• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[COVID-19] General Discussion

It's done by price here, have to spend over €9 on food to be a substantial meal, a lot of starters became €8.95 as a result lol.
Yeah but that just shows the difference. You have clear guidance and while yes it might be abused by some places, people know what is what. Here this government have basically become the masters of mix messaging, which has left people confused and often in this case they just ignore the advice if it doesn't make sense. I still think it's a strategy (a very bad one), where they don't give 100% clear advice so that when people make mistakes or break the rules they can blame them instead of taking responsibility themselves for not making it clearer.
 


6 feels a bit low, I'm a little unsure why we have categories 8 & 9 other than 'more likely to be Tory voters'.
 

A provisional ranking of prioritisation for persons at-risk is set out below:
  1. older adults' resident in a care home and care home workers[footnote 1]
  2. all those 80 years of age and over and health and social care workers[footnote 1]
  3. all those 75 years of age and over
  4. all those 70 years of age and over
  5. all those 65 years of age and over
  6. high-risk adults under 65 years of age
  7. moderate-risk adults under 65 years of age
  8. all those 60 years of age and over
  9. all those 55 years of age and over
  10. all those 50 years of age and over
  11. rest of the population (priority to be determined)[footnote 2]

So apparently, BiL (and possibly myself) would be 2nd level as health workers. Teachers don't seem to be on the list at all (provisionally).
Sister and colleague's hubby would be 6th level.
New list as of today bumps the "Clinically extremely vulnerable" - like my sister, and brother's colleague's hubby - up from 6th priority to 4th. 3rd would have been nice, but it's as good as could be reasonably hoped for
Priority groups for coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination: advice from the JCVI, 2 December 2020 (publishing.service.gov.uk)


ETA: Sorry, beaten to it


6 feels a bit low, I'm a little unsure why we have categories 8 & 9 other than 'more likely to be Tory voters'.


Still notably higher risk - just not as much so as older ages and comorbidities
And no mention of BAME.

Agreed - though there's a degree that we're still trying to work out what it is about BAME that increases vulnerability - economic? nutritional? cultural? genetic?

Personally, I'd bump the extremely vulnerable up with the <75s, the medially vulnerable with the <65s and the socio-economically vulnerable with the <55s
 
Last edited:
Personally, I'd bump the extremely vulnerable up with the <75s, the medially vulnerable with the <65s and the socio-economically vulnerable with the <55s
Agree with vulnerabilities (although I'd stick the immunocompromised in level 1).

Howver that was my more complex point with tiers 8, 9. I'd rather we stopped looking at vulnerability due to age and start looking risk. The areas tier level, what job they do and the risk that exposes them to etc. etc.
 
Appalling statistics and I see that Twat in the White House spent still 46 mins yesterday ranting at the election being stolen.
 
Who have been using teams...

There are lots of business practices which would be greatly improved by being able to travel more freely. But we've all coped up until now, no idea why we suddenly need to change that.
 
Yeh use MS Teams at work For chat, phone calls and video conferencing.
 

Latest posts

Top