Forum menu
Actually, Norway has a consistent history of protecting its citizens from excess influenza mortality. They have no excess mortality year on year. This is a very impressive achievement. Countries that consistently protect annually have much lower COVID mortality.
The Uk plot shows and additional 25-30k deaths compared to European average. The bump was driven by cases (Week 1 peak) and subsequent deaths (Week 3 peak). The subsequent decline, earlier than rest of Europe, speaks to the effects of our earlier lockdown and add-on later effects of vaccination. The plot of shame...See if you can spot the Christmas
effect?
We have a pattern of late, long “lockdowns” here. That doesn’t mean “there is no evidence that lockdowns can control transmission”, it just means the timing is crucial. Act too late, and it takes longer to get things under control, during which time more people fall ill.
Exactly as I said, with the downside of being prepared for a "quick and hard" lockdown is that you are primed for huge over-reaction at every new sniffle.
The UK also had the unique policy of emptying hospitals at the start of the pandemic, including sending old folks back to their homes. I suppose it makes sense, if you were anticipating the hospitals quickly filling with new Covid patients, but it may have been the primary cause of death during those first few months.
The UK also had the unique policy of emptying hospitals
German hospitals were also "emptied" to prepare for Covid patients. I expect other health systems had to do the same, I don't know, but I remember the criticism of German hospitals for doing so. Of course, they put measures in place for patients send out into care.
but it may have been the primary cause of death during those first few months
And what about the deaths during the winter wave? When we knew so much more, but still "battled the boffins" to stop an early circuit breaker or a party pooper's xmas?
“During the Christmas period from 24 to 26 December, social gathering rules will be relaxed to allowing one household to invite a maximum of four close family members from other households. ”
You've forgotten the unlocking for Christmas shopping prior to that. Mrs TiRed hasn't. The weekend I planned to go shopping was the week we closed them again. She has not forgotten the absence of a Christmas present. Another ten years and I may be forgiven...
People went shopping, they mixed, they saw friends. Some of them complied (we didn't see anyone in the SE). But the Christmas COVID bump is self-evident and precedented by annual respiratory deaths.
You’ve forgotten the unlocking for Christmas shopping prior to that.
So I did - I didn't go anywhere. I'm also not entirely sure we had that unlocking anyway, here in Wales.
I don’t give a shit. If someone doesn’t want to be vaccinated, don’t work in the healthcare sector.
Which is a fair point, but making it mandatory could mean you have to sack 20% of your workforce, in an industry which already struggles to attract people as it is.
Involved in an accident?
Sorry mate, but we can only find 8 people who are vaccinated, want to work in healthcare for minimum wage, and they're busy at the moment.
So can you wait 6 hours until we get around to seeing you?
Yeah, we had 10 of these heros last week and could have seen you in 20 mins, but had to sack Barry & Dave last week....
The better way would be to persuade people to take up the vaccine, rather than force them into doing so.
Try working in health care without evidence of hep b immunity. This is no different. If that means less people want the job then the job has to become more attractive, not easier to fill by putting elderly people’s lives at risk from vaccine averse individuals.
UK restrictions have been consistently tougher than most
Not sure where you've got that idea from. Ask an Australian, a Frenchie or a Spaniard their opinion on that and I think you might find it robustly refuted!
Well, my 2nd vaccination (scheduled for mid-July) was cancelled with no explanation.
I had to book it somewhere else, but on the plus side it's 10 days earlier.
Anyone else today experienced their little darling suffering a sore throat or headache at school and that now triggering full household isolation and PCR test? I guess from the fact that the online PCR booking seems to have fallen over that this development has caused a big wave of PCR test booking this evening!
So I did – I didn’t go anywhere. I’m also not entirely sure we had that unlocking anyway, here in Wales.
Christmas day we were allowed 2 households to meet indoors only, I remember vividly the decisions me and my family had to make about who could see who. It's the only time in the whole pandemic I've wished we had the English rules instead of out more sensible ones.
Not kids, but for the last ~10 days, I've had a mild sore throat and mild headaches. I'd presumed it was hayfever related despite taking my daily Allacan tablet, even though I thought my allergy was more to tree pollen, but sources outside Boris and the Test & Trace app are saying the symptoms most commonly associated with the Delta strain are..
Sore throat
Runny nose
Headache
Not continuous cough, taste/smell change, hot torso to the touch.
Not much point me ordering a rapid test or booking a PCR test now, or is there?
Until today I've been doing my usual work shifts and yesterday I had my second jab, which left me feeling really rough this morning but perhaps feeling less rough now.
no one should be told what injections they do or don’t get – with this precedent set where does it end. (a little dramatic I know
I understand that concern, but Hep B is already required, it's compulsory to have some vaccines to travel to certain countries.
I'm not getting involved in the lockdowns not working debate 🙈🙉🙊
Which is a fair point, but making it mandatory could mean you have to sack 20% of your workforce, in an industry which already struggles to attract people as it is
Look at it this way: by refusing a vaccination, someone who works in the healthcare industry is admitting that they put their own well-being above those whose own welfare is entrusted to them.
I also think that the kind of person who does that is unlikely to take proper precautions when it comes to things like mask-wearing or hand washing.
If a shortage of staff leads to pay increases for carers who are bright enough to see that them not passing on Covid-19 to frail residents is a good thing, then great.
Did my first PCS test (all kids at school being done and kits sent home for parents). Actually threw up doing my tonsils, if that reaction is fairly common can't see much point in kids doing home LFT tests, can't imagine many are being done properly.
@stumpyjon
Feel your pain. Been doing PCR testing for over a year week in week out. However, and I hesitate to suggest this, there may have been some user error on your part. Generally you may expect to gag but probably shouldn’t be throwing up.
(Secondary school age child does twice weekly lfd testing no issue. You get more proficient the more you do it).
A wise move:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57501108
A ban on landlords evicting firms for unpaid commercial rent is being extended for another nine months.
Actually threw up doing my tonsils, if that reaction is fairly common
It isn't. Wife + 2 have been doing 2 per week for months now, scientific analysis reveals 0.0% of incidents of throwing up. I made myself gag once doing one but I gag if I use too much toothpaste and it gets a bit foamy.
Seriously - don't push so hard!!
Have we done US regulator raises “significant concerns” over safety of rapid lateral flow tests
The US Food and Drug Agency (FDA) has raised concerns about the safety and the marketing of rapid lateral flow covid-19 tests, which are the cornerstone of the UK’s mass testing programme.
On 10 June,1 the agency warned the public to stop using the Innova SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid qualitative test for detecting infection and suggested the tests should be destroyed and binned or returned to the manufacturer.
The FDA published a class 1 recall of the test after an investigation carried out between March and April uncovered “significant concerns that the performance of the test has not been adequately established, presenting a risk to health.” Class 1 is the most serious kind of recall and indicates that use of the tests may cause serious injury or death.
In addition, the FDA said that “labelling distributed with certain configurations of the test includes performance claims that did not accurately reflect the performance estimates observed during clinical studies,” and that the test “has not been authorised, cleared, or approved by the FDA for commercial distribution or use in the US, as required by law.”
Is it still worth doing lateral flow tests? There seems to be a good case for going straight to a PCR test if you have symptoms.
There seems to be a good case for going straight to a PCR test if you have symptoms.
Which is what you're supposed to have been doing since last year.
Is it still worth doing lateral flow tests? There seems to be a good case for going straight to a PCR test if you have symptoms.
If you have symptoms you should get a PCR.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/testing/get-tested-for-coronavirus/
LFT is a cheap and cheerful way of screening for asymptomatic infection (albeit with the caveats you raise) - if you get a LFT positive then you follow up with PCR.
And then to add to complications, some areas doing 'surge' testing are requesting people to now go straight to asymptomatic PCR testing to try to map the spread of D-variant - if you're in those areas you should be aware of it by leafleting, door to door and whatever (as well as the list on the link below)
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/surge-testing-for-new-coronavirus-covid-19-variants
as well as more accurate PCR can be sequenced to show variant as well as Y/N
no one should be told what injections they do or don’t get – with this precedent set where does it end.
Certain vaccinations and/or evidence of not having certain diseases are criteria for entry and/or visas to many countries. An in-date Yellow fever is a big one to enter many countries in West Africa, for example.
Needed to show no evidence of tuberculosis to get an Australia visa once. Even needed a negative HIV test result to get my Saudi visa!
Thanks - makes sense
just to expand further still..... on the point of what's the use if they aren't accurate
If you're symptomatic you get the PCR
If you're asymptomatic and not doing LFT's, you're asymptomatic and potentially spreading
If you're asymptomatic and do a LFT
- if negative you're potentially spreading still, so same situation as if you hadn't done the test
- if positive you shield until you get the PCR done (experience says usually within 12-24 hours nowadays) and then act on that.
So a false neg leaves you no worse off*, a false positive is a PITA for a day or so but the benefits of picking up the true positives outweigh that, IMHO
* unless you then use your false negative LFT status as justification to not bother being careful any more. Declared Infection Clear and Knowledgable, is my term for that, usually in acronym form 😉
I haven't spoken to anyone yet who has tested positive on a lateral flow test. Heard plenty of stories about people testing negative on lateral flow then positive on a PCR. It seems this Indian variant may be evading the current lateral flow tests.
We are doing saliva based pcr assessments at work. Much nicer than shoving a swab down your throat or up your nose.
The whole thing has been written up in a nature paper
Nature paper
The lateral flow tests are useful, but they are not what some people think they are. The twice a week frequency is essential. One adhoc test doesn't mean much on its own, having a single negative lateral flow test shot should not be taken as licence to act as if there is no chance you're a carrier. I blame the PR for airlines (partly) for overselling in their media appearances what these tests can do, because the alternatives are so much more expensive and logistically more difficult for their customers.
LF tests are not terribly accurate but they do catch some of the asymptotic who might otherwise be missed. They are typically used by those with no clinical training. They are quick and cheap. They are a means to detect some of those who would otherwise not be detected at all. They aren't useless if used correctly.
PCR is more expensive, takes longer, but more reliable.
I’m not getting involved in the lockdowns not working debate 🙈🙉🙊
It's not "lockdowns don't work", more like "the UK lockdown may have combined the worst of both worlds" (which I was pretty clear with in my first comment). It's certainly true that there are few countries that locked down, and had significantly lower Covid death rate (by "significant", I'm talking around an order of magnitude).
Not sure where you’ve got that idea from. Ask an Australian, a Frenchie or a Spaniard their opinion on that and I think you might find it robustly refuted!
True - Spain and France had worse initial lockdowns (Spain having some especially awful restrictions), although their death rates are about the same as ours. Still - the UK continues to have among the toughest restrictions in the world, although it's hard for me to make a good comparision because the restrictions where I live (Wales) are tougher again, and (like many people) it's hard to work out what's going on elsewhere because movement is so limited. I hope all of you Welshies waited until June 7th to have anyone in your house!
Interesting to watch the discussion on lateral flow tests. I got so much flak back when they were first introduced for pointing out their obvious flaws (terrible false negative rate, unknown provenance). I ended up with a box of them (NHS-issued, too), and frankly it was a joke. The tests themselves and the swabs were in little sealed packets, but the measurement bottles and solutions were all bundled together in a ziplock bag. Performing the test felt more like "my first chemistry kit" than anything useful.
we know that lockdowns can control transmission
Yet to see much evidence of that working, at least in the UK lockdowns
It’s not “lockdowns don’t work”
Err...
Ok, now you've expanded with:
“the UK lockdown may have combined the worst of both worlds”
I don't think anyone in their right mind would disagree with you. 🙂
The reading I did on the lateral flow test was that they aren't *that* much worse than the PCR (I think it was still 90% accurate), so given that we can have them for free and repeatedly test it seems to me still worth doing. We do them if seeing an elderly relative primarily.
I'm in a bit of a quandry - meant to be going on holiday to corwall, but cases there are spiking and lots of hospitality/attractions being closed becuase of it. The weather forecast is crap too. I'm beginning to wonder if we are better off staying at home!
Ok, now you’ve expanded with:
“the UK lockdown may have combined the worst of both worlds”
I don’t think anyone in their right mind would disagree with you. 🙂
Right, and if the UK has had an unacceptable Covid death rate, then most other countries that also did some form of lockdown have not done significantly better. Yes, there are a handful that did, but (for example) other EU countries like France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Belgium are all in the same ballpark.
The reading I did on the lateral flow test was that they aren’t *that* much worse than the PCR
Lateral flow tests have a sensitivity of around 75%, which means they miss 25% of cases.
The UK has also spent nearly a billion pounds on them so far.
the UK lockdown may have combined the worst of both worlds
Absolutely agree with that - brought in too late every time, so allowing infections and death rates to soar, and as a result, needed to remain in force for much longer, so stuffing the economy.
So it's not that lockdowns haven't worked, it's the way we've used them in the UK that hasn't worked.
Lateral flow tests have a sensitivity of around 75%, which means they miss 25% of cases.
The UK has also spent nearly a billion pounds on them so far.
As opposed to missing 100% of asymptomatic cases if we wait for people to get symptoms and do a PCR test.
It's not perfect by a long way, but I'm not seeing any better cheaper alternatives at the moment
I read in one of the medical journals (I think BMJ) it was 90% compared to 97% - though I was just skim reading for some figures to tell family so may have misunderstood
I haven’t spoken to anyone yet who has tested positive on a lateral flow test.
I think many / most of their usage is in and around school testing. As said above they should be being used for asymptomatic testing and the deficiency in accuracy is partly due to not picking up low viral loadings (query then how likely that is to transmit) and partly people not doing the test properly (Guardian article showed different false result stats for home vs 'professionally administered')
There have been a few positives at my son's school, leading to isolations. I don't know exactly how many but these will have been followed up by PCR, and confirmed or overturned appropriately. I obvs don't know how many positives have been missed (how can you know the number of false negs other than 'statistics')
So you not having spoken to a LFT positive person may be demographics, for some reason I think you don't have school age kids (might be totally wrong)
I read in one of the medical journals (I think BMJ) it was 90% compared to 97%
As I understand it, the data can be skewed by high community prevalence - when prevalence is high, it can mask the underlying low sensitivity of the lateral flow tests.
It’s not perfect by a long way, but I’m not seeing any better cheaper alternatives at the moment
I'm not sure - what do you do with a negative result? As another poster so charmingly put it, you can't act like you're Covid-free.
(how can you know the number of false negs other than ‘statistics’
That's how we know most things related to Covid!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/25/covid-19-how-accurate-are-lateral-flow-tests
"The MHRA has authorised LFTs to be used as a “red light” test – to find infectious people and order them to self-isolate – but not as a “green light” test to allow people greater freedoms if they test negative. The regulator is concerned that the government’s universal testing programme blurs the lines between the two"
So it’s not that lockdowns haven’t worked, it’s the way we’ve used them in the UK that hasn’t worked.
They have worked. They could have worked better.
With lfts you might miss some due to lower than 100% accuracy or a poorly administered test but you catch some positives.You're trying to find positive results you would otherwise miss without doing any test at all. It is the very definition of being better than nothing!
I agree but I also understand the negative aspects - cost (bearable, IMHO); impact on people isolating when they didn't need to (PITA for sure, neg economic costs, now somewhat negated by speed and availability of PCR); and the messaging around false negatives (red light, not a green light linked / quoted above)
It's not a total no-brainer, but IMHO still firmly on the better to do than not do side.
With lfts you might miss some due to lower than 100% accuracy
Just to nitpick - LFTs apparently have a high accuracy (the positive indications are very likely to be accurate), but a low sensitivity (they miss a lot of cases).
So - they are just to pick out some percentage of asymptomatic cases that may otherwise contribute to transmission. People who test negative still need to act like they are disease carriers.
As it is not currently known if the vaccines give sterilising immunity, I suppose that the above will hold for vaccinated people, too.
now somewhat negated by speed and availability of PCR
Mass PCR testing has its issues, too, mostly related to the incredibly stringent lab conditions required to maintain any form of accuracy. Panorama apparenly uncovered a lot of issues like that in an undercover report.
Why isn't the official governenment guidance on symptoms to look out for changing, given how Delta's most common symptoms appear to be different?
People are still officially being told to look out for...
Continuous cough
Taste/smell change
Hot to the touch torso
But apparently the most common Delta strain symptoms are...
Sore throat
Headache
Runny nose
There could be an awful lot of people out there like myself attributing bad hayfever symptoms that their normals meds isn't relieving so well, when it might well be Delta.
Would it not be wise to change guidance and tell those "hayfever sufferers" to go and get a PCR test, while demand for PCR tests is relatively low compared to early '21?
As a GP I speak to people every single day who have symptoms but because they’ve done a Lateral Flow and it was negative they tell me it isn’t covid… I tell them they need a PCR but I expect that goes in one ear and out the other.
In my experience they are completely misunderstood by the population and this is leading to too much complacency. As someone explained above a positive is likely to be correct but a negative is probably meaningless on its own and should be ignored if there are symptoms. This is not the message the public want to hear though. So they are making up the rules. I’ve had parents refuse to get their children tested as it caused a nosebleed in the past.
Speaking as my family are doing LFTs every 48 hours after my daughter got pinged by track and trace at the weekend. Of the group she was in contact with, watching the football of course, there are three positives on PCR now (a household of lads) and at least one of those had a positive lft. The symptoms they’ve had have not been typical. Headache and achey generally no cough. This is in Sheffield where PHE are apparently looking at some cases of another variant. (We were told of someone who had tested positive after visiting the surgery, had no respiratory symptoms but a fever which was attributed to another infection.)
Mainly affecting the under 25 unvaccinated group but one of the positives in my daughter’s group was 4 weeks post second Pfizer.
I just hope that we continue to get enough protection from vaccination as this is going to rip through the youngsters this summer.
They have worked. They could have worked better.
AFAIK, the only countries that have had a significantly lower Covid death rate have had some combination of ongoing and very stringent lockdown restrictions, and sealing their borders. I think the list now comprises of NZ, Oz, and Norway (and maybe Finland).
Unless you plan to keep up restrictions for a very long time, lockdowns can only delay the inevitable ("flatten the curve", to put it another way). As such, they are only useful to reduce the peak load, and/or wait for vaccines.
As it is not currently known if the vaccines give sterilising immunity
There's more and more evidence they don't. There's a Delta varient cluster in Les Landes. Of the people who've tested positive 66% were unvaccinated but just under 10% had had both jabs. So even after 2 jabs you can have enough of the virus in your system to have a positive PCR test.
In my experience they are completely misunderstood by the population and this is leading to too much complacency.
If it is a messaging issue - what would have happened if the public were told "a negative test should not change your behaviour, this is just to catch definite positives"? They probably wouldn't bother.
There’s more and more evidence they don’t.
Careful saying that, people might think there isn't much point being vaccinated!
The way vaccination is being sold on this side of the channel is that the vaccine is not guaranteed to stop you getting the virus, but it will stop you getting serious forms of illness and long Covid.
Not sure which side of the Channel you are talking about, as all I hear is that everyone needs to get vaccinated, for the general good of all.
Ed is in France. But it's been much the same message in England... the early stages of the vaccination programme was all about reducing death and serious illness in the older population. We're only now moving towards vaccination to also reduce transmission.
I tell them they need a PCR but I expect that goes in one ear and out the other.
I'm no doctor but I though the test went up nose and in mouth
I'm defintiely not disputing the need to get as many people as possible vaccinated. I'm being realistic about what vaccination achieves. There is a difference in message. Here it's being made clear to the fully vaccinated (I am) that we can still get the virrus and still be vectors of transmission so we still have to comply with all the protocols. It's just that we're 60-90% less likely to get it and even if we do unlikely to fall seriously ill or get long Covid.
The idea of a vaccine passport worries me. We've now got people who can travel without PCR tests of whom 10% or more could be carrying the virus despite being vaccinated.
The way vaccination is being sold on this side of the channel is that the vaccine is not guaranteed to stop you getting the virus, but it will stop you getting serious forms of illness and long Covid.
Posted 6 minutes ago
REPLY | REPORT
twrch
Free Member
Not sure which side of the Channel you are talking about, as all I hear is that everyone needs to get vaccinated, for the general good of all.
Both statements are true, the only difference will be who decides the best way to ensure people get jabbed.
I think it's pretty clear what the 'end game' is. Some people think the plan is to vaccine as many people as possible to allow us to keep the R number below 1 with no restrictions and the virus will simply fizzle out in it's own time, but I don't think it's possible. Well, not unless the government wants to continue with restrictions for much longer AND start vaccinating Children and there doesn't appear to be the will to do either.
I think the plan is to vaccine as many people as possible to try to slow the spread, but ultimately once the projections show that the resulting wave won't over-load the NHS, to let nature take it's course. The likelihood is EVERYONE in the UK, probably the world is going to be exposed and possibly catch CV19 in the next few years, it's inevitable. If, come July 19th they remove all restrictions in England all the figures we've been using to measure how well/badly Covid is doing are going to leap, R rate, cases and % of positive tests, all way up, and yes Hospitalisations and Deaths, but the Government has an acceptable level of Hospitalisations and Deaths hidden somewhere.
As dark as it might seem, post July 19th (if it comes to pass) the onus on tests will change, you might even argue it's better for it to spread around, like measles in kids, get it now, build an immunity before a strong, nastier strain (possibly) arrives, next week, next year, 5 years from now.
I was talking to a supplier in Australia on Monday, he's bricking it, their vaccine uptake it low, the balance of public opinion generally seems anti-covid vaccines and because of their strict lockdowns and closed borders very few people have antibodies, when they open their borders, he expects a huge wave to follow.
The idea of a vaccine passport worries me.
Same here. I think it'll be short lived. They're talking about copying the one used in the EU here in the UK now... the cynical in me things that is about placating the airline industry and giving younger people more reason to step forward and get vaccinated, rather then being the best control measure (if it replaces testing and isolating then it could well be a step backwards, especially as regards new variants moving around the world).
when they open their borders, he expects a huge wave to follow
If they do so ahead of getting the majority vaccinated, then yes, possibly. But they do seem to act fast when it comes to contact tracing and/or lockdowns... so they'd probably do better than we have with our "waves". I wish them the best of luck.
I was talking to a supplier in Australia on Monday, he’s bricking it, their vaccine uptake it low, the balance of public opinion generally seems anti-covid vaccines and because of their strict lockdowns and closed borders very few people have antibodies, when they open their borders, he expects a huge wave to follow.
He is probably right too.
This might be one of the few actual downsides of being good with Covid.
New Zealand:
First jabs 11%
Fully Vaccinated 6%
Australia:
First jabs 21%
Fully Vaccinated 2.8%
South Korea:
First jabs 16%
Fully vaccinated 6.3%
Korea at least has a plan, they're not going to allow anyone in without a vaccine passport, but like most countries they're excluding Children and they're aiming for heard immunity by November.
Don't get me wrong, they'll all still do far better than the UK, US and most of Europe, on the scale of covid, it's probably a 'good problem', but a handful of 'Delta' carriers arriving in NZ or Aus will cause havoc.
I think the plan is to vaccine as many people as possible to try to slow the spread, but ultimately once the projections show that the resulting wave won’t over-load the NHS, to let nature take it’s course.
If true, I wonder what the "required" number is. As it is right now, I'm surprised just how many have been vaccinated, across all age groups. There aren't many left to get their first dose.
If, come July 19th they remove all restrictions in England all the figures we’ve been using to measure how well/badly Covid is doing are going to leap, R rate, cases and % of positive tests, all way up, and yes Hospitalisations and Deaths, but the Government has an acceptable level of Hospitalisations and Deaths hidden somewhere.
I suppose it's a numbers game, involving the effectiveness of the vaccine across different age groups, the transmission rates among the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, etc, but given that practically everyone who is vulnerable to having a bad time with Covid is now double-vaccinated, I personally don't understand the caution, especially (as I have now pointed out many times), we still have some of the strictest restrictions, as well as one of the highest vaccination rates (as well as very few people curerntly in hospital due to Covid).
Hey Ed, what percentage hospitalised in Les Landes? Out of interest.
If you've (not you specifically Ed, speaking generally now) been paying attention I don't think anyone has been saying vaccination would mean you won't get it. Just that the chances of severe symptoms were much reduced, and also would hopefully (which has I believe since been bourne out in studies) result also in reduced transmission - if you're not cranking virus out at a great rate you're not launching a great amount in to the atmosphere either, basically.
And yes, it remains to be seen if "massive lockdown and sealed borders, without a vaccination plan" is a good idea in the long run.
Pretty much as I said in my first comment - the evidence of lockdowns being an effective policy, especially a long-term one, is currently scarce.
“The MHRA has authorised LFTs to be used as a “red light” test – to find infectious people and order them to self-isolate – but not as a “green light” test to allow people greater freedoms if they test negative. The regulator is concerned that the government’s universal testing programme blurs the lines between the two”
Interesting. I was reading the 'COVID safe' requirements for attending a festival this morning. They accept a negative LFT.
https://bigfootfestival.co.uk/info/covid-safety-ticket-policy/
just that the chances of severe symptoms were much reduced, and also would hopefully (which has I believe since been bourne out in studies) result also in reduced transmission – if you’re not cranking virus out at a great rate you’re not launching a great amount in to the atmosphere either, basically.
So how is a vaccinated but otherwise not-at-risk person different from an unvaccinated person not currently displaying symptoms? (I have heard an answer to this, curious to see what the STW hive mind has to say).
I personally don’t understand the caution
I'm in my late 40s, reasonably fit, but my second jab is just other 2 weeks away. On a purely personal level I'm happy that we're taking it a little more cautiously.
As it is right now, I’m surprised just how many have been vaccinated, across all age groups. There aren’t many left to get their first dose.
63% of the population have had at least their first dose. Brilliant, isn’t it?
Early on it was thought the asymptomatic couldn't spread it. That's not true. If you're either asymptomatic or asymptomatic vaccinated you're probably similar though I'd imagine the viral load lower from the vaccinated. Caution - ianad.
Vaccinated or unvaccinated if you're symptomatic you shouldn't be out and about. I'm certainly going to be less tolerant about colleagues struggling in to work with a 'bit of a cold' than I used to be.
They're not keeping us entirely in the dark about it. Warwick Uni / BBC have created a graph for us.
If the Gov had lifted all restrictions on the 21st of June, the peak in Hospitalisations would have likely been slightly lower then March 2020, and significantly lower than Jan 2021, BUT worst case 500 higher than Jan 2021 which could have overwhelmed the NHS, not only in terms of Covid, but the backlog of non-covid work.
BY delaying until July, assuming I guess a continued good vaccine roll-out, the peak would be about 1200 a day, worst case 2700-ish.
The good news is, as far as I can tell, Warwick assume, even without restrictions hospitalisation to fall rapidly is August and to be near zero in Oct-ish, meaning for all intents and purposes, and barring any unknowns, the Pandemic in the UK is over.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, don't be the anti-vax dickhead that the Government is prepared (and the rest of the population in fairness) to sacrifice to bring an end to this.
I personally don’t understand the caution, especially (as I have now pointed out many times), we still have some of the strictest restrictions, as well as one of the highest vaccination rates (as well as very few people curerntly in hospital due to Covid).
Because we have a caseload that is doubling pretty much every week, forecast to peak in August, concentrated within younger age groups, with an apparent 1% hospitalisation rate in children. (EDIT: actually a bit higher from this more recent tweet).
https://twitter.com/jneill/status/1403682523650179075
Until the precise relationship between case numbers and hospitalisations/severity is established, I think the current state of affairs is plenty. I can go inside pubs, shops and restaurants, meet people indoors, send my kids to school (maskless, unbelievably). The list of things I can't currently do is a fairly short one.
The overall news is reasonably good, with plenty to be optimistic about.
And yes, it remains to be seen if “massive lockdown and sealed borders, without a vaccination plan” is a good idea in the long run.
Australia is about to have that sorely tested by the delta variant. They've not been pressing on with jabs - 3.1% population fully vaccinated. Let's hope they've not squandered their golden opportunity.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, don’t be the anti-vax dickhead that the Government is prepared (and the rest of the population in fairness) to sacrifice to bring an end to this.
Early on it was thought the asymptomatic couldn’t spread it. That’s not true. If you’re either asymptomatic or asymptomatic vaccinated you’re probably similar
We've just discussed this at length - why does someone who presents essentially no risk to the NHS (of becoming an ICU patient) need to be vaccinated? If it's to reduce transmission by a currently unknown but probably quite small amount, then we need to vaccinate all ages before restrictions can be lifted.
I wonder how they produced that graph. I struggle to believe that the vaccine is that ineffectual. It looks a lot like the "flatten the curve" graph that was used to justify the first few weeks of the first lockdown.
🚨One in every 100 child cases of COVID-19 are hospitalised
🚨Now 7% of all CV19 hospitalisations are children#VaccinesWork https://t.co/7aYvVNpNtK pic.twitter.com/4NFNqGqwXg
That's not very surprising, given that hospitalisations are much much lower than they have been - there are currently about 150 admitted per day with Covid, and also that so few children are affected by Covid in the first place. There's nothing there that says that more children per capita are being admitted now than previously. I can't find any historical data at the moment, but over the past two months there have been between 0-10 admissions per day in the 0-18 age group.
The list of things I can’t currently do is a fairly short one.
Once again, I have to remind myself that the state of things here in Wales is much more restrictive than in England. I've already been through the lockdown wringer (I'll spare you the tale of woe), at this point I don't care about the things I personally can and cannot do. I'm much more worried about the economic effects that are being locked in as restrictions continue.
and/or wait for vaccines.
You answered your own question. The area under the morbidity and mortality curves will be smaller with the combination of lockdown and vaccines. Without vaccines, it will not be.
If it’s to reduce transmission by a currently unknown but probably quite small amount, then we need to vaccinate all ages before restrictions can be lifted.
Not really, one can unlock enough such that effective transmission is stable, but the incidence is relatively high. This is what we might see in the younger unvaccinated age groups. As more people are protected, so more contact is possible for the same level of transmission. What we are planning, is a LOT more contact...
The area under the morbidity and mortality curves will be smaller with the combination of lockdown and vaccines. Without vaccines, it will not be.
It is yet to be seen how that will shake out. Sticking to my example of Germany (as a "well-behaved" EU country), they apparently had a well-timed and proportionate lockdown, and a reasonable number now vaccinated, yet have a Covid death rate only 40% less than ours (and also currently continuing to climb, unlike ours).
one can unlock enough such that effective transmission is stable, but the incidence is relatively high. This is what we might see in the younger unvaccinated age groups. As more people are protected, so more contact is possible for the same level of transmission. What we are planning, is a LOT more contact…
Sure, but we already know that Covid affects younger (as in, 50ish and younger) drastically less than older people, and thus would present little risk to the NHS in any case. I suppose the answer is, as always, "the modelling tells us so".
We’ve just discussed this at length – why does someone who presents essentially no risk to the NHS (of becoming an ICU patient) need to be vaccinated? If it’s to reduce transmission by a currently unknown but probably quite small amount, then we need to vaccinate all ages before restrictions can be lifted.
This, from the most recent Vaccine Surveillance Report: TLDR - It's hard to produce conclusive evidence on the effect on transmission, but intuitively reducing infection will reduce transmission, and some limited studies support this. This, for me, is enough reason to continue vaccinating those who are at greatest risk of spreading the virus, even though their personal risk of serious consequences is relatively low.
Effectiveness against transmission
As described above, several studies have provided evidence that vaccines are effective
at preventing infection. Uninfected individuals cannot transmit; therefore, the vaccines
are also effective at preventing transmission. Data from Scotland has also shown that
household contacts of vaccinated healthcare workers are at reduced risk of becoming a
case, which is in line with the studies on infection (15). There may be additional benefit,
beyond that due to prevention of infection, if some of those individuals who become
infected despite vaccination are also at a reduced risk of transmitting (for example,
because of reduced duration or level of viral shedding). A household transmission study
in England found that household contacts of cases vaccinated with a single dose had
approximately 35 to 50% reduced risk of becoming a confirmed case of COVID-19. This
study used routine testing data so would only include household contacts that developed
symptoms and went on to request a test via pillar 2. It cannot exclude asymptomatic
secondary cases or mildly symptomatic cases who chose not to request a COVID-19
test (16).
We don't need to vaccinate all ages, we just need to vaccinate enough people to inhibit transmission sufficiently. It is possible that threshold will be reached by current vaccination efforts in adults, perhaps 15-18 year olds will need to be included. The population will be kept above this threshold as immunity wanes by booster jabs as required.
We won't eliminate covid, its ever-changing form makes this impossible, but we can create an environment through vaccination in which it cannot seed and spread as effectively, until the point in the future where its endemic form is far less of a threat to the general population.
Just to add - if we're worried about children catching Covid, as
🚨One in every 100 child cases of COVID-19 are hospitalised
🚨Now 7% of all CV19 hospitalisations are children#VaccinesWork https://t.co/7aYvVNpNtK pic.twitter.com/4NFNqGqwXg
Also - if that's such a big deal, surely we need to vaccinate children too?
It’s hard to produce conclusive evidence on the effect on transmission, but intuitively reducing infection will reduce transmission, and some limited studies support this.
And that's my problem - that's not enough for me. And further - we don't even know how much the vaccines reduce infections, compared to just symptoms
We don’t need to vaccinate all ages, we just need to vaccinate enough people to inhibit transmission sufficiently. It is possible that threshold will be reached by current vaccination efforts in adults, perhaps 15-18 year olds will need to be included. The population will be kept above this threshold as immunity wanes by booster jabs as required.
Kids spend all day together, 5 days a week, in close physical contact. If your argument holds, how do they not need to be vaccinated?
Interested by the Germany Stat
40% less, on what basis?
I looked and they have had 90K deaths / pop 84.0M = 107 per 100K
UK is 128K deaths / 68.2M = 188 per 100K
81/188 for example is close to your 40% but on a pro-rata basis if we'd performed equally to Germany, we'd have expected 73K deaths.
I'm not sure 55K 'extra' deaths is covered sufficiently by 'only 40%' ?
Kids spend all day together, 5 days a week, in close physical contact. If your argument holds, how do they not need to be vaccinated?
Without wanting to get into the dreaded 'herd immunity' argument, vaccinating a sufficient proportion of the rest of the population will offer the unvaccinated significant protection. Not just children, but also adults who either cannot have the vaccine, or for whom it doesn't work (vaccination is not 100% effective).
This is how it works for a number of vaccinations - measles for example, is a highly contagious virus (higher than covid) - but it is estimated that if you get somewhere around 85-90% of children vaccinated, this effectively protects the remainder.
The exact % coverage you would need for this current variant is unknown, but highly achievable, thanks to the fantastic levels of uptake so far.
And that’s my problem – that’s not enough for me. And further – we don’t even know how much the vaccines reduce infections, compared to just symptoms
The problem more generally is that we are up against the third wave of a pandemic, and while I'm sure researchers will eventually come up with more reliable figures for this particular variant, some pressing decisions have to be taken on more limited evidence, combined with what we know already about viral transmission, and balanced with what we know about the likely harms of vaccinating a population. If we wait for the fog to clear entirely before we set our course, we could find ourselves a lot closer to the rocks than we want.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, don’t be the anti-vax dickhead that the Government is prepared (and the rest of the population in fairness) to sacrifice to bring an end to this.
We’ve just discussed this at length – why does someone who presents essentially no risk to the NHS (of becoming an ICU patient) need to be vaccinated? If it’s to reduce transmission by a currently unknown but probably quite small amount, then we need to vaccinate all ages before restrictions can be lifted.
PHE think it will reduce transmission by 40%-60% effectively halving the R-number for vaccinated people.
But that's not my point, "why does someone who presents essentially no risk to the NHS (of becoming an ICU patient) need to be vaccinated?"
IMHO Because with restrictions in place, the chances of ending really sick with Covid is small, but when restrictions are lifted it going to find you eventually, you might have no symptoms, you might have a bit of a 'cold' you might spend a week on the sofa, or you might end up in hospital or die, or you might end up feeling like shit for months. It's still a small chance, but then millions of people play the lottery every week. It's the same scary virus we were all worried about 15 months ago, only 9 times (I think) more contagious.