MikeB wrote: There are some very polarised views out there.
Oh no there aren't.
(Well, it is just about still panto season.)
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.
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.
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.
Paultheparaglider wrote:Any prioritising by employment category has the potential to cause argument and a degree of social division.
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.