I doubt you'll answer, but out of interest what sector of key workers do you work in?



You've said before that you have first hand experience.

Probably a locksmith.

I worked directly with provisioning of meals to vulnerable/isolated people in the community where I live..

I'd seen how people discharged from hospitals and left on their own due to the reaction to covid with no family members and isolated end up more undernourished, this leads in part to more ill health and death. Particularly when the vulnerable/elderly are discharged far too early back into the community often with severely reduced care which we've seen in the last 11 months.



Would you like to know any other aspects of my previous background and what I've trained in as well as real world experience? None of which has any real bearing of being able to read and count/understand raw data regards experimental medical treatments.

I agree with a lot of your first paragraph, I'm not a nutritionist so I defer to you on that aspect.

People were undoubtedly discharged from hospital back into the community and care homes with COVID and this is a scandal.

I had huge arguments around Easter last year with hospitals trying to discharge people to care homes, the care homes were made to accept people back on my days off.

Services stopped. Just stopped. Nothing. Day centres in the third sector gone, no new care packages, not being able to go see the people you work for.

What I don't understand is what you feel is the end game to all of this?

What's it for?

Why is it happening.?

There are indeed massive consequences related to the whole covid situation which, increases the urgency and importance of getting the virus under better control.

Delays to other op's / treatment are shocking but, what do you propose ?

No controls and let the virus run it's natural cause, with even more cases and deaths, causing even more delays and deaths among those who need different treatments. Where does that one end up ?

Agree about the incompetence for sure.

If it was up to me I would also be have included all key workers in the early vaccinations. If you have to go into work, and if you have to use public transport then you should be jabbed.

Funny really, the most successful piece of the response to the pandemic is the one where the government ( and their mates) have had minimal involvement.

They're still taking all the credit though.

It's almost like wartime propaganda, with the number of vaccinations making the headlines every hour of the day.

The poor buggers that are still dying barely get a mention now.



I have to agree that the vaccinations seem to have gone very well and we all wait to see just how effective they are in reality.



We need to hope that they are as effective as the many promises that have been made.

What do you suggest we do with key workers who are refusing the vaccine?

I'm not really sure as I can't see how legally you can force it on existing employees. I've had mine and am booked in for the second one at the end of next month, I don't know anyone who's declined it, the one person who I thought might as they never have the flu jab was one of the first to have it.



I'd be surprised in the area I work in and the cross working with other agencies that we do if anyone would admit to declining it as the amount of people we've seen die and colleagues that have had it, some of them being hospitalised would make you somewhat of a professional pariah.



With the current talk of passports, perhaps we'll see some sort of check in the recruitment process to ensure your vaccinations are up to date, the same as you having to have up to date membership of the relevant professional bodies and a clear DBS check.

Yeah but come on, if the vaccination roll out had gone badly you sure as hell would've blamed the government. Even though they had "minimal involvement"

People can blame this Government for many things however, the roll-out of the vaccine isn't one of them.

The vaccine rollout seems to have been very successful so far. Full credit to everyone involved, from the frontline to the government on this hugely important progress.

The uptake in staff in care homes 66% has been poor also in the NHS only 80% - the greater majority in the BAME community. Surely there is a case for compulsory vaccination in these areas - the whole ethos has been to protect the vulnerable and protect the NHS?

I'm not sure that you've understood how the vaccine works - it can only protect the person that has been vaccinated.

Therefore, it can only be an individual choice and not compulsory.



Of course, it may well be that, at some point in the future, you need a vaccine certificate to carry out certain tasks or for travel etc. However, at the moment, we are told that this is not being considered.



In one sense, it will be interesting to compare how having had a vaccine compares with those that have not..

I understand perfectly well how it works - if it reduces transmission then surely that is a benefit to us all - the major thrust of the vaccine is to reduce the incidences of the virus - otherwise cases remain at current levels but fewer people die or have serious illness.



If that is the case then why have the numbers in Israel dropped off a cliff if the vaccine doesn't suppress transmission?

As yet, there is no proof that the vaccine reduces transmission.

However, if, after having the vaccine, "nobody" get's ill then there will be massively fewer hospitalizations and deaths, which will be a massive "win".

Early studies indicate drastic reduction in transmission by single dose of Oxford vaccine. The Israeli study claims to show huge reduction in transmission after Pfizer vaccine but as yet they have not released data for review. They are highly advanced in their rollout and have the best data in the world on effectiveness. The more data that's gathered the more we will see how the vaccines reduce transmission. And they will.

The Novovax vaccine looks to be the best of them all, in monkey trials the virus didn't even establish itself in the upper airway after dosing. If it can't establish and replicate in the upper airway then it can't spread from one person to another. The vaccine in trials had a very high efficacy. I can see this vaccine being a "second" vaccine that we all get eventually.

As has been indicated above - clear evidence of transmission reduction - perhaps it is you that doesn't understand how vaccines work!!

Interesting that you are so sure about the reduction in transmission after having had the vaccine.

Certainly, our own "experts", although always cautious, are not suggesting this just yet ?



As always, there are a myriad of different opinions as to transmission and it therefore becomes a case of who you should believe.



I hope that you are right but, would have expected that our "experts" and then, of course, Bojo, would be shouting this from the rooftops and as yet, they're not.

Lmao. Plenty of experts are claiming it with studies to back it up. But don’t let that get in the way of another rant at Boris Johnson. You are so obsessed it’s embarassing and unnerving. You are nearly as obsessed with Boris as you are with me

Lmao. Plenty of experts are claiming it with studies to back it up. But don’t let that get in the way of another rant at Boris Johnson. You are so obsessed it’s embarassing and unnerving. You are nearly as obsessed with Boris as you are with me

YOU talk of "embarrassing"

The numbers speak for themselves - nobody could argue that the lockdown has become more severe to drive down transmission. If anything lockdown is weakened since Christmas.



Johnson has got so much wrong he will now be over cautious if anything. Even Hancock yesterday said the rates have plummeted - the only thing that has changed is the vaccine roll out. Even Stevie Wonder can see that, you know it too but your never going to admit on here

Speaking of Hancock, is he going to be moving into new accommodation under Her Majesty’s pleasure any time soon? Considering he, you know, broke the law.

The Tory ethos of taking personal responsibility is only applicable to the poor and powerless and their political opponents.