most likely disagree with that view.

No. But I find it a surprisingly high figure just like you.

Edited November 24, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[Snobot]

If you consider how many nursery and primary age children there are in Scotland you might conclude why the number eligible for ‘flu vaccination seems high at first glance if looking through a narrow prism of old or infirm people attending local surgeries.

[Distant Doonhamer]

If you consider how many nursery and primary age children there are in Scotland you might conclude why the number eligible for ‘flu vaccination seems high at first glance if looking through a narrow prism of old or infirm people attending local surgeries.

Yep that’s a fair point.

[Distant Doonhamer]

If you consider how many nursery and primary age children there are in Scotland you might conclude why the number eligible for ‘flu vaccination seems high at first glance if looking through a narrow prism of old or infirm people attending local surgeries.

Fair enough. Be interesting to see how many flu vaccines are delivered in Scotland. Likewise to see when we reach the milestone of 1 million Covid vaccinations.