Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

830579707_Screenshot2020-12-04at10_43_28.thumb.png.64a142d35cf924106c990ae4428e8da7.png

I thought this was a handy graph. So some sort of immunity developing between the two doses but early January before anyone has full immunity.

So mostly likely it'll be through February and into early March that we first start to see a real effect on hospitalisations and deaths from the vaccines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mellotr0n said:

So mostly likely it'll be through February and into early March that we first start to see a real effect on hospitalisations and deaths from the vaccines.

Yep and fairly likely based on that we get an early jan booster lockdown I’d say ... to keep the numbers manageable without the economic impact ... although this year might have had some bounce back due to the lack of spending over xmas 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

Yep and fairly likely based on that we get an early jan booster lockdown I’d say ... to keep the numbers manageable without the economic impact ... although this year might have had some bounce back due to the lack of spending over xmas 

I'm personally not sure I can see there being another lockdown, regardless of whether it should be done epidemiologically - I just think the political pressure on Johnson from within his own party will be too great. There was already a lot of opposition to the current restrictions, and that's only going to grow as we see the end coming closer.

However, we could see a "partial lockdown by stealth" with areas being kept in Tier 2/3 for longer than originally hoped.

Edited by Mellotr0n
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mellotr0n said:

I'm personally not sure I can see there being another lockdown, regardless of whether it should be done epidemiologically - I just think the political pressure on Johnson from within his own party will be too great. There was already a lot of opposition to the current restrictions, and that's only going to grow as we see the end coming closer.

However, we could see a "partial lockdown by stealth" with areas being kept in Tier 2/3 for longer than originally hoped.

Yep actually that’s more likely 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, crazyfool1 said:

Yep actually that’s more likely 

I think what you suggested - a short, perhaps 2 week lockdown in early January, with a promise to be the absolute last time we do it, based on knowledge of vaccine rollout speed by then - would probably be a good idea, actually. 

Edited by Mellotr0n
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

What made that occur to you now?  

I was searching for data on how effective it would be on preventing deaths and technically it’s 100% effective because there was 1 death in the placebo group and none in the vaccine group. Then I figured that person would probably have survived if the random allocation had gone the other way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Mellotr0n said:

I'm personally not sure I can see there being another lockdown, regardless of whether it should be done epidemiologically - I just think the political pressure on Johnson from within his own party will be too great. There was already a lot of opposition to the current restrictions, and that's only going to grow as we see the end coming closer.

However, we could see a "partial lockdown by stealth" with areas being kept in Tier 2/3 for longer than originally hoped.

He wouldn’t need those 50-70 MPs though. If a lockdown was urgently needed and they put the financials measures in place then Labour would vote for one. It would be a sham of a government but it would go through. 

Edited by Ozanne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

Just been talking to my sister and it appears nurses have been offered less than their standard hourly rate to do the jab .... not exactly an incentive !! :( 

I can understand that to some extent. It’s a job that a nurse is far overqualified to do and can be done by a lot of other healthcare workers who don’t have the full medical training that a nurse has. 
 

To explain it in a non medical way and one that’s relevant to your own field of expertise. 
 

You’ve just opened up a new store and need a lot of shelves stocking up. It’s a job that is usually done by workers on minimum wage. You might have a load of FLT drivers able to do the same job and wanting to help out. Should they get paid their FLT wage to do a shelf stacking job?

If they’re willing to do it for less money than their standard rate that’s fine but they shouldn’t expect their full wage for doing a less skilled job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, squirrelarmy said:

I can understand that to some extent. It’s a job that a nurse is far overqualified to do and can be done by a lot of other healthcare workers who don’t have the full medical training that a nurse has. 
 

To explain it in a non medical way and one that’s relevant to your own field of expertise. 
 

You’ve just opened up a new store and need a lot of shelves stocking up. It’s a job that is usually done by workers on minimum wage. You might have a load of FLT drivers able to do the same job and wanting to help out. Should they get paid their FLT wage to do a shelf stacking job?

If they’re willing to do it for less money than their standard rate that’s fine but they shouldn’t expect their full wage for doing a less skilled job. 

But surely they want to encourage practise nurses that already do that job for flu jabs to be doing it with some incentive .... it’s all hands to the pump and practise nurses always do that job and aren’t overqualified for a job they do already 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

I can understand that to some extent. It’s a job that a nurse is far overqualified to do and can be done by a lot of other healthcare workers who don’t have the full medical training that a nurse has. 
 

To explain it in a non medical way and one that’s relevant to your own field of expertise. 
 

You’ve just opened up a new store and need a lot of shelves stocking up. It’s a job that is usually done by workers on minimum wage. You might have a load of FLT drivers able to do the same job and wanting to help out. Should they get paid their FLT wage to do a shelf stacking job?

If they’re willing to do it for less money than their standard rate that’s fine but they shouldn’t expect their full wage for doing a less skilled job. 

As a computer programmer, if I have to occasionally do some data entry, I don't expect my salary to be reduced because I'm doing something different that day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

As a computer programmer, if I have to occasionally do some data entry, I don't expect my salary to be reduced because I'm doing something different that day.

If you took a job on the side doing data entry, your normal salary wouldn’t be reduced, you just wouldn’t be paid the same rate for the extra job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

I’d love to know how many people fit in all these groups .... anyone seen any breakdowns of numbers ? 

My understanding is that "the most vulnerable" - that they're looking to have vaccinated with this initial programme - covers about 20 million people. Hence JVTs comments that vaccinating the most vulnerable third of the country will prevent 99% of deaths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re. the job thing, if it's an offer of extra shifts in a different role then fair enough (optional, a bit of relatively easy money), if it's as part of the current role then no way, I mean if a heart surgeon offered to help out would he reasonably expect his normal rate? 

 

Edited by Barney McGrew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

As a computer programmer, if I have to occasionally do some data entry, I don't expect my salary to be reduced because I'm doing something different that day.

Exactly. It’s not like the 5th richest country in the world can’t afford it either. Just pay the nurses full salary for crying out loud. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, balthazarstarbuck said:

If you took a job on the side doing data entry, your normal salary wouldn’t be reduced, you just wouldn’t be paid the same rate for the extra job.

I wouldn't take on a side job that paid less than my salary.  If somebody with my skills was required to fill an urgent need, then I'd probably get my normal day rate, even if what I'm doing isn't that difficult compared to my normal work.

They should pay the bloody nurses properly.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

Exactly. It’s not like the 5th richest country in the world can’t afford it either. Just pay the nurses full salary for crying out loud. 

yep and we've spunked all kinds of other money on consultancy etc .... we need as many jabbers as possible and these people already have the training to do it ... currently my sister and all her practise nurses arent doing it .... so perhaps paying for untrained people to get trained is really not very cost effective for short term 3-6 month contracts that are advertised !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, crazyfool1 said:

yep and we've spunked all kinds of other money on consultancy etc .... we need as many jabbers as possible and these people already have the training to do it ... currently my sister and all her practise nurses arent doing it .... so perhaps paying for untrained people to get trained is really not very cost effective for short term 3-6 month contracts that are advertised !!

That’s the thing isn’t it, they think they can get away with paying people like nurses lower salaries to do these types of tasks (which are of course massively important!) but to people that do in their minds much more important work, or are their friends then they’ll pay shed loads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, stuartbert two hats said:

I wouldn't take on a side job that paid less than my salary.  If somebody with my skills was required to fill an urgent need, then I'd probably get my normal day rate, even if what I'm doing isn't that difficult compared to my normal work.

They should pay the bloody nurses properly.  

Totally agree with that, but that’s another matter. 

I know plenty of people who used to take hospitality jobs on the side of their 9-5 which wouldn’t pay more than their day job. 

If there’s more people who can do it (ie not just nurses) then the pay will be less. If they can’t recruit people at that wage then the offered wage will have to go up. 
 

It’s not a good look though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Would it kill them to align the numbers properly, rather than centring them?

and also theres no clarity on 2 jabs .... so the numbers look all wrong ... we run out of vaccine when we use 6 million doses when we have a supply of 10 million ... obviously I worked it out but some sun readers might struggle to compute !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...