Hally
Well-Known Member
At 82 and not the best health she probably hasnt got that many 6 months. Like I said hard choices
☣ Coronavirus ☣
- Thread starter ibiza77
- Start date
- Status
Hally
Well-Known Member
The only thing Joan is scared of is any more time without bingo, swimming and Derek ?
She may get the Pfizer, I'm only guessing that once the Oxford roll out starts that her chance of getting that is higher
Digital2013
Well-Known Member
I think you are right that will be their plan of action. All the country has had some level of protection: so get back shopping, eating and drinking. And to me that is a sensible option, the economy simply can't survive much longer. We'll end up staying home due being unable to afford anything due to massive Tax payments in a few years if this goes on much longer. History also tells us its hard and costly to get the long term unemployed back to work. In the 00s boom years they were still struggling to get 80s mining communities and their kids and grandkids into work for example.
There's no reason some low impact on being sociable measures like mask wearing, sanitiser available, table service, frequent cleaning etc cant go on a bit longer anyway. Like the rules we had July-September.
eclipse15
Well-Known Member
Don't think I agree with it being a "3rd world option" at all. It's all about what you can manufacture and how quickly I think. I would happily take a 60% effective one dose and then be topped up 12 weeks later to a higher level in the first half of this year via the Oxford jab than have to wait another year to get the Pfizer one.
Digital2013
Well-Known Member
I agree. Also worth pointing out they don't always get the normal Flu vaccine completely right, its a best placed guess of what strains will hit using data from Australia (due to the opposite seasons) we're never going to have something 100% effective.
kimajy
Well-Known Member
It's down to handling and logistics. Like the UK's management of PPE vs Germany's. 'Nuff said. How come they managed to roll out the vaccine to care homes in Berlin from Day 1 and in UK they couldn't. It's because UK cannot plan (anything) properly or efficiently and is underskilled and understaffed in key areas.
Digital2013
Well-Known Member
The NHS is good for lots of things and I fundamentaly believe in free health care, but Public sector is not as quick as the Private sector. Private sector companies are of course focused on profit so will seek out the most efficient ways and the culture is to resolve any blocking points quickly to get the deal done and get payment made. I find Public sector likes to stick to what it knows and everything needs a rubber stamp or approval to get anything moving. Of course ideally you need a happy medium between the two points of view but its a very hard balance.
Pouring more money in isnt always the answer either as a lot gets wasted on more Management, Management Consultants, IT projects that never launch etc than actually more Nurses, GP's and things the public benefit from on the front line.
kimajy
Well-Known Member
.... which is why there should be a private sector option. Let public sector deliver Oxford which requires no more organization than a third world rollout and let Private sector take over Pfizer and Moderna. Money saved for the NHS as people who pay privately won't be asking the taxpayer to fund the more expensive (or indeed any) option. I am virtually certain that if we hadn't privately funded cancer treatment I would have no parent alive right now.... I know they do the best they can but sometimes that isn't enough. When it isn't, you have a choice - pay or do without and pay with your health or your life.
Last edited:
eclipse15
Well-Known Member
There's a fairly good bit of reasoning there. Can't see it happening unfortunately, as would be perceived as being elitist where you could buy your protection. However, I suspect there is already money changing hands and folk are receiving it who aren't on the priority list. No evidence to back this up, but cronyism is rife!
kimajy
Well-Known Member
We're not a frigging Socialist / communist country yet. Or are we ??
You just spin it that the Government can't justify spending taxpayer money on the Pfizer / Moderna when there is a more affordable alternative which meets public health objectives. So if you want the fancy ones you have to pay for them. Plus NHS is then supporting UK industry over foreign industry. All the bullsh*t that brexit is about.
Digital2013
Well-Known Member
That does make sense...but it'd be a political hot potato as the left wing would be quick to point out that wealthy Surrey business man has got his jab before elderly Yorkshire lady.
It also makes sense to jab the denser populated areas first for cost and stopping the spread, but again that causes political problems. If they said for example they are not focusing on the Highlands because everyone lives so far away and its costly, they are doing London first, the SNP would be all over that.
MrHullMysterious
Well-Known Member
I think the problem is public services made to work more "efficiently" each year with reduction in money they get. Or they are forced to tender services to private companies that ain't too good at it. (Like how hospital cleaning was all outsourced under Thatcher years, but a lot of hospitals taking it back in house as its run better)
The diverting of funds and resources from NHS testing labs to the private lighthouse ones is a good case in point. The NHS labs had to work over capacity to deal with their failings ?
The private sector is good for many things, especially if they smell pork, but at such a large scale only the likes of the NHS can deal with that imho. (With private companies helping out where they are genuinely competent and not just after the pork)
Making GPs having to be financial experts was another stupid move by the Tories, but hey ho.
Ps: gov money spending on vaccine even if £25 a pop is chicken feed to what they spending to prop up the economy (£400 billion and counting)
kimajy
Well-Known Member
Not necessarily. You can instruct private sector to follow the same rules and principles about prioritization - i.e. for any batch opened it must be allocated to over-80s applicants first followed by over 75's etc etc
Public sector does not have the manpower to deliver more doses than Oxford could supply in a week I believe so it is a fallacy to suggest people who would otherwise have got it at the same time are being denied it.
Digital2013
Well-Known Member
I personally agree with you. But the opposition parties and media are ready and waiting to pull the Tories up for anything and a 'rich' person paying to queue jump would be fuel on the fire. They won't care if the Private company has stuck to rules about prioritising, the headline would be 'rich man killed my poor grandma'
Digital2013
Well-Known Member
I think the problem is public services made to work more "efficiently" each year with reduction in money they get. Or they are forced to tender services to private companies that ain't too good at it. (Like how hospital cleaning was all outsourced under Thatcher years, but a lot of hospitals taking it back in house as its run better)
The diverting of funds and resources from NHS testing labs to the private lighthouse ones is a good case in point. The NHS labs had to work over capacity to deal with their failings ?
The private sector is good for many things, especially if they smell pork, but at such a large scale only the likes of the NHS can deal with that imho. (With private companies helping out where they are genuinely competent and not just after the pork)
Making GPs having to be financial experts was another stupid move by the Tories, but hey ho.
Ps: gov money spending on vaccine even if £25 a pop is chicken feed to what they spending to prop up the economy (£400 billion and counting)
Agree with that. Private sector has its flaws and the Hospital Cleaning example you give is a good one, in-house cleaning where the Matron took pride in the ward gave a better service than Private operator not caring from a distance.
A mixture of the best of both industries is the nirvana. Or at least more people who've worked in both industries and haven't gotten into bad habits on either side.
kimajy
Well-Known Member
The 12-week wait thing is a joke. Won't do the 1/2 followed by full dose approach as the testing sample sub-group was too small and yet proposing to go with a 12 week wait between doses on both jabs, something which has not been subject to any clinical trials AT ALL AFAIK. When politicians suddenly decide they can mix and match in a knee-jerk response to queueing ambulances. And we're being asked to trust them ? Elderly mum has just said she's lost all confidence and will be refusing the vaccine. That's from a household who were 100% pro. F'king shambles.
MrHullMysterious
Well-Known Member
What I heard is there where a range of durations between the doses, and the half full combo actually had a longer period than the "normal" 3 weeks. I think when the full dataset is released it will have more scrutiny.
But they not doing a good job of communicating the info clearly and the ranges of durations etc for sure.
Tldr
40k+ people in trial, most had 1 + 1 dose with a range of delays between first and second. Those with longer waits had better results.
The 1/2 + 1 had higher efficacy, but also had a longer than normal delay between doses. There not enough data to say if it was half dose or the longer delay that made it better.
So they going with the 3 month delay as the 1 + 1 results for groups who had that longer delay had 80% efficacy.
Confusing eh!?
Last edited:
- Status