Vaccine rollout in the UK

[headshot]

*snip* Graphs showing how dumb people are...

Fuckwits.

[discovolante]

*snip* Graphs showing how dumb people are...

Fuckwits.

I think that's harsh tbh.

[Herainestold]

WHAT?
Please provide more details.

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-relea ... ility-data

Thanks. So Pfizer aren't relaxing anything unilaterally, they are requesting permission from the appropriate regulators to so do.
That's ok then - I trust the FDA to make a sensible decision, and I'm not surprised that Pfizer/BioNTech are only just getting more information on long term stability at different temperatures

So you trust the FDA?
I am suspicious of anything coming out of America.

[headshot]

*snip* Graphs showing how dumb people are...

Fuckwits.

I think that's harsh tbh.

When they're given their first dose, they are explicitly told that they're not protected until at least three weeks after. Then they ignore it, potentially putting themselves and others at risk, as well as giving the NHS issues if they get hospitalised.

I stand by my statement.

[discovolante]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ed/618147/

Much of the public messaging focused on offering a series of clear rules to ordinary people, instead of explaining in detail the mechanisms of viral transmission for this pathogen. A focus on explaining transmission mechanisms, and updating our understanding over time, would have helped empower people to make informed calculations about risk in different settings. Instead, both the CDC and the WHO chose to offer fixed guidelines that lent a false sense of precision.

In the United States, the public was initially told that “close contact” meant coming within six feet of an infected individual, for 15 minutes or more. This messaging led to ridiculous gaming of the rules; some establishments moved people around at the 14th minute to avoid passing the threshold. It also led to situations in which people working indoors with others, but just outside the cutoff of six feet, felt that they could take their mask off. None of this made any practical sense. What happened at minute 16? Was seven feet okay? Faux precision isn’t more informative; it’s misleading.

All of this was complicated by the fact that key public-health agencies like the CDC and the WHO were late to acknowledge the importance of some key infection mechanisms, such as aerosol transmission. Even when they did so, the shift happened without a proportional change in the guidelines or the messaging—it was easy for the general public to miss its significance.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ic/616548/

A growing number of studies estimate that a majority of infected people may not infect a single other person. A recent paper found that in Hong Kong, which had extensive testing and contact tracing, about 19 percent of cases were responsible for 80 percent of transmission, while 69 percent of cases did not infect another person. This finding is not rare: Multiple studies from the beginning have suggested that as few as 10 to 20 percent of infected people may be responsible for as much as 80 to 90 percent of transmission, and that many people barely transmit it.

Look, I'm not saying it's not a poor decision if they could have waited just a bit longer, and I'm really not advocating lifting the lockdown yet. But this is March 2021, not March 2020, we're talking about elderly people many of whom have probably been pretty isolated for the past year (and those in their 'bubble' have probably been under increased pressure themselves), and different people still have different levels of understanding about how all this works.

[Fishnut]

*snip* Graphs showing how dumb people are...

Fuckwits.

That graph gives no information on their behaviour prior to the vaccination. If they had suddenly thrown caution to the wind then your commentary might be valid, but without it we don't know. And even if this does represent a change in behaviour I don't feel I can really blame people for it.

As Disco pointed out, we've had a year of constantly-changing rules that have been set up to be gamed (who can forget the debate over whether scotch eggs constituted a meal) and people are just trying to muddle their way through as best they can. We still have messaging prioritising handwashing over ventilation so I don't find it that surprising that people aren't understanding the risks posed by being indoors with others.

We're really lucky here in that we can understand large parts of the science and what we can't understand we can ask for help with. That's not the case for the vast majority of people.

[headshot]

Stay at home > Protect the NHS > Save Lives

"It is against the law to meet socially with family or friends unless they are part of your household or support bubble."

And when people are vaccinated with a first dose they are explicitly told not to mix freely with people for at least three weeks, and even then are told to adhere to the rules that are in place (see above).

This information is freely available and doesn't require any level of science knowledge to understand.

*shrugs*

[monkey]

*snip* Graphs showing how dumb people are...

Fuckwits.

That graph gives no information on their behaviour prior to the vaccination. If they had suddenly thrown caution to the wind then your commentary might be valid, but without it we don't know. And even if this does represent a change in behaviour I don't feel I can really blame people for it.

As Disco pointed out, we've had a year of constantly-changing rules that have been set up to be gamed (who can forget the debate over whether scotch eggs constituted a meal) and people are just trying to muddle their way through as best they can. We still have messaging prioritising handwashing over ventilation so I don't find it that surprising that people aren't understanding the risks posed by being indoors with others.

We're really lucky here in that we can understand large parts of the science and what we can't understand we can ask for help with. That's not the case for the vast majority of people.

On the bolded bit - further down the page the ONS present some stuff on how people's risk perception changes with a hypothetical jab (unsurprisingly it goes down with more jabs), which would suggest that people would do risky things after a jab, rather than a continuation that behavior. clicky

But I agree with your post. There's a big difference between not being given information clearly and being a genuine f.ckwit who spreads covid denial stuff, for example.

Stay at home > Protect the NHS > Save Lives

"It is against the law to meet socially with family or friends unless they are part of your household or support bubble."

And when people are vaccinated with a first dose they are explicitly told not to mix freely with people for at least three weeks, and even then are told to adhere to the rules that are in place (see above).

This information is freely available and doesn't require any level of science knowledge to understand.

*shrugs*

That's not a clear message IMO. I could summarise that as "Follow the rules, but you can mix freely after 3 weeks".

[bagpuss]

Hmmm, I would definitely want to see a bit more detail behind those stats before criticising anyone.

For example, if someone has had a plumber around to fix an urgent issue in their home - completely legal and reasonable - I reckon a lot of people would count that as "met someone indoors", even if they stayed in another part of the home while the plumber did the work.

I'd be willing to bet that my mum would have said she'd met someone indoors because her cleaner came round 2 weeks ago to clean downstairs, while my mum stayed in her bedroom upstairs, and then again last week to do upstairs while mum stayed out of the way downstairs. Definitely not f.ckwitted behaviour - she's 85, in constant back pain, and can't do a lot of the necessary cleaning. But a cleaner isn't a carer so it would count in those stats.

[Fishnut]

Stay at home > Protect the NHS > Save Lives

"It is against the law to meet socially with family or friends unless they are part of your household or support bubble."

And when people are vaccinated with a first dose they are explicitly told not to mix freely with people for at least three weeks, and even then are told to adhere to the rules that are in place (see above).

This information is freely available and doesn't require any level of science knowledge to understand.

*shrugs*

It may be against the law to "meet socially with friends and family" but the question doesn't ask if the visits were social. It just asks if you've been indoors with people. Looking on the Tesco FAQ regarding deliveries (first supermarket I thought of), in response to "Can drivers still bring my groceries into my home?"

Yes, if you ask them to - but only if you're vulnerable, disabled or elderly.

One grocery delivery where they bring the bags into your kitchen and you've answered "yes" to the question "have you met with people other than careers or support bubble, indoors?".

And as bagpuss has pointed out, there's plenty of other reasons why people could legitimately come into your home without them being carers or in your support bubble.

ETA this reminds me very much of those surveys that showed that only a small percentage of people were properly self-isolating after being told to, but when you dug into the reasons why it wasn't that they were just flouting the rules but because they had no real alternative.

[shpalman]

This reminds me of all those anecdotes about how people caught covid "despite being really careful" in which the relevant part always starts with "but I only..."

[Fishnut]

This reminds me of all those anecdotes about how people caught covid "despite being really careful" in which the relevant part always starts with "but I only..."

And?

Most people are being really careful, but there are limits to how careful you can be after a year of serial lockdowns. For some people putting their social lives on hold has been pretty easy, for others it's been hell. It's been technically illegal for non-cohabiting people to have sex since last June. Do you really think all single and non-cohabiting people have ignored their sex drive for the last 10+ months? Of course not.

We wouldn't be in this position if the government had responded promptly and proportionately and I think that criticising people for not following the rules to the letter any longer is focusing ire in the wrong direction.

[Brightonian]

To conjugate:
I am compliant
You are bending the rules
He is Dominic Cummings

Participants believe they have been significantly more compliant than others in the UK general population.

Those furthest from the respondents’ own social environment were seen to be the least compliant… Family was seen as most compliant, followed by friends, people in their neighbourhood, and finally people in the UK general population. This latter group was perceived as not being compliant with the lockdown regulations.

ETA: Maybe this requires a separate compliance thread. See how it goes though.

[discovolante]

Stay at home > Protect the NHS > Save Lives

"It is against the law to meet socially with family or friends unless they are part of your household or support bubble."

And when people are vaccinated with a first dose they are explicitly told not to mix freely with people for at least three weeks, and even then are told to adhere to the rules that are in place (see above).

This information is freely available and doesn't require any level of science knowledge to understand.

*shrugs*

That's not the only information people are getting though. There has been all sorts of changing and conflicting information for an entire year and people end up having to figure out what information to prioritise. E.g. in the first article I linked to above (US based but I think the same pretty much applies in the UK):

[A]s soon as we began vaccinating people, articles started warning the newly vaccinated about all they could not do. “COVID-19 Vaccine Doesn’t Mean You Can Party Like It’s 1999,” one headline admonished. And the buzzkill has continued right up to the present. “You’re fully vaccinated against the coronavirus—now what? Don’t expect to shed your mask and get back to normal activities right away,” began a recent Associated Press story.

...

As Paul Sax, an infectious-disease doctor at Boston’s Brigham & Women’s Hospital, put it in early December, it would be enormously surprising “if these highly effective vaccines didn’t also make people less likely to transmit.” From multiple studies, we already knew that asymptomatic individuals—those who never developed COVID-19 despite being infected—were much less likely to transmit the virus. The vaccine trials were reporting 95 percent reductions in any form of symptomatic disease. In December, we learned that Moderna had swabbed some portion of trial participants to detect asymptomatic, silent infections, and found an almost two-thirds reduction even in such cases. The good news kept pouring in. Multiple studies found that, even in those few cases where breakthrough disease occurred in vaccinated people, their viral loads were lower—which correlates with lower rates of transmission. Data from vaccinated populations further confirmed what many experts expected all along: Of course these vaccines reduce transmission.

And yet, from the beginning, a good chunk of the public-facing messaging and news articles implied or claimed that vaccines won’t protect you against infecting other people or that we didn’t know if they would, when both were false. I found myself trying to convince people in my own social network that vaccines weren’t useless against transmission, and being bombarded on social media with claims that they were.

It seems like every few days I come across some statement that 'even with the vaccine we will still have to wear masks and socially distance'. Until when? Forever? They often don't say. So it's really not that surprising that people might decide there's not much point keeping their guard up constantly if we're constantly being told that this is getting close to as good as it might get.

And to focus specifically on over 80s for a bit: that age range includes people who are perfectly fit and healthy to people who are really struggling physically and mentally even without covid. They are more likely to have lost a number of friends so may not have as many people they can phone up for a chat. They are probably less likely to be familiar with social media, to get some sort of social contact there. They might be less mobile so it's difficult for them to get out and go for a walk outside. Which basically leaves a lot of people sitting and watching Corrie and doing crosswords all day, which is a miserable way to live if it's not a life you've chosen. And I wouldn't be surprised if the isolation, apart from one 'bubble', contributes to more physical and mental decline in some people too.

Sorry to any over 80s, I don't want to suggest that everyone that age is somehow teetering on the brink of death, but it seems to me to be an age group where those issues are more likely to come up so calling them and the people who visit them 'fuckwits' is er, not great imo.

[Fishnut]

I wouldn't be surprised if the isolation, apart from one 'bubble', contributes to more physical and mental decline in some people too.

My aunt (who turned 91 this year) and uncle (who turned 83 this year) were both doing incredibly well for their age pre-pandemic. My uncle has been showing some frailty and mental decline over the last few years but mostly in a Grandpa Simpson way (repeating the same stories and having long rambling anecdotes that don't really go anywhere). My aunt looked at least a decade younger than she was, and was still going to weekly keep fit. Both were still active in the local community and had plenty of good years left. I've not seen them much recently for obvious reasons but I did bump into them a few months ago (between lockdowns) and they were both significantly more frail and less mentally all there. My aunt has had several falls and I can't help but think that's a consequence of her not being able to go to keep fit. They're lucky that their son is keeping a close eye on them (they can't form an official bubble with him because they don't meet the criteria but I'm pretty sure they've formed an unofficial one). Obviously, I'm hugely grateful they've made it this far into the pandemic and they've both had at least their first vaccinations so fingers crossed they're safe now, but the lockdown has undoubtedly hastened their decline.

I'm absolutely pro-lockdown. I think we ended the first one prematurely and used the time incredibly poorly as little was put in place to prevent a second wave after it was eased. But acting like people are reckless idiots for not following all the pandemic rules all the time is unfairly judgemental.

[raven]

Your area/GP is well behind. Or at least their news is.

Well we are in a relatively out-in-the-sticks bit of the county. I suspect we're last in the supply chain, and from previous GP updates their supply has been a bit intermitent.

Well...my 44 year old friend and his wife, who live in South London and have no underlying health issues, have both just been vaccinated. So some areas clearly aren't sticking to the cohorts strictly.

Meanwhile, my 46 year old wife with severe asthma is still waiting...after being unceremoniously kicked out of Tier 6.

The friends might not know why they were called up. I think I've worked out, from looking at the guidance, that my sister got done in group 6 because she had a pill-induced blood clot many years ago - but she wouldn't consider herself anything but healthy.

It all seems a bit patchy & variable, which I suppose is to be expected when it's rushed and each area seems to be working to slightly different rules but we're collating totals nationally.

Actually, are they publishing stats for vaccination by area anywhere? I could only find by region when I looked.

[headshot]

Well, on behalf of my 75 year old dad who’s followed the rules very closely, and my asthmatic wife, who’s just been kicked out of Group 6 of vaccinations, I’ll continue to be judgmental towards people who decide to ignore or break the rules and potentially prolong this entire process for those people being more careful - and suffering the same isolation.

[Fishnut]

Well, on behalf of my 75 year old dad who’s followed the rules very closely, and my asthmatic wife, who’s just been kicked out of Group 6 of vaccinations, I’ll continue to be judgmental towards people who decide to ignore or break the rules and potentially prolong this entire process for those people being more careful - and suffering the same isolation.

Go for it. I'm going to focus my ire at the government that actually had the power to stop the pandemic from being anywhere near as bad as it has been, who had the power to support people who were self-isolating beyond the f.cking useless £95/week sick pay (I believe they did eventually introduce extra payments but not fast enough), who could have supported pubs and restaurants to stay closed rather than encourage everyone to "eat out to help out" because they had an app (that's been revealed to have been pretty much entirely ignored by the test and trace people), who ended the first lockdown prematurely rather than tell their mate off, who ended the second lockdown early they could "save christmas", and who are now trying their best to repeat all their failures and if they don't it will only be because the vaccine take-up is enough to save them this time, rather than the people who are trying their best to get through this on limited resources.

[shpalman]

Your area/GP is well behind. Or at least their news is.

Well we are in a relatively out-in-the-sticks bit of the county. I suspect we're last in the supply chain, and from previous GP updates their supply has been a bit intermitent.

Well...my 44 year old friend and his wife, who live in South London and have no underlying health issues, have both just been vaccinated. So some areas clearly aren't sticking to the cohorts strictly.

Meanwhile, my 46 year old wife with severe asthma is still waiting...after being unceremoniously kicked out of Tier 6.

The friends might not know why they were called up. I think I've worked out, from looking at the guidance, that my sister got done in group 6 because she had a pill-induced blood clot many years ago - but she wouldn't consider herself anything but healthy.

It all seems a bit patchy & variable, which I suppose is to be expected when it's rushed and each area seems to be working to slightly different rules but we're collating totals nationally.

Actually, are they publishing stats for vaccination by area anywhere? I could only find by region when I looked.

Maybe https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/s ... cinations/ and somebody made this

[discovolante]

Well, on behalf of my 75 year old dad who’s followed the rules very closely, and my asthmatic wife, who’s just been kicked out of Group 6 of vaccinations, I’ll continue to be judgmental towards people who decide to ignore or break the rules and potentially prolong this entire process for those people being more careful - and suffering the same isolation.

I've followed the rules, my family have followed the rules including my 90 year old grandma, my partner's family have as far as I'm aware followed the rules. If you've never made a less than optimal decision in your life then good for you. Anyway I'm a bit angry now, and so are you it seems, so that's all from me for now at least.

[raven]

Actually, are they publishing stats for vaccination by area anywhere? I could only find by region when I looked.

Maybe https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/s ... cinations/ and somebody made this

Cheers for that shpalman, you're a star.

Hm. If we are a bit behind, those stats hint at why. It looks like our area might have more than its share of elderly residents from the numbers, which would make sense. It's a nice quiet place to retire...

[Millennie Al]

This reminds me of all those anecdotes about how people caught covid "despite being really careful" in which the relevant part always starts with "but I only..."

Some of those seem to be cases of people who were extra careful in one area to compensate for being a little riskier in another area without realising that it doesn't work like that . Especially when the extra care goes into low value activities such as handwashing and mask wearing but the riskier bit is meeting more people indoors.

[Millennie Al]

It seems like every few days I come across some statement that 'even with the vaccine we will still have to wear masks and socially distance'. Until when? Forever? They often don't say.

A lot of the messaging is built on bad foundations. It is constructed by deciding what someone thinks people should do and then finding a message to make people do the desired thing. Instead, it should be built on the foundation of honestly stating what we know, followed by explaining that consequently people should do specific things.

So for vaccination, it should have started as a message saying that we didn't know how quickly it works, so when you're vaccinated you should be very cautious, and then as data emerged the message should have changed to say that we now know a little, so there can be some relaxing a few weeks after you've had your first dose, and so on as more data becomes available. But instead everything is over-simplified to the point where it's obvious it's just an approximation of reality - leaving everyone to fill in the gaps themselves.

[headshot]

Well, on behalf of my 75 year old dad who’s followed the rules very closely, and my asthmatic wife, who’s just been kicked out of Group 6 of vaccinations, I’ll continue to be judgmental towards people who decide to ignore or break the rules and potentially prolong this entire process for those people being more careful - and suffering the same isolation.

Go for it. I'm going to focus my ire at the government that actually had the power to stop the pandemic from being anywhere near as bad as it has been, who had the power to support people who were self-isolating beyond the f.cking useless £95/week sick pay (I believe they did eventually introduce extra payments but not fast enough), who could have supported pubs and restaurants to stay closed rather than encourage everyone to "eat out to help out" because they had an app (that's been revealed to have been pretty much entirely ignored by the test and trace people), who ended the first lockdown prematurely rather than tell their mate off, who ended the second lockdown early they could "save christmas", and who are now trying their best to repeat all their failures and if they don't it will only be because the vaccine take-up is enough to save them this time, rather than the people who are trying their best to get through this on limited resources.

Oh don’t worry, I’m f.cking furious at the government as well. It’s just a permanent state of fury nowadays.

[Sciolus]

I would make two points here. First, a key reason the first lockdown was successful was the sense of "we're all in this together". Cummingsing that mood is decidedly unhelpful. Second, while old people have sacrificed a lot over the last year, by, y'know, dying and all that, so have young people, and young people have done so because it's The Right Thing To Do and entirely unselfishly. If old people start saying, we're immune now so we don't have to follow the rules, then young people are perfectly entitled to say f.ck you, we've been immune for the last year and we shouldn't have to follow the rules either. Which would be unhelpful.

So yeah, I'm in the "fuckwits" camp, for anyone who breaks the rules because they've had the vaccine.