So... I arrived for carer's vaccine appointment this morning, fully in line with rules as I have a contract arranged via the council themselves. I was told the rules had changed over the weekend and anyone looking after only one person was no longer eligible.

"You're joking me, right?" I say. No, sympathetically she says she has been told this very morning (it's 0805) that the rules had changed at the weekend and I cannot have the vaccine. I'm not usually lost for words. I manage not to swear (v impressive for me).
I say I am lost for words but can I please see a manager, explaining I am the sole carer for an 88-year-old disabled woman with a heart condition and no vaccination. I plead for an exception. She is kind but firm: I am not eligible but she will fetch a manager.
I explain again to the manager, who takes one look at my contract and immediately confirms that I AM eligible. There IS a rule change, but it relates to people claiming carer's allowance, not to those with a formal contract to care for someone.
So I get that some confusion is inevitable in an operation of this scale, but clearly there are people out there who legitimately booked appointments as carers on the basis of carers' allowance and the rules have changed over the weekend. It will be devastating when they arrive.
People on carers' allowance (a pittance paid only to those with no other income, ie broadly low-income groups) should not be put through this, especially while fit 70s are now piling into centres in their millions. I hope the rules can be relaxed for those with appointments.
And while I'm grateful for getting dose #1, I'm gutted that the housebound and other very vulnerable groups are still waiting in Sussex and prob elsewhere. Appointments are finally being made for the next few weeks but how many people will catch Covid from carers in the meantime?
I am also gutted for any carers who have booked an appointment in good faith and will queue up only to be turned away. This programme is of course amazing and a privilege but is delivering its own injustices in the name of mass figures.
Were you aware of this rule change @alzheimerssoc @DisabilityGovUK @DisRightsUK @Caringforcarer6 ?

More from Society

You May Also Like

A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.