For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150
  • 154
#1828511
GrahamB wrote:R4 'More or Less' came to the same conclusion a couple of weeks ago, showing that the unions were using, inadvertantly or otherwise, spurious data to support their claim.


I just caught up with this episode on BBC Sounds.

Inadvertent? Weren't teachers forever telling us to check our homework before handing it in? Standards really have dropped.

Rob P
#1828562
In defence of the concerns expressed by the unions some numbers.....

Detailed analysis suggests the Covid positivity rate among secondary school teachers is 5.4%, primary teachers 5.2%, and teaching assistants 6.6% their risk is higher than nurses at 4.8%
The ONS has some more detailed work too
kanga liked this
#1828581
If we're playing at vaccination priority due to "risk" within the margin for error then unskilled male building site labourers need to be in the vaccination queue well ahead of teachers and nurses.

Let's just leave teachers in the same queue as everyone else, where they should be.
GrahamB liked this
#1828582
And according to that table, "protective services", which I presume to be the emergency services as they feature nowhere else, should be ahead of anybody. I have never heard them mentioned in respect of priority vaccination despite the number of deaths suffered by them blamed on Covid. And despite my misgivings about the validity of the stats on deaths that are truly attributable to Covid rather than someone dying with it, the general health and fitness of police and fire service personnel suggests it may be more accurate regarding those individuals.

PW
#1828585
The problem with the ONS stats is that they give no indication of whether the risk is increased or diminished by the occupation itself, or the likely demographic/lifestyles of the individuals.

There are just too many factors at play, and the margins of difference too small, to draw anything like a compelling case that says any occupational group should be put ahead of any other on the basis of risk to themselves.

Risk to other vulnerable groups is already accommodated by the current priority groups.
#1828587
GrahamB wrote:The problem with the ONS stats is that they give no indication of whether the risk is increased or diminished by the occupation itself, or the likely demographic/lifestyles of the individuals.

There are just too many factors at play, and the margins of difference too small, to draw anything like a compelling case that says any occupational group should be put ahead of any other on the basis of risk to themselves.

Risk to other vulnerable groups is already accommodated by the current priority groups.


Anecdotal - 'cause, why not join the teaching unions and set health policy via anecdote :eye: - but female student nurses have a reputation for being the filthiest tenants.
#1828589
At the end of the day, the vaccination programme is going so well, there will probably be no real world benefit in bothering to select priority groups at this point. Just let it roll out by age. After a year of waiting, what are another two or three weeks?

Some of the me first arguments are starting to look quite petty and small minded.
eltonioni, rogerb, flybymike and 3 others liked this
#1828596
A friend of my wife's who is in her 30s just got asked to book a vaccine slot (not sure where in England). She phoned up, assuming a mistake as she is not "key" and fit and healthy. Apparently that area are prioritising anyone who has been a hospital in-patient in the last few years. In her case, to give birth, so was on the list!
#1828649
Paultheparaglider wrote:At the end of the day, the vaccination programme is going so well, there will probably be no real world benefit in bothering to select priority groups at this point. Just let it roll out by age. After a year of waiting, what are another two or three weeks?

Some of the me first arguments are starting to look quite petty and small minded.


Whilst there is no denying that the rate of jabbing in the UK is better than in any other European country it may be worth to consider that even at this rate it will take a fair time before everyone will even have had their first jab.

That means that there will be a fair bit of circulating virus going round for some time to come and that means that those in vulnerable groups who have not yet been vaccinated are still at high risk.

In order to get the biggest bang per effort buck the order of vaccination must be determined by vulnerability and by nothing else.

Any other order will leave the vulnerable exposed for longer with all the consequences thereof and will be indefensible from an ethical point of view. It appears that ethics are not very popular or important these days from what one sees out there but maybe we can try to stick to some of them for civility sake*

*Clearly not aimed at PtPG!
GrahamB, JAFO, MikeB and 1 others liked this
#1828657
I don't disagree with any of the above, @Flyin'Dutch' , but the hardest evidence we have seems to be that age is a big factor. Medical vulnerabilities appear to have been addressed already. As have front line health workers.

So, do we argue if teachers deserve it first, or supermarket workers, or emergency services? You can make a good case for any of them. Any prioritising by employment category has the potential to cause argument and a degree of social division. Better just get on with it and not get distracted.

I'm happy to just sit back quietly and patiently, and support those making what are clearly hard decisions. Not second guess them.
JAFO, MikeB, skydriller liked this
#1828664
Miscellaneous wrote:
Paultheparaglider wrote:Any prioritising by employment category has the potential to cause argument and a degree of social division.

Not to mention the additional complexity of administration of identification.

Don't worry, that's all encoded in the nanochip.
Paultheparaglider liked this
  • 1
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150
  • 154