Songs That Should Have Been Number 1
Music2 mins ago
Are We Administering The Vaccine The Wrong Way Round?
Top of the list are the most vulnerable, mostly the elderly who are, in the main, isolating, but if as is reported the young are responsible for spreading the virus shouldn’t we be vaccinating them first, thereby safeguarding everyone else as well as allowing workers to get back to normal and hence, limiting the damage to the economy?
Answers
// So you vaccinate first those most at risk from catching it.// Which are those people who have to work 'out there' -not 90 year olds in basic lockdown.
11:48 Thu 17th Dec 2020
// but if as is reported the young are responsible for spreading the virus shouldn’t we be vaccinating them first,//
first of all banish the awful AB guff: if you are a silent carrier you arent usually thought of as "catching it".
second - no data is available on vaccination and carrier rates in covid
well what about other diseases?
meningitis - there are carriers that spread it
and a vaccine
and
" Notably, in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Italy, mass vaccination of adolescents and young adults with a meningococcal serogroup C conjugate (MCC) vaccine resulted in herd protection in unvaccinated age groups"
yippee !
and - -
The first follow-up survey was conducted 1 year after vaccination and evaluated 45,847 pre and postvaccination samples. Serogroup A carriage was completely eliminated up to 13 months post vacc (prevaccination, 80 carriers; postvaccination, 0 carriers).
even more yippee!
carrier rates for the other serogroups went up ( sort of moved into the empty space ) - -- uuuggghhh!
here
https:/
bit of a heavy read boys and girls - none of the zippy AB one liners - - if ya dont got it, ya cant give it!
and no - foo why dat den
sozza for that
first of all banish the awful AB guff: if you are a silent carrier you arent usually thought of as "catching it".
second - no data is available on vaccination and carrier rates in covid
well what about other diseases?
meningitis - there are carriers that spread it
and a vaccine
and
" Notably, in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Italy, mass vaccination of adolescents and young adults with a meningococcal serogroup C conjugate (MCC) vaccine resulted in herd protection in unvaccinated age groups"
yippee !
and - -
The first follow-up survey was conducted 1 year after vaccination and evaluated 45,847 pre and postvaccination samples. Serogroup A carriage was completely eliminated up to 13 months post vacc (prevaccination, 80 carriers; postvaccination, 0 carriers).
even more yippee!
carrier rates for the other serogroups went up ( sort of moved into the empty space ) - -- uuuggghhh!
here
https:/
bit of a heavy read boys and girls - none of the zippy AB one liners - - if ya dont got it, ya cant give it!
and no - foo why dat den
sozza for that
teacake, that is a separate issue. I too think that the NHS is not up to my personal needs and I carry medical insurance....however in these circumstances I absolutely support not allowing people to buy their way up the queue.
I suspect NJ won't be the only one who, for whatever reason misses their call and I also suspect there will be a mechanism for dealing with this.
I suspect NJ won't be the only one who, for whatever reason misses their call and I also suspect there will be a mechanism for dealing with this.
My problem with NJ attitude is that for months now he has been highlighting the lack of treatment in hospitals for people who have life threatening illnesses other than covid, and some of those people may have died due to the lack of treatment.
Cancer treatment being just one of those, taking all that into consideration he seems to think that now, he should be able to dictate to the NHS a date that he is happy with for them to give him the vaccine, that takes about 30 seconds. Lets put things into prospective here, how many millions of people have the NHS got to vaccine, and he thinks he should choose his time. Pathetic !!
Cancer treatment being just one of those, taking all that into consideration he seems to think that now, he should be able to dictate to the NHS a date that he is happy with for them to give him the vaccine, that takes about 30 seconds. Lets put things into prospective here, how many millions of people have the NHS got to vaccine, and he thinks he should choose his time. Pathetic !!
//...taking all that into consideration he seems to think that now, he should be able to dictate to the NHS a date that he is happy with for them to give him the vaccine, that takes about 30 seconds.//
From what we've heard from one of our correspondents (can't remember who) it takes around 35 minutes - a tidy step away from 30 seconds. But no matter. I don't want to dictate what time I'm seen to. I'd just like to see a bit of courtesy (and common sense) by arranging a mutually agreeable appointment time. I don't care when it is but if I'm not available it is wasting everybody's time - mine, theirs and other people's who may be able to take advantage of the slot I don't use. It may help reduce the number of "no shows" they continually bleat on about. If that's seen as "pathetic" then that's because I have slightly different expectations to you. It may also help explain why the NHS continues to behave as it does - as if patients are a nuisance who unfortunately must be accommodated rather than the people who pay for the service and the very reason for its existence.
From what we've heard from one of our correspondents (can't remember who) it takes around 35 minutes - a tidy step away from 30 seconds. But no matter. I don't want to dictate what time I'm seen to. I'd just like to see a bit of courtesy (and common sense) by arranging a mutually agreeable appointment time. I don't care when it is but if I'm not available it is wasting everybody's time - mine, theirs and other people's who may be able to take advantage of the slot I don't use. It may help reduce the number of "no shows" they continually bleat on about. If that's seen as "pathetic" then that's because I have slightly different expectations to you. It may also help explain why the NHS continues to behave as it does - as if patients are a nuisance who unfortunately must be accommodated rather than the people who pay for the service and the very reason for its existence.
//I might even listen to you're complaints then.//
I'm not asking you to listen to them and anyway they're not what you would call complaints. They're more remarks for discussion. I only mentioned the time required because you suggested it would take 30 seconds. Somebody who had received it reported on here that it took 35 minutes. I'm not particularly fussed (within reason) how long it takes for me to receive it but it strikes me that 35m to provide a jab is a little excessive. My recent 'flu jab took 10 minutes at most (after I'd spent 50 minutes queuing outside in the rain, that is).
I'm not expecting the NHS to provide the same type of service as a private clinic. But there is no doubt that many of its problems stem from utterly inept management and administration. Nothing could demonstrate that more than the idea that it is somehow sensible to make appointments for people without ensuring that the patient can attend. Let's leave out the "courtesy" as you seem to feel that is unimportant. Let's simply concentrate on the common sense. Perhaps you could explain to me how it is sensible to simply tell someone that a slot has been booked for them at a time and place (and presumably keeping that slot free so that nobody else can take it up) without ensuring they have the message, let alone whether they can keep the appointment. It's senseless and no other business would work like that. Forget what it means to the customer, it's simply wasteful for the business. Patients of the NHS are bombarded with figures showing how many "missed appointments" have occurred. Yet they run a system which guarantees there will be quite a number simply because either the patient did not get notification of the appointment or they were unable to keep it. The vaccination programme is a huge undertaking and it needs to be as efficient as it can be. It makes sense for the NHS and, horror of horrors, it may also be beneficial to the patients if appointments are not wasted. Taxpayers are paying huge sums to fund the NHS and they are entitled to expect the service to be run efficiently so that their money is not wasted and the service meets their needs. But suggesting it might perhaps change its seemingly well supported "take it or leave it" attitude is apparently far too much to ask.
I'm not asking you to listen to them and anyway they're not what you would call complaints. They're more remarks for discussion. I only mentioned the time required because you suggested it would take 30 seconds. Somebody who had received it reported on here that it took 35 minutes. I'm not particularly fussed (within reason) how long it takes for me to receive it but it strikes me that 35m to provide a jab is a little excessive. My recent 'flu jab took 10 minutes at most (after I'd spent 50 minutes queuing outside in the rain, that is).
I'm not expecting the NHS to provide the same type of service as a private clinic. But there is no doubt that many of its problems stem from utterly inept management and administration. Nothing could demonstrate that more than the idea that it is somehow sensible to make appointments for people without ensuring that the patient can attend. Let's leave out the "courtesy" as you seem to feel that is unimportant. Let's simply concentrate on the common sense. Perhaps you could explain to me how it is sensible to simply tell someone that a slot has been booked for them at a time and place (and presumably keeping that slot free so that nobody else can take it up) without ensuring they have the message, let alone whether they can keep the appointment. It's senseless and no other business would work like that. Forget what it means to the customer, it's simply wasteful for the business. Patients of the NHS are bombarded with figures showing how many "missed appointments" have occurred. Yet they run a system which guarantees there will be quite a number simply because either the patient did not get notification of the appointment or they were unable to keep it. The vaccination programme is a huge undertaking and it needs to be as efficient as it can be. It makes sense for the NHS and, horror of horrors, it may also be beneficial to the patients if appointments are not wasted. Taxpayers are paying huge sums to fund the NHS and they are entitled to expect the service to be run efficiently so that their money is not wasted and the service meets their needs. But suggesting it might perhaps change its seemingly well supported "take it or leave it" attitude is apparently far too much to ask.
You only have to look at NJs post @ 17.09 Thu 17 Dec to understand that NJ thinks that the NHS must work round his and Mrs NJs needs every time and all the time. The admin department in his hospital must shudder, and reach for the Paracetamol when they see them both come through the door. You have said in past posts that you're experience with the NHS has not been great, with you're demands to pick and choose, may be they've had enough of you.
//NJ, I don't know if you've ever had to attend hospital appointments but did you 'phone them up each time to let them know you'd received the appointment letter?//
No. I didn’t. But I would contact them if I couldn’t make the date (and then have to wait another three months for a new appointment – something that wouldn’t happen if the appointment had been made by agreement). Appointments should be made by mutual agreement. There are enough scribes in the NHS to make sure this happens. If there aren’t then sack a few bean counters – particularly those who miscounted 11,000 Covid cases in Wales last week – to pay for them.
//A wonder if when the judge gets a text saying he's parcel will be delivered between 11:10 and 11:40 he says " sorry not convenient , make it 12:30 please"//
Then wonder no more. I ask them to deliver it next door.
//The admin department in his hospital must shudder, and reach for the Paracetamol when they see them both come through the door.//
Fortunately neither of us has had cause to trouble our local hospital too much. But the exchange I recounted in my post of 17:09 is symptomatic of the ills that the NHS suffers. Whoever sits behind the desk at reception there should have access to the same appointments system as those who churn out appointment letters have. It’s not rocket science, it would cost next to nothing, it would save the service the money it costs to produce and post a letter and it would result in mutually agreeable arrangements being made which were more likely to be kept.
I’ll leave these exchanges here because it is quite clear to me that, leaving aside the exceptional circumstances of the Covid vaccine programme, many people are content to see an inefficient NHS system continue, presumable because they feel they should be grateful they’ve got a system at all. Well the NHS costs the equivalent of more than £2,000pa for every man, woman and child in the country. For that price patients are entitled to a little courtesy and a system that meets their requirements. That doesn’t mean red carpets when they arrive for their appointments but simply a service that operates on sensible lines.
No. I didn’t. But I would contact them if I couldn’t make the date (and then have to wait another three months for a new appointment – something that wouldn’t happen if the appointment had been made by agreement). Appointments should be made by mutual agreement. There are enough scribes in the NHS to make sure this happens. If there aren’t then sack a few bean counters – particularly those who miscounted 11,000 Covid cases in Wales last week – to pay for them.
//A wonder if when the judge gets a text saying he's parcel will be delivered between 11:10 and 11:40 he says " sorry not convenient , make it 12:30 please"//
Then wonder no more. I ask them to deliver it next door.
//The admin department in his hospital must shudder, and reach for the Paracetamol when they see them both come through the door.//
Fortunately neither of us has had cause to trouble our local hospital too much. But the exchange I recounted in my post of 17:09 is symptomatic of the ills that the NHS suffers. Whoever sits behind the desk at reception there should have access to the same appointments system as those who churn out appointment letters have. It’s not rocket science, it would cost next to nothing, it would save the service the money it costs to produce and post a letter and it would result in mutually agreeable arrangements being made which were more likely to be kept.
I’ll leave these exchanges here because it is quite clear to me that, leaving aside the exceptional circumstances of the Covid vaccine programme, many people are content to see an inefficient NHS system continue, presumable because they feel they should be grateful they’ve got a system at all. Well the NHS costs the equivalent of more than £2,000pa for every man, woman and child in the country. For that price patients are entitled to a little courtesy and a system that meets their requirements. That doesn’t mean red carpets when they arrive for their appointments but simply a service that operates on sensible lines.
Latest Posts
'Boil Water' Warning After Confirmed...
News2 mins ago
What Do You Think Of The King's...
News3 mins ago
Film, Media & TV12 mins ago
Crosswords13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.