UK politics - Dry Your Eyes Mate, ...

[DaveSumm]

Just now, Heartofice said:

If the vulnerable are protected via vaccination, what is the thinking behind not opening up? 

Well my post was a personal worry, I don’t want the virus. But I understand that I can’t level that against people’s livelihoods. However, I do think that a fully open economy, with no under 75’s vaccinated, with the current variants, had the potential to overwhelm the NHS. It still hospitalises a non-trivial number of people.

[Zorral]

A second variation has showed up in the UK, the one from South Africa, which is even more easily transmissible than the first one.

This is what the bs of herd immunity has created.

The more infected the more variations, the more efficiently it transmits.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, DaveSumm said:

Well my post was a personal worry, I don’t want the virus. But I understand that I can’t level that against people’s livelihoods. However, I do think that a fully open economy, with no under 75’s vaccinated, with the current variants, had the potential to overwhelm the NHS. It still hospitalises a non-trivial number of people.

Isn’t phase 1 for 65+ and those with medical conditions, plus care workers etc?

Of course it’s a balance, but phase 1 should prevent 99% of deaths and that is a massive number. 
 

The way that the dialogue around the disease is going, I fear that there will be loud voices saying we shouldn’t come out of lockdown till everyone is vaccinated, in an attempt to stop anyone getting the disease. That makes little sense. 
 

Honestly I know there is still the prospect of long Covid, which there isn’t very much known about, but I can say I now know probably 40 people at least who’ve tested positive and not one of them ( ages 20 -60) has had symptoms that lasted more than a week, the vast majority had a couple of unpleasant days but that was it. Doesn’t mean everyone is like that but locking down the country can only be justified if it’s to protect the vulnerable from dying; after that point you really are stretching the limits. 

[Ghostlydragon]

Another full lockdown like last March. More time for games, tv and books I guess 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

23 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

If the vulnerable are protected via vaccination, what is the thinking behind not opening up? 

I don't think we should have full on open up pretend its 2019 style with just the over 70s and critical people.  (this is the prediction if all goes very well with the vaccinations by March)

I think it may be ok to open up a bit, keep monitoring the people in hospital and spare capacity.

then as more and more get vaccinated if its working to keep hospitals and deaths down gradually open up a bit at a time

 

there are several options between full on lockdown and nothing.  I just feel the temptation will be to open everything or too much too fast, instead of a gradual balanced approach.

[A wilding]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Encouraging news that they are on track for vaccinating the entire 70+ population by the middle of February. We'll have to see if they deliver on that.

Even if they do deliver, most of those people will only have had the first jab, with the correspondingly lower protection. If lockdown ends then, a lot of them will potentially still get ill. Presumably the hope is that it will not be so many as to then overwhelm the NHS.

Incidentally, I do know someone with Long Covid. They got ill in May and spent about six months so weakened as to be more or less bedridden. Fortunately they seem to be much better now, though still not 100%. They are in their early fifties.

[Maltaran]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Encouraging news that they are on track for vaccinating the entire 70+ population by the middle of February. We'll have to see if they deliver on that.

This includes the clinically vulnerable as well as the elderly, so I will let you know if this actually happens.

[Spockydog]

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

If the vulnerable are protected via vaccination, what is the thinking behind not opening up? 

Here's an idea.

The country goes into full lockdown and all debt is cancelled. Oh yes. Cancel or suspend that motherfucking debt until the world has gotten this shit show under control.

I'm talking about the kind of debt that has Luke pulling out what's left of his hair over how he's going to keep a roof over his head. I'm talking about the kind of debt that forced my mate Nigel to sell his house and move his entire family back into his mum's. I'm talking about the kind of debt that forces a corporation to sacrifice a large part of its workforce in order not to default on the refinancing package it signed up for just before the Covid hit the fan.

You know, all this debt has one way of travel. Up and up and up. All the way up to the kind of people who would not be affected, at all, by taking a year off.

We're all in it together? My fucking arse.

 

[Werthead]

Students at my local university have just called a full rent strike. Most of them are still at home and haven't gone back to uni yet and now won't for a long time (possibly this entire academic year), so they've said they're not paying for accommodation they're not using. The university is having a hard time refuting this logic (this is the wholly university-owned housing, not students in private accommodation where their contracts are more watertight).

2 hours ago, A wilding said:

Incidentally, I do know someone with Long Covid. They got ill in May and spent about six months so weakened as to be more or less bedridden. Fortunately they seem to be much better now, though still not 100%. They are in their early fifties.

I think I've mentioned before my friend who got COVID in early March and was one of the first people in the UK (well, one of the first few thousand, anyway) to get it. She had horrendous symptoms for a month, pretty bad symptoms for another 3-4 months and is now, 10 months later, back to where she can walk maybe a kilometre before feeling like dying of exhaustion. She's in her late thirties.

 

[Impmk2]

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

If the vulnerable are protected via vaccination, what is the thinking behind not opening up? 

There's a decent chance they won't be protected. Older people have a generally weaker immune system, and generally have a lower vaccine response. The oxford vaccine in particular has questionable efficacy, and it's going to be a large part of the UKs vaccination strategy. Letting the virus run wild without herd immunity in the general population it's a good bet you'll be exposing a decent % of the elderly to the disease, whether they're vaccinated or not.

 

 

[DaveSumm]

We could do with a better definition of ‘vaccinated’, I’d prefer it to mean ‘has received a full course of vaccination injections’ but the government seem to be using ‘has had a dose’. 

I’m also wondering if there’s an argument to switch strategy once you’ve finished with the first four groups (everyone over 75, vulnerable, and NHS staff) to targeting those who are doing the most transmitting. Would it make more sense to prioritise key workers? As much as I’d like a vaccine, I couldn’t argue against a teacher younger than me getting it first. Although if everything was open, I’m not sure there’d be a clear enough picture of who was doing the most transmitting. 

[BigFatCoward]

2 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

We could do with a better definition of ‘vaccinated’, I’d prefer it to mean ‘has received a full course of vaccination injections’ but the government seem to be using ‘has had a dose’. 

I’m also wondering if there’s an argument to switch strategy once you’ve finished with the first four groups (everyone over 75, vulnerable, and NHS staff) to targeting those who are doing the most transmitting. Would it make more sense to prioritise key workers? As much as I’d like a vaccine, I couldn’t argue against a teacher younger than me getting it first. Although if everything was open, I’m not sure there’d be a clear enough picture of who was doing the most transmitting. 

I'm sure I read somewhere that those who interact with large numbers will also be given priority. So teachers, transport staff etc. Makes sense. 

[Heartofice]

3 hours ago, Impmk2 said:

There's a decent chance they won't be protected. Older people have a generally weaker immune system, and generally have a lower vaccine response. The oxford vaccine in particular has questionable efficacy, and it's going to be a large part of the UKs vaccination strategy. Letting the virus run wild without herd immunity in the general population it's a good bet you'll be exposing a decent % of the elderly to the disease, whether they're vaccinated or not.

 

 

It's not a decent chance, it's a small chance. Thats the difference. I would suggest that older and more vulnerable people continue to take precautions after being vaccinated up till they get their second dose, that makes far more sense that continuing to shut down the country to wait for everyone to get two doses. 
 

9 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Here's an idea.

The country goes into full lockdown and all debt is cancelled. Oh yes. Cancel or suspend that motherfucking debt until the world has gotten this shit show under control.

I'm talking about the kind of debt that has Luke pulling out what's left of his hair over how he's going to keep a roof over his head. I'm talking about the kind of debt that forced my mate Nigel to sell his house and move his entire family back into his mum's. I'm talking about the kind of debt that forces a corporation to sacrifice a large part of its workforce in order not to default on the refinancing package it signed up for just before the Covid hit the fan.

You know, all this debt has one way of travel. Up and up and up. All the way up to the kind of people who would not be affected, at all, by taking a year off.

We're all in it together? My fucking arse.

 

Right.. and what happens to that debt? Just disappears? Who pays for it? If Luke owes someone money for his house, what happens to the person or business he owes money to?  Someone is always paying for these things. 

[Derfel Cadarn]

31 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I'm sure I read somewhere that those who interact with large numbers will also be given priority. So teachers, transport staff etc. Makes sense. 

They really need to vaccinate kids; they seem to be spreading it (albeit are more likely to be asymptomatic). The virus seemed to mainly spike again once the schools started back. The kids in my area travel to and from school in groups, not distancing much at all. 
 

If they can do a two-pronged ‘attsck’, vaccinating the vulnerable. And vaccinating the groups doing much of the spreading, then hopefully it will bring things under control sooner.

Unfortunately, delaying the second dose seems to be a very risky move, imho. As does mixing vaccines. But the government seems intent on fucking up the vaccination program as badly as they managed the virus and the ‘world-beating’ track & trace system.

[Impmk2]

34 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

It's not a decent chance, it's a small chance. Thats the difference. I would suggest that older and more vulnerable people continue to take precautions after being vaccinated up till they get their second dose, that makes far more sense that continuing to shut down the country to wait for everyone to get two doses. 
 

How do you define 'small'.  Even in a best case scenario, using the initial data from the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, you've got somewhere in the ballpark of 90-95% efficacy. I would strongly suggest that the 5-10% still vulnerable would skew heavily towards the elderly. The Oxford trial is a mess, they're saying 90%, but that's a very small sample size, and it isn't clear what the make up of that group is, previously it was limited to ages below 55, so god knows. But again there's a good 10% there still vulnerable to disease, again almost certainly strongly skewing elderly.

Also I would be surprised if any significant number of the most vulnerable elderly has been included in the trials to date, and there's any kind good data on them at all. It's a real pain to get the ethics approval and consent (you typically need consent from the families too) to conduct research in aged care facilities. Believe me, I've been involved in getting a research project set up in those places.

So it comes down to the numbers. You'll have some % of people who can't / refuse to get vaccinated due to allergies or previous reactions to vaccines. You'll get some more who are overlooked, or who refuse consent (or whose relatives refuse to consent on their behalf). Then you'll get a portion of those in that category who are vaccinated who simply don't mount a good immune response. If that totals >20% in that age group, and then you increase the amount virus (and risk) in circulation several fold by just opening up? It's quite plausible the death rate could still be pretty high.

This isn't even taking into account the reduced level of immunity achieved after just a single shot.

I mean this is the entire point of herd immunity. It's very basic public health policy, first year university stuff. There's always a portion of the population who for whatever reason aren't protected even with high vaccine uptake, so stopping circulation in the population as a whole is the only solution.

[DaveSumm]

6 minutes ago, Impmk2 said:

I would strongly suggest that the 5-10% still vulnerable would skew heavily towards the elderly.

Quote

‘Older adults are a priority group for COVID-19 vaccination, because they are at increased risk of severe disease, but we know that they tend to have poorer vaccine responses.’

‘We were pleased to see that our vaccine was not only well tolerated in older adults; it also stimulated similar immune responses to those seen in younger volunteers.

Oxford vaccine produces strong immune response in older adults
 

[Impmk2]

2 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Oxford vaccine produces strong immune response in older adults
 

 

Given that is phase 2 trial data, which was on the dosing schedule which achieved 60% efficacy, it doesn't fill me with confidence. They weren't looking at protection / efficacy at that stage, and that's more complex than just the immune response, as shown by the final data.

If there's data that mirrors that from the phase 3 trials, I'll completely admit I'll be pleasantly surprised.

[Impmk2]

In any case I'm not in the UK. This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on. The question was asked why people would object to opening up after the most at risk group was vaccinated, I think I've covered the biggest reason. 

There's also unknown increase medium->long term risk from circulatory system / heart damage. Increased chance of varients / vaccine escape mutations with more virus in circulation. Probably more I haven't thought of. But there are reasons worth considering. It's about balancing those against the damage of longer restrictions.

[ljkeane]

There are valid reasons for continuing the lockdown for as long as possible but, to be blunt, I don't think people will stick to it. There has been a steady decline in how much people are sticking to the rules since the first lockdown and I'm not sure the rules were well followed over Christmas at all. If there's a target a couple of months away that we can all aim for then maybe there might be a bit more buy in again but if we're looking at six months or more of ongoing strict rules I think there will be a significant number of people who just don't really bother.

[DaveSumm]

3 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

I'm sure I read somewhere that those who interact with large numbers will also be given priority. So teachers, transport staff etc. Makes sense. 

Actually you’re right, found this on the government website:

Quote

The committee is currently of the view that the key focus for the second phase of vaccination could be on further preventing hospitalisation.

Vaccination of those at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 due to their occupation could also be a priority in the next phase. This could include first responders, the military, those involved in the justice system, teachers, transport workers, and public servants essential to the pandemic response. Priority occupations for vaccination are considered an issue of policy, rather than for JCVIto advise on. JCVI asks that the Department of Health and Social Care consider occupational vaccination in collaboration with other government departments.

I was also reading a Reddit thread where someone claimed that mild asthma sufferers would be included in group 6 if aged between 16-64 (and had checked with the DoH, not just a random comment) which is good to know.