Guilt Free Railing 19

[WouldBeGood]

Rail away!

No judgment, no resilience wankery.

Equal opportunity railing 😃

Could this be the last thread..?!

Ooh, exciting @mapleleavesreturn and @Scottishskifun!

@Y0uCann0tBeSer10us

This thread seems very timely in the context of Scotland's increasing cases and impending review of restrictions. It's the first global excess death comparison over the pandemic period (published in the Lancet) with excess deaths being used because this is the most reliable indicator that isn't dependent on testing levels or the variable definition of a COVID death. Three things jump out at me - firstly it confirms no statistical difference in excess deaths across the UK nations, with reckless England's actually being the lowest of the four. Secondly, the UK does not have one of the highest death rates in Europe (or even Western Europe if you exclude the eastern block with high levels of vaccine hesitancy) - we're actually en par with France and Germany and doing considerably better than Italy and Spain and a few others. I really wish this particular myth (that things are better on the continent) could be put to bed. Thirdly, looking across Europe there is no clear association between levels of restrictions and outcome - basically all the mask mandates, restrictions in restaurants etc. have made no discernible difference. Hopefully someone forwards this to Nicola, Devi and Jason before they decide on our fate.

I don’t think it will matter, because so many people are so, so attached to the idea that doing things they feel are ‘more sensible’ and ‘more cautious’ and ‘taking it seriously’ is just better, no matter whether it makes any actual difference or not.

You see it with comparisons to Western Europe too. “We should have mandated FFP2s like they do in Germany!” at times when Germany’s cases are eight times higher than the UK’s 🤷‍♀️

I find it kind of grimly fascinating in a way, the psychology of it. It’s like people want so badly to believe that there’s a way we can heavily suppress cases without much inconvenience (to them personally) that they’ll ignore the evidence of their own eyes when looking at figures.

I remember being on one of the covid threads on here when somebody in England was saying England would have much lower cases if it wasn’t for masks, and pointing out that a couple of months previously Scotland (with masks) had three times higher than England (no masks), and people twisting themselves into contortions to explain it by saying “well they’d have been even more than 3x higher if it wasn’t for masks” or “that’s because Nicola Sturgeon can’t close the border to covid-filled England”, because mask mandates work! even when they clearly are not working.

This is the concern now: that they'll try to keep the masks for longer because numbers are going up, despite the fact that masks clearly haven't stopped the numbers going up. It's this odd assertion that 'well, it may have been far worse if we hadn't...' notion.

To offer a kinder interpretation to why people are still wearing masks and testing, I'd suggest it's because people feel pretty powerless in the face of this pandemic and so are willing to do anything they can to help themselves and their families.

There was something on radio yesterday basically saying masks stopping is in doubt due to rising cases.

Regardless of what happens I won’t be wearing a mask as of next Monday enough is enough

Will it always remain a choice to open your home to a refugee or do you think it will become compulsory?
I cannot afford to host people in my home. I’m scraping by as it is. So this is worrying me.

If I had the finances then it wouldn’t be an issue.

They can fuck right off with that @runningpink- I have enough trouble with dd! Never mind refugees. 🤣

I’m actually quite pissed off with the surge of virtue as regards Ukrainian refugees: hasn’t been like this for refugees from the Middle East.

They can fuck if with more masks too

@runningpink no it definitely won't become compulsory to host refugees. That doesn't mean there won't be a guilt trip massaging coming out if they don't have enough volunteers. The reality is to host people you have to be vetted but also it needs to be right for the person staying as well who is likely to have a certain element of trauma going on.
They certainly won't force people and its a very personal choice from finance to trying to learn Ukrainian to help and the family dynamic. My DM for instance has already set wheels in motion to host a family but she is also very experienced having worked in domestic violence refuge and hosted refugees in the past.

My dds were asking if we were going to host a refugee but we don't have a spare room, and additionally I understand peace and quiet needs to be provided, which is certainly not us!

My parents will be thinking about it I expect. It certainly won't be compulsory running.

That’s reassuring @Scottishskifun thank you
I’m only just getting back to normal mental health wise from lockdowns and I’m not sure I could cope having strangers in the house.

No there's no way they can force anyone to take someone on they don't want - imagine the safeguarding problems with that if you force say an angry alcoholic into taking a traumatised young women with children?
It takes a particular person to host a refugee and I freely admit I'm not that person. Forcing it would be a disaster.

Ignore the guilt tripping, as WouldBeGood says it's only now that it's Europeans that we seem to be getting that.

I agree it takes someone special to host refugees.

We stayed with family for circa 6 mths between houses, by the end of it we were getting on each others nerves.

While on one hand it might be easier with strangers who don't have any emotional investment in your kids. On the other it could be a nightmare.

Yes I think the UK should support Ukraine refugees more than other nations. Nothing to do with race, everything to do with I disagree with people travelling across continents to seek refuge.
Yes the UK is attractive because many speak English as a secondary language so they think job prospects are better in UK than elsewhere.

I've just had a letter with a booked appt for my 11 year old for a covid shot - she's just had covid. So now I have to phone and rearrange. Bloody cheek to have booked them in without parents requesting it.

I can only cancel the appt on the phone and current wait time 25 mins. So what do we think the no show rate is going to be here for 5-11 year olds?

I didn't think they were rolling covid shots out to 5-11 yos.

I don't have to many concerns about my 11 yo getting it, but I'm really not convinced by my 5yo.

Oh yes - appointment letter for a shot miles away in 5 days time and her recent covid positive is reported but of course that didn't stop them wasting my time and theirs.

The letter explicitly says to cancel if recent covid, but you can only do so by phone....

I was going to say the same maple - got the Blue Envelope of Doom for DS this morning... appointment on a day we can't make, at a clinic somewhere in the mean streets at least 2 bus routes away. Can only cancel/ reschedule by phoning, rather than using the website which adults could do. I'm not intending spending any substantial time on the phone to faff around for something we don't want and didn't ask for... and I'm sure if I try to cancel there will be Hard Sell anyway. Why the fuck they aren't spending time and effort on the booster for vulnerable people I have no idea.

Meanwhile, can I book my now very overdue smear? No because gp still running 'urgent only' voicemail....

I gave up after 10, I might try again later...

I got an appointment for DS mikes away on a Sunday normally at 8.45. Didn’t bother to cancel it, took him to a drop in another time. I don’t feel the need to cancel appointments made by the state with no consultation, so just ignore

Agree it just looks like yet more coercion. I'd need more than 5 days to get my terrified of needles and tablets dd to have that jab anyway, even if she's not recently had covid.

My kids are teens and vaccinated but I'm confused
I thought because the science doesn't strongly support the benefits of vaccinating primary school kids, JCVI said it should be made available if they wanted to take up the offer🤷🏼‍♀️
So why are they sending out appointments?

Yep, you have that exactly right @patritus. The benefit to younger healthy children was so marginal given their negligible risk to start with and the fact that the overwhelming majority have now actually had COVID and gotten immunity from that anyway, it was only recommended as a non urgent option rather than a ‘recommendation’ as with other childhood vaccines. An option that was not expected to help currently in this wave but that may give some future protection against severe disease, maybe, but they’d probably be fine regardless. The JCVI was very clear on this point. It was as close to ‘if you want to make to feel better’ as you’re ever likely to get. They most definitely didn’t intend a mass rollout to the entire cohort. God knows why Scotland has decided to do it this way then - you could say that letters are the default but this wasn’t intended to be like the routine vaccine schedule in that it really doesn’t matter at all if the kids miss it, and the online appointment system is now well established and presumably could be easily extended to younger children. I have to assume it’s a form of coercion, pressurising parents by making it the default, and of course lots of parents won’t realise it’s optional (even more do than the usual vaccines). I think it’s pretty unethical tbh, as I doubt the letter includes the nuance that the JCVI did and probably just implies children need it to be safe.

It's really frustrating to read they have sent out mass vaccination appointments for covid for this cohort. Meanwhile in my area my DS immunisations for 3.5 years are delayed due to staff shortages......... I know which vaccination is more critical for young children it certainly isn't covid!

That’s awful @Scottishskifun. The JCVI were also abundantly clear that given the extremely low priority of this, it basically shouldn’t interfere with any other routine NHS programmes. Terrible decision making if they’re prioritising something that wasn’t even supposed to be a ‘rollout’ over vaccinations that will offer significant protection to children.

Exactly. The letter and accompanying leaflet are all "most children usually have mild illness but they can pass on their infection to others...may require a few days off school...for a few the symptoms may last longer than the usual two to three weeks and may have to go to hospital...children are less likely to become seriously ill if they are vaccinated". Totally avoiding the fact that many children wouldn't know they were ill at all and wouldn't even need a few days off school - let alone 2-3 weeks...

I know its all unpredictable, and some 5-11yo ARE badly affected - but really, I think it is totally disproportionate to put so much emphasis on this rather than the usual childhood vaccine schedule (or even cervical smears). It just doesn't sound like what the JCVI intended - and the allocation of an appointment that is really difficult to cancel makes it sound more important than it is, and seems wrong.

It actually says ‘the usual 2-3 weeks’? That’s just pure misinformation surely. It’s been all round our school and I couldn’t name a single (primary aged) child who was ill for more than a couple of days, and even that tends to be the level of a cold (assuming there were any symptoms at all). Have these people even spoken to parents?? In fact come to think of it, of all the adults I also know who’ve had it recently 2-3 weeks would seem wildly out of step with severity. Even my older relatives who had it were only ill for a week. God knows where they’re getting their data!