Vaccine queue calculator .

[oowee]

Record numbers today. Great news. 

[derbyduck]

had the jab this morning , left the house  at 10.05 for a 5miles round trip back home 10.25 , very efficient and pleasant people , I dare say the shine will wear off by the end the day but I could not thank them enough ,well done NHS England !

 

[blackbird]

14 hours ago, oowee said:

Record numbers today. Great news. 

You said it. 

[paul1966]

my 80yr old dad had heard nothing from the docs, my sister rang the docs and they didn't even have him on the list for a jab. The docs say don't contact them but if we had not he would have been sat at home waiting for the call for god knows how long!

[garjo]

It might be my naivety, can someone explain how the NHS is planning or will cope with the second vaccination? Surely in 12 weeks or whatever time frame they will have to deal with twice the no's? The new and those returning. I can't see how the infrastructure is in place to deal with this. How are they keeping track of those who are due a second vaccine? Is there some central database? I can't see how logistically, as the second vaccine is rolled out, they will cope with this. 

[Jim Neal]

10 hours ago, garjo said:

It might be my naivety, can someone explain how the NHS is planning or will cope with the second vaccination? Surely in 12 weeks or whatever time frame they will have to deal with twice the no's? The new and those returning. I can't see how the infrastructure is in place to deal with this. How are they keeping track of those who are due a second vaccine? Is there some central database? I can't see how logistically, as the second vaccine is rolled out, they will cope with this. 

Good question, I've been wondering that too.  My guess: We've surely nowhere near reached our maximum productivity rate for vaccinations yet?  The system is still in its infancy.  In 2 or 3 months time we will probably be able to vaccinate many more people per day.  Therefore as the 2nd jab becomes due for those who've had their 1st, the system will be able to start accommodating more people for their 1st jab whilst not delaying the 2nd jabs becoming due.

[bavarianbrit]

On 10/01/2021 at 21:29, Bumble said:

My wife gets hers tomorrow (teaches in a residential centre, 25 residents). Not a clue when I get mine (teach in a secondary school, 900 students). 

I’m not bemoaning the wife her jab, she needs it, but quite why teachers aren’t much higher in the queue is beyond me. 

Please excuse my ignorance but when did schools get students and not pupils? I thought students was for uni or colleges, or does PC rule?

[AVB]

This graph shows the occupations most at risk of dying from covid. Looks like we should be inoculating postmen/women first. Even Corporate Managers (whatever on of those is) before doctors and teachers! Discuss.  

[Bumble]

11 hours ago, bavarianbrit said:

Please excuse my ignorance but when did schools get students and not pupils? I thought students was for uni or colleges, or does PC rule?

Student; noun.

a person formally engaged in learning, especially one enrolled in a school or college; pupil. 

‘Students’ and ‘pupils’ are somewhat interchangeable terminology, and the usage of which is not something I concern myself about on a daily basis. 

I’m not sure where you got notions of ‘PC rule’ from, however. 

[bavarianbrit]

Thanks as a 70 y/o they were always pupils for me but I am a sec mod grad.

[loriusgarrulus]

Got mine booked today at the local hospital this Saturday. Only 65, but on the extremely vulnerable list.

The booking was mad. As fast as I chose a date and time it was already booked by the time I filled the form in.  In the end I chose a date 4 days ahead and got in. Its obviousy popular round here.

[Jim Neal]

On 25/01/2021 at 14:48, AVB said:

This graph shows the occupations most at risk of dying from covid. Looks like we should be inoculating postmen/women first. Even Corporate Managers (whatever on of those is) before doctors and teachers! Discuss.  

This is by no means directed personally at you but I'm going to be a bit of a nit-picker with this chart, sorry

Where did the chart come from?

The first of those 11 categories encompasses an ENORMOUS range of occupations all lumped together.  I just had a bit of a browse of the ONS site because I was wondering what exactly they mean by "elementary tasks".  Unsurprisingly it's a polite catch-all term they use for a lot of manual/unskilled jobs.  (It's a compelling read if you want to have a browse of the excel file). The word "elementary" is used in a massive amount of job descriptions.  Chucking all those occupations together in one category is simply skewing the figures.

102 postal workers died up to 28/12/20 (table 10, row 368 in the excel book linked to above).  I totted up 190 dead from job titles containing "cleaner" or "cleaning"

The second category:  They appear not to have counted the 133 van drivers plus another 48 combined from the air, sea and rail sectors.  I was quite surprised to see that lorry drivers number so highly at 250... but then I suppose the average lorry driver isn't a model of health & fitness so might be more likely to croak?  If you wanted a true total of all transport workers, I've totalled it up myself best I can to 771.

The category called "Doctors and nurses" has been deliberately understated at approx. 225 by calling it such, rather than "healthcare".  They have omitted all of the other occupations that surround doctors and nurses in the healthcare system.  I totalled it up for myself and got to 450 and that's without searching for every last single sort of occupation connected to health care so there's probably more.

This is yet another intelligence-insulting example of using statistics to tell lies in order to create tabloid headlines!

The data in that chart is utterly meaningless, not least because the categories are deliberately either pared down or bulked up to suit the misinformation someone is trying to spread, but mostly because it uses total deaths.  To be meaningful it needs to be presented as a percentage of the total number in that category (data which might not even exist at all?).  For example, let's take "secretaries", of whom 80 are reported to have died from COVID.  What if there were only 800 secretaries in total? (made up numbers but it's easy maths)  That's 10% of secretaries dead.

But what if the 600 dead carers were part of a group totalling 60,000?  That's only 1% of carers dead.  Suddenly you come to the shocking realisation that it's 10 times as lethal to be a secretary as it is a carer!

The "average per profession" is the piece de resistance for me A meaningless summary of meaninglessness.

The trouble with tripe like this chart is we'll now have people gossiping saying "Ooooh I wouldn't want to be a postie!  Most dangerous job in Britain!  Let's stand on the doorstep and clap for postmen! Give them a pay rise!".  Which is obviously a complete load of tosh (not that I've got anything against postal workers, quite the opposite).

[WalkedUp]

Good analysis. The chart didn’t pass the sniff test for me either - More or Less would have a field day with it.

With regards to the postie job. Some occupations are linked to the elderly (more vulnerable) and some linked to the young (less vulnerable). So for a 40 year old person considering their risk per occupation it would be heavily skewed. 

Edited January 26, 2021 by WalkedUp

[AVB]

28 minutes ago, Jim Neal said:

This is by no means directed personally at you but I'm going to be a bit of a nit-picker with this chart, sorry

Where did the chart come from?

The first of those 11 categories encompasses an ENORMOUS range of occupations all lumped together.  I just had a bit of a browse of the ONS site because I was wondering what exactly they mean by "elementary tasks".  Unsurprisingly it's a polite catch-all term they use for a lot of manual/unskilled jobs.  (It's a compelling read if you want to have a browse of the excel file). The word "elementary" is used in a massive amount of job descriptions.  Chucking all those occupations together in one category is simply skewing the figures.

102 postal workers died up to 28/12/20 (table 10, row 368 in the excel book linked to above).  I totted up 190 dead from job titles containing "cleaner" or "cleaning"

The second category:  They appear not to have counted the 133 van drivers plus another 48 combined from the air, sea and rail sectors.  I was quite surprised to see that lorry drivers number so highly at 250... but then I suppose the average lorry driver isn't a model of health & fitness so might be more likely to croak?  If you wanted a true total of all transport workers, I've totalled it up myself best I can to 771.

The category called "Doctors and nurses" has been deliberately understated at approx. 225 by calling it such, rather than "healthcare".  They have omitted all of the other occupations that surround doctors and nurses in the healthcare system.  I totalled it up for myself and got to 450 and that's without searching for every last single sort of occupation connected to health care so there's probably more.

This is yet another intelligence-insulting example of using statistics to tell lies in order to create tabloid headlines!

The data in that chart is utterly meaningless, not least because the categories are deliberately either pared down or bulked up to suit the misinformation someone is trying to spread, but mostly because it uses total deaths.  To be meaningful it needs to be presented as a percentage of the total number in that category (data which might not even exist at all?).  For example, let's take "secretaries", of whom 80 are reported to have died from COVID.  What if there were only 800 secretaries in total? (made up numbers but it's easy maths)  That's 10% of secretaries dead.

But what if the 600 dead carers were part of a group totalling 60,000?  That's only 1% of carers dead.  Suddenly you come to the shocking realisation that it's 10 times as lethal to be a secretary as it is a carer!

The "average per profession" is the piece de resistance for me A meaningless summary of meaninglessness.

The trouble with tripe like this chart is we'll now have people gossiping saying "Ooooh I wouldn't want to be a postie!  Most dangerous job in Britain!  Let's stand on the doorstep and clap for postmen! Give them a pay rise!".  Which is obviously a complete load of tosh (not that I've got anything against postal workers, quite the opposite).

I thought, although I need to re-read the data, that they were comparing covid Vs non-covid deaths and hence identifying covid risk. 
 

if nothing else it’s a excuse to bash teachers. 

[oscarsdad]

That chart is indeed utterly meaningless 

[AVB]

I’d be interested to know how ‘front line healthcare’ staff are defined. My ex works as a pharmacy assistant in a chemists in one of the large supermarket chains. She is having her jab today as ‘front line healthcare staff’. She is working alongside other supermarket workers who aren’t classed as ‘front line’ yet the risks are exactly the same. She has no idea how she was ‘nominated’. 

[WalkedUp]

Male teachers are 250% more likely to die from COVID than men in similar professional jobs. Female nurses are only 50% more likely to die of COVID than the general working age rate for women.

source: BBC Reality Check