When will this shit end?

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, xxialac said:

So the government are passing responsibility for checking crucial paperwork onto third parties. Are check-in staff trained to be able to check what constitutes a genuine test or will it be a split second glance at a small phone?

As far as I'm aware no other country does this. They check at the point they check passports or in the part when you come through the baggage control area. You are a completely captive audience.

it's little different to what airlines already have to do with regard to visas.

[zahidf]

 

[Mellotr0n]

3 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

I think most will be on a sliding scale from Take Precautions to Back To Normal, and everyone will slide at different speeds. 

For me I'd click "Take precautions", but less precautions than now. A gradual social loosening seems the wisest idea.

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

bit of a shit question, because 'take precautions' could be as little as hand sanitising.

[JoeyT]

6 minutes ago, Mellotr0n said:

I think most will be on a sliding scale from Take Precautions to Back To Normal, and everyone will slide at different speeds. 

For me I'd click "Take precautions", but less precautions than now. A gradual social loosening seems the wisest idea.

I think it would be really interesting to ask that question to those who have had the virus.

I wouldn't say i've had it severely by any stretch however I think i'd now be more careful than if you'd asked me prior to getting it. Which is an odd thing to say given now i'm better off protected?!

Edited January 8, 2021 by JoeyT

[xxialac]

18 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it's little different to what airlines already have to do with regard to visas.

I'm not sure that's right.

ALL visas are checked on arrival. Only some of these vaccine tests will be checked on arrival.

[Toilet Duck]

1 hour ago, phimill said:

@Toilet Duck Quick (possibly stupid) questions about the 90% efficiency and changing from 2 doses to 1 doses. Is the % down to the particular vaccine dose not being effective or the person receiving the vaccine not being able to produce the anti-bodies?

If it is the former - surely the likelihood of having the "ineffective batch" again is very low so the second dose would give the immunity? thus changing the dosing strategy is much bigger risk for the overall population during the additional 9weeks

If it is the later - the change to one dose is better for the overall population, as the second dose wouldn't help the people who do not produce the antibodies from the vaccine.

Finally, in due course obviously would it be possible for the vaccinated to get tests to confirm if the vaccine has been effective for them? If it hasn't, would they be able to take a dose of another vaccine type?

Howdy, so the switch to 1 dose with a 12 week gap before the 2nd has come from looking at the Oxford trial data. They had complicated data where some people inadvertently got a half dose first and it looked like these people had better protection. But when they looked a bit deeper, they saw that actually, more people with the half dose had a longer gap before the second one. So, they concluded that it wasn’t down to the dose, but how long they left it til they gave the booster shot. The plan now is to leave the longer gap, give more people the first shot (which gives 70%+ protection from about 10 days afterwards), then circle back and give the same people their boost to top that up to 90%+ and more longer lasting protection. There’s good evidence to support this for the Oxford vaccine, little or no data for the Pfizer one. Ideas that people that had already been infected get 1 shot to strengthen their immunity have been floated, it’s an interesting idea but no evidence it would work yet.

Edited January 8, 2021 by Toilet Duck
Typos!

[efcfanwirral]

She is right, as hard as it is to hear. I think pretty heavy restrictions into 2022 at least, and definitely no gigs or festivals in that time (maybe some of those platform ones but the new variant might have even made those unviable) 

I just think we'll attempt to reopen first and still see high deaths and bad hospital situations...

At least the proper countries can learn from our mistakes 

Edited January 8, 2021 by efcfanwirral

[eFestivals]

25 minutes ago, xxialac said:

I'm not sure that's right.

ALL visas are checked on arrival. 

yep, and if the visa isn't valid the airline that flew them in gets fined - so the airlines are obliged to check them before departure.

It's that part of things I was meaning was the same, and it should work ok-ish for covid tests as the people at the departure country should be able to know what is a genuine test result for that country.

It's not perfect, but it's better than having all the checks at this end, which would inevitably lead to more positive cases flying in.

Edited January 8, 2021 by eFestivals

[xxialac]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yep, and if the visa isn't valid the airline that flew them in gets fined - so the airlines are obliged to check them before departure.

It's that part of things I was meaning was the same, and it should work ok-ish for covid tests as the people at the departure country should be able to know what is a genuine test result for that country.

It's not perfect, but it's better than having all the checks at this end, which would inevitably lead to move positive cases flying in.

Yes, you're definitely right.

[DeanoL]

I think the thing with the offered vs actual vaccinations is fair enough. Not many will miss the appointments, and frankly, those who miss it as they're refusing the vaccine may as well go in the "vaccinated" column because we're not going to be doing anything else to protect them (I mean I know we probably won't withdraw treatment for COVID for them but we should). If you miss the appointment for a legit reason, presumably you would reschedule for a point soon afterwards - you're still at risk, if you miss an appointment on 15 Jan it's not going to be "okay you have to wait until March now".

The problem with them going "X million people offered vaccinations by end of Feb" is that I read that initially as them trying to properly back-pedal. As in, Margaret got a letter on 20 Feb offering her a vaccine on 2 April so she counts as done. So "vaccine offers" would be more confusing. 

They're measuring the thing they have control over, and communicating it fairly well. As for the target being high - I do think there's some logic behind it, I think it's the number they will reach if everything goes exactly right and the vaccination centres come on line at the right time, there's no issues with supply, they have the staff, and they operate optimally. Now yes, the project manager in me is screaming "but then you knock 20% off for contingency, because nothing goes that right". And it's a fair argument. But is that really what you want the government telling you? You want them to work out what they're actually aiming for, then drop it down so they're more likely to hit it.

Would be not be criticizing them for setting a target of say 15 million and then doing 16 million, and saying "well, had they not cocked up the [list of things that go wrong] they could have done even better, they were setting easy targets for themselves".?

 

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

The effects on cigarettes are shown in packaging and on adverts too. No one seems to worry about the children then. I think it would be a decent idea to put the effects of COVID out there like being suggested, which might then force some people to think twice about their actions.

They could do videos focussing on someone in their 30s that gets long COVID too. 

That won't happen as they're quite aware of the need to get people in their 30s out into the economy and spending money before they get a vaccine. 

Wouldn't be surprised with a Tory government to see it be, after the vulnerable are vaccinated "it's now available to everyone, but it's £500 - we need to start recovering the money we have spent on this".

And, much as the socialist in me hates it, it's not an horrendous idea. It's how you recover some of the extra money the middle class WFHers have saved. And they're the people who still have disposable income and so who you want out making the economy work again.

I'm not advocating for this, the idea appalls me, but I can't argue with the logic.

[DeanoL]

3 hours ago, xxialac said:

International travellers will need to show a negative Covid-19 test before being allowed into the UK, the government has announced, in a significant toughening of border controls to try to stem the spread of new coronavirus variants. The new rules will take effect next week and apply to returning UK nationals as well as foreign citizens. Passengers will need to produce a test result taken less than 72 hours before boarding planes, boats or trains to the UK, and could be fined £500 in border spot checks without a negative result.

Hopelessly late.

And why "spot checks"? Why not check every passenger? I was checked 3 times on arrival in Spain and every single person was checked. In addition, every single person had their passenger locater form checked, whilst in the UK I have never had to show it.

I'm not sure on all this. People are requesting more and more controls on people coming into the country but it can't be done at zero cost, and not just to the public purse, but to the infection rate.

Why do we need to check people coming in? We have one of the highest rates in the world right now. The average citizen in the UK is more likely to have it than the average citizen coming from most places. So why check people on entry? At least if they're entering from somewhere where they are less likely to have it.*

Meanwhile, to do all those checks you need more staff and more security, which means more people travelling into work, and more people have contacts with all these passengers - the very thing we want to avoid.

*There is one valid reason I can think of for this, and that is why people are travelling in the middle of a pandemic in the first place. There will be some for bereavements and so on, but I would imagine most of it is "business travel". And most of those will be for "face to face" meetings. People who are supposedly high powered business people and negotiators that aren't capable of doing a deal over Teams. So these people probably would be higher risk, as they've literally been meeting people. But it seems the solution to that is to shut down that sort of business travel, rather than testing on entry.

[efcfanwirral]

11 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I think the thing with the offered vs actual vaccinations is fair enough. Not many will miss the appointments, and frankly, those who miss it as they're refusing the vaccine may as well go in the "vaccinated" column because we're not going to be doing anything else to protect them (I mean I know we probably won't withdraw treatment for COVID for them but we should). If you miss the appointment for a legit reason, presumably you would reschedule for a point soon afterwards - you're still at risk, if you miss an appointment on 15 Jan it's not going to be "okay you have to wait until March now".

The problem with them going "X million people offered vaccinations by end of Feb" is that I read that initially as them trying to properly back-pedal. As in, Margaret got a letter on 20 Feb offering her a vaccine on 2 April so she counts as done. So "vaccine offers" would be more confusing. 

They're measuring the thing they have control over, and communicating it fairly well. As for the target being high - I do think there's some logic behind it, I think it's the number they will reach if everything goes exactly right and the vaccination centres come on line at the right time, there's no issues with supply, they have the staff, and they operate optimally. Now yes, the project manager in me is screaming "but then you knock 20% off for contingency, because nothing goes that right". And it's a fair argument. But is that really what you want the government telling you? You want them to work out what they're actually aiming for, then drop it down so they're more likely to hit it.

Would be not be criticizing them for setting a target of say 15 million and then doing 16 million, and saying "well, had they not cocked up the [list of things that go wrong] they could have done even better, they were setting easy targets for themselves".?

 

That won't happen as they're quite aware of the need to get people in their 30s out into the economy and spending money before they get a vaccine. 

Wouldn't be surprised with a Tory government to see it be, after the vulnerable are vaccinated "it's now available to everyone, but it's £500 - we need to start recovering the money we have spent on this".

And, much as the socialist in me hates it, it's not an horrendous idea. It's how you recover some of the extra money the middle class WFHers have saved. And they're the people who still have disposable income and so who you want out making the economy work again.

I'm not advocating for this, the idea appalls me, but I can't argue with the logic.

Another capitalist and very Tory option could be those who refuse vaccination have to pay health insurance if they want ANY healthcare. Essentially remove them from the NHS and to the private sector. That said, for those who can afford it that is almost a reward as they could end up with better services! 

Edited January 8, 2021 by efcfanwirral

[xxialac]

I think the bigger thing for me is that they've set a target (now "vaccinations offered") which is so unrealistic, they'll get nowhere near it.

Doing this constantly is terrible for morale and trust.

 

[efcfanwirral]

Just now, xxialac said:

I think the bigger thing for me is that they've set a target (now "vaccinations offered") which is so unrealistic, they'll get nowhere near it.

Doing this constantly is terrible for morale and trust.

 

I guess for people who think about things like us, but I guess the audience for it is the people who may comply only as long as they see an end in sight (as in those who do believe the government's claims) 

[DeanoL]

4 minutes ago, xxialac said:

I think the bigger thing for me is that they've set a target (now "vaccinations offered") which is so unrealistic, they'll get nowhere near it.

Doing this constantly is terrible for morale and trust.

Not that I think they're working on anywhere near that level of comms, but isn't that sort of what you want, if you've got a particularly transmissible strain of the virus running around and need people to stay indoors. You don't want them thinking we did well, as that will make them feel safe and less likely to wear a mask and stay in. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, xxialac said:

I think the bigger thing for me is that they've set a target (now "vaccinations offered") which is so unrealistic, they'll get nowhere near it.

Doing this constantly is terrible for morale and trust.

 

They can achieve that target easily, all they have to do is send letters out 😉

[jannybruck]

The bar's low for the Tories but I have some hope that at least the publishing of the daily vaccine figures and these very explicit targets will at least push them to act quicker than they would normally. That's all we can hope for right now.

[zahidf]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

They can achieve that target easily, all they have to do is send letters out 😉

The appointments have to be before 15th Feb for it to be counted Hancock said.

If they miss the target, they miss the target. If they don't though... its certainly not an impossible target by any means.

[xxialac]

5 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Not that I think they're working on anywhere near that level of comms, but isn't that sort of what you want, if you've got a particularly transmissible strain of the virus running around and need people to stay indoors. You don't want them thinking we did well, as that will make them feel safe and less likely to wear a mask and stay in. 

But they've been consistently doing this since the start of the crisis. And where are we now with their methods - 60,000 cases and 1,100 deaths.

So evidently whatever they're doing is not working. 

And there still is a problem with compliance. I'm in Spain so can compare and rules are significantly more adhered to here.

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, xxialac said:

But they've been consistently doing this since the start of the crisis. And where are we now with their methods - 60,000 cases and 1,100 deaths.

So evidently whatever they're doing is not working. 

And there still is a problem with compliance. I'm in Spain so can compare and rules are significantly more adhered to here.

How is it in Spain at moment?

[Guest]

Maybe that’s how we end this pandemic. Instead of the virus actually being suppressed the government just say they aim to suppress by a certain date. Job done.

[zahidf]

21 minutes ago, xxialac said:

I think the bigger thing for me is that they've set a target (now "vaccinations offered") which is so unrealistic, they'll get nowhere near it.

Doing this constantly is terrible for morale and trust.

 

So how many will they get to by feb 15th?

 

I reckon 12 million altogether.

[Tranquility of Solitude]

[zahidf]

Lot more key worker kids in school...