Scrutable

Doesn't mean that you shouldn't vaccinate people as soon as possible, given that you don't have a time machine.

Herainestold wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 6:16 pm The other thing to note is the lack of sterilizing immunity with these current vaccines. They are very good at stopping severe disease and death but they do not stop transmission. Vaccinated people can be infected and pass it on to the unvaccinated and immuno compromised.

This is probably too pessimistic. They are also very good at stopping asymptomatic infections, and even those who develop infections have lower viral loads, which likely reduces transmission. See Table 1b and the text under it, with references, here, which says:

In the US general adult population, 0 days after the second dose of Pfizer or Moderna, there is an 80% risk reduction for asymptomatic infection. In the general population in Israel, 14 days after the second dose of Pfizer, there is a 94% risk reduction for asymptomatic infection. In Israel (preliminary), those who become infected after vaccination with Pfizer have 4x less viral load.

Herainestold wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 6:16 pm

jimbob wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 2:34 pm

bob sterman wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 12:51 pm So on TV today Hancock emphasised the importance of vaccination by saying...


Now perhaps I'm just too cynical - but his choice of the present tense ("are eligible") caused me to raise an eyebrow.

Working backwards - with typical lags between infection, symptoms and hospitalisation - to prevent a hospitalisation in early/mid May - someone would need to have been vaccinated in mid-April.

And as there is typically a delay between becoming eligible to book a vaccine, and the first available appointment, to prevent this hospitalisation in early/mid May the patient would probably have needed to become "eligible for the jab" in early April.

(Obviously - this isn't a comment on the effectiveness of the vaccines against the new variant - rather a comment on Hancock's implication that most hospitalised people might be somehow responsible for their unvaccinated status).

It's also data that is not available to the public at that level of granularity as far as I can see. I can see data for the North West which breaks it down into 0-5, 6-17, 18-64... but that's not very useful.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/s ... -activity/

You cannot vaccinate your way out of a covid surge. As noted above, the time lag to generating effective immunity is anywhere from two to eight weeks after vaccination. The other thing to note is the lack of sterilizing immunity with these current vaccines. They are very good at stopping severe disease and death but they do not stop transmission. Vaccinated people can be infected and pass it on to the unvaccinated and immuno compromised.
A certain number of breakthrough infections will occur and vaccinated people will sicken and die.

The proper response to this dangerous strain is renewed restrictions. Lockdown, enhanced masking including outdoor mask mandates and double masking, which the Indians feel will protect against this variant.

If it's young people and it's increasing for several weeks why not? Younger people develop far more relative immunity far quicker than older people. Several days, if I remember the graph I saw (I can't recall where).

bolo wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 6:49 pm

Herainestold wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 6:16 pm The other thing to note is the lack of sterilizing immunity with these current vaccines. They are very good at stopping severe disease and death but they do not stop transmission. Vaccinated people can be infected and pass it on to the unvaccinated and immuno compromised.

This is probably too pessimistic. They are also very good at stopping asymptomatic infections, and even those who develop infections have lower viral loads, which likely reduces transmission. See Table 1b and the text under it, with references, here, which says:

In the US general adult population, 0 days after the second dose of Pfizer or Moderna, there is an 80% risk reduction for asymptomatic infection. In the general population in Israel, 14 days after the second dose of Pfizer, there is a 94% risk reduction for asymptomatic infection. In Israel (preliminary), those who become infected after vaccination with Pfizer have 4x less viral load.

Is there any more UK data regarding asymptomatic infection which would also cover AstraZeneca?

The trial data was a bit meh and what's in your link indicates a rather lower percentage than for the other vaccines.

shpalman wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 6:27 pm Doesn't mean that you shouldn't vaccinate people as soon as possible, given that you don't have a time machine.

Given limited resources, priority 1 should be lockdown, priority 2 vaccination.

Herainestold wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 8:48 pm

shpalman wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 6:27 pm Doesn't mean that you shouldn't vaccinate people as soon as possible, given that you don't have a time machine.

Given limited resources, priority 1 should be lockdown, priority 2 vaccination.

Agree with that

As I pointed out when I quoted this:

shpalman wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 9:01 am
report of hint that something will be imminent any time now

Harrison said it would be foolish to [allow further unlocking] without first boosting vaccination rates in areas of high transmission

Fixed that for him.

The actual quote was

Harrison said it would be foolish to impose further local lockdowns without first boosting vaccination rates in areas of high transmission

when it's obvious to everyone else that you need further local lockdowns now exactly because you haven't boosted the vaccination rates yet.

jimbob wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 9:27 pm

Herainestold wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 8:48 pm

shpalman wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 6:27 pm Doesn't mean that you shouldn't vaccinate people as soon as possible, given that you don't have a time machine.

Given limited resources, priority 1 should be lockdown, priority 2 vaccination.

Agree with that

99% of the fatality rate is gone. This is not a predominantly fatal illness.

lpm wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 10:32 pm

jimbob wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 9:27 pm

Herainestold wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 8:48 pm

Given limited resources, priority 1 should be lockdown, priority 2 vaccination.

Agree with that

99% of the fatality rate is gone. This is not a predominantly fatal illness.

It never was, did you have a point? Or, maybe, you might prefer to clarify the point you are making.

Herainestold wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 8:48 pm

shpalman wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 6:27 pm Doesn't mean that you shouldn't vaccinate people as soon as possible, given that you don't have a time machine.

Given limited resources, priority 1 should be lockdown, priority 2 vaccination.

No. Priority 1 should be vaccination. Nobody should stay at home rather than go for their vaccination.

Millennie Al wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 12:19 am

Herainestold wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 8:48 pm

shpalman wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 6:27 pm Doesn't mean that you shouldn't vaccinate people as soon as possible, given that you don't have a time machine.

Given limited resources, priority 1 should be lockdown, priority 2 vaccination.

No. Priority 1 should be vaccination. Nobody should stay at home rather than go for their vaccination.

That is not what I said.

I'm struggling to see why we need to prioritise lockdown or vaccination. What's the reason we can't do them simultaneously? You say 'limited resources' but I can't think of any that are common to lockdown and vaccination.

Mind you, it is late. My imagination might have gone to sleep already.

jdc wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 1:23 am I'm struggling to see why we need to prioritise lockdown or vaccination. What's the reason we can't do them simultaneously? You say 'limited resources' but I can't think of any that are common to lockdown and vaccination.

Mind you, it is late. My imagination might have gone to sleep already.

You can lock down everybody at once, but you can't vaccinate everybody at the same time. So lock down now. When you get your invitation , double mask, go directly to the vaccination centre, get jabbed, go home and isolate for two weeks to let the antibodies build. Don't even think about going outside.
If we can do that in hotspots, we can contain the Indian variant.

I’ve had enough of this b.llsh.t. You need to show evidence that transmission outside is significant. Telling people not to leave their homes, at all, is ridiculously over-cautious and damaging.

Gfamily wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 11:06 pm

lpm wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 10:32 pm

jimbob wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 9:27 pm

Agree with that

99% of the fatality rate is gone. This is not a predominantly fatal illness.

It never was, did you have a point? Or, maybe, you might prefer to clarify the point you are making.

The point is that the moral argument for lockdown is shaky and knee-jerk memories of a year ago when lockdown was essential are destructive.

Ignoring the silly forum troll, which everyone should do, it's worrying that top contributors like Jimbob endorse over reactions. Why should I give up my freedoms for a disease with such a low fatality rate of <40s? I take personal responsibility for my health, why can't I expect others to do the same?

Where's the argument? The true burden on the NHS is alcohol and nicotine. When can I start demanding extreme government interventions to save hospital capacity from these burdens? The long term determinant of health is deprivation, so why aren't people more opposed to lockdowns that worsen the underlying problem?

Indeed, we know that lockdowns are a social and economic disaster so we shouldn't be doing them unless we absolutely have to. We did have to lockdown to get case numbers down from the catastrophic levels they ended up at in January, but allowing people the (still fairly limited) freedoms they currently have has not led to a surge in cases, so why lock people down more severely?

I can see the argument for possibly rolling things back if today's opening leads to a resurgence in cases, but we'll see what happens on that...

wilsontown wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 11:59 am Indeed, we know that lockdowns are a social and economic disaster so we shouldn't be doing them unless we absolutely have to. We did have to lockdown to get case numbers down from the catastrophic levels they ended up at in January, but allowing people the (still fairly limited) freedoms they currently have has not led to a surge in cases, so why lock people down more severely?

I can see the argument for possibly rolling things back if today's opening leads to a resurgence in cases, but we'll see what happens on that...

Swift action saves lives. If lockdown is delayed, it is harder to implement and less effective. Lockdown now to stop the Indian variant. Concentrate vaccination on the hot spots. Keep people inside for two weeks after vaccination. Do this now and the problem is gone by next month.

headshot wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 6:12 am I’ve had enough of this b.llsh.t. You need to show evidence that transmission outside is significant. Telling people not to leave their homes, at all, is ridiculously over-cautious and damaging.

The problem is, it hasn't been studied as much as indoor transmission. It is hard to capture and isolate the virus in the open air. Look at how China beat the virus without vaccines. Some people were inside their flats for six months! Brutal but it worked. We just need to do this for a short period of time while hot spots are vaccinated.

There's some people who love government force, aren't there. If you're going down the fascist route, the obvious thing is to force-inject everyone with the vaccine.

lpm wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 2:12 pm There's some people who love government force, aren't there. If you're going down the fascist route, the obvious thing is to force-inject everyone with the vaccine.

There's not enough doses to do that though. Voluntary uptake will probably be enough - eventually. Till then, options are lockdown, or accept some cases and hope they don't get out of control again.

lpm wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 2:12 pm There's some people who love government force, aren't there. If you're going down the fascist route, the obvious thing is to force-inject everyone with the vaccine.

Who said that? You are making things up again.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 2:34 pm

lpm wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 2:12 pm There's some people who love government force, aren't there. If you're going down the fascist route, the obvious thing is to force-inject everyone with the vaccine.

There's not enough doses to do that though. Voluntary uptake will probably be enough - eventually. Till then, options are lockdown, or accept some cases and hope they don't get out of control again.

Vuluntary uptake, we might have to "encourage" people to get vaccinated, like they are trying in America.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 2:34 pm

lpm wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 2:12 pm There's some people who love government force, aren't there. If you're going down the fascist route, the obvious thing is to force-inject everyone with the vaccine.

There's not enough doses to do that though. Voluntary uptake will probably be enough - eventually. Till then, options are lockdown, or accept some cases and hope they don't get out of control again.

Judging by the photos of queues, the limit is still how quickly you can get the doses to the people.*

I know Hancock said that lots of the people in hospital with the new variant were eligible for the jab, or something, as if it was their fault for choosing not to have had it, but I also take note of what was said on here, that you need to have had the dose about 2-3 weeks ago which means having been eligible to book an appointment f.ck knows how many weeks ago. I'm sure by digging through this thread someone else can figure out roughly what age range was being vaccinated 2-3 weeks ago in that region.

* - we don't have data on allocation versus provision versus administer doses for regions on England, in the same way that we have that for Wales and Scotland, but the Scotland data I looked at indicated that they didn't actually have that much surplus stock, compared to the number of doses they'd been allocated but which obviously hadn't been shipped to them yet. So maybe the English regions are similar, with limited stock on a day-to-day basis but at least they know how much they're going to get week-to-week.

Vaccine hesitancy remains extremely low in the UK, despite concerns over hospitalised patients in some areas who have not taken the Covid-19 jab, No 10 has said.

shpalman wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 2:49 pm I'm sure by digging through this thread someone else can figure out roughly what age range was being vaccinated 2-3 weeks ago in that region.

A couple of weeks ago the 45-50 age group was basically finished, with a start made on 40-45 in many locations. Over 50s were 100% offered over a month ago.

There needs to be a forum rule banning any blatant ignoring of the huge age differential for Covid hospitalisations/deaths. The hospitalisations from any big new wave are going to come mostly from the unvaccinated 5% of the >50s, secondly from the vaccine fails of the >50s, with a very very distant third place for unvaccinated <40s.

For deaths, remember that approx 99% came from the 1-9 cohorts of >50s. So having 5% of those groups unvaccinated are going to lead to deaths (due mostly to failure of personal responsibility, partly due to an excellent-but-not-perfect outreach). And having imperfect vaccines are also going to lead to deaths. But there's simply no material risk of death to people outside the 1-9 cohorts - lower than risk of death from accidents for example.

The age determinant of this disease is far greater than any of us can see by intuition. We see a healthy and active person in their 60s alongside a healthy 20 year old and instinctively believe only a small gradient of the death risk. But it's actually a vast difference - something like 130x greater risk. Simply put, we don't need to lockdown to protect the <40s.

Not the UK, but to illustrate lpm's point, and because I happen to have the numbers in front of me, here are the case counts and death counts for my county in Virginia:

Ages 0-17: 11,294 cases, 0 deaths (0.0%)
Ages 18-49: 43,004 cases, 45 deaths (0.1%)
Ages 50-64: 15,484 cases, 152 deaths (1.0%)
Ages 65+: 7,809 cases, 911 deaths (11.7%)