Drakeford unbelievable

Has said the vaccine is not being given quicker to people because he doesn't want to use all their supply up quickly and have the people administering the vaccine standing around doing nothing , that's unbelievable,there are people dying in case he hasn't noticed, and no this is not a political points scoring post , what he's doing can't be defended

nothing about this pandemic will surprise me...nothing..

He worded it poorly but there is absolutely an argument for going slow and steady. I’m not fully clued up on the logistics but there is one guarantee. If we use up our entire vaccine supplies then the vaccinating nurses and doctors are going to go and book shifts back on the wards or GPs or surgeries or hospitals etc. These people don’t have the luxury to be sitting around for weeks without income. Then the new vaccine comes in and suddenly there is a massive lack of staff and due to how their work operates they're booked out for the next two weeks.

Wales has currently administered 160k of our 270k supply with no more doses expected until the start of Feb.
The issue with the Pfizer vaccine is it has quite particular storage requirements and when the next batch comes in a certain amount of workers will be needed to administer it. Accelerating the process now can cause issues in the future if when the next batch comes in there’s an inadequate number of staff available to administer the vaccines. Currently we might be able to vaccinate quicker than the targets set out and get all 270k doses given out a week early but when the next batch comes in an understaffed vaccination centre might only be able to administer 850 of the 1000 jabs they receive whereas if we administer 270k by the time of the target date and the next day another shipment comes in vaccination centres should be fully staffed and able to vaccinate the full amount.

As I said it’s very poorly worded but it’s not a strategy he’s come up with on a whim. It’s been discussed as a viable option.

Doesn't make sense? Staff are in place at mass vaccination centres only place Pfizer is administered? If stop giving it what are the staff doing until next batch ready? Sit around do nothing .... give out oxford vaccine ....or go back to normal jobs? Whatever it is not giving Pfizer vaccine does not make sense logistically ..... if staff not giving oxford vaccine and have gone back to normal jobs they are sitting doing nothing which he says dont want to do? If are giving oxford vaccine then may as well keep giving Pfizer one as in situe! It is an illogical statement..

When it was reported that Wales was lagging behind the other nations on role out he said. "it's not a sprint" and now this??

The man is totally out of his depth and should resign imo.

People are dying and he don't want vaccinators hanging round and it's not a sprint? Couldn't make it up

He worded it poorly but there is absolutely an argument for going slow and steady. I’m not fully clued up on the logistics but there is one guarantee. If we use up our entire vaccine supplies then the vaccinating nurses and doctors are going to go and book shifts back on the wards or GPs or surgeries or hospitals etc. These people don’t have the luxury to be sitting around for weeks without income. Then the new vaccine comes in and suddenly there is a massive lack of staff and due to how their work operates they're booked out for the next two weeks.

Wales has currently administered 160k of our 270k supply with no more doses expected until the start of Feb.
The issue with the Pfizer vaccine is it has quite particular storage requirements and when the next batch comes in a certain amount of workers will be needed to administer it. Accelerating the process now can cause issues in the future if when the next batch comes in there’s an inadequate number of staff available to administer the vaccines. Currently we might be able to vaccinate quicker than the targets set out and get all 270k doses given out a week early but when the next batch comes in an understaffed vaccination centre might only be able to administer 850 of the 1000 jabs they receive whereas if we administer 270k by the time of the target date and the next day another shipment comes in vaccination centres should be fully staffed and able to vaccinate the full amount.

As I said it’s very poorly worded but it’s not a strategy he’s come up with on a whim. It’s been discussed as a viable option.

no mate..that 110k vaccinations now could save save lives of people who will now die ? all these restrictions and he is running the vaccination role out as if its a time and motion experiment...

He worded it poorly but there is absolutely an argument for going slow and steady. I’m not fully clued up on the logistics but there is one guarantee. If we use up our entire vaccine supplies then the vaccinating nurses and doctors are going to go and book shifts back on the wards or GPs or surgeries or hospitals etc. These people don’t have the luxury to be sitting around for weeks without income. Then the new vaccine comes in and suddenly there is a massive lack of staff and due to how their work operates they're booked out for the next two weeks.

Wales has currently administered 160k of our 270k supply with no more doses expected until the start of Feb.
The issue with the Pfizer vaccine is it has quite particular storage requirements and when the next batch comes in a certain amount of workers will be needed to administer it. Accelerating the process now can cause issues in the future if when the next batch comes in there’s an inadequate number of staff available to administer the vaccines. Currently we might be able to vaccinate quicker than the targets set out and get all 270k doses given out a week early but when the next batch comes in an understaffed vaccination centre might only be able to administer 850 of the 1000 jabs they receive whereas if we administer 270k by the time of the target date and the next day another shipment comes in vaccination centres should be fully staffed and able to vaccinate the full amount.

As I said it’s very poorly worded but it’s not a strategy he’s come up with on a whim. It’s been discussed as a viable option.

no mate..that 110k vaccinations now could save save lives of people who will now die ? all these restrictions and he is running the vaccination role out as if its a time and motion experiment...

The remaining 110k doses have absolutely zero bearing on the current restrictions. We could administer all 110k tomorrow or over the course of two weeks and restrictions won’t be lifted. The next scheduled batch of vaccines is the start of February, 270k people with the first dose is not enough to warrant changing restrictions and won’t make the next batch arrive any earlier.

No one in this thread knows the full logistics of the vaccine role out or behind the scenes discussions that are currently going on, myself included. But no doubt a consideration has been made that x% of the current vaccine work force might be lost if they’re told they are out of work for a considerable amount of time. The costs and advantages of distributing the current batch as fast as possible compared to only being able to distribute the next batch at a slower pace will have been talked about in length. Other issues could be with more wastage of the next batch or the next role out may have a delayed start due to waiting for staff to return.

He worded it poorly but there is absolutely an argument for going slow and steady. I’m not fully clued up on the logistics but there is one guarantee. If we use up our entire vaccine supplies then the vaccinating nurses and doctors are going to go and book shifts back on the wards or GPs or surgeries or hospitals etc. These people don’t have the luxury to be sitting around for weeks without income. Then the new vaccine comes in and suddenly there is a massive lack of staff and due to how their work operates they're booked out for the next two weeks.

Wales has currently administered 160k of our 270k supply with no more doses expected until the start of Feb.
The issue with the Pfizer vaccine is it has quite particular storage requirements and when the next batch comes in a certain amount of workers will be needed to administer it. Accelerating the process now can cause issues in the future if when the next batch comes in there’s an inadequate number of staff available to administer the vaccines. Currently we might be able to vaccinate quicker than the targets set out and get all 270k doses given out a week early but when the next batch comes in an understaffed vaccination centre might only be able to administer 850 of the 1000 jabs they receive whereas if we administer 270k by the time of the target date and the next day another shipment comes in vaccination centres should be fully staffed and able to vaccinate the full amount.

As I said it’s very poorly worded but it’s not a strategy he’s come up with on a whim. It’s been discussed as a viable option.

no mate..that 110k vaccinations now could save save lives of people who will now die ? all these restrictions and he is running the vaccination role out as if its a time and motion experiment...

He does think it's better for people to potentially die than have people hang around doing nothing! How else can this be interpreted?

He worded it poorly but there is absolutely an argument for going slow and steady. I’m not fully clued up on the logistics but there is one guarantee. If we use up our entire vaccine supplies then the vaccinating nurses and doctors are going to go and book shifts back on the wards or GPs or surgeries or hospitals etc. These people don’t have the luxury to be sitting around for weeks without income. Then the new vaccine comes in and suddenly there is a massive lack of staff and due to how their work operates they're booked out for the next two weeks.

Wales has currently administered 160k of our 270k supply with no more doses expected until the start of Feb.
The issue with the Pfizer vaccine is it has quite particular storage requirements and when the next batch comes in a certain amount of workers will be needed to administer it. Accelerating the process now can cause issues in the future if when the next batch comes in there’s an inadequate number of staff available to administer the vaccines. Currently we might be able to vaccinate quicker than the targets set out and get all 270k doses given out a week early but when the next batch comes in an understaffed vaccination centre might only be able to administer 850 of the 1000 jabs they receive whereas if we administer 270k by the time of the target date and the next day another shipment comes in vaccination centres should be fully staffed and able to vaccinate the full amount.

As I said it’s very poorly worded but it’s not a strategy he’s come up with on a whim. It’s been discussed as a viable option.

no mate..that 110k vaccinations now could save save lives of people who will now die ? all these restrictions and he is running the vaccination role out as if its a time and motion experiment...

He does think it's better for people to potentially die than have people hang around doing nothing! How else can this be interpreted?

I can only think of one other explanation and it's based on a bit of advice Homer Simpson gave Bart. "If the Pfizer vaccine is really really difficult to administer perhaps it better not to try".

Of course the real reason Wales is struggling in the vaccine rollout is that Drakeford and Gething are both hold up in their bunkers A.K.A Working from home and have abdicated ALL responsibility for the vaccine rollout to the Health Boards many of which are in "Special Measures".



Apologies for dissing Homer.

He worded it poorly but there is absolutely an argument for going slow and steady. I’m not fully clued up on the logistics but there is one guarantee. If we use up our entire vaccine supplies then the vaccinating nurses and doctors are going to go and book shifts back on the wards or GPs or surgeries or hospitals etc. These people don’t have the luxury to be sitting around for weeks without income. Then the new vaccine comes in and suddenly there is a massive lack of staff and due to how their work operates they're booked out for the next two weeks.

Wales has currently administered 160k of our 270k supply with no more doses expected until the start of Feb.
The issue with the Pfizer vaccine is it has quite particular storage requirements and when the next batch comes in a certain amount of workers will be needed to administer it. Accelerating the process now can cause issues in the future if when the next batch comes in there’s an inadequate number of staff available to administer the vaccines. Currently we might be able to vaccinate quicker than the targets set out and get all 270k doses given out a week early but when the next batch comes in an understaffed vaccination centre might only be able to administer 850 of the 1000 jabs they receive whereas if we administer 270k by the time of the target date and the next day another shipment comes in vaccination centres should be fully staffed and able to vaccinate the full amount.

As I said it’s very poorly worded but it’s not a strategy he’s come up with on a whim. It’s been discussed as a viable option.

no mate..that 110k vaccinations now could save save lives of people who will now die ? all these restrictions and he is running the vaccination role out as if its a time and motion experiment...

He does think it's better for people to potentially die than have people hang around doing nothing! How else can this be interpreted?

From what I understand this current batch equates to just 5.4% of the total vaccines required for Wales’ adult population. Drakeford is talking about slowing the role out of the remaining 110k to avoid complications with the role out at future stages. If the next batch comes in and is significantly larger, which due to increased production and better logistical understanding is likely, then having a reduced workforce could be more damaging than slowing the release of the remainder of this batch.

This isn’t something Drakeford has decided on his lonesome as some seem to think. This will have been discussed amongst dozens of people including experts in the various procedures of the role out. The 2 options aren’t “people die” or “people sitting around doing nothing”, it’s “x number of people could potentially die now” and “y number of people could potentially die later”. Presumably Y came out as the larger number, hence the current strategy. If this has been deemed an effective strategy then so be it.

He worded it poorly but there is absolutely an argument for going slow and steady. I’m not fully clued up on the logistics but there is one guarantee. If we use up our entire vaccine supplies then the vaccinating nurses and doctors are going to go and book shifts back on the wards or GPs or surgeries or hospitals etc. These people don’t have the luxury to be sitting around for weeks without income. Then the new vaccine comes in and suddenly there is a massive lack of staff and due to how their work operates they're booked out for the next two weeks.

Wales has currently administered 160k of our 270k supply with no more doses expected until the start of Feb.
The issue with the Pfizer vaccine is it has quite particular storage requirements and when the next batch comes in a certain amount of workers will be needed to administer it. Accelerating the process now can cause issues in the future if when the next batch comes in there’s an inadequate number of staff available to administer the vaccines. Currently we might be able to vaccinate quicker than the targets set out and get all 270k doses given out a week early but when the next batch comes in an understaffed vaccination centre might only be able to administer 850 of the 1000 jabs they receive whereas if we administer 270k by the time of the target date and the next day another shipment comes in vaccination centres should be fully staffed and able to vaccinate the full amount.

As I said it’s very poorly worded but it’s not a strategy he’s come up with on a whim. It’s been discussed as a viable option.

no mate..that 110k vaccinations now could save save lives of people who will now die ? all these restrictions and he is running the vaccination role out as if its a time and motion experiment...

He does think it's better for people to potentially die than have people hang around doing nothing! How else can this be interpreted?

From what I understand this current batch equates to just 5.4% of the total vaccines required for Wales’ adult population. Drakeford is talking about slowing the role out of the remaining 110k to avoid complications with the role out at future stages. If the next batch comes in and is significantly larger, which due to increased production and better logistical understanding is likely, then having a reduced workforce could be more damaging than slowing the release of the remainder of this batch.

This isn’t something Drakeford has decided on his lonesome as some seem to think. This will have been discussed amongst dozens of people including experts in the various procedures of the role out. The 2 options aren’t “people die” or “people sitting around doing nothing”, it’s “x number of people could potentially die now” and “y number of people could potentially die later”. Presumably Y came out as the larger number, hence the current strategy. If this has been deemed an effective strategy then so be it.

And that ends the party political broadcast on behalf of the WAG

Where are you getting all this information from??

What your saying may well be true or partly true I really don’t know because part of the problem is that Drakeford and his motley crew are just so bad at communicating any important information to the public

They constantly contradict each other and as for Vaughan Gethin, never known someone go AWOL so much when there are difficult questions to answer. He’s only in his bloody spare bedroom can’t be that difficult to get hold of him for some answers

He worded it poorly but there is absolutely an argument for going slow and steady. I’m not fully clued up on the logistics but there is one guarantee. If we use up our entire vaccine supplies then the vaccinating nurses and doctors are going to go and book shifts back on the wards or GPs or surgeries or hospitals etc. These people don’t have the luxury to be sitting around for weeks without income. Then the new vaccine comes in and suddenly there is a massive lack of staff and due to how their work operates they're booked out for the next two weeks.

Wales has currently administered 160k of our 270k supply with no more doses expected until the start of Feb.
The issue with the Pfizer vaccine is it has quite particular storage requirements and when the next batch comes in a certain amount of workers will be needed to administer it. Accelerating the process now can cause issues in the future if when the next batch comes in there’s an inadequate number of staff available to administer the vaccines. Currently we might be able to vaccinate quicker than the targets set out and get all 270k doses given out a week early but when the next batch comes in an understaffed vaccination centre might only be able to administer 850 of the 1000 jabs they receive whereas if we administer 270k by the time of the target date and the next day another shipment comes in vaccination centres should be fully staffed and able to vaccinate the full amount.

As I said it’s very poorly worded but it’s not a strategy he’s come up with on a whim. It’s been discussed as a viable option.

no mate..that 110k vaccinations now could save save lives of people who will now die ? all these restrictions and he is running the vaccination role out as if its a time and motion experiment...

The remaining 110k doses have absolutely zero bearing on the current restrictions. We could administer all 110k tomorrow or over the course of two weeks and restrictions won’t be lifted. The next scheduled batch of vaccines is the start of February, 270k people with the first dose is not enough to warrant changing restrictions and won’t make the next batch arrive any earlier.

No one in this thread knows the full logistics of the vaccine role out or behind the scenes discussions that are currently going on, myself included. But no doubt a consideration has been made that x% of the current vaccine work force might be lost if they’re told they are out of work for a considerable amount of time. The costs and advantages of distributing the current batch as fast as possible compared to only being able to distribute the next batch at a slower pace will have been talked about in length. Other issues could be with more wastage of the next batch or the next role out may have a delayed start due to waiting for staff to return.

my point was joe public are being asked to sacrifice through restrictions while he and those he talks to just get to be stupid... ....yes i agree they talk but its who is talking is the key.....and how is cost suddenly involved ? ....pretty obvious if you can save someones life.. save it...

He worded it poorly but there is absolutely an argument for going slow and steady. I’m not fully clued up on the logistics but there is one guarantee. If we use up our entire vaccine supplies then the vaccinating nurses and doctors are going to go and book shifts back on the wards or GPs or surgeries or hospitals etc. These people don’t have the luxury to be sitting around for weeks without income. Then the new vaccine comes in and suddenly there is a massive lack of staff and due to how their work operates they're booked out for the next two weeks.

Wales has currently administered 160k of our 270k supply with no more doses expected until the start of Feb.
The issue with the Pfizer vaccine is it has quite particular storage requirements and when the next batch comes in a certain amount of workers will be needed to administer it. Accelerating the process now can cause issues in the future if when the next batch comes in there’s an inadequate number of staff available to administer the vaccines. Currently we might be able to vaccinate quicker than the targets set out and get all 270k doses given out a week early but when the next batch comes in an understaffed vaccination centre might only be able to administer 850 of the 1000 jabs they receive whereas if we administer 270k by the time of the target date and the next day another shipment comes in vaccination centres should be fully staffed and able to vaccinate the full amount.

As I said it’s very poorly worded but it’s not a strategy he’s come up with on a whim. It’s been discussed as a viable option.

no mate..that 110k vaccinations now could save save lives of people who will now die ? all these restrictions and he is running the vaccination role out as if its a time and motion experiment...

He does think it's better for people to potentially die than have people hang around doing nothing! How else can this be interpreted?

From what I understand this current batch equates to just 5.4% of the total vaccines required for Wales’ adult population. Drakeford is talking about slowing the role out of the remaining 110k to avoid complications with the role out at future stages. If the next batch comes in and is significantly larger, which due to increased production and better logistical understanding is likely, then having a reduced workforce could be more damaging than slowing the release of the remainder of this batch.

This isn’t something Drakeford has decided on his lonesome as some seem to think. This will have been discussed amongst dozens of people including experts in the various procedures of the role out. The 2 options aren’t “people die” or “people sitting around doing nothing”, it’s “x number of people could potentially die now” and “y number of people could potentially die later”. Presumably Y came out as the larger number, hence the current strategy. If this has been deemed an effective strategy then so be it.

And that ends the party political broadcast on behalf of the WAG

Where are you getting all this information from??

What your saying may well be true or partly true I really don’t know because part of the problem is that Drakeford and his motley crew are just so bad at communicating any important information to the public

They constantly contradict each other and as for Vaughan Gethin, never known someone go AWOL so much when there are difficult questions to answer. He’s only in his bloody spare bedroom can’t be that difficult to get hold of him for some answers

Which information? The vaccinated numbers and available dose numbers are fairly widely reported online. As for nurses and volunteer health care workers working on 2 week slots, I've got family and friends currently working in the NHS in varying roles. One of which works in a vaccine distribution centre in the Midlands and explained that their system is based around working in a single ward/area for a 2 week period. This is to stop excessive movement between wards.

As for the next batch of vaccines being larger than this one, that is admittedly only an assumption. But I think a sensible one. As more vaccines are approved, as production increases, etc, more will become available. Plus distribution lines have been established and capacity will have increased.

As I said I don't know the full discussions that have been had or ideas that have been proposed but the idea that Drakeford has just woken up this morning and decided this on a whim is ludicrous.

I am by no means an expert in any of the aspects of this vaccine role out but even I can quite easily think of some scenarios were this would be a necessary strategy:

Vaccinate 110k people this week, vaccination staff are told the next shipment doesn't arrive for 2 weeks, instead of being unemployed for 2 weeks they take up other jobs, suddenly it turns out the next shipment is a few days early but there's a reduced workforce to administer it so you have to throw away jabs that have gone off (I think this timeframe is ~3 days from opening the 1000 jab batch).

A trucker company cocks up the new paper work leaving the EU/entering the UK, suddenly all 110k people waiting for their second jab miss it and have essentially wasted jab 1, spreading out the jabs mean maybe only 25k miss the deadline for jab 2.

Similar scenario as previous. Vaccinate 110k people this week, 11 weeks time a truck bound for Wales skids off a road and crashes destroying 10's of thousands of doses, if 110k people are all at the 12 week deadline you need to redistribute jabs from first timers to deal with the reduced supply. If only 25k are at the deadline you have time to divert extra vaccines to replace the lost ones.

I totally agree that the communication of this has been awful but I will accept that much more knowledgeable people than I or anyone on this board will have evaluated every possibility to the extreme and if this is the outcome I accept that decision.

WAG have had 10 months to prepare for vaccine rollout. Shambolic situation. Lets watch them die while vaccinators are on a go slow

He worded it poorly but there is absolutely an argument for going slow and steady. I’m not fully clued up on the logistics but there is one guarantee. If we use up our entire vaccine supplies then the vaccinating nurses and doctors are going to go and book shifts back on the wards or GPs or surgeries or hospitals etc. These people don’t have the luxury to be sitting around for weeks without income. Then the new vaccine comes in and suddenly there is a massive lack of staff and due to how their work operates they're booked out for the next two weeks.

Wales has currently administered 160k of our 270k supply with no more doses expected until the start of Feb.
The issue with the Pfizer vaccine is it has quite particular storage requirements and when the next batch comes in a certain amount of workers will be needed to administer it. Accelerating the process now can cause issues in the future if when the next batch comes in there’s an inadequate number of staff available to administer the vaccines. Currently we might be able to vaccinate quicker than the targets set out and get all 270k doses given out a week early but when the next batch comes in an understaffed vaccination centre might only be able to administer 850 of the 1000 jabs they receive whereas if we administer 270k by the time of the target date and the next day another shipment comes in vaccination centres should be fully staffed and able to vaccinate the full amount.

As I said it’s very poorly worded but it’s not a strategy he’s come up with on a whim. It’s been discussed as a viable option.

no mate..that 110k vaccinations now could save save lives of people who will now die ? all these restrictions and he is running the vaccination role out as if its a time and motion experiment...

The remaining 110k doses have absolutely zero bearing on the current restrictions. We could administer all 110k tomorrow or over the course of two weeks and restrictions won’t be lifted. The next scheduled batch of vaccines is the start of February, 270k people with the first dose is not enough to warrant changing restrictions and won’t make the next batch arrive any earlier.

No one in this thread knows the full logistics of the vaccine role out or behind the scenes discussions that are currently going on, myself included. But no doubt a consideration has been made that x% of the current vaccine work force might be lost if they’re told they are out of work for a considerable amount of time. The costs and advantages of distributing the current batch as fast as possible compared to only being able to distribute the next batch at a slower pace will have been talked about in length. Other issues could be with more wastage of the next batch or the next role out may have a delayed start due to waiting for staff to return.

my point was joe public are being asked to sacrifice through restrictions while he and those he talks to just get to be stupid... ....yes i agree they talk but its who is talking is the key.....and how is cost suddenly involved ? ....pretty obvious if you can save someones life.. save it...

By cost I mean overall cost not monetary cost. For example, 15k people getting their jab a week later could mean 5k people in the next shipment don't get it at all. So the costs are 15k people get it 1 week late or 5k people get it 6 weeks late.

"....pretty obvious if you can save someones life.. save it..."
As for this, that's a ridiculously large oversimplification though. If Wales had 100 million doses and a workforce to administer them, then yes, the simple thing is to vaccinate everyone as fast as possible. In actuality though we don't and careful and extensive planning is required to navigate the vaccine roll out as effectively as possible. Read through my replies to others in this thread, I've mentioned some reasons why this policy might be adopted.
Also if you truly believe life to be as simple as the above statement, checkout the "trolley car problem", it's a very classic conundrum on sacrifice and decision making. Sometimes life isn't as easy as your comment makes out.

He worded it poorly but there is absolutely an argument for going slow and steady. I’m not fully clued up on the logistics but there is one guarantee. If we use up our entire vaccine supplies then the vaccinating nurses and doctors are going to go and book shifts back on the wards or GPs or surgeries or hospitals etc. These people don’t have the luxury to be sitting around for weeks without income. Then the new vaccine comes in and suddenly there is a massive lack of staff and due to how their work operates they're booked out for the next two weeks.

Wales has currently administered 160k of our 270k supply with no more doses expected until the start of Feb.
The issue with the Pfizer vaccine is it has quite particular storage requirements and when the next batch comes in a certain amount of workers will be needed to administer it. Accelerating the process now can cause issues in the future if when the next batch comes in there’s an inadequate number of staff available to administer the vaccines. Currently we might be able to vaccinate quicker than the targets set out and get all 270k doses given out a week early but when the next batch comes in an understaffed vaccination centre might only be able to administer 850 of the 1000 jabs they receive whereas if we administer 270k by the time of the target date and the next day another shipment comes in vaccination centres should be fully staffed and able to vaccinate the full amount.

As I said it’s very poorly worded but it’s not a strategy he’s come up with on a whim. It’s been discussed as a viable option.

no mate..that 110k vaccinations now could save save lives of people who will now die ? all these restrictions and he is running the vaccination role out as if its a time and motion experiment...

The remaining 110k doses have absolutely zero bearing on the current restrictions. We could administer all 110k tomorrow or over the course of two weeks and restrictions won’t be lifted. The next scheduled batch of vaccines is the start of February, 270k people with the first dose is not enough to warrant changing restrictions and won’t make the next batch arrive any earlier.

No one in this thread knows the full logistics of the vaccine role out or behind the scenes discussions that are currently going on, myself included. But no doubt a consideration has been made that x% of the current vaccine work force might be lost if they’re told they are out of work for a considerable amount of time. The costs and advantages of distributing the current batch as fast as possible compared to only being able to distribute the next batch at a slower pace will have been talked about in length. Other issues could be with more wastage of the next batch or the next role out may have a delayed start due to waiting for staff to return.

my point was joe public are being asked to sacrifice through restrictions while he and those he talks to just get to be stupid... ....yes i agree they talk but its who is talking is the key.....and how is cost suddenly involved ? ....pretty obvious if you can save someones life.. save it...

Looking at it logically what drakeford is saying rather than have staff doing nothing it's better to have them vaccinating 20 people a day instead of 40 until new batch is ready rather than using up vaccine in one go and staff spend a month doing nothing until new batch arrives? Either way they wont be very busy if my experience on Friday is anything to go by? Also Think reason for this statement is there are lots of cancellations at centres and do not want Pfizer vaccine wasted as it is difficult to keep once thawed! This shows lack of organisation regarding distribution and storage of vaccine however difficult it is to do, after all they suppose to have experts to call on for advice!

He worded it poorly but there is absolutely an argument for going slow and steady. I’m not fully clued up on the logistics but there is one guarantee. If we use up our entire vaccine supplies then the vaccinating nurses and doctors are going to go and book shifts back on the wards or GPs or surgeries or hospitals etc. These people don’t have the luxury to be sitting around for weeks without income. Then the new vaccine comes in and suddenly there is a massive lack of staff and due to how their work operates they're booked out for the next two weeks.

Wales has currently administered 160k of our 270k supply with no more doses expected until the start of Feb.
The issue with the Pfizer vaccine is it has quite particular storage requirements and when the next batch comes in a certain amount of workers will be needed to administer it. Accelerating the process now can cause issues in the future if when the next batch comes in there’s an inadequate number of staff available to administer the vaccines. Currently we might be able to vaccinate quicker than the targets set out and get all 270k doses given out a week early but when the next batch comes in an understaffed vaccination centre might only be able to administer 850 of the 1000 jabs they receive whereas if we administer 270k by the time of the target date and the next day another shipment comes in vaccination centres should be fully staffed and able to vaccinate the full amount.

As I said it’s very poorly worded but it’s not a strategy he’s come up with on a whim. It’s been discussed as a viable option.

no mate..that 110k vaccinations now could save save lives of people who will now die ? all these restrictions and he is running the vaccination role out as if its a time and motion experiment...

He does think it's better for people to potentially die than have people hang around doing nothing! How else can this be interpreted?

From what I understand this current batch equates to just 5.4% of the total vaccines required for Wales’ adult population. Drakeford is talking about slowing the role out of the remaining 110k to avoid complications with the role out at future stages. If the next batch comes in and is significantly larger, which due to increased production and better logistical understanding is likely, then having a reduced workforce could be more damaging than slowing the release of the remainder of this batch.

This isn’t something Drakeford has decided on his lonesome as some seem to think. This will have been discussed amongst dozens of people including experts in the various procedures of the role out. The 2 options aren’t “people die” or “people sitting around doing nothing”, it’s “x number of people could potentially die now” and “y number of people could potentially die later”. Presumably Y came out as the larger number, hence the current strategy. If this has been deemed an effective strategy then so be it.

And that ends the party political broadcast on behalf of the WAG

Where are you getting all this information from??

What your saying may well be true or partly true I really don’t know because part of the problem is that Drakeford and his motley crew are just so bad at communicating any important information to the public

They constantly contradict each other and as for Vaughan Gethin, never known someone go AWOL so much when there are difficult questions to answer. He’s only in his bloody spare bedroom can’t be that difficult to get hold of him for some answers

Which information? The vaccinated numbers and available dose numbers are fairly widely reported online. As for nurses and volunteer health care workers working on 2 week slots, I've got family and friends currently working in the NHS in varying roles. One of which works in a vaccine distribution centre in the Midlands and explained that their system is based around working in a single ward/area for a 2 week period. This is to stop excessive movement between wards.

As for the next batch of vaccines being larger than this one, that is admittedly only an assumption. But I think a sensible one. As more vaccines are approved, as production increases, etc, more will become available. Plus distribution lines have been established and capacity will have increased.

As I said I don't know the full discussions that have been had or ideas that have been proposed but the idea that Drakeford has just woken up this morning and decided this on a whim is ludicrous.

I am by no means an expert in any of the aspects of this vaccine role out but even I can quite easily think of some scenarios were this would be a necessary strategy:

Vaccinate 110k people this week, vaccination staff are told the next shipment doesn't arrive for 2 weeks, instead of being unemployed for 2 weeks they take up other jobs, suddenly it turns out the next shipment is a few days early but there's a reduced workforce to administer it so you have to throw away jabs that have gone off (I think this timeframe is ~3 days from opening the 1000 jab batch).

A trucker company cocks up the new paper work leaving the EU/entering the UK, suddenly all 110k people waiting for their second jab miss it and have essentially wasted jab 1, spreading out the jabs mean maybe only 25k miss the deadline for jab 2.

Similar scenario as previous. Vaccinate 110k people this week, 11 weeks time a truck bound for Wales skids off a road and crashes destroying 10's of thousands of doses, if 110k people are all at the 12 week deadline you need to redistribute jabs from first timers to deal with the reduced supply. If only 25k are at the deadline you have time to divert extra vaccines to replace the lost ones.

I totally agree that the communication of this has been awful but I will accept that much more knowledgeable people than I or anyone on this board will have evaluated every possibility to the extreme and if this is the outcome I accept that decision.

I can smell the left wing of the looney left in this.

In my opinion there is no justification for not using vaccines as quickly as possible even if as a result only one person is saved from the need for hospital care, even more so if just one life is saved there is absolutely no moral argument against using vaccines as soon as possible.

In respect of bringing an end to these crippling economic restrictions that threaten hundreds of thousands of job again there is no moral argument against using these vaccines as quickly as possible. Whatever the cost of moving people from one role in the NHS to another it is nothing compared to the cost to the economy of these constant business closures.

Most of ALL there is no moral argument to justify why people with life limiting conditions are having their treatment delayed whilst Looney Left Governments like Drakeford and his cronies delay rolling out the vaccine which offers the best route out of this nightmare. How many people have to die before their time to justify that?

This just goes to show how much Drakeford and co are out of their depth, first to say this is not a sprint when the majority of the welsh people just want to get the vaccine so restrictions can be lifted and then to tell us he doesn’t want to administer all the vaccines as DR’s and nurses will be sitting around doing nothing is unbelievable.
Just get the vaccine out, if he’s sitting on 150000 doses it’ll take 15 days to get through them at the current rate and then they’ll have more doses then. The guy is a clown

He worded it poorly but there is absolutely an argument for going slow and steady. I’m not fully clued up on the logistics but there is one guarantee. If we use up our entire vaccine supplies then the vaccinating nurses and doctors are going to go and book shifts back on the wards or GPs or surgeries or hospitals etc. These people don’t have the luxury to be sitting around for weeks without income. Then the new vaccine comes in and suddenly there is a massive lack of staff and due to how their work operates they're booked out for the next two weeks.

Wales has currently administered 160k of our 270k supply with no more doses expected until the start of Feb.
The issue with the Pfizer vaccine is it has quite particular storage requirements and when the next batch comes in a certain amount of workers will be needed to administer it. Accelerating the process now can cause issues in the future if when the next batch comes in there’s an inadequate number of staff available to administer the vaccines. Currently we might be able to vaccinate quicker than the targets set out and get all 270k doses given out a week early but when the next batch comes in an understaffed vaccination centre might only be able to administer 850 of the 1000 jabs they receive whereas if we administer 270k by the time of the target date and the next day another shipment comes in vaccination centres should be fully staffed and able to vaccinate the full amount.

As I said it’s very poorly worded but it’s not a strategy he’s come up with on a whim. It’s been discussed as a viable option.

no mate..that 110k vaccinations now could save save lives of people who will now die ? all these restrictions and he is running the vaccination role out as if its a time and motion experiment...

The remaining 110k doses have absolutely zero bearing on the current restrictions. We could administer all 110k tomorrow or over the course of two weeks and restrictions won’t be lifted. The next scheduled batch of vaccines is the start of February, 270k people with the first dose is not enough to warrant changing restrictions and won’t make the next batch arrive any earlier.

No one in this thread knows the full logistics of the vaccine role out or behind the scenes discussions that are currently going on, myself included. But no doubt a consideration has been made that x% of the current vaccine work force might be lost if they’re told they are out of work for a considerable amount of time. The costs and advantages of distributing the current batch as fast as possible compared to only being able to distribute the next batch at a slower pace will have been talked about in length. Other issues could be with more wastage of the next batch or the next role out may have a delayed start due to waiting for staff to return.

my point was joe public are being asked to sacrifice through restrictions while he and those he talks to just get to be stupid... ....yes i agree they talk but its who is talking is the key.....and how is cost suddenly involved ? ....pretty obvious if you can save someones life.. save it...

By cost I mean overall cost not monetary cost. For example, 15k people getting their jab a week later could mean 5k people in the next shipment don't get it at all. So the costs are 15k people get it 1 week late or 5k people get it 6 weeks late.

"....pretty obvious if you can save someones life.. save it..."
As for this, that's a ridiculously large oversimplification though. If Wales had 100 million doses and a workforce to administer them, then yes, the simple thing is to vaccinate everyone as fast as possible. In actuality though we don't and careful and extensive planning is required to navigate the vaccine roll out as effectively as possible. Read through my replies to others in this thread, I've mentioned some reasons why this policy might be adopted.
Also if you truly believe life to be as simple as the above statement, checkout the "trolley car problem", it's a very classic conundrum on sacrifice and decision making. Sometimes life isn't as easy as your comment makes out.

and some times it is simple only over complicated by idiots..... by the way on the...how stupid is this man thread ....you argued about the double dose.... and how reasonable it was to give just the one even if it meant missing the 21 days for the 2nd dose by 9 weeks ......

He worded it poorly but there is absolutely an argument for going slow and steady. I’m not fully clued up on the logistics but there is one guarantee. If we use up our entire vaccine supplies then the vaccinating nurses and doctors are going to go and book shifts back on the wards or GPs or surgeries or hospitals etc. These people don’t have the luxury to be sitting around for weeks without income. Then the new vaccine comes in and suddenly there is a massive lack of staff and due to how their work operates they're booked out for the next two weeks.

Wales has currently administered 160k of our 270k supply with no more doses expected until the start of Feb.
The issue with the Pfizer vaccine is it has quite particular storage requirements and when the next batch comes in a certain amount of workers will be needed to administer it. Accelerating the process now can cause issues in the future if when the next batch comes in there’s an inadequate number of staff available to administer the vaccines. Currently we might be able to vaccinate quicker than the targets set out and get all 270k doses given out a week early but when the next batch comes in an understaffed vaccination centre might only be able to administer 850 of the 1000 jabs they receive whereas if we administer 270k by the time of the target date and the next day another shipment comes in vaccination centres should be fully staffed and able to vaccinate the full amount.

As I said it’s very poorly worded but it’s not a strategy he’s come up with on a whim. It’s been discussed as a viable option.

no mate..that 110k vaccinations now could save save lives of people who will now die ? all these restrictions and he is running the vaccination role out as if its a time and motion experiment...

He does think it's better for people to potentially die than have people hang around doing nothing! How else can this be interpreted?

From what I understand this current batch equates to just 5.4% of the total vaccines required for Wales’ adult population. Drakeford is talking about slowing the role out of the remaining 110k to avoid complications with the role out at future stages. If the next batch comes in and is significantly larger, which due to increased production and better logistical understanding is likely, then having a reduced workforce could be more damaging than slowing the release of the remainder of this batch.

This isn’t something Drakeford has decided on his lonesome as some seem to think. This will have been discussed amongst dozens of people including experts in the various procedures of the role out. The 2 options aren’t “people die” or “people sitting around doing nothing”, it’s “x number of people could potentially die now” and “y number of people could potentially die later”. Presumably Y came out as the larger number, hence the current strategy. If this has been deemed an effective strategy then so be it.

And that ends the party political broadcast on behalf of the WAG

Where are you getting all this information from??

What your saying may well be true or partly true I really don’t know because part of the problem is that Drakeford and his motley crew are just so bad at communicating any important information to the public

They constantly contradict each other and as for Vaughan Gethin, never known someone go AWOL so much when there are difficult questions to answer. He’s only in his bloody spare bedroom can’t be that difficult to get hold of him for some answers

Which information? The vaccinated numbers and available dose numbers are fairly widely reported online. As for nurses and volunteer health care workers working on 2 week slots, I've got family and friends currently working in the NHS in varying roles. One of which works in a vaccine distribution centre in the Midlands and explained that their system is based around working in a single ward/area for a 2 week period. This is to stop excessive movement between wards.

As for the next batch of vaccines being larger than this one, that is admittedly only an assumption. But I think a sensible one. As more vaccines are approved, as production increases, etc, more will become available. Plus distribution lines have been established and capacity will have increased.

As I said I don't know the full discussions that have been had or ideas that have been proposed but the idea that Drakeford has just woken up this morning and decided this on a whim is ludicrous.

I am by no means an expert in any of the aspects of this vaccine role out but even I can quite easily think of some scenarios were this would be a necessary strategy:

Vaccinate 110k people this week, vaccination staff are told the next shipment doesn't arrive for 2 weeks, instead of being unemployed for 2 weeks they take up other jobs, suddenly it turns out the next shipment is a few days early but there's a reduced workforce to administer it so you have to throw away jabs that have gone off (I think this timeframe is ~3 days from opening the 1000 jab batch).

A trucker company cocks up the new paper work leaving the EU/entering the UK, suddenly all 110k people waiting for their second jab miss it and have essentially wasted jab 1, spreading out the jabs mean maybe only 25k miss the deadline for jab 2.

Similar scenario as previous. Vaccinate 110k people this week, 11 weeks time a truck bound for Wales skids off a road and crashes destroying 10's of thousands of doses, if 110k people are all at the 12 week deadline you need to redistribute jabs from first timers to deal with the reduced supply. If only 25k are at the deadline you have time to divert extra vaccines to replace the lost ones.

I totally agree that the communication of this has been awful but I will accept that much more knowledgeable people than I or anyone on this board will have evaluated every possibility to the extreme and if this is the outcome I accept that decision.

I can smell the left wing of the looney left in this.
Well at least you've not got Covid symptoms.

Joking aside though, please explain what about this is "left wing"

In my opinion there is no justification for not using vaccines as quickly as possible even if as a result only one person is saved from the need for hospital care, even more so if just one life is saved there is absolutely no moral argument against using vaccines as soon as possible.

Because one person receiving a jab now might result in 3 people not receiving one later. A jab now might mean a longer delay between someone getting a second jab, decreasing the effectiveness. 15k waiting 1 week longer might mean 5k waiting 6 weeks longer, so suddenly those 5k have 6x as longer to potentially catch and be hospitalised by Covid. I think you're oversimplifying the situation. 1 person from the current list of eligible vaccine receivers may be saved from hospitalisation but what about the next 2.3 million people waiting to receive the vaccine?

In respect of bringing an end to these crippling economic restrictions that threaten hundreds of thousands of job again there is no moral argument against using these vaccines as quickly as possible. Whatever the cost of moving people from one role in the NHS to another it is nothing compared to the cost to the economy of these constant business closures.

The cost is an ICU ward losing trained nurses without warning, a surgery having to find emergency staff, a burn clinic having their staff cut unexpectedly, cancer treatments being pushed back etc. Even in your next point you complain about delayed treatment yet this is exactly what will happen with your suggestions.

Most of ALL there is no moral argument to justify why people with life limiting conditions are having their treatment delayed whilst Looney Left Governments like Drakeford and his cronies delay rolling out the vaccine which offers the best route out of this nightmare. How many people have to die before their time to justify that?

I hate to break it to you but decisions like this get made on a daily basis, a 75yr old with stage 4 cancer is going to be put to the back of the pile for a kidney transplant if a 22yr old with no other conditions also need it. It's horrible but it happens, a good friend of mine had to make a call like that before and it broke her. It took weeks for her to accept her decision.
It's cold and calculated but as a pointy eared b*stard once said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". This decision will not have been taken lightly but it has been taken. I believe it's been taken in the good understanding it's the most effective strategy in the long run

He worded it poorly but there is absolutely an argument for going slow and steady. I’m not fully clued up on the logistics but there is one guarantee. If we use up our entire vaccine supplies then the vaccinating nurses and doctors are going to go and book shifts back on the wards or GPs or surgeries or hospitals etc. These people don’t have the luxury to be sitting around for weeks without income. Then the new vaccine comes in and suddenly there is a massive lack of staff and due to how their work operates they're booked out for the next two weeks.

Wales has currently administered 160k of our 270k supply with no more doses expected until the start of Feb.
The issue with the Pfizer vaccine is it has quite particular storage requirements and when the next batch comes in a certain amount of workers will be needed to administer it. Accelerating the process now can cause issues in the future if when the next batch comes in there’s an inadequate number of staff available to administer the vaccines. Currently we might be able to vaccinate quicker than the targets set out and get all 270k doses given out a week early but when the next batch comes in an understaffed vaccination centre might only be able to administer 850 of the 1000 jabs they receive whereas if we administer 270k by the time of the target date and the next day another shipment comes in vaccination centres should be fully staffed and able to vaccinate the full amount.

As I said it’s very poorly worded but it’s not a strategy he’s come up with on a whim. It’s been discussed as a viable option.

no mate..that 110k vaccinations now could save save lives of people who will now die ? all these restrictions and he is running the vaccination role out as if its a time and motion experiment...

The remaining 110k doses have absolutely zero bearing on the current restrictions. We could administer all 110k tomorrow or over the course of two weeks and restrictions won’t be lifted. The next scheduled batch of vaccines is the start of February, 270k people with the first dose is not enough to warrant changing restrictions and won’t make the next batch arrive any earlier.

No one in this thread knows the full logistics of the vaccine role out or behind the scenes discussions that are currently going on, myself included. But no doubt a consideration has been made that x% of the current vaccine work force might be lost if they’re told they are out of work for a considerable amount of time. The costs and advantages of distributing the current batch as fast as possible compared to only being able to distribute the next batch at a slower pace will have been talked about in length. Other issues could be with more wastage of the next batch or the next role out may have a delayed start due to waiting for staff to return.

my point was joe public are being asked to sacrifice through restrictions while he and those he talks to just get to be stupid... ....yes i agree they talk but its who is talking is the key.....and how is cost suddenly involved ? ....pretty obvious if you can save someones life.. save it...

By cost I mean overall cost not monetary cost. For example, 15k people getting their jab a week later could mean 5k people in the next shipment don't get it at all. So the costs are 15k people get it 1 week late or 5k people get it 6 weeks late.

"....pretty obvious if you can save someones life.. save it..."
As for this, that's a ridiculously large oversimplification though. If Wales had 100 million doses and a workforce to administer them, then yes, the simple thing is to vaccinate everyone as fast as possible. In actuality though we don't and careful and extensive planning is required to navigate the vaccine roll out as effectively as possible. Read through my replies to others in this thread, I've mentioned some reasons why this policy might be adopted.
Also if you truly believe life to be as simple as the above statement, checkout the "trolley car problem", it's a very classic conundrum on sacrifice and decision making. Sometimes life isn't as easy as your comment makes out.

and some times it is simple only over complicated by idiots..... by the way on the...how stupid is this man thread ....you argued about the double dose.... and how reasonable it was to give just the one even if it meant missing the 21 days for the 2nd dose by 9 weeks ......

Incorrect, I remember the thread. It was Tony Blair saying why not vaccinate 2 people with one dose instead of 1 person with 2 doses. I didn't argue for it to clarify, my only comment in that thread was:

"I can see his reasoning and it's not flawed logic, give 2 million people 40% protection instead of 1 million people 90% protection. The issue is he's got no background in medical science or epidemiology, his opinion deserves as much airtime as any random person on the street.

No doubt this approach was considered and deemed less effective than the current strategy."

I said I can understand what the argument being presented was. I never argued for or agreed with the strategy. I then also explained why his opinion holds much less weight than someone who is an expert in the fields. hardly a ringing endorsement of the idea.

He worded it poorly but there is absolutely an argument for going slow and steady. I’m not fully clued up on the logistics but there is one guarantee. If we use up our entire vaccine supplies then the vaccinating nurses and doctors are going to go and book shifts back on the wards or GPs or surgeries or hospitals etc. These people don’t have the luxury to be sitting around for weeks without income. Then the new vaccine comes in and suddenly there is a massive lack of staff and due to how their work operates they're booked out for the next two weeks.

Wales has currently administered 160k of our 270k supply with no more doses expected until the start of Feb.
The issue with the Pfizer vaccine is it has quite particular storage requirements and when the next batch comes in a certain amount of workers will be needed to administer it. Accelerating the process now can cause issues in the future if when the next batch comes in there’s an inadequate number of staff available to administer the vaccines. Currently we might be able to vaccinate quicker than the targets set out and get all 270k doses given out a week early but when the next batch comes in an understaffed vaccination centre might only be able to administer 850 of the 1000 jabs they receive whereas if we administer 270k by the time of the target date and the next day another shipment comes in vaccination centres should be fully staffed and able to vaccinate the full amount.

As I said it’s very poorly worded but it’s not a strategy he’s come up with on a whim. It’s been discussed as a viable option.

no mate..that 110k vaccinations now could save save lives of people who will now die ? all these restrictions and he is running the vaccination role out as if its a time and motion experiment...

He does think it's better for people to potentially die than have people hang around doing nothing! How else can this be interpreted?

From what I understand this current batch equates to just 5.4% of the total vaccines required for Wales’ adult population. Drakeford is talking about slowing the role out of the remaining 110k to avoid complications with the role out at future stages. If the next batch comes in and is significantly larger, which due to increased production and better logistical understanding is likely, then having a reduced workforce could be more damaging than slowing the release of the remainder of this batch.

This isn’t something Drakeford has decided on his lonesome as some seem to think. This will have been discussed amongst dozens of people including experts in the various procedures of the role out. The 2 options aren’t “people die” or “people sitting around doing nothing”, it’s “x number of people could potentially die now” and “y number of people could potentially die later”. Presumably Y came out as the larger number, hence the current strategy. If this has been deemed an effective strategy then so be it.

And that ends the party political broadcast on behalf of the WAG

Where are you getting all this information from??

What your saying may well be true or partly true I really don’t know because part of the problem is that Drakeford and his motley crew are just so bad at communicating any important information to the public

They constantly contradict each other and as for Vaughan Gethin, never known someone go AWOL so much when there are difficult questions to answer. He’s only in his bloody spare bedroom can’t be that difficult to get hold of him for some answers

Which information? The vaccinated numbers and available dose numbers are fairly widely reported online. As for nurses and volunteer health care workers working on 2 week slots, I've got family and friends currently working in the NHS in varying roles. One of which works in a vaccine distribution centre in the Midlands and explained that their system is based around working in a single ward/area for a 2 week period. This is to stop excessive movement between wards.

As for the next batch of vaccines being larger than this one, that is admittedly only an assumption. But I think a sensible one. As more vaccines are approved, as production increases, etc, more will become available. Plus distribution lines have been established and capacity will have increased.

As I said I don't know the full discussions that have been had or ideas that have been proposed but the idea that Drakeford has just woken up this morning and decided this on a whim is ludicrous.

I am by no means an expert in any of the aspects of this vaccine role out but even I can quite easily think of some scenarios were this would be a necessary strategy:

Vaccinate 110k people this week, vaccination staff are told the next shipment doesn't arrive for 2 weeks, instead of being unemployed for 2 weeks they take up other jobs, suddenly it turns out the next shipment is a few days early but there's a reduced workforce to administer it so you have to throw away jabs that have gone off (I think this timeframe is ~3 days from opening the 1000 jab batch).

A trucker company cocks up the new paper work leaving the EU/entering the UK, suddenly all 110k people waiting for their second jab miss it and have essentially wasted jab 1, spreading out the jabs mean maybe only 25k miss the deadline for jab 2.

Similar scenario as previous. Vaccinate 110k people this week, 11 weeks time a truck bound for Wales skids off a road and crashes destroying 10's of thousands of doses, if 110k people are all at the 12 week deadline you need to redistribute jabs from first timers to deal with the reduced supply. If only 25k are at the deadline you have time to divert extra vaccines to replace the lost ones.

I totally agree that the communication of this has been awful but I will accept that much more knowledgeable people than I or anyone on this board will have evaluated every possibility to the extreme and if this is the outcome I accept that decision.

I can smell the left wing of the looney left in this.
Well at least you've not got Covid symptoms.

Joking aside though, please explain what about this is "left wing"

In my opinion there is no justification for not using vaccines as quickly as possible even if as a result only one person is saved from the need for hospital care, even more so if just one life is saved there is absolutely no moral argument against using vaccines as soon as possible.

Because one person receiving a jab now might result in 3 people not receiving one later. A jab now might mean a longer delay between someone getting a second jab, decreasing the effectiveness. 15k waiting 1 week longer might mean 5k waiting 6 weeks longer, so suddenly those 5k have 6x as longer to potentially catch and be hospitalised by Covid. I think you're oversimplifying the situation. 1 person from the current list of eligible vaccine receivers may be saved from hospitalisation but what about the next 2.3 million people waiting to receive the vaccine?

In respect of bringing an end to these crippling economic restrictions that threaten hundreds of thousands of job again there is no moral argument against using these vaccines as quickly as possible. Whatever the cost of moving people from one role in the NHS to another it is nothing compared to the cost to the economy of these constant business closures.

The cost is an ICU ward losing trained nurses without warning, a surgery having to find emergency staff, a burn clinic having their staff cut unexpectedly, cancer treatments being pushed back etc. Even in your next point you complain about delayed treatment yet this is exactly what will happen with your suggestions.

Most of ALL there is no moral argument to justify why people with life limiting conditions are having their treatment delayed whilst Looney Left Governments like Drakeford and his cronies delay rolling out the vaccine which offers the best route out of this nightmare. How many people have to die before their time to justify that?

I hate to break it to you but decisions like this get made on a daily basis, a 75yr old with stage 4 cancer is going to be put to the back of the pile for a kidney transplant if a 22yr old with no other conditions also need it. It's horrible but it happens, a good friend of mine had to make a call like that before and it broke her. It took weeks for her to accept her decision.
It's cold and calculated but as a pointy eared b*stard once said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". This decision will not have been taken lightly but it has been taken. I believe it's been taken in the good understanding it's the most effective strategy in the long run

Sorry I got the looney left thing completely wrong your actually on the left wing of the left wing of the looney left.

I just ran that the needs of the many thing past my wife who has her much needed cancer treatment on hold, IT will result he her death before her time. You will probably argue she better die and decrease the surplus population or thinking again if she could please go before she gets her jab that would release the vaccine for someone more deserving.

DRIPFORD

Now we are rationing the vaccine ffs
we have also been told that we are going to be 26 thousand short this week of tbe oxford vaccine
Well substitute it with the 200 ,000 phizer you have not used.

He worded it poorly but there is absolutely an argument for going slow and steady. I’m not fully clued up on the logistics but there is one guarantee. If we use up our entire vaccine supplies then the vaccinating nurses and doctors are going to go and book shifts back on the wards or GPs or surgeries or hospitals etc. These people don’t have the luxury to be sitting around for weeks without income. Then the new vaccine comes in and suddenly there is a massive lack of staff and due to how their work operates they're booked out for the next two weeks.

Wales has currently administered 160k of our 270k supply with no more doses expected until the start of Feb.
The issue with the Pfizer vaccine is it has quite particular storage requirements and when the next batch comes in a certain amount of workers will be needed to administer it. Accelerating the process now can cause issues in the future if when the next batch comes in there’s an inadequate number of staff available to administer the vaccines. Currently we might be able to vaccinate quicker than the targets set out and get all 270k doses given out a week early but when the next batch comes in an understaffed vaccination centre might only be able to administer 850 of the 1000 jabs they receive whereas if we administer 270k by the time of the target date and the next day another shipment comes in vaccination centres should be fully staffed and able to vaccinate the full amount.

As I said it’s very poorly worded but it’s not a strategy he’s come up with on a whim. It’s been discussed as a viable option.

no mate..that 110k vaccinations now could save save lives of people who will now die ? all these restrictions and he is running the vaccination role out as if its a time and motion experiment...

The remaining 110k doses have absolutely zero bearing on the current restrictions. We could administer all 110k tomorrow or over the course of two weeks and restrictions won’t be lifted. The next scheduled batch of vaccines is the start of February, 270k people with the first dose is not enough to warrant changing restrictions and won’t make the next batch arrive any earlier.

No one in this thread knows the full logistics of the vaccine role out or behind the scenes discussions that are currently going on, myself included. But no doubt a consideration has been made that x% of the current vaccine work force might be lost if they’re told they are out of work for a considerable amount of time. The costs and advantages of distributing the current batch as fast as possible compared to only being able to distribute the next batch at a slower pace will have been talked about in length. Other issues could be with more wastage of the next batch or the next role out may have a delayed start due to waiting for staff to return.

my point was joe public are being asked to sacrifice through restrictions while he and those he talks to just get to be stupid... ....yes i agree they talk but its who is talking is the key.....and how is cost suddenly involved ? ....pretty obvious if you can save someones life.. save it...

By cost I mean overall cost not monetary cost. For example, 15k people getting their jab a week later could mean 5k people in the next shipment don't get it at all. So the costs are 15k people get it 1 week late or 5k people get it 6 weeks late.

"....pretty obvious if you can save someones life.. save it..."
As for this, that's a ridiculously large oversimplification though. If Wales had 100 million doses and a workforce to administer them, then yes, the simple thing is to vaccinate everyone as fast as possible. In actuality though we don't and careful and extensive planning is required to navigate the vaccine roll out as effectively as possible. Read through my replies to others in this thread, I've mentioned some reasons why this policy might be adopted.
Also if you truly believe life to be as simple as the above statement, checkout the "trolley car problem", it's a very classic conundrum on sacrifice and decision making. Sometimes life isn't as easy as your comment makes out.

and some times it is simple only over complicated by idiots..... by the way on the...how stupid is this man thread ....you argued about the double dose.... and how reasonable it was to give just the one even if it meant missing the 21 days for the 2nd dose by 9 weeks ......

Incorrect, I remember the thread. It was Tony Blair saying why not vaccinate 2 people with one dose instead of 1 person with 2 doses. I didn't argue for it to clarify, my only comment in that thread was:

"I can see his reasoning and it's not flawed logic, give 2 million people 40% protection instead of 1 million people 90% protection. The issue is he's got no background in medical science or epidemiology, his opinion deserves as much airtime as any random person on the street.

No doubt this approach was considered and deemed less effective than the current strategy."

I said I can understand what the argument being presented was. I never argued for or agreed with the strategy. I then also explained why his opinion holds much less weight than someone who is an expert in the fields. hardly a ringing endorsement of the idea.

this is a wind up ?

Just to be clear. February is 2 weeks away. And those vaccinators have other jobs they can do if, in the unlikely event, we run out.

To exhaust the Pfizer vaccine supply they will have to massively ramp delivery between now and the next 14 days. The only people that running out of the Pfizer jab is likely to affect us people like me who are waiting for jab number 2 next month. But we do at least have more immunity than those not having it because it’s a leisurely stroll not a race ... apparently

He worded it poorly but there is absolutely an argument for going slow and steady. I’m not fully clued up on the logistics but there is one guarantee. If we use up our entire vaccine supplies then the vaccinating nurses and doctors are going to go and book shifts back on the wards or GPs or surgeries or hospitals etc. These people don’t have the luxury to be sitting around for weeks without income. Then the new vaccine comes in and suddenly there is a massive lack of staff and due to how their work operates they're booked out for the next two weeks.

Wales has currently administered 160k of our 270k supply with no more doses expected until the start of Feb.
The issue with the Pfizer vaccine is it has quite particular storage requirements and when the next batch comes in a certain amount of workers will be needed to administer it. Accelerating the process now can cause issues in the future if when the next batch comes in there’s an inadequate number of staff available to administer the vaccines. Currently we might be able to vaccinate quicker than the targets set out and get all 270k doses given out a week early but when the next batch comes in an understaffed vaccination centre might only be able to administer 850 of the 1000 jabs they receive whereas if we administer 270k by the time of the target date and the next day another shipment comes in vaccination centres should be fully staffed and able to vaccinate the full amount.

As I said it’s very poorly worded but it’s not a strategy he’s come up with on a whim. It’s been discussed as a viable option.

no mate..that 110k vaccinations now could save save lives of people who will now die ? all these restrictions and he is running the vaccination role out as if its a time and motion experiment...

He does think it's better for people to potentially die than have people hang around doing nothing! How else can this be interpreted?

From what I understand this current batch equates to just 5.4% of the total vaccines required for Wales’ adult population. Drakeford is talking about slowing the role out of the remaining 110k to avoid complications with the role out at future stages. If the next batch comes in and is significantly larger, which due to increased production and better logistical understanding is likely, then having a reduced workforce could be more damaging than slowing the release of the remainder of this batch.

This isn’t something Drakeford has decided on his lonesome as some seem to think. This will have been discussed amongst dozens of people including experts in the various procedures of the role out. The 2 options aren’t “people die” or “people sitting around doing nothing”, it’s “x number of people could potentially die now” and “y number of people could potentially die later”. Presumably Y came out as the larger number, hence the current strategy. If this has been deemed an effective strategy then so be it.

And that ends the party political broadcast on behalf of the WAG

Where are you getting all this information from??

What your saying may well be true or partly true I really don’t know because part of the problem is that Drakeford and his motley crew are just so bad at communicating any important information to the public

They constantly contradict each other and as for Vaughan Gethin, never known someone go AWOL so much when there are difficult questions to answer. He’s only in his bloody spare bedroom can’t be that difficult to get hold of him for some answers

Which information? The vaccinated numbers and available dose numbers are fairly widely reported online. As for nurses and volunteer health care workers working on 2 week slots, I've got family and friends currently working in the NHS in varying roles. One of which works in a vaccine distribution centre in the Midlands and explained that their system is based around working in a single ward/area for a 2 week period. This is to stop excessive movement between wards.

As for the next batch of vaccines being larger than this one, that is admittedly only an assumption. But I think a sensible one. As more vaccines are approved, as production increases, etc, more will become available. Plus distribution lines have been established and capacity will have increased.

As I said I don't know the full discussions that have been had or ideas that have been proposed but the idea that Drakeford has just woken up this morning and decided this on a whim is ludicrous.

I am by no means an expert in any of the aspects of this vaccine role out but even I can quite easily think of some scenarios were this would be a necessary strategy:

Vaccinate 110k people this week, vaccination staff are told the next shipment doesn't arrive for 2 weeks, instead of being unemployed for 2 weeks they take up other jobs, suddenly it turns out the next shipment is a few days early but there's a reduced workforce to administer it so you have to throw away jabs that have gone off (I think this timeframe is ~3 days from opening the 1000 jab batch).

A trucker company cocks up the new paper work leaving the EU/entering the UK, suddenly all 110k people waiting for their second jab miss it and have essentially wasted jab 1, spreading out the jabs mean maybe only 25k miss the deadline for jab 2.

Similar scenario as previous. Vaccinate 110k people this week, 11 weeks time a truck bound for Wales skids off a road and crashes destroying 10's of thousands of doses, if 110k people are all at the 12 week deadline you need to redistribute jabs from first timers to deal with the reduced supply. If only 25k are at the deadline you have time to divert extra vaccines to replace the lost ones.

I totally agree that the communication of this has been awful but I will accept that much more knowledgeable people than I or anyone on this board will have evaluated every possibility to the extreme and if this is the outcome I accept that decision.

I can smell the left wing of the looney left in this.
Well at least you've not got Covid symptoms.

Joking aside though, please explain what about this is "left wing"

In my opinion there is no justification for not using vaccines as quickly as possible even if as a result only one person is saved from the need for hospital care, even more so if just one life is saved there is absolutely no moral argument against using vaccines as soon as possible.

Because one person receiving a jab now might result in 3 people not receiving one later. A jab now might mean a longer delay between someone getting a second jab, decreasing the effectiveness. 15k waiting 1 week longer might mean 5k waiting 6 weeks longer, so suddenly those 5k have 6x as longer to potentially catch and be hospitalised by Covid. I think you're oversimplifying the situation. 1 person from the current list of eligible vaccine receivers may be saved from hospitalisation but what about the next 2.3 million people waiting to receive the vaccine?

In respect of bringing an end to these crippling economic restrictions that threaten hundreds of thousands of job again there is no moral argument against using these vaccines as quickly as possible. Whatever the cost of moving people from one role in the NHS to another it is nothing compared to the cost to the economy of these constant business closures.

The cost is an ICU ward losing trained nurses without warning, a surgery having to find emergency staff, a burn clinic having their staff cut unexpectedly, cancer treatments being pushed back etc. Even in your next point you complain about delayed treatment yet this is exactly what will happen with your suggestions.

Most of ALL there is no moral argument to justify why people with life limiting conditions are having their treatment delayed whilst Looney Left Governments like Drakeford and his cronies delay rolling out the vaccine which offers the best route out of this nightmare. How many people have to die before their time to justify that?

I hate to break it to you but decisions like this get made on a daily basis, a 75yr old with stage 4 cancer is going to be put to the back of the pile for a kidney transplant if a 22yr old with no other conditions also need it. It's horrible but it happens, a good friend of mine had to make a call like that before and it broke her. It took weeks for her to accept her decision.
It's cold and calculated but as a pointy eared b*stard once said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". This decision will not have been taken lightly but it has been taken. I believe it's been taken in the good understanding it's the most effective strategy in the long run

Sorry I got the looney left thing completely wrong your actually on the left wing of the left wing of the looney left.

I just ran that the needs of the many thing past my wife who has her much needed cancer treatment on hold, IT will result he her death before her time. You will probably argue she better die and decrease the surplus population or thinking again if she could please go before she gets her jab that would release the vaccine for someone more deserving.

Again please explain what is left wing about this decision, or "left wing of the left wing of the looney left" as you put it, arguably I'd consider it to be a fairly right wing solution on a short term basis. Personally I'd consider myself left of centre if anything but I actually think all those labels have been very muddied.

I'm incredibly sorry to hear about your wife and I'm not the one arguing for this decision, I'm arguing that I understand why the decision has been taken. The government has to enact policies for the entire population. This is a lose/lose situation for everyone. The public, the NHS, the government. Any decision made will negatively impact someone in some way and that has been the outcome of every major decision in history regardless of left/right wing. How many 100's of thousands were killed on the decisions to join the 2 World Wars? The Falklands? Iraq? Afghanistan? How many people have and will be negatively and positively affected by Thatcherism, Brexit, Lockdowns, Vaccine roll outs, etc. After a long long long history of difficult decisions this is another one that some will agree with and some will disagree with. Some will benefit and others will suffer greatly.

We clearly won't agree with each other on this matter, you have obvious and completely understandable reasons why you won't agree with these decisions and that is entirely fair. I wish you and your family well for the future.

He worded it poorly but there is absolutely an argument for going slow and steady. I’m not fully clued up on the logistics but there is one guarantee. If we use up our entire vaccine supplies then the vaccinating nurses and doctors are going to go and book shifts back on the wards or GPs or surgeries or hospitals etc. These people don’t have the luxury to be sitting around for weeks without income. Then the new vaccine comes in and suddenly there is a massive lack of staff and due to how their work operates they're booked out for the next two weeks.

Wales has currently administered 160k of our 270k supply with no more doses expected until the start of Feb.
The issue with the Pfizer vaccine is it has quite particular storage requirements and when the next batch comes in a certain amount of workers will be needed to administer it. Accelerating the process now can cause issues in the future if when the next batch comes in there’s an inadequate number of staff available to administer the vaccines. Currently we might be able to vaccinate quicker than the targets set out and get all 270k doses given out a week early but when the next batch comes in an understaffed vaccination centre might only be able to administer 850 of the 1000 jabs they receive whereas if we administer 270k by the time of the target date and the next day another shipment comes in vaccination centres should be fully staffed and able to vaccinate the full amount.

As I said it’s very poorly worded but it’s not a strategy he’s come up with on a whim. It’s been discussed as a viable option.

no mate..that 110k vaccinations now could save save lives of people who will now die ? all these restrictions and he is running the vaccination role out as if its a time and motion experiment...

The remaining 110k doses have absolutely zero bearing on the current restrictions. We could administer all 110k tomorrow or over the course of two weeks and restrictions won’t be lifted. The next scheduled batch of vaccines is the start of February, 270k people with the first dose is not enough to warrant changing restrictions and won’t make the next batch arrive any earlier.

No one in this thread knows the full logistics of the vaccine role out or behind the scenes discussions that are currently going on, myself included. But no doubt a consideration has been made that x% of the current vaccine work force might be lost if they’re told they are out of work for a considerable amount of time. The costs and advantages of distributing the current batch as fast as possible compared to only being able to distribute the next batch at a slower pace will have been talked about in length. Other issues could be with more wastage of the next batch or the next role out may have a delayed start due to waiting for staff to return.

my point was joe public are being asked to sacrifice through restrictions while he and those he talks to just get to be stupid... ....yes i agree they talk but its who is talking is the key.....and how is cost suddenly involved ? ....pretty obvious if you can save someones life.. save it...

By cost I mean overall cost not monetary cost. For example, 15k people getting their jab a week later could mean 5k people in the next shipment don't get it at all. So the costs are 15k people get it 1 week late or 5k people get it 6 weeks late.

"....pretty obvious if you can save someones life.. save it..."
As for this, that's a ridiculously large oversimplification though. If Wales had 100 million doses and a workforce to administer them, then yes, the simple thing is to vaccinate everyone as fast as possible. In actuality though we don't and careful and extensive planning is required to navigate the vaccine roll out as effectively as possible. Read through my replies to others in this thread, I've mentioned some reasons why this policy might be adopted.
Also if you truly believe life to be as simple as the above statement, checkout the "trolley car problem", it's a very classic conundrum on sacrifice and decision making. Sometimes life isn't as easy as your comment makes out.

and some times it is simple only over complicated by idiots..... by the way on the...how stupid is this man thread ....you argued about the double dose.... and how reasonable it was to give just the one even if it meant missing the 21 days for the 2nd dose by 9 weeks ......

Incorrect, I remember the thread. It was Tony Blair saying why not vaccinate 2 people with one dose instead of 1 person with 2 doses. I didn't argue for it to clarify, my only comment in that thread was:

"I can see his reasoning and it's not flawed logic, give 2 million people 40% protection instead of 1 million people 90% protection. The issue is he's got no background in medical science or epidemiology, his opinion deserves as much airtime as any random person on the street.

No doubt this approach was considered and deemed less effective than the current strategy."

I said I can understand what the argument being presented was. I never argued for or agreed with the strategy. I then also explained why his opinion holds much less weight than someone who is an expert in the fields. hardly a ringing endorsement of the idea.

this is a wind up ?

Which part?

He worded it poorly but there is absolutely an argument for going slow and steady. I’m not fully clued up on the logistics but there is one guarantee. If we use up our entire vaccine supplies then the vaccinating nurses and doctors are going to go and book shifts back on the wards or GPs or surgeries or hospitals etc. These people don’t have the luxury to be sitting around for weeks without income. Then the new vaccine comes in and suddenly there is a massive lack of staff and due to how their work operates they're booked out for the next two weeks.

Wales has currently administered 160k of our 270k supply with no more doses expected until the start of Feb.
The issue with the Pfizer vaccine is it has quite particular storage requirements and when the next batch comes in a certain amount of workers will be needed to administer it. Accelerating the process now can cause issues in the future if when the next batch comes in there’s an inadequate number of staff available to administer the vaccines. Currently we might be able to vaccinate quicker than the targets set out and get all 270k doses given out a week early but when the next batch comes in an understaffed vaccination centre might only be able to administer 850 of the 1000 jabs they receive whereas if we administer 270k by the time of the target date and the next day another shipment comes in vaccination centres should be fully staffed and able to vaccinate the full amount.

As I said it’s very poorly worded but it’s not a strategy he’s come up with on a whim. It’s been discussed as a viable option.

no mate..that 110k vaccinations now could save save lives of people who will now die ? all these restrictions and he is running the vaccination role out as if its a time and motion experiment...

The remaining 110k doses have absolutely zero bearing on the current restrictions. We could administer all 110k tomorrow or over the course of two weeks and restrictions won’t be lifted. The next scheduled batch of vaccines is the start of February, 270k people with the first dose is not enough to warrant changing restrictions and won’t make the next batch arrive any earlier.

No one in this thread knows the full logistics of the vaccine role out or behind the scenes discussions that are currently going on, myself included. But no doubt a consideration has been made that x% of the current vaccine work force might be lost if they’re told they are out of work for a considerable amount of time. The costs and advantages of distributing the current batch as fast as possible compared to only being able to distribute the next batch at a slower pace will have been talked about in length. Other issues could be with more wastage of the next batch or the next role out may have a delayed start due to waiting for staff to return.

my point was joe public are being asked to sacrifice through restrictions while he and those he talks to just get to be stupid... ....yes i agree they talk but its who is talking is the key.....and how is cost suddenly involved ? ....pretty obvious if you can save someones life.. save it...

By cost I mean overall cost not monetary cost. For example, 15k people getting their jab a week later could mean 5k people in the next shipment don't get it at all. So the costs are 15k people get it 1 week late or 5k people get it 6 weeks late.

"....pretty obvious if you can save someones life.. save it..."
As for this, that's a ridiculously large oversimplification though. If Wales had 100 million doses and a workforce to administer them, then yes, the simple thing is to vaccinate everyone as fast as possible. In actuality though we don't and careful and extensive planning is required to navigate the vaccine roll out as effectively as possible. Read through my replies to others in this thread, I've mentioned some reasons why this policy might be adopted.
Also if you truly believe life to be as simple as the above statement, checkout the "trolley car problem", it's a very classic conundrum on sacrifice and decision making. Sometimes life isn't as easy as your comment makes out.

and some times it is simple only over complicated by idiots..... by the way on the...how stupid is this man thread ....you argued about the double dose.... and how reasonable it was to give just the one even if it meant missing the 21 days for the 2nd dose by 9 weeks ......

Incorrect, I remember the thread. It was Tony Blair saying why not vaccinate 2 people with one dose instead of 1 person with 2 doses. I didn't argue for it to clarify, my only comment in that thread was:

"I can see his reasoning and it's not flawed logic, give 2 million people 40% protection instead of 1 million people 90% protection. The issue is he's got no background in medical science or epidemiology, his opinion deserves as much airtime as any random person on the street.

No doubt this approach was considered and deemed less effective than the current strategy."

I said I can understand what the argument being presented was. I never argued for or agreed with the strategy. I then also explained why his opinion holds much less weight than someone who is an expert in the fields. hardly a ringing endorsement of the idea.

this is a wind up ?

Which part?

apparently its a miracle vaccine that will save lives.... ffs a LIFE SAVING VACCINE... on ration ?
as for all the ifs buts and maybes.... there really is no guarantee there will not be a whole new list of different ifs buts and maybes when the time and motion guys think its vaccination time... if you can save lives just do it... as for lorries and paperwork etc get on the case right now to make sure nothing can go wrong...and on that point , everyone knew umpteen companies were working towards producing a vaccine... but the behaviour of those in charge of rolling it out seems that of shock and surprise.... its not good enough and undefendable... yet your defending it ? 10 months to organise distributing a life saving vaccine and fckd it up ...really.? .hand it over to the local amazon depot ffs...

He worded it poorly but there is absolutely an argument for going slow and steady. I’m not fully clued up on the logistics but there is one guarantee. If we use up our entire vaccine supplies then the vaccinating nurses and doctors are going to go and book shifts back on the wards or GPs or surgeries or hospitals etc. These people don’t have the luxury to be sitting around for weeks without income. Then the new vaccine comes in and suddenly there is a massive lack of staff and due to how their work operates they're booked out for the next two weeks.

Wales has currently administered 160k of our 270k supply with no more doses expected until the start of Feb.
The issue with the Pfizer vaccine is it has quite particular storage requirements and when the next batch comes in a certain amount of workers will be needed to administer it. Accelerating the process now can cause issues in the future if when the next batch comes in there’s an inadequate number of staff available to administer the vaccines. Currently we might be able to vaccinate quicker than the targets set out and get all 270k doses given out a week early but when the next batch comes in an understaffed vaccination centre might only be able to administer 850 of the 1000 jabs they receive whereas if we administer 270k by the time of the target date and the next day another shipment comes in vaccination centres should be fully staffed and able to vaccinate the full amount.

As I said it’s very poorly worded but it’s not a strategy he’s come up with on a whim. It’s been discussed as a viable option.

no mate..that 110k vaccinations now could save save lives of people who will now die ? all these restrictions and he is running the vaccination role out as if its a time and motion experiment...

The remaining 110k doses have absolutely zero bearing on the current restrictions. We could administer all 110k tomorrow or over the course of two weeks and restrictions won’t be lifted. The next scheduled batch of vaccines is the start of February, 270k people with the first dose is not enough to warrant changing restrictions and won’t make the next batch arrive any earlier.

No one in this thread knows the full logistics of the vaccine role out or behind the scenes discussions that are currently going on, myself included. But no doubt a consideration has been made that x% of the current vaccine work force might be lost if they’re told they are out of work for a considerable amount of time. The costs and advantages of distributing the current batch as fast as possible compared to only being able to distribute the next batch at a slower pace will have been talked about in length. Other issues could be with more wastage of the next batch or the next role out may have a delayed start due to waiting for staff to return.

my point was joe public are being asked to sacrifice through restrictions while he and those he talks to just get to be stupid... ....yes i agree they talk but its who is talking is the key.....and how is cost suddenly involved ? ....pretty obvious if you can save someones life.. save it...

By cost I mean overall cost not monetary cost. For example, 15k people getting their jab a week later could mean 5k people in the next shipment don't get it at all. So the costs are 15k people get it 1 week late or 5k people get it 6 weeks late.

"....pretty obvious if you can save someones life.. save it..."
As for this, that's a ridiculously large oversimplification though. If Wales had 100 million doses and a workforce to administer them, then yes, the simple thing is to vaccinate everyone as fast as possible. In actuality though we don't and careful and extensive planning is required to navigate the vaccine roll out as effectively as possible. Read through my replies to others in this thread, I've mentioned some reasons why this policy might be adopted.
Also if you truly believe life to be as simple as the above statement, checkout the "trolley car problem", it's a very classic conundrum on sacrifice and decision making. Sometimes life isn't as easy as your comment makes out.

and some times it is simple only over complicated by idiots..... by the way on the...how stupid is this man thread ....you argued about the double dose.... and how reasonable it was to give just the one even if it meant missing the 21 days for the 2nd dose by 9 weeks ......

Incorrect, I remember the thread. It was Tony Blair saying why not vaccinate 2 people with one dose instead of 1 person with 2 doses. I didn't argue for it to clarify, my only comment in that thread was:

"I can see his reasoning and it's not flawed logic, give 2 million people 40% protection instead of 1 million people 90% protection. The issue is he's got no background in medical science or epidemiology, his opinion deserves as much airtime as any random person on the street.

No doubt this approach was considered and deemed less effective than the current strategy."

I said I can understand what the argument being presented was. I never argued for or agreed with the strategy. I then also explained why his opinion holds much less weight than someone who is an expert in the fields. hardly a ringing endorsement of the idea.

this is a wind up ?

Which part?

apparently its a miracle vaccine that will save lives.... ffs a LIFE SAVING VACCINE... on ration ?
as for all the ifs buts and maybes.... there really is no guarantee there will not be a whole new list of different ifs buts and maybes when the time and motion guys think its vaccination time... if you can save lives just do it... as for lorries and paperwork etc get on the case right now to make sure nothing can go wrong...and on that point , everyone knew umpteen companies were working towards producing a vaccine... but the behaviour of those in charge of rolling it out seems that of shock and surprise.... its not good enough and undefendable... yet your defending it ? 10 months to organise distributing a life saving vaccine and fckd it up ...really.? .hand it over to the local amazon depot ffs...

Food is also life saving yet was rationed for decades during and post war due to lack of supply.
There is no guarantee that in the future there will be new "ifs and buts" but contingency plans need to be made.
As for lorries and paperwork, you can do all the prep and planning you want but issues can still arise. A dodgy batch, a freak snow storm grounding planes and closing roads, a lorry crashing, a fire at a warehouse, etc, etc. There are numerous things that cannot be planned around or avoided.

As for being not good enough and un-defendable, Wales currently has one of the highest vaccination rates in the worlds population/percentage wise. Does that deserve some praise?
Some notable countries we beat:
USA
Italy
Ireland
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Brazil
Russia
France
Mexico
Malaysia
Japan
South Korea
Germany

I believe that deserves some praise

Our health supremo gething says W.G is not holding vaccine back? Hes right not holding it back W.G are just rashioning its use!