Vaccine Passports

[Morrisandmoo]

17 minutes ago, aaid said:

It is when you’re pontificating on something you don’t understand but hey, it’s the internet so you’re not exactly unique in that.  

I understand how to apprise alternative opportunities and costs/benefits though. 

In this case - your imagination that it is a low-cost covid measure, compared to other covid measures, is untrue. Which is the salient point. 

I am prepared to take your word that the price paid for the development is in line with market rates. However, I would have sooner we spent the money recruiting more nurses rather than giving it to Jumio to help develop an app that will do no good. And soon we will all wish we had done that. 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Morrisandmoo

[phart]

What's the rationale for vaccine passports, the ones I've seen is increase up-take of vaccine (not happened in Scotland, but happened in France) thereby decreasing load of emergency services cause of vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation etc.

On cost Vaccine is what £20 a dose, ICUE is £1200 a day. Hospital stay £400 a day.

Quick google had these costs in 2016 for NHS from Critical care delivery plan

A ward bed cost an average of £413 per night
• A Level 2 High Dependency bed cost an average £857 per night.
• A Level 3 Intensive Care bed cost an average £1932 per night

[phart]

2 hours ago, Morrisandmoo said:

We'd save more lives (in Scotland) by shielding older people, pending boosters, than we will by extending passport controls. That's the main difference.

I'm not advocating for either though. Instead I'm predicting that we will choose less effective measures, like passports, despite there being more effective measures (with similar societal costs) available. 

I don't fully know why we are and will do that. Part of it is probably confusion. I worry that it's also because we are comfortable, as a society, with measures that disproportionately hurt the young, the poor and the black. Why change a habit of a lifetime right? You can see that "it's no skin off my nose" attitude strongly in this thread.

Whatever the reason that we like this measure...it is not a rationale one.

Shielding isn't effective as someone put it it's like trying to maintain a lane in a swimming pool where you can pee then roping it off expecting a delineation.

The vaccine passport isn't effective either. France it worked in increasing vaccination rates. Here it hasn't

 

[phart]

I don't think the cost is relevant considering the stuation. Unless its cost is fraudulent ofc.

It's about whether it is effective or not. There is waning protection from neutralising infections. However the vaccine is the only thing stopping the collapse of the health services with regards to how these case numbers would have translated pre-vaccine. That protection has no significant waning so far.

So the plan is to try and induce vaccination in the hesitant. The passport hasn't done that yet. Nor is it going to in its current incarnation.

[aaid]

1 hour ago, Morrisandmoo said:

PS how does software development work in the public sector? 

From what I can tell it seems to be:

• Tech companies make £millions
• Tech company fucks up
• Tech company continues to make £millions
• Taxpayer takes it up the arse

Is it supposed to work like that? Seems weird. 

For example the company we've just handed £3m to for a shit job are doing pretty nicely...a record breaking quarter apparently, fueled by government contracts no less (in their own words). Good for them, glad we could help: Latest News - Jumio: End-to-End ID and Identity Verification Solutions

 

If you define success in relation to an IT project as delivery on time, to budget and to an agreed scope then most large and complex projects will be deemed to have failed, or at least not to have met that standard.

That happens in both the public and private sector, the difference being that unless you are directly involved, you won't hear about the private sector failures.

I remember reading about one particular project which had gone spectacularly over budget and late and the person in charged was asked how did that happen, to which the answer was "one day at a time" and there is a lot of truth in that.

The reasons why any project fails will be specific to that project and likely will be numerous, however, the single biggest cause of failure is what is known as Scope Creep.  This essentially means a change in requirements during the course of the project.   There's load of studies that show the incremental cost in changing requirements during the project lifecycle but simply put, the later you change scope, the more expensive this gets.

Sometimes that is necessary as the scope of the problem you are trying to tackle changes in ways that cannot be foreseen but usually that's not the case and is down to various different interested parties trying to get their own specific requirements into scope, other times its because there hasn't been a proper scoping exercise carried out at the start.

This is a particular problem in the public sector for a couple of reasons.  Firstly the changing political climate can mean changes in the "customer" during the project eg. a new minister comes in partway through a project and has his/her own ideas.  Secondly, in a large comparable private sector organisation, say Financial Services, you don't have the same level of external third party special interest groups who are trying to impact the scope and who for reasons not entirely linked to the project have to be accommodated.

When any large project gets into trouble - and that is most at some point in time - assuming you don't go for the nuclear option and it gets canned there's basically three things you can do to get it back on track.

The first one is to start to remove scope, essentially drop as much as you can to ensure that what is delivered meets the key requirements while maintaining the deadline.   In the private sector - in my experience - that's what tends to happen as it's usually better to deliver *something* on time rather than to deliver late - and then follow up with subsequent post implementation versions.

The second one is to extend the deadlines, ie. the project delivers late.  That's more common in the public sector - I think, and certainly countless stories about IT projects overrunning support that.  That's not a great approach IMHO as once you start to miss deadlines it becomes easier and easier to miss subsequent ones.

The third is to throw more money at it which is often unsuccessful and tends to be a last resort, as the COO of a major Benelux bank said to me once "Aaid, nine ladies cannot make a baby in a month".

Specific to the public sector there is - IMHO - an overreliance on outsourcing to third parties.  A lot of this makes sense when you understand how and why outsourcing works but - with the UK government in particular - there has been an ideological approach to outsourcing for decades, this seems to be a particular issue with the use of management consultants in oversight and design roles, delivery roles are less problematic.
 

[aaid]

4 minutes ago, phart said:

 

So the plan is to try and induce vaccination in the hesitant. The passport hasn't done that yet. Nor is it going to in its current incarnation.

I suspect that's at least partly true but it doesn't mean that it wasn't worth doing or indeed continuing with.

By now, I can't believe that there isn't anyone who hasn't been vaccinated so far who either wants to or who cannot for genuine medical reasons.  I doubt there's that many left unvaccinated that you could place in the "hesitant" category. Those who cannot be vaccinated excepted you are essentially talking about refuseniks for whatever reasons.

The only course of action - if the level of unvaccinated people represents a significant public health risk - is to go down and even more authoritarian route as is happening in Austria.

[Morrisandmoo]

35 minutes ago, aaid said:

If you define success 

...
 

Thanks, makes sense. 

[Morrisandmoo]

41 minutes ago, phart said:

I don't think the cost is relevant considering the stuation. Unless its cost is fraudulent ofc.

It's about whether it is effective or not. There is waning protection from neutralising infections. However the vaccine is the only thing stopping the collapse of the health services with regards to how these case numbers would have translated pre-vaccine. That protection has no significant waning so far.

So the plan is to try and induce vaccination in the hesitant. The passport hasn't done that yet. Nor is it going to in its current incarnation.

When I have been talking about cost previously it's been in it's widest sense - not just financial. Also societal costs e.g. impact on minority groups (obv talked about that quite a bit) as well as social cohesion more generally. 

We can't just say - minimise Covid at all costs. Because we will be fucked in every other regard if we do. Full cost and benefit assessment is relevant and necessary. 

In the case of vaccine passports: 

• Financial cost: relatively high (vs alternatives), albeit in absolute terms we waste money on all manners of shite
• Societal cost: very damaging
• Effectiveness: very low

Bad combination. 

[Lamia]

7 hours ago, Morrisandmoo said:

We'd save more lives (in Scotland) by shielding older people, pending boosters, than we will by extending passport controls. That's the main difference.

I'm not advocating for either though. Instead I'm predicting that we will choose less effective measures, like passports, despite there being more effective measures (with similar societal costs

You do realise that older people don’t live on an island on their own? We can’t even shield care home residents. This whole shielding the older people argument is full of just as many holes as vaccine passports 

[thplinth]

Oh so we are now admitting in the face of overwhelming evidence the passport is fuck all to do with keeping folk safe, quite the opposite in fact, but is to ‘induce’ people to take barely tested drugs which they have no legal recourse to sue the manufacturer even if turns out they acted with extreme negligence. 

I looked up ‘induce’. Did not see coerce, bully, intimidate, force, or blackmail in the definition. 

Induce… 😀

[phart]

On 9/13/2021 at 11:56 AM, phart said:

I've not been convinced of the efficacy of vaccine passports. For instance I got yellow fever vaccine almost 2 years ago now and i'd just not be allowed into East Africa without it. Barring some fraud which would need at least 3 people to be complicit it is very effective.

They need to state clearly what the reasons are for them and what results they hope to achieve.

Then state how bringing this in would achieve those results.

We are at half peak levels now in the NHS with winter looming. ICU filling up with unvaccinated youngsters in proportions hitherto unseen so that has to be mitigated at some point I guess.

 

"All the talk of vaccines had me checking my vaccine card.

Since 3rd of december 2019, i've had Diptheria, tetanus, polio, Hepatitis A, Mumps, measles, rubella, yellow fever and covid vaccinations, and malaria prophylactics

None of them provide sterilising immunity."

 

My first posts in here about vaccine passports.

I've never been convinced they'll work.

The vaccine does keep you safer.

"We're" not admitting anything. However you're opinions are whatever you want them to be.

You might think they're barely tested that's fine. The dozen folk that read this can judge how educated you are in these matters for themselves.

 

[Morrisandmoo]

1 hour ago, Lamia said:

You do realise that older people don’t live on an island on their own? We can’t even shield care home residents. This whole shielding the older people argument is full of just as many holes as vaccine passports 

Yes I realise that. My statement is still correct though. 

[thplinth]

They sure fucking can you back-peddling narrative-changing motherfathers. Lol.

[Morrisandmoo]

Also we must remember that we all agree that "shielding" is not the best idea. 

We all agree it's not a great idea - regardless of whether it's being done to protect the minority, punish the minority, or protect the majority. No Scottish minority lives on an island alone. 

We must remember this, when the Scottish Government (like the Austrian government) want to do it to some of the people that live here. 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Morrisandmoo

[phart]

15 minutes ago, thplinth said:

They sure fucking can you back-peddling narrative-changing motherfathers. Lol.

You got the vaccine.

That's how we know not to listen to what you say. You don't even believe it. Actions speak louder than words

If you think the narrative has been changed you'd demonstrate it by actions rather just keep repeating it. Again with actions not words.

Edited November 16, 2021 by phart

[phart]

9 minutes ago, Morrisandmoo said:

Also we must remember that we all agree that "shielding" is not the best idea. 

We all agree it's not a great idea - regardless of whether it's being done to protect the minority, punish the minority, or protect the majority. No Scottish minority lives on an island alone. 

We must remember this, when the Scottish Government (like the Austrian government) want to do it to some of the people that live here. 

They should just focus on the booster programme they have the data for that now. If folk don't want to take the vaccine then can try other methods other than what has been an ineffective passport programme. I posted the Danish dude studying this and what he has recommended , perhaps better to try other methods that are more effective.

[phart]

That's the current state for the eligible population. it's not too bad when you consider a lot of other places

[thplinth]

Well personally I was forced to take the vaccine to visit my sick mum in hospital. In the end I was not even able to do that.

And forced in effect by know it all wankers who think they know what is best for us all.

You bet I regret taking it. Prick.

[Morrisandmoo]

4 minutes ago, phart said:

That's the current state for the eligible population. it's not too bad when you consider a lot of other places

It's excellent and we should focus on that fact.

It:

(1) Sets expectations i.e. we can't vaccinate our way to zero deaths or anywhere close. Even if we close the 10% gap, it won't make that much of a difference, as we are already benefiting from a significant degree of protection. However, good to keep trying, but not obsess about it (e.g. through passports and punitive measures on the unvaccinated)

(2) Therefore informs us that other complementary measures are needed e.g. increased NHS capacity to cope with higher intensive care demand; perhaps time-bound restrictions on indoor gatherings during periods of high infection; more general health measures to counter-act increased mortality rates e.g. fitness and nutrition, mental health, etc. 

Agree that in immediate term going turbo on boosters is the way to "save chrismas" as they say. 

[phart]

10 minutes ago, Morrisandmoo said:

It's excellent and we should focus on that fact.

It:

(1) Sets expectations i.e. we can't vaccinate our way to zero deaths or anywhere close. Even if we close the 10% gap, it won't make that much of a difference, as we are already benefiting from a significant degree of protection. However, good to keep trying, but not obsess about it (e.g. through passports and punitive measures on the unvaccinated)

(2) Therefore informs us that other complementary measures are needed e.g. increased NHS capacity to cope with higher intensive care demand; perhaps time-bound restrictions on indoor gatherings during periods of high infection; more general health measures to counter-act increased mortality rates e.g. fitness and nutrition, mental health, etc. 

Agree that in immediate term going turbo on boosters is the way to "save chrismas" as they say. 

Some of the 10% will have already had it as well so injection or infection works.

The main problem is years of underfunding in all sorts of areas has made us succeptible to problems from the pandemic. No quick fix for it.

[Morrisandmoo]

22 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Well personally I was forced to take the vaccine to visit my sick mum in hospital. In the end I was not even able to do that.

And forced in effect by know it all wankers who think they know what is best for us all.

You bet I regret taking it. Prick.

I don't think we should ever allow people to be ill or dying on their own ever again. It's too traumatic. The family need to be able to make that decision (e.g. putting themselves at risk). 

 

[Morrisandmoo]

8 minutes ago, phart said:

Some of the 10% will have already had it as well so injection or infection works.

The main problem is years of underfunding in all sorts of areas has made us succeptible to problems from the pandemic. No quick fix for it.

Yup will need years of effort and a change in mindset - we can't run the NHS down to the bone.

Too few doctors, too few nurses, too few ICU beds, too little mental health provision; too much fat, too little exercise, too much alcohol (and that's just the TAMB on Monday nights 🤪) 

[aaid]

39 minutes ago, phart said:

That's the current state for the eligible population. it's not too bad when you consider a lot of other places

I don't want to be pedantic but how is possible to only have had the second dose?

On that basis alone, the graph is clearly bogus and not to be trusted 😂

On a serious point, given there doesn't appear to be any "Not Eligible", I assume this represents the eligible population, is there any indication what the ineligible population is, I'm guessing other then children under the vaccination age it's not a significant number. 

[phart]

 

here

[aaid]

4 minutes ago, phart said:

 

here

Cheers.

FTR, there's been approximately 733,000 births in Scotland in the last 12 years.  Some will have died, moved out of Scotland and others will have moved in.   That equates to 13.32% of the population.  That's a bit of a back of the fag packet calculation.  That distribution above will be more accurate but it suggests that other than being two young the level of ineligible people is very small.