[COVID-19] General Discussion

[General Melchett]

Can't recall the source but I seem to recall reading that the EU has pledged to give an autumn booster jab to every adult in the EU whereas the UK is only targeting over 50's (plus vulnerable). Given we have established a whole vaccination infrastructure would it really have cost that much more to extend the booster jab to every adult? Or maybe the Government have decided to put COVID in the same bucket as flu from now on.

 

[ncurd]

Can't recall the source but I seem to recall reading that the EU has pledged to give an autumn booster jab to every adult in the EU whereas the UK is only targeting over 50's (plus vulnerable). Given we have established a whole vaccination infrastructure would it really have cost that much more to extend the booster jab to every adult? Or maybe the Government have decided to put COVID in the same bucket as flu.

I think that part is pretty much in the air at the moment along with vaccinating kids, its not that I don't think they'll do it just I don't think the scientists are sure if its worth it yet and this government will only do the bare minimum if that.

 

[Welsh Exile]

From what I've read, vaccines do reduce how easily it transmits, but it where they are better is by reducing serious illness that needs hospitalisation. This is why restrictions are ending because the Tories don't care if people catch it or get long covid (which needs urgent research to be far better understood). All they ever cared about was the NHS not being overwhelmed. So even if the delta variant is more transmissible they know it's not likely to result in huge hospital numbers. Danger is as some people have said, is that be ending restrictions with the delta variant moving around a vaccinated population, any mutation that is likely to succeed is one that avoids the vaccines in some way. The other issue is that it is still unknown how long the vaccines are effective for.

I love a bit of Tory bashing and they most definitely deserve it but tbh I think we need to stop looking at case numbers now and start focusing on hospitalisations/deaths/serious illness. This is what the vaccines are for, and Covid isn't going anywhere and we can't carry on like this forever. Now, that doesn't mean to say we should be opening up the way the Tories are planning (everything all at once) but I don't actually disagree with the view that this has always been about reducing serious illness and not overwhelming the NHS.

 

[Yoshimitsu]

I do wonder whether in days to come what is happening now will be viewed with the same disdain as George W Bush stood under a "Mission Accomplished" banner. It appears that the favoured strategy now is repeat eternal jabs for everyone for the rest of their natural lives. The long term impacts of cumulative jabs are not yet known (they can't be as the observation period isn't sufficient).

We'll therefore see high viral prevalence in the U.K. (as vaccines are non-sterilising and sufficient parents will not consent to children being vaccinated) and the main evolutionary pressure on the virus will be vaccine evasion. Any variant that accomplished that feat (mortality won't be known until it does) is liable to run through the vaccinated (including vulnerable) and the unvaccinated alike. Square 1 and the only viable answer appears to be "more jabs"

 

[BiggusLaddus]

What is the alternative? Half of the world's countries are not even testing for covid properly (if at all), so as it is not possible to permanently cut ourselves off there will always be new variants to deal with.

The oz/NZ approach has worked for them so far because they are in the middle of the Pacific, but even there it is creaking and is not a permanent solution.

 

[ncurd]

What is the alternative? Half of the world's countries are not even testing for covid properly (if at all), so as it is not possible to permanently cut ourselves off there will always be new variants to deal with.

The oz/NZ approach has worked for them so far because they are in the middle of the Pacific, but even there it is creaking and is not a permanent solution.

Wait until the vaccination program is complete (including kids if required) at that point we either have the right level of protection or never will.

In other words have some patience and wait until everyone who wants/can be vaccinated have.



If the scientists are standing on stage with Johnson saying they'd still wear a mask with restrictions lifted it tells you all you need to know about whether its sensible about lifting them.

Another question considering how much is open already what exactly are the current restriction stopping you from doing?

 

[General Melchett]

I love a bit of Tory bashing and they most definitely deserve it but tbh I think we need to stop looking at case numbers now and start focusing on hospitalisations/deaths/serious illness. This is what the vaccines are for, and Covid isn't going anywhere and we can't carry on like this forever. Now, that doesn't mean to say we should be opening up the way the Tories are planning (everything all at once) but I don't actually disagree with the view that this has always been about reducing serious illness and not overwhelming the NHS.

I agree. The media should be banned from reporting case numbers and should only focus on Euro 2020 and the Lions tour for the next few weeks. They also need to re-start the Boris No.10 wallpaper fiasco story.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

In other words have some patience and wait until everyone who wants/can be vaccinated have.

I think this is the main thing

Anti-lockdown people like to paint it as people wanting to be locked up forever, but it's more that we should come out of it slowly/properly to ensure we don't go back in again

Johnsons saying he expects cases to reach 50k per day and lots of people to die, as a result of coming out all at once...is that acceptable?
People will die regardless, and cases will go up regardless, but "pulling the plaster off" isn't a great idea when it's people's lives you're playing with

 

[Yoshimitsu]

What is the alternative? Half of the world's countries are not even testing for covid properly (if at all), so as it is not possible to permanently cut ourselves off there will always be new variants to deal with.

The oz/NZ approach has worked for them so far because they are in the middle of the Pacific, but even there it is creaking and is not a permanent solution.

Vaccinate the smallest number of people possible in order to minimise the evolutionary pressure for vaccine escape. Vaccinate the most vulnerable.

Invest heavily in therapeutics / complementary therapies to minimise the impact of others who my become infected. Put serious public health initiatives in action to lower the risk to the rest of the population. That would involve hard measures in particular to address obesity and the comorbidities that brings.

It's not a perfect strategy, but it doesn't rely on a proposal that requires everybody to be vaccinated what looks like multiple times a year forever, with the sole tangible benefit being a reduction in mortality. The impact on transmission currently doesn't appear to be significant if as Sajid Javid said today we're looking at 100,000 cases per day by end of summer. Note I'm not anti-vaccination. I am however wary of solutions that appear to offer easy answers where they may not exist.

It matters not now, the die is cast. However, it bears repeating the "following the science" is a great get-out clause for the political classes as they can claim it's what they were told at the time. Mass vaccinations using the particular technologies involved in this endeavour is new territory. For the clinically vulnerable vaccination is a no-brainer. For an 8 year old child? Well that's different isn't it? As we have found out, vaccinations are not without impacts / risks. There are no observable long term studies that allow "science" to determine whether or not we have embarked on the "right" path. I hope that in fact that history looks at this a a great success.

 

[BiggusLaddus]

Apologies for the snips.

Vaccinate the smallest number of people possible in order to minimise the evolutionary pressure for vaccine escape. Vaccinate the most vulnerable.

But that still brings millions of virus cases into contact with millions of vaccinated people. And variants with some degree of vaccine evasion have already emerged in populations with almost zero vaccinations.

I hope that in fact that history looks at this a a great success.

Ditto.

 

[Which Tyler]

Vaccinate the smallest number of people possible in order to minimise the evolutionary pressure for vaccine escape. Vaccinate the most vulnerable.

Invest heavily in therapeutics / complementary therapies to minimise the impact of others who my become infected. Put serious public health initiatives in action to lower the risk to the rest of the population. That would involve hard measures in particular to address obesity and the comorbidities that brings.

It's not a perfect strategy, but it doesn't rely on a proposal that requires everybody to be vaccinated what looks like multiple times a year forever, with the sole tangible benefit being a reduction in mortality. The impact on transmission currently doesn't appear to be significant if as Sajid Javid said today we're looking at 100,000 cases per day by end of summer. Note I'm not anti-vaccination. I am however wary of solutions that appear to offer easy answers where they may not exist.

It matters not now, the die is cast. However, it bears repeating the "following the science" is a great get-out clause for the political classes as they can claim it's what they were told at the time. Mass vaccinations using the particular technologies involved in this endeavour is new territory. For the clinically vulnerable vaccination is a no-brainer. For an 8 year old child? Well that's different isn't it? As we have found out, vaccinations are not without impacts / risks. There are no observable long term studies that allow "science" to determine whether or not we have embarked on the "right" path. I hope that in fact that history looks at this a a great success.

You literally couldn't design a better system to develop a ****-tone of variants - almost explicitly designed to get around vaccines and medications - and there's absolutley nothing beyond wishful thinking to suggest that more variants => reduced mortality / morbidity

 

[BiggusLaddus]

Wait until the vaccination program is complete (including kids if required) at that point we either have the right level of protection or never will.

But then, especially if kids are involved, we are entering the territory of offering vaccines which do at least some harm, to people at very low risk from the disease.

And there is then a compromise of trying to balance whether opening up with 80% vaccinated in July is better or worse than 90% in September, or 95% in October.

Another question considering how much is open already what exactly are the current restriction stopping you from doing?

Major life events, seeing family and friends who do not live locally, getting an education, etc.

 

[Which Tyler]

But then, especially if kids are involved, we are entering the territory of offering vaccines which do at least some harm, to people at very low risk from the disease.

And there is then a compromise of trying to balance whether opening up with 80% vaccinated in July is better or worse than 90% in September, or 95% in October.

Whilst demand is outstripping supply for vaccines, keep masks etc. There's space to ease up in July - though preferably the end of the month after schools/universties have broken up; but complete absence of mitigation shouldn't be done until the vaccine uptake has plateaud - thus, is as good as it's realistically going to get; and everyone who wants one, has one.

Major life events, seeing family and friends who do not live locally, getting an education, etc.

None of which you are currently stopped from doing.

 

[ncurd]

But then, especially if kids are involved, we are entering the territory of offering vaccines which do at least some harm, to people at very low risk from the disease.

And there is then a compromise of trying to balance whether opening up with 80% vaccinated in July is better or worse than 90% in September, or 95% in October.


Major life events, seeing family and friends who do not live locally, getting an education, etc.

No idea what your 1st point is I said include kids if necessary and said in a previous post the scientists are still collating data over that one.

We won't be 80% vaccinated in July we are at 50% fully dosed but expectation is to finish in September on people over 18+ than can have it and want it but that won't be 95% either as it also depends on take up rate we're at roughly 68% currently with it being available for most people, we know the number for decent population protection is roughly 70-80% fully dosed. Which looking at the figures is where we'll be in September. These figures aren't anything new and widely distributed, so there's no real compromise here just looking at the number and going we probably aren't there yet. Which_Tyler has gone into better detail about how not having sufficient protection is a huge known risk into variants.

None of my family live locally I see them regularly enough, my wife went to a 30th birthday party with family 2 weekends back. So again what are you specifically missing out on?

 

[Reiser99]

I tell you what you don't do. You don't just shrug your shoulders and let joe public decide which measures they should follow when they have absolutely no idea what the situation is and know nothing on what is being advised by the scientists on SAGE.

 

[Which Tyler]

Also worth repeating this summary of risk and benefit, explicitly for the AZ vaccine (as far as I'm aware, still the only one with safety fears - but I may have missed something)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/976877/CovidStats_07-04-21-final.pdf

We're somewhere between medium and high "risk of exposure" (pages 3 and 4), with case rate of around 8ish per 100,000 overall (but the age grade bias is very, very skewed young); so for the 20-30 age range; the risk of not being vaccinated (measured by ICU admission) is approximately 3-8 times the risk of being vaccinated (measured by "serious harm").

Bare in mind as well, those risks of exposure were based on case rate numbers, and social distancing / mask wearing etc as it was in March / April (so full lockdown). Risk of exposure absence any mitigation for exposure will be massively higher.

 

[BiggusLaddus]

My point about risk/benefit is that the lower the risk from disease, the more people will choose not to have the jab or allow their kids to have the jab, slowing down take up.

We are currently ~75% of the way to fully vaccinating all over 18s, which will be ~80% in a couple of weeks time.

Yes we could hold off a bit longer to increase that percentage, but it will never be 100% and progress towards 100% will slow down the closer we get.

Do we want a surge now, in summer, or in autumn?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

We are currently ~75% of the way to fully vaccinating all over 18s, which will be ~80% in a couple of weeks time.

Where are you seeing that?
Government site has it at 64%

 

[BiggusLaddus]

None of my family live locally I see them regularly enough, my wife went to a 30th birthday party with family 2 weekends back. So again what are you specifically missing out on?

Me personally, not that much. Except it was technically illegal for me to enter my parents' house in Wales last weekend.

Other people are still prevented from doing their jobs, not able to see family (how many millions of UK residents are first generation immigrants with immediate family overseas?), etc.

We have about 5% of all school kids currently in isolation and they have all lost out on a significant chunk of their education in the last year. That can't continue.

 

[BiggusLaddus]

Where are you seeing that?
Government site has it at 64%

~75% of the total jabs to be administered. Rough average of 1st and 2nd jab.