Our total reliance on a vaccine and putting life on hold until it's rolled out

[cuccir]

Which is shortening the process, something the poster you quoted disagreed with yet you somehow seem to be agreeing.

If running these phases in parallel was the best way to do it then it would have been the normal process in the first place. It wasn't.

There's a difference between a rushed process and a shortened process. The reason for these phases not operating in parallel is not so much about what is best, but about what usually is most practical and fits with capacity.

The process of developing a covid-19 vaccine has been unique in several ways. There are more companies working on it, and high infection rates meaning you can more qucikly know if the vaccine works: researchers have been able to 'follow the wave' with trials, recruiting participants in different countries as new spikes mean infeciton rates are sufficient to test in those countires. Governments and organisations have been preordering unproven vaccines, meaning companies could start on the manufacture of them: meaning there's no delay between approval and roll out. There was also the advantage of being able to use the work already done on producing SARS-1/MERS vaccines: which had stopped because these variants of coronavirus proved less robust in various ways and didn't spread sufficiently for the demand for a vaccine to appear.

Maybe about Greggs you have a point regarding short amount of time being inside but certainly not McDonalds/Burger King. You wait for your food, you can still sit in and eat your food(that may not apply to them all and admittedly I have not been in one since lockdown so that may not be the case now) and alot of the customers are teens who we all know a large proportion don't wear masks so could easily be spreaders of the disease.

With regards to take-outs, this paper is quite helpful in describing different risks in relation to distancing time spent next to someone. Even withhout masks, short-period indoor contact in well ventilated settings is described as low risk. A good sized, modern McDonalds where you're in-an-out in 5 minutes, or a small Greggs where the doors are open, shouldn't be considered a high risk setting. In relation to public transport, btw, the writers note the low evidence for spread on airplanes. We could apply this sort of analysis to metro/tube type rail services and see that these should be considered very low risk sites too.

 

[greyman42]

I'm more than happy too see social distancing continuing for as long as it needs, it's not a big issue these days as the supermarkets are not as strict on this as they once were back in the Spring.

Obviously you do not work in hospitality or leisure.

 

[Domh245]

Well this is worrying. It would appear to be a US story, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it spread to these shores :/

People could be asked to prove they’ve had Covid vaccine to get into sports events and concerts

Pfizer virus drug raises hopes entertainment venues will re-open in 2021

www.independent.co.uk

People could be asked to prove they’ve had Covid vaccine to get into sports events and concerts​

Ticketmaster could allow venues to ask people to prove they've had the coronavirus vaccine to get into sports events and concerts.
Drug company Pfizer announced earlier this week that early data shows their vaccine is 90 per cent effective raising hopes that venues will be able to start hosting events again in 2021.
Ticketmaster says it has been working on a post-pandemic plan that could use fans’ phones to verify their vaccination status or confirm they have tested negative before an event.

The company says the plan would be based on their own ticket app, third party health information firms and vaccine distribution providers.

This plan is still in development and will be up to event operators, not required by Ticketmaster, the company stated.
After buying a ticket fans would need to prove they had been vaccinated or tested negative 24 to 72 hours prior to the event, according to billboard.com.
The length of time a negative test would cover could eventually be determined by local authorities, with fans testing in the window before the event.
The test results could then be delivered to a health pass company, such as CLEAR or IBM, and if they are negative or vaccinated the fan would be verified to Ticketmaster and issued event credentials.
If a fan tested positive or did not verify vaccination they would not be allowed access to the event.
Ticketmaster tickets a vast majority of sporting events in the US, in addition to concert venues and Live Nation owned properties.
The company says it will not store of have access to medical records and would only receive verification for attendance on a specific date.

The Food and Drug Administration has not yet approved third party companies to deliver vaccination results.
But Ticketmaster president Mark Yovich says he expects that to become a crucial component for employers, air travel and the entertainment industry.
“We’re already seeing many third-party health care providers prepare to handle the vetting, whether that is getting a vaccine, taking a test, or other methods of review and approval, which could then be linked via a digital ticket so everyone entering the event is verified,” Mr Yovich told Billboard.
“Ticketmaster’s goal is to provide enough flexibility and options that venues and fans have multiple paths to return to events.
“We will look to tap into the top solutions based on what’s green-lit by officials and desired by clients.”

"It's alright - if you aren't lucky enough to be old or vulnerable enough to get a vaccine, you can instead put massive strain on the testing infrastructure of the country and have a quite unpleasant test performed to prove you're not carrying the lurgy in order to do anything you enjoy"

 

[Darandio]

I'm more than happy too see social distancing continuing for as long as it needs, it's not a big issue these days as the supermarkets are not as strict on this as they once were back in the Spring.

This makes no sense at all. If they aren't as strict then surely they aren't enforcing it correctly, if that's the case then why even bother?

Maybe about Greggs you have a point regarding short amount of time being inside but certainly not McDonalds/Burger King. You wait for your food, you can still sit in and eat your food(that may not apply to them all and admittedly I have not been in one since lockdown so that may not be the case now)

As others have pointed out, these are open on a takeaway basis only. It would have taken you ten seconds to find this out for yourself before spewing your definitions on what is and isn't essential.

and alot of the customers are teens who we all know a large proportion don't wear masks so could easily be spreaders of the disease.

Another weak statement. We all know this do we? I see a large proportion of people not wearing masks these days and they certainly aren't all teens!

 

[MikeWM]

Well this is worrying. It would appear to be a US story, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it spread to these shores :/

People could be asked to prove they’ve had Covid vaccine to get into sports events and concerts

Pfizer virus drug raises hopes entertainment venues will re-open in 2021

www.independent.co.uk

The Premier League are in discussions over something similar; I posted that a couple of pages back.

I pointed out here a couple of months ago that we have pretty much all the pieces in place for this to happen, *and* being conditioned to accept it via eg. the Test/Trace app.

conditioning us to a behaviour of getting permission to enter places, where previously we would be expected to be able to enter freely unless there was a good reason not to.

The logical next step will be for the app (this one or another) to show whether we are *allowed* into places, based on whether we’ve passed a test recently and/or been vaccinated.

I suspect the only question is how far it creeps (public transport, pubs, supermarkets?). Hopefully I'm entirely wrong and just being a 'conspiracy theorist', but I don't think I am.

 

[HSTEd]

Well that sort of thing is entirely in line with the political philosophy that dominates the era.

People are cattle who exist solely to serve the interests of the ruling class, the road to neoserfdom.

Coronavirus has truly destroyed the West, now we will become like China to protect a couple hundred thousand pensioners.

 

[3141]

How many more times does it need to be pointed out that death from Covid happens to a tiny minority of those who catch it, most of whom are elderly, most of whom have other serious medical conditions and frankly won’t last much longer anyway (harsh as that sounds).

Lockdowns also cost lives - 200k predicted by the ONS from the first one. What’s most unforgivable of all is that the government has clearly overreacted this time. As noted above cases are already plateauing (and have been for weeks), that’s without the effects of this latest lockdown, suggesting the tiered approach was already having a significant effect.

Not true. It's only a "tiny" minority for those under 45. And how do you know that most of the older people who die from it wouldn't have lasted much longer anyway?

On one of the Covid threads a few months ago I said I thought a time would come when patience wore thin and people would accept the sacrifice of the elderly and those with serious medical issues. Many of the recent posts on here suggest we've reached that stage.

You may well be right that the tiered approach was starting to having a significant effect before the current lockdown. But if the government had decided on the basis of the evidence then available that lockdown wasn't needed, and it turned out cases still rose, some of the people currently lambasting the government would instead have weighed in about their failure to act. Like I said yesterday, it's one set of problems or another.

Have to say I’ve yet to find anyone in my domestic or work life that actually plans to have any vaccine.

Without fail everyone I’ve discussed the subject with says the same thing - not happy that it’s rushed, and not happy to take it straight away, but not ruling it out in the longer term. Obviously these aren’t the terrified types, so their view may differ.

Sounds to me like they all want to have their cake and eat it. What would they be saying if the organisations developing vaccines were telling us "We really can't rush this, we have to take our time to make sure it's been as thoroughly tested as any other drug. Check back with us in 2022"?

Reports say the Pfizer drug has been tested on over 40,000 people without serious side effects. That's a pretty good indication that it's safe.

 

[Darandio]

Reports say the Pfizer drug has been tested on over 40,000 people without serious side effects. That's a pretty good indication that it's safe.

That looks like one of those red top headlines from earlier in the week, the ones that conveniently ignored all the other caveats present from an experimental vaccine that has only produced very limited data so far.

 

[brad465]

The Premier League are in discussions over something similar; I posted that a couple of pages back.

I pointed out here a couple of months ago that we have pretty much all the pieces in place for this to happen, *and* being conditioned to accept it via eg. the Test/Trace app.


I suspect the only question is how far it creeps (public transport, pubs, supermarkets?). Hopefully I'm entirely wrong and just being a 'conspiracy theorist', but I don't think I am.

Well that sort of thing is entirely in line with the political philosophy that dominates the era.

People are cattle who exist solely to serve the interests of the ruling class, the road to neoserfdom.

Coronavirus has truly destroyed the West, now we will become like China to protect a couple hundred thousand pensioners.

I agree this is concerning and can see attempts to implement 1984 style measures taking place. However in this country, given attitudes against such activity are prominent in right-wing media and on the Government backbenches, is it realistic to think they can only go so far before mass rebellion ensues?

 

[SJN]

Well if they’re not sure if or how they’re going to vaccinate the under 50’s, could they ask for proof of vaccination? Would they expect those people to pay for it?

 

[PTR 444]

The Premier League are in discussions over something similar; I posted that a couple of pages back.

I pointed out here a couple of months ago that we have pretty much all the pieces in place for this to happen, *and* being conditioned to accept it via eg. the Test/Trace app.


I suspect the only question is how far it creeps (public transport, pubs, supermarkets?). Hopefully I'm entirely wrong and just being a 'conspiracy theorist', but I don't think I am.

My guess is that it would just apply to mass gathering events (concerts, football etc) and travel abroad. Anything else would pretty much just lock down the unvaccinated population by stealth.

 

[Domh245]

My guess is that it would just apply to mass gathering events (concerts, football etc) and travel abroad. Anything else would just much lock down the unvaccinated population by stealth.

It's still utterly unacceptable in my opinion to lock young people out of gatherings and international travel because they're too young to be prioritised for a vaccine or can't get a test because the testing system isn't set up for that. Perhaps we'll just see a rebirth of music houses and variety shows for the lucky vaccinated pensioners to attend.

I think a "root cause" with this issue, and indeed many others, is people making decisions without any medical or epidemiological grounding whatsoever. By all accounts, the vaccines being introduced are about making Covid more survivable for the clinically vulnerable rather than any sort of vaccine like you would get for MMR. Requiring proof of vaccination just means that if you get it, you're more likely to fight it off completely as opposed to stopping you spreading it. Similarly many of the restrictions and systems put in place by private establishments seem to have been done on the basis of rather simplistic advice rather than any consideration as to how a virus spreads and the measures necessary to prevent this

 

[bramling]

While I agree that some of the lockdown rules are nonsensical, surely you can see that there is an enormous difference
in the risk profile of the two examples you gave...?

MCDonalds/Greggs/etc: customers are in the premises for less than five minutes, wearing a mask at all times

'normal' restaurant/pub: customers are sat at a table for an hour or more, not wearing a mask, in an environment
with inadequate ventilation (can't have doors and windows wide open at this time of year!)


As yorksrob quite rightly points out, the virus couldn't care less whether an activity or venue is 'essential' or not;
the purpose of the lockdown is simply to dissuade people from spending long periods of time in indoor locations
other than their home/place of work.

While I agree that some of the lockdown rules are nonsensical, surely you can see that there is an enormous difference
in the risk profile of the two examples you gave...?

MCDonalds/Greggs/etc: customers are in the premises for less than five minutes, wearing a mask at all times

'normal' restaurant/pub: customers are sat at a table for an hour or more, not wearing a mask, in an environment
with inadequate ventilation (can't have doors and windows wide open at this time of year!)


As yorksrob quite rightly points out, the virus couldn't care less whether an activity or venue is 'essential' or not;
the purpose of the lockdown is simply to dissuade people from spending long periods of time in indoor locations
other than their home/place of work.




MARK

This is an interesting point. Most people seem to think the restrictions are in place for their safety. This is essentially not the case at all, the restrictions are to “get the virus down”. These are not the same thing. The government doesn’t give a stuff if you or I happen to get it on an individual basis. Perhaps some of the mask obsessives might consider this too.

 

[PTR 444]

It's still utterly unacceptable in my opinion to lock young people out of gatherings and international travel because they're too young to be prioritised for a vaccine or can't get a test because the testing system isn't set up for that. Perhaps we'll just see a rebirth of music houses and variety shows for the lucky vaccinated pensioners to attend.

I think a "root cause" with this issue, and indeed many others, is people making decisions without any medical or epidemiological grounding whatsoever. By all accounts, the vaccines being introduced are about making Covid more survivable for the clinically vulnerable rather than any sort of vaccine like you would get for MMR. Requiring proof of vaccination just means that if you get it, you're more likely to fight it off completely as opposed to stopping you spreading it. Similarly many of the restrictions and systems put in place by private establishments seem to have been done on the basis of rather simplistic advice rather than any consideration as to how a virus spreads and the measures necessary to prevent this

I agree. On the basis of singling out age groups, part of me does wonder whether we should be immunising all of the elderly in one go, or whether it would be better to do a mix of young and old people in the first stage. I’ve set up a dedicated thread to discuss priorities here:

Vaccinating the under-50s - who should get priority?

The government has published a list stating which age groups will get priority for the vaccine. This could change depending on effectiveness of the vaccine but as things stand now, here is the list...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[bramling]

Sounds to me like they all want to have their cake and eat it. What would they be saying if the organisations developing vaccines were telling us "We really can't rush this, we have to take our time to make sure it's been as thoroughly tested as any other drug. Check back with us in 2022"?

Reports say the Pfizer drug has been tested on over 40,000 people without serious side effects. That's a pretty good indication that it's safe.

I wouldn’t say it’s cake and eat it - most of the people I described above are happily getting on with their lives, and aren’t clamouring for restrictions, lockdowns, masks or the like.

 

[43066]

what part of "No part of the vaccine creating and testing process has been skipped or shortened" do you not understand?

But not everyone takes whatever they’re spoonfed at face value - especially when the spoon-feeding is from an incompetent, dishonest government that has changed its mind on so many things. That’s a perfectly understandable viewpoint.

Not true. It's only a "tiny" minority for those under 45. And how do you know that most of the older people who die from it wouldn't have lasted much longer anyway?

Yes, it’s a “tiny” minority of those under 45 - similar chances to death from flu, death in a car crash. Similar chances to death from many other causes which we don’t try to avoid by locking down and devastating our economy, our childrens’ futures, and shutting down our health service for all non COVID issues.

Around 40% - 50% of deaths “with Covid” in this country have occurred in care homes. People don't tend to live in care homes when they’re fitter than a butcher’s dog with many healthy years of life left ahead... The average age at death of Covid victim is in their 80s.

I cannot believe we still have to debate these factual realities at this point in the pandemic.

On one of the Covid threads a few months ago I said I thought a time would come when patience wore thin and people would accept the sacrifice of the elderly and those with serious medical issues. Many of the recent posts on here suggest we've reached that stage.

It’s not a question of “sacrificing” anybody. We cannot eliminate the virus, but the option was there to isolate the vulnerable as best we can, and let the rest largely get on with things. The approach that seems to have been taken is that it’s “unfair” to ask one section to isolate, so instead we simply screw everyone over. And of course the approaches both in March and again in October have been predicated on some very dubious statistics.

Coronavirus cannot be eliminated. Elderly people and very ill people die (and guess what, many of them might well be too ill to be able to be vaccinated!). Why can’t adults in this country just accept that?! It’s as if we’ve become a country of emotionally incontinent children.

You may well be right that the tiered approach was starting to having a significant effect before the current lockdown. But if the government had decided on the basis of the evidence then available that lockdown wasn't needed, and it turned out cases still rose, some of the people currently lambasting the government would instead have weighed in about their failure to act. Like I said yesterday, it's one set of problems or another.

And if the government had had the balls to stick with their original approach, but also properly isolate the vulnerable at an earlier stage, we wouldn’t now have the worst of all worlds: a high death rate and a trashed economy.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

And if the government had had the balls to stick with their original approach, but also properly isolate the vulnerable at an earlier stage, we wouldn’t now have the worst of all worlds: a high death rate and a trashed economy.

This is my view too.

 

[Chester1]

Have to say I’ve yet to find anyone in my domestic or work life that actually plans to have any vaccine.

Without fail everyone I’ve discussed the subject with says the same thing - not happy that it’s rushed, and not happy to take it straight away, but not ruling it out in the longer term. Obviously these aren’t the terrified types, so their view may differ.

I know people who want it as soon as possible. Both my parents do but they are in fairly high risk categories. One of my friends does too but she is a care worker and wants to protect the people she looks after (who the vaccine will be less effective on). I think the general consensus amongst my friends is that they would be happy to have it towards end of next year. People at significant risk need to go first and any hidden side effects would have had time to emerge by then.

One vaccine wouldn't end the pandemic but most of the vaccines work the same way so at least 1 or 2 more should work. By the summer the risk of the NHS being over run by covid cases should be gone after all high risk people have had the opportunity to be vaccinated. I reckon the covid restrictions legislation will not be replaced when its two year limit is reached in March 2022. By then everyone who wants it will have had it, many of those that don't want the vaccine (or who it didn't work on) will have had covid and the treatments should be better too.

 

[johnnychips]

Unfortunately, the incompetence of the government’s handling of the crisis has made many suspicious. My lodger (40) cannot believe that I (60) would have no qualms about having the vaccine. And he isn’t a 5G/nanochip/shape-shifting-lizard type of bloke.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I know people who want it as soon as possible.

I am one of them and have in fact volunteered for various trials.

Unfortunately, the incompetence of the government’s handling of the crisis has made many suspicious. My lodger (40) cannot believe that I (60) would have no qualms about having the vaccine. And he isn’t a 5G/nanochip/shape-shifting-lizard type of bloke.

I think I understand that.

 

[Paul_10]

Obviously you do not work in hospitality or leisure.

Actually work in the former so the past few months has been anxious in terms of job retention(especially as I work in an independent restaurant rather than a firm). You need to elaborate why you think it's obvious I don't work in any of those sectors?

You can socially distance and still get the customers, eat out and the 3 days before lockdown proven that.

 

[The Ham]

Even at the desired 1260 vaccination centres administering the target 975 doses per week, that works out at only about 87,000 people completing the two dose vaccination per day.

Even vaccinating only pensioners this is going to take a LONG time.

Given that there's talk of 12 hour days, 7 days a week for each centre to only do 975 doses a week is 1 every 5 minutes, which sounds like not many.

Even if you were assuming 15 minutes appointments you'd need 6 full time equivalent staff. For a town of 15,000 that would be overkill, however for somewhere with 100,000+ people it would be too small.

Having said that 975/week over 1,260 centers would allow you to deliver a vaccine (2 injections) to 1/4 of the population in 7 months (allowing 1 month to build up and reduce capacity so at full capacity for 6 months with the required gap between the two jabs). 1/4 of the population (16.5 million people) would require 33 million doses of vaccines, so would probably be what's required to deliver just what's been ordered from Pfizer.

I would however hope that it would be possible to ramp up the rate of vaccination to either reduce the time and/or to provide it to more people.

Interestingly the cost of the first vaccines to the US were quoted as being $39 for both doses. As such is expect (once there's supply) a private vaccination (both doses) could cost around £70-£120 depending on who's giving it to you, distribution costs and how much time is needed for each vaccination (and how easy it is to get supply, early on it may well be more expensive than that whilst as supply becomes more readily available coming down in price).

Once other vaccines become available or may well be that the costs drop a bit, as others are being quoted as up to $10 for both doses. With, if they are more stable, there being potential distribution cost savings as well.

Reports say the Pfizer drug has been tested on over 40,000 people without serious side effects. That's a pretty good indication that it's safe

Unfortunately I've already heard someone say that 40,000 people is tiny compared to the population of the world's so that it can't be totally safe. Almost implying that they wouldn't take it unless they were one of the last to do so.

The problem with such thinking is that nothing is totally safe, as even crossing the road has a level of risk associated with it. Even taking something like cycling which many put as fairly unsafe, statically you've got to cycle over 50 million km before you'd die. Given that most people aren't even going to cycle 1/2 million km in a lifetime (6,000km/year for 80 years) then chances are for every 100 cyclists one will die on the roads, however by being fitter many more would live for longer than they would if they were inactive.

The same is true of vaccines, in that for every unlikely event (someone dying) many more benefits (not dying of a treatable disease).

I once heard the founder of the charity Compassion (child sponsorship) say that as a child he grew up abroad as his father was a missionary, he saw his friends dying of (IIRC) measles and was scared that he was going to die too. Until he was told that he'd had a vaccine, when he found out how cheap it was he couldn't understand why his friends couldn't have had it to save their lives.

Even IF (and I don't believe that it's ever been true) that there was a risk of getting Autism from it, then I would take that risk day in day out; over the risk of dying.

 

[hwl]

Given that there's talk of 12 hour days, 7 days a week for each centre to only do 975 doses a week is 1 every 5 minutes, which sounds like not many.

Even if you were assuming 15 minutes appointments you'd need 6 full time equivalent staff. For a town of 15,000 that would be overkill, however for somewhere with 100,000+ people it would be too small.

Having said that 975/week over 1,260 centers would allow you to deliver a vaccine (2 injections) to 1/4 of the population in 7 months (allowing 1 month to build up and reduce capacity so at full capacity for 6 months with the required gap between the two jabs). 1/4 of the population (16.5 million people) would require 33 million doses of vaccines, so would probably be what's required to deliver just what's been ordered from Pfizer.

I would however hope that it would be possible to ramp up the rate of vaccination to either reduce the time and/or to provide it to more people.

Interestingly the cost of the first vaccines to the US were quoted as being $39 for both doses. As such is expect (once there's supply) a private vaccination (both doses) could cost around £70-£120 depending on who's giving it to you, distribution costs and how much time is needed for each vaccination (and how easy it is to get supply, early on it may well be more expensive than that whilst as supply becomes more readily available coming down in price).

Once other vaccines become available or may well be that the costs drop a bit, as others are being quoted as up to $10 for both doses. With, if they are more stable, there being potential distribution cost savings as well.

[/QUOTE]

The government is also planning mass vaccination centres (upto 5000/day) for locations with larger populations in addition to the community based programme discussed above (government estimating 200-500/day at GP based /run locations).
e.g. as discussed here:

NHS Covid drive aims to vaccinate up to 5,000 people daily at each mass centre

Thousands of hospital staff to be deployed in inoculation network with jabs also done by GPs at smaller community sites

www.theguardian.com

At the "JVT" briefing earlier in the week he estimated that Phase 1 (50+ and medical and care workers) of vaccination would potentially cover 99% of the population by covid death risk. However given not every one can or will have the vaccine and given that vaccines are traditionally less effective in older people then we are probably looking at 60%-80% coverage in reality which means an effective phase 2 strategy (the rest of the population) will be needed when a second vaccine becomes available.
At the moment there isn't data on any reduction in transmission for the vaccination which has huge effect on phase 2 thinking or public data on the relative reduction in mild vs serious cases, if the reduction is just (or proportionately) in mild cases then the 90% effective number is less good, in which case we need vaccines to reduce transmission risk too and pushing on phase 2 is very important.

There was also the advantage of being able to use the work already done on producing SARS-1/MERS vaccines: which had stopped because these variants of coronavirus proved less robust in various ways and didn't spread sufficiently for the demand for a vaccine to appear.

The Oxford vaccine is based on the decade of work by the team developing a MERS vaccine that was due to go into phase 3 clinical trials in April 2020.

 

[Bantamzen]

Just a thought here, if there are going to be thousands of hospital staff and GPs dedicated to administering the vaccine, who is going to be looking after all the sick people?

 

[Freightmaster]

I'm more than happy too see social distancing continuing for as long as it needs; it's not a big issue these days as the supermarkets are not as strict on this as they once were back in the Spring.

This makes no sense at all. If they aren't as strict then surely they aren't enforcing it correctly, if that's the case then why even bother?

You're looking at it the wrong way round - they are enforcing it 'correctly' now; in the Spring they massively overreacted,
resulting in ridiculous situations such as hour long queues snaking round car parks, etc!





MARK

 

[birchesgreen]

Just a thought here, if there are going to be thousands of hospital staff and GPs dedicated to administering the vaccine, who is going to be looking after all the sick people?

Elective and non-urgent surgeries have been postponed have they not? I guess there will be plenty of staff free.

 

[Bantamzen]

Elective and non-urgent surgeries have been postponed have they not? I guess there will be plenty of staff free.

Once hospitalisation rates go down, non-urgent surgeries must restart because what might be non-urgent today might become urgent tomorrow.

 

[birchesgreen]

Once hospitalisation rates go down, non-urgent surgeries must restart because what might be non-urgent today might become urgent tomorrow.

Oh indeed, well you'd hope so anyway but who knows with the **** show this country is now.

 

[The Ham]

Just a thought here, if there are going to be thousands of hospital staff and GPs dedicated to administering the vaccine, who is going to be looking after all the sick people?

There's talk that the military would be used, also there's the potential for others too. Much like pharmacists provide private flu vaccines and other private vaccines.

Likewise my mother in law is due to retire next year, she may well be happy to work some shifts to provide extra cover if there's not show for her to do the things that she'd otherwise like to do because of restrictions. Now I know that's only one person, but I suspect that there's probably quite a few who would do that.

 

[MikeWM]

I agree this is concerning and can see attempts to implement 1984 style measures taking place. However in this country, given attitudes against such activity are prominent in right-wing media and on the Government backbenches, is it realistic to think they can only go so far before mass rebellion ensues?

Depends which backbenchers. Here's one of them:

Workplaces Could Bar Anti-Vaxxers If They Refuse Covid Jab, Tory MP Says

Asked whether it was worth thinking about Covid vaccinations being made compulsory if take-up is slow due to anti-vax conspiracy theories, Tugendhat told Commons People: “What’s worth thinking about is the testing policy.

“And if vaccination works and if we’re confident it’s safe, and all indications so far are good, then I can certainly see the day when businesses say: ‘Look, you’ve got to return to the office and if you’re not vaccinated you’re not coming in.’

“And I can certainly see social venues asking for vaccination certificates.

...

Asked if public services could demand vaccinations before they are used, the Commons foreign affairs committee chair replied: “It would depend what the public services were, and who and when, so I wouldn’t want to start predicting.

“But I do think that if things are shown to be safe then rejecting them when they have a wider effect on the whole of society is going to have consequences.”

Charming fellow.