Genie Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 I’m really looking forward to seeing the cases and deaths dropping down, and down and down to tiny numbers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post TrentVilla Posted January 17, 2021 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted January 17, 2021 19 minutes ago, Genie said: Keeping a site open and staffed through the night, every night when there will be very little to do. If there’s enough sites (which is sounds like there will be loads) then it won’t be necessary. You wouldn’t keep sites open you’d use those that are open 24 hours in any case. Vaccine levels permitting, if you offered someone the chance to go at 4am to get it that otherwise isn’t likely to get it until August or September they wouldn’t be quiet in my view. I’m not saying 24 is automatically necessary but given the urgency for getting this vaccine rolled out, dose numbers permitting, it not being at least under consideration is to me at best short sighted. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 17, 2021 Moderator Share Posted January 17, 2021 8 minutes ago, TrentVilla said: You wouldn’t keep sites open you’d use those that are open 24 hours in any case. Are there any vaccine places open 24/7 ? I don't think there are at the moment. There may be hospitals open 24/7 but surely the staff in there are doing work on sick people, which they'd have to stop doing to do vaccinations instead? So unless there are sufficient trained staff available and willing to work night shifts (they're then not available for day shifts), what problem does it actually solve? I get that in world where there were plenty of staff and facilities it would speed up the overall process, but I'm not at all sure that the NHS has the people and resourcing to do it. Maybe in a few areas it might be practical, particularly if the number of cases and people needed treatment reduces, but right now it sounds like a nice idea in theory, but not so of an easy thing to actually do. Am I missing something? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted January 17, 2021 Administrator Share Posted January 17, 2021 1 hour ago, Seat68 said: Has anyone know of anyone that has the complete vaccine? Both doses? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted January 17, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted January 17, 2021 3 minutes ago, blandy said: Are there any vaccine places open 24/7 ? I don't think there are at the moment. There may be hospitals open 24/7 but surely the staff in there are doing work on sick people, which they'd have to stop doing to do vaccinations instead? So unless there are sufficient trained staff available and willing to work night shifts (they're then not available for day shifts), what problem does it actually solve? I get that in world where there were plenty of staff and facilities it would speed up the overall process, but I'm not at all sure that the NHS has the people and resourcing to do it. Maybe in a few areas it might be practical, particularly if the number of cases and people needed treatment reduces, but right now it sounds like a nice idea in theory, but not so of an easy thing to actually do. Am I missing something? They are talking about making the vaccine super centres 24 hour operations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 (edited) 33 minutes ago, TrentVilla said: You wouldn’t keep sites open you’d use those that are open 24 hours in any case. Vaccine levels permitting, if you offered someone the chance to go at 4am to get it that otherwise isn’t likely to get it until August or September they wouldn’t be quiet in my view. I’m not saying 24 is automatically necessary but given the urgency for getting this vaccine rolled out, dose numbers permitting, it not being at least under consideration is to me at best short sighted. If we're accepting "vaccine levels permitting" as being fine, surely the only thing that restricts the speed is people to actually carry out the vaccinations? Space / location isn't (I had a flu shot the other week through my car window in the carpark of a local non-league football club). So the people doing the jabbing with needles , if they are there at 3am, they're at home asleep at 3pm. So the hours they are open doesn't really matter - 50,000 people working 8am - 6pm or 25,000 doing that and another 25,000 doing the shift after doesn't end with more people vaccinated. Edit - by the time I'd finished typing blandy had said the same thing but better. Edited January 17, 2021 by ml1dch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 17, 2021 Moderator Share Posted January 17, 2021 11 minutes ago, sidcow said: They are talking about making the vaccine super centres 24 hour operations. I know. I was responding to this "You wouldn’t keep sites open you’d use those that are open 24 hours in any case." But there aren't currently any (afaik) so you'd be opening up ones specifically for the purpose, but where do you find the staff from - that's my question. I'm not saying @TrentVillai wrong, I'm saying I personally don't understand how it can currently work, and asking for someone to explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 17, 2021 Moderator Share Posted January 17, 2021 15 minutes ago, blandy said: Are there any vaccine places open 24/7 ? I don't think there are at the moment. There may be hospitals open 24/7 but surely the staff in there are doing work on sick people, which they'd have to stop doing to do vaccinations instead? So unless there are sufficient trained staff available and willing to work night shifts (they're then not available for day shifts), what problem does it actually solve? I get that in world where there were plenty of staff and facilities it would speed up the overall process, but I'm not at all sure that the NHS has the people and resourcing to do it. Maybe in a few areas it might be practical, particularly if the number of cases and people needed treatment reduces, but right now it sounds like a nice idea in theory, but not so of an easy thing to actually do. Am I missing something? The feasibility or otherwise of it is though a different point to the one I responded to, neither of us can really state what is and isn’t practicable in terms of 24 hour delivery. I agree there would be many logistical questions but given that the vaccine is now being delivered in a small number of non NHS settings it should I think, vaccine stocks permitting, be part of the conversation and where possible part of the solution. The point I was responding to was that the very suggestion of 24 hour delivery was “excessive” as if it were not necessary. As I think I originally mentioned both health wise and financially I don’t think the consideration of 24 hour delivery is in any way excessive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 17, 2021 Moderator Share Posted January 17, 2021 5 minutes ago, ml1dch said: If we're accepting "vaccine levels permitting" as being fine, surely the only thing that restricts the speed is people to actually carry out the vaccinations? Space / location isn't (I had a flu shot the other week through my car window in the carpark of a local non-league football club). So the people doing the jabbing with needles , if they are there at 3am, they're at home asleep at 3pm. So the hours they are open doesn't really matter - 50,000 people working 8am - 6pm or 25,000 doing that and another 25,000 doing the shift after doesn't end with more people vaccinated. Edit - by the time I'd finished typing blandy had said the same thing but better. That’s working on the assumption the number of those delivery remains static, as I’ve mentioned in my previous post that doesn’t necessarily need to be the case. Just to add, the Gov have actually approved a trial of 24 hour delivery to asses it’s potential for impact on delivery capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 17, 2021 Moderator Share Posted January 17, 2021 6 minutes ago, TrentVilla said: That’s working on the assumption the number of those delivery remains static, as I’ve mentioned in my previous post that doesn’t necessarily need to be the case. Personally, if there is more vaccine than people needing it for their first jab, then I'd be calling people back to give them their second jab so that they are then fully vaccinated and protected. What the Gov't is doing is jabbing as many people as they can once, which is not actually "vaccinating" them. The numbers look better for them that way, and in the very short term it widens to pool of protected people, but that protection is temporary, whereas the full vaccination gives longer lasting protection. Given that they're on with jabbing the most at risk section of society, they ought to be fully protecting them as a priority IMO. And that's without going over the points I made when they first decided to go against the recommendation and trial results evidence of the 3 week gap and extend it to 12 weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 7 minutes ago, TrentVilla said: Just to add, the Gov have actually approved a trial of 24 hour delivery to asses it’s potential for impact on delivery capacity. If the Government have said they think it's a good idea, we can hammer the last nail into the coffin of it being a good idea then! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 17, 2021 Moderator Share Posted January 17, 2021 5 minutes ago, blandy said: Personally, if there is more vaccine than people needing it for their first jab, then I'd be calling people back to give them their second jab so that they are then fully vaccinated and protected. What the Gov't is doing is jabbing as many people as they can once, which is not actually "vaccinating" them. The numbers look better for them that way, and in the very short term it widens to pool of protected people, but that protection is temporary, whereas the full vaccination gives longer lasting protection. Given that they're on with jabbing the most at risk section of society, they ought to be fully protecting them as a priority IMO. And that's without going over the points I made when they first decided to go against the recommendation and trial results evidence of the 3 week gap and extend it to 12 weeks. That’s a fair point and one I don’t disagree with, I suspect it will be one that is picked apart in future once the impact is known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 (edited) 17 minutes ago, ml1dch said: If we're accepting "vaccine levels permitting" as being fine, surely the only thing that restricts the speed is people to actually carry out the vaccinations? Space / location isn't (I had a flu shot the other week through my car window in the carpark of a local non-league football club). So the people doing the jabbing with needles , if they are there at 3am, they're at home asleep at 3pm. So the hours they are open doesn't really matter - 50,000 people working 8am - 6pm or 25,000 doing that and another 25,000 doing the shift after doesn't end with more people vaccinated. Edit - by the time I'd finished typing blandy had said the same thing but better. This was my point, I can’t see the benefit of 24 hour sites. If we have drugs, and qualified people to administer them then have 2 sites open for 12 hours each (in parallel, or staggered mostly during the day) rather than 1 for 24 hours. Edited January 17, 2021 by Genie 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 17, 2021 Moderator Share Posted January 17, 2021 5 minutes ago, ml1dch said: If the Government have said they think it's a good idea, we can hammer the last nail into the coffin of it being a good idea then! Hmm... rather shot myself in the foot there. The only caveat I can offer is that it is a u-turn from them and wasn’t their original view, it therefore has some latent potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 19 minutes ago, Genie said: This was my point, I can’t see the benefit of 24 hour sites. If we have drugs, and qualified people to administer them then have 2 sites open for 12 hours each (in parallel, or staggered mostly during the day) rather than 1 for 24 hours. Why not both for 24 hours? We need to get people vaccinated as soon as possible. If there are doses available and staff to administer them, then as many places as possible should be 24 hours. I don't think there's any suggestion that there aren't enough staff to administer vaccines. I think the recruitment drive has been fairly successful and they can keep recruiting more if they need to. Plenty of people have phlebotomy experience or can take short training courses. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 (edited) 3 minutes ago, darrenm said: Why not both for 24 hours? We need to get people vaccinated as soon as possible. If there are doses available and staff to administer them, then as many places as possible should be 24 hours. I don't think there's any suggestion that there aren't enough staff to administer vaccines. I think the recruitment drive has been fairly successful and they can keep recruiting more if they need to. Plenty of people have phlebotomy experience or can take short training courses. In the middle of the night they’ll be hitting nowhere near as many vaccinations per hour as during the day. More daytime slots is the way to go. If you staff 24 hours with 3x 8 hour shifts then 1 of those shifts will be much quieter. If you did 16 hours at 1 site, and an 8 hour shift in parallel somewhere else you’ll get more people through. Edited January 17, 2021 by Genie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 17, 2021 Moderator Share Posted January 17, 2021 1 minute ago, darrenm said: Why not both for 24 hours? @Genie's principle is infinitely multipliable, though. If you have more staff + vaccines, open up more locations, make it more local - people going to their local Chemists, or Library or Social club or...[whatever facility] rather than having to travel to the next town, say. It's the case that more people are available to be vaccinated in the waking hours - there will be fewer people not turning up, and it will be easier for all concerned to deal hyper locally. Many people aren't that mobile, and anyway travelling is a bad thing to do in a pandemic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 Just now, Genie said: In the middle of the night they’ll be hitting nowhere near as many vaccinations per hour as during the day. More daytime slots is the way to go. Why? What would be the limiting factor? You don't think that if a centre was open 24 hours they wouldn't fill all their slots? Millions are desperate to get this jab so restrictions can be relaxed. It's why every presser has multiple questions about when the gov think they can start relaxing things again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 1 minute ago, blandy said: @Genie's principle is infinitely multipliable, though. If you have more staff + vaccines, open up more locations, make it more local - people going to their local Chemists, or Library or Social club or...[whatever facility] rather than having to travel to the next town, say. It's the case that more people are available to be vaccinated in the waking hours - there will be fewer people not turning up, and it will be easier for all concerned to deal hyper locally. Many people aren't that mobile, and anyway travelling is a bad thing to do in a pandemic. Yeah you get to a point where it wouldn't be practical but as long as there are literally millions of people virtually queuing for a vaccine, I don't think it's right to close the ride at 6pm. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 1 minute ago, darrenm said: Why? What would be the limiting factor? You don't think that if a centre was open 24 hours they wouldn't fill all their slots? Millions are desperate to get this jab so restrictions can be relaxed. It's why every presser has multiple questions about when the gov think they can start relaxing things again. There’s theory, and reality. You’re not going to run a vaccination clinic at full capacity between mid-night and 4am. People will decline the appointments for a number of reasons, or accept them and not turn up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts