Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Todd_is_God]

14 minutes ago, No_Problemo said:

Literally no idea why people wanting a faster rollout has been likened to a talent contest. 

Because if it were a talent contest, far from winning, the SG are bottom of the pile in 1st vaccines, and 2nd bottom in 2nd doses.

Just a coincidence, i'm sure.

[Todd_is_God]

8 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

What medical conditions preclude people from taking the vaccine?  I'd assume that more elderly people might have a condition that would mean they can't take it.

Covid is definitely one, but I don't think any others were actually listed in the booklet that came with my vaccine letter.

[Billy Jean King]

'Offered' is unusual wording. 

It was suggested in a couple of interviews with PHE this morning they are counting "appointment letters" rather than needles in arms and the representatives neither accepted or denied it, they seemed to totally ignore the question !

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

4 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

That's the isle of man just binned mask wearing and social distancing.  the likes of Australia may have gotten a bit jittery with their lockdown in perth over 1 case but they too had been able to enjoy the old normal for many months.

it's good news for the rest of us, because the more countries that allow normality to return , the more people will begin to demand it here.  They won't be able to use the " it's the same everywhere else" line any more

The only thing about that is Isle of Man pretty much locked down, the real pressure will come from countries which have similar vaccine rates loosening restrictions. 

[Billy Jean King]

"Offered to" to me means exactly that. If someone says no thanks, or can't have it because they currently have, or recently had, covid then they obviously won't have been vaccinated, but that's the same as here and therefore irrelevant.

See above. It looks like offered means sent a letter inviting them to make an appointment at a vaccination centre but as I said PHE simply didn't answer the very direct questions on what it meant.

[Dunning1874]

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

Reaching whilst telling someone else they are reaching is quite a tactic tbf.

Yeah, understanding that "offered" means "told they can get the vaccine without being given it yet" and why the government would use that term instead of, say, "administered" or "vaccinated" is not reaching in the same way as concluding that "offered" means "everyone who wants it has had it already."

It's entirely correct to criticise the SG in pointing out that they're on course to comfortably miss their target without a significant and immediate ramp up in numbers. It's not valid to criticise them for falling behind on care homes when there is no evidence that they have done so.

If you're going to count being "offered" the vaccine as being given it, then you should be including however many letters are being sent by the SG in the daily vaccination totals. You don't however, because being given an offer of a vaccine and actually getting it are different things and that would be ridiculous.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

29 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

"Offered to" to me means exactly that. If someone says no thanks, or can't have it because they currently have, or recently had, covid then they obviously won't have been vaccinated, but that's the same as here and therefore irrelevant.

'Offered' could also mean that they've had letters advising that they'll be vaccinated in 3 weeks time. As pointed out, Westminster wasn't shy when counting mailed testing kits as 'completed tests'. 

Have the UK government said anywhere that 98% of care home residents have definitely been vaccinated, as the SG has ? Maybe they have, I don't know. 

Edit to say that I didn't see the posts above that seem to confirm that being 'offered' the vaccine is not the same as actually getting it. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Bob Mahelp

[Billy Jean King]

The currently circulating strains of the virus have such a high natural R number (3 they quote) that without any restrictions like SD mitigation ie restrictions lifted in full as some demand (by late spring / early summer), the sheer volume of new infections IF (not yet established) the vaccination has limited ability to prevent transmission will be such that just through volume alone the number of people still susceptible be that through vaccine efficacy or refusal of vaccination will be such that hospitalisations and deaths will not fall to a low enough level.

The theory is plausible but given what we saw last summer with the behaviour of the virus it seems unlikely in the time scale they are predicting but I suppose in autumn and winter months it's possible.

Again it's all going to boil down to perception at what is an acceptable level of NHS strain and ultimately deaths v The Economy. I suspect we may see some restrictions like SD and masks a fair bit longer than many thought when vaccines were first announced.

[ayrmad]

12 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

The only thing about that is Isle of Man pretty much locked down, the real pressure will come from countries which have similar vaccine rates loosening restrictions. 

I thought they were isolated rather than being in lockdown, I'd take a year of no ins or outs to Scotland with little to no other restrictions in a heartbeat. 

[D.A.F.C]

12 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

The only thing about that is Isle of Man pretty much locked down, the real pressure will come from countries which have similar vaccine rates loosening restrictions. 

Australia have had 900 deaths in total you cant compare their situation to ours 

[renton]

For what it's worth, the plan the SG released does call for a ramp up of numbers around the end of January. So a large increase in rates should be expected. If they aren't getting to those rates during this week then questions need to be asked, but so far they have executed the requisite number of jabs in line with their published strategy:

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

6 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

I thought they were isolated rather than being in lockdown, I'd take a year of no ins or outs to Scotland with little to no other restrictions in a heartbeat. 

I presume you have no immediate family outside Scotland then ?

To ask those who haven't seen loved ones in England or wherever to go another 12 months without seeing them would be unnecessary torture. 

[madwullie]

18 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

Yeah, understanding that "offered" means "told they can get the vaccine without being given it yet" and why the government would use that term instead of, say, "administered" or "vaccinated" is not reaching in the same way as concluding that "offered" means "everyone who wants it has had it already."

It's entirely correct to criticise the SG in pointing out that they're on course to comfortably miss their target without a significant and immediate ramp up in numbers. It's not valid to criticise them for falling behind on care homes when there is no evidence that they have done so.

If you're going to count being "offered" the vaccine as being given it, then you should be including however many letters are being sent by the SG in the daily vaccination totals. You don't however, because being given an offer of a vaccine and actually getting it are different things and that would be ridiculous.

Todd himself has been offered the vaccine going by this definition. I'm sure he'll be totally fine with being added to the stats and trumpeted from the rooftops for that ☺ 

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

3 minutes ago, madwullie said:

Todd himself has been offered the vaccine going by this definition. I'm sure he'll be totally fine with being added to the stats and trumpeted from the rooftops for that ☺ 

This is one of the reasons why the SG has said it will publish figures in the name of transparency. 

The Tories right from the beginning have set out to use the vaccine as a political weapon.  Only real transparency in figures can show what the actual truth is. 

[ayrmad]

1 minute ago, Bob Mahelp said:

I presume you have no immediate family outside Scotland then ?

To ask those who haven't seen loved ones in England or wherever to go another 12 months without seeing them would be unnecessary torture. 

I've loved ones here that I don't see from one year to the next, I'm quite comfortable in my own company for extended periods. 

In all honesty, I'd far rather we took the survival of the fittest approach now and see how the Louisa Jordan copes. 

[Todd_is_God]

I do enjoy the "aha! Offered only means they have a slot in the next couple of weeks" chat, as though the SG have actually completed their care home roll out.

Ultimately, if there is any time between the last of those offered the vaccine in England actually getting their vaccine, and the last of the care home residents in Scotland actually getting theirs, it'll be about a week.

Hardly a glowing defence of the SG strategy. But another fantastic example of doing everything possible to avoid criticising.

[Todd_is_God]

12 minutes ago, madwullie said:

Todd himself has been offered the vaccine going by this definition. I'm sure he'll be totally fine with being added to the stats and trumpeted from the rooftops for that ☺ 

I wouldn't mind comparing the total number of vaccines "offered" by mid February tbh.

I don't imagine doing so would improve the relative position in Scotland, however. In fact i'd wager the opposite.

[Billy Jean King]

I do enjoy the "aha! Offered only means they have a slot in the next couple of weeks" chat, as though the SG have actually completed their care home roll out.
Ultimately, if there is any time between the last of those offered the vaccine in England actually getting their vaccine, and the last of the care home residents in Scotland actually getting theirs, it'll be about a week.
Hardly a glowing defence of the SG strategy. But another fantastic example of doing everything possible to avoid criticising.

I don't think anyone is using this morning's odd use of wording by PHE as a defence of the SG. It's more that the WMG again may be "massaging" figures. Your desperation to turn everything to an SNP bad stance is badly clouding your thought process

[super_carson]

It's a bit hard to compare WM and SG, to be fair.  "Offered" doesn't mean it has been done yet, or even booked in and we know that WM have cooked the books before so that alone isn't worth getting upset about.  

That all being said, I'll reiterate what I've said before, there is no point in comparing what happens in Scotland to what happens in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.  We are right to be asking if our rate of vaccination is going fast enough, and that pressure on the SG should be relentless in the briefings and from opposition parties.  But not because WM claim to have done something, but because the SG have an obligation to get it done as fast as possible here.  Comparisons with England won't really help determine whether or pace is adequate, but equally the questions should be asked about the rollout.  

[Todd_is_God]

1 minute ago, Billy Jean King said:

7 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

I do enjoy the "aha! Offered only means they have a slot in the next couple of weeks" chat, as though the SG have actually completed their care home roll out.
Ultimately, if there is any time between the last of those offered the vaccine in England actually getting their vaccine, and the last of the care home residents in Scotland actually getting theirs, it'll be about a week.
Hardly a glowing defence of the SG strategy. But another fantastic example of doing everything possible to avoid criticising.

I don't think anyone is using this morning's odd use of wording by PHE as a defence of the SG. It's more that the WMG again may be "massaging" figures. Your desperation to turn everything to an SNP bad stance is badly clouding your thought process

Forgive me for wanting a well planned execution of a vaccine roll out in order to get my life back.

My views on the piss poor roll out are nothing to do with who the largest party are.