TiRed - I've obviously ony scanned those docs quickly, but they seem to show a wave over the summer finishing by September. Can I ask why that timescale? Is that when we expect full second dose coverage to the population?
Is that when we expect full second dose coverage to the population?
Basically, yes. All adults will have been vaccinated by 3Q21. The SPI-M document has the key results from all three papers. They are broadly consistent. For some reference, there has been a stabilization in daily cases, perhaps with some additional testing on school return. A lot of people are looking hard at future trends (including me).
a wave over the summer finishing by September
But what next, because September/October is the start of the Seasonal Flu season, so just as we come out of that period, we have Winter lockdown November to March again?
As much as the links (thank you TiRed) give me great comfort that many expert minds are doing there best to help us, I'm now so sick of the perpetual "It'll be over by...." coming from Government when clearly we have years of "waves" and uncertainty to negotiate.
@Tired, could you tell me which antibody test kit would be the best to help detect and gauge/measure covid antibodies after receiving a vaccine? I ask as someone in remission from a blood cancer (lymphoma) where the treatment I received has damaged my immune system to a degree. There has been quite a lot of publicity recently about vaccine efficacy for those with damaged immune systems so would like to know what antibody levels I have.
It appears the antibody tests need to focus on the spike so from my cursory digging it appears the Roche Anti-SARS-COV-2 S to be most effective. Fo you know if that is still the hold standard?
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.28.20142232v1
I'm no expert, but I did post a link to seroconversion rates in immunocompromised a few days ago from PHE. Tests against spike protein antibodies will be the ones to detect evidence of seroconversion. The Roche one uses probe labelled antibodies to stick to key human antibodies present in your sera that target spike. There are other targets such as nucleocapsid, but you won't make these antibodies from the UK vaccines (both are spike protein-based). Others here will know, but from what I recall we have invested heavily in the Roche platform already and their COVID antibody test is just one of the tests available. It's very cool automated robotic technology.
A next wave is predicted in July/August, either from lockdown measures being released or from a variant or both.
What seems in doubt is the severity of the next wave, with worst case scenario deemed to be as bad as the one we’ve just come out of with max NHS pressure, although with vaccines I thought the promise of this was now unlikely?
I've seen similar predictions. With a smallish peak is this prediction based on a response of another lockdown/additional restrictions? or is there some sort of vaccination herd immunity limit being predicted?
coming from Government when clearly we have years of “waves” and uncertainty to negotiate.
Not if vaccination continues at the level of the last few days. There’s no way this dip is just down to a batch being checked & the Indian doses being delayed.
Larry_Lamb
Free Membercoming from Government when clearly we have years of “waves” and uncertainty to negotiate.
Thats not what I'm referring to. Lockdowns and a publically overwhelmed NHS is something we don't hear about on the news everyday related to Flu. Someone needs to pipe and tell us how long we need to mange lockdowns without the constant drivel of Easter/Summer/Christmas/June 21st only to then let us down time and time again. I'd rather know they'll be two lockdowns a year for the next 5 years and live with the expectation.
Lockdowns and a publically overwhelmed NHS is something we don’t hear about on the news everyday related to Flu.
Maybe not lockdowns, but the NHS under severe strain from flu is pretty much an annual event - though it seems to surprise our governments every year. There was certainly talk a couple of months ago of this coming winter being very tough if we get a big flu year and a smaller seasonal Covid wave. Maybe "hands, face, space" and more working from home will offset the flu risk
but the NHS under severe strain from flu is pretty much an annual event
This. A lockdown non-pharmaceutical intervention is a means of last resort. Overwhelming healthcare pressure is not. There will be pharmaceutical interventions coming to relieve the (annual) COVID pressure. In fact, the rate of research and development (and delivery) compared to influenza is breathtaking.
Regular vaccinations will become a thing, like influenza. It is possible that the long-term protection from vaccination for coronaviruses may actually be more protective from morbidity than influenza. The wave has passed, but the ground is still wet.
Lockdowns and a publically overwhelmed NHS is something we don’t hear about on the news everyday related to Flu.
Because its accepted by society to happen, that in order for us to live our lives as we do that some vulnerable folk will die as a result.
That's not newsworthy when it occurs each year and is accepted to happen.
I’d rather know they’ll be two lockdowns a year for the next 5 years and live with the expectation.
There won’t be another lockdown. There will be another wave of hospitalisations and deaths. This government will take the same decisions in the face of thousands of deaths that it did early last year… that is to let them happen… or to at least leave it to companies and the public to act to prevent them without government restrictions. It was only when it was being told that half a million deaths were possible that it took the measures it did. If deaths and serious illness over the next 12 months can be kept lower than they were over the previous twelve, without any lockdowns, they will just be allowed to happen. I wish it was otherwise, but people need to be read for that. The lockdowns we have had were to keep levels of illness and deaths to the levels they have been. They’ll anything up to that level happen again for another year if they feel reasonable safe that we are protected from an even bigger cost.
So what your saying is, is that we are likely this summer to be sitting in our pub gardens and staycations whilst being told to wear masks/wash hands in public places while cases rise and some people die around us, merely getting pissed and hoping its not us?
A bit like January without the actual lockdown or dare I say it, like the Flu we've come to accept? Unless of course Boris finds a reason that can't be pointed at him to lock us down again if deaths or admission get out of control - such as a virus dodging variant?
So we like we live our lives with Flu/SwineFlu/Bird Flu we will also now live our lives with COVID/Monkey Covid/Horse Covid or whatever.
So we like we live our lives with Flu/SwineFlu/Bird Flu we will also now live our lives with COVID/Monkey Covid/Horse COVID or whatever.
Correct
I’m now so sick of the perpetual “It’ll be over by….”
You and me both. Maybe a grown up political type could grasp the nettle and tell us the slightly unpleasant truth. I suspect that back to normal (pre-March 2020) is never going to happen and we need a new normal. I would be equally happy to be proved wrong.
Easter/Summer/Christmas/June 21st only to then let us down time and time again. I’d rather know they’ll be two lockdowns a year for the next 5 years and live with the expectation.
So there’s definitely a biennial lockdown for the next 5 years?
Great at least I can plan round that now.
Thanks to you and your crystal ball.
I’m now so sick of the perpetual “It’ll be over by….” coming from Government
Johnson channeling his inner Churchill.
There won’t be another lockdown. There will be another wave of hospitalisations and deaths. This government will take the same decisions in the face of thousands of deaths that it did early last year… that is to let them happen… or to at least leave it to companies and the public to act to prevent them without government restrictions. It was only when it was being told that half a million deaths were possible that it took the measures it did. If deaths and serious illness over the next 12 months can be kept lower than they were over the previous twelve, without any lockdowns, they will just be allowed to happen. I wish it was otherwise, but people need to be read for that. The lockdowns we have had were to keep levels of illness and deaths to the levels they have been. They’ll anything up to that level happen again for another year if they feel reasonable safe that we are protected from an even bigger cost.
Don't agree, I think the government has become increasingly politically risk averse since then - they will do anything and everything in the name of optics. If the public panic, the government will lockdown.
We're talking about a society that has CCTV on every street plus some of the most draconian terror laws and anti-protest laws in Europe. Risk tolerance on a personal day to day level is much lower than it is here in the Netherlands.
From what I'm seeing in our tiny cul de sac, there will be some sort of lock down again.
We are allowed to see a group of 6 or 2 households up to 15 'OUTSIDE'. I can safely say that in our road of 16 houses, 12 properties have just had relatives inside, with many of these having friends and family 'staying over' for the Easter 4 day break.
I've even seen a close friend having all her family staying over for the Easter weekend because they've had their first jab (the adults not their 20 something children), (photos on whatsapp).
Hopefully I'm just being pessimistic and am hoping there won't be any more tiers or lockdowns. Amazingly all these neighbours were clapping for the NHS last year.
Luckily I can stay away from them.
You can look at this as people are ****less morons and we're all doomed!
OR just close the curtains and focus your energy on the things which you can control, have an input into or influence. Life's too short to worry about idiots
EDIT: I've spent the last year being really pissed off with morons, Covidiot neighbours etc. My wife is a community based NHS worker visiting vulnerable people in their homes so we've both been as good as gold ...all year. It drives me mad but I've decided to ignore it from now on. I need to focus on making sure that our small family unit is okay.
When this is over there is a whole bunch of people that I will never talk to again. If they were on fire I wouldn't piss on them. Society will not miss them.
This is a dilemma for the regulator
Oxford pauses AstraZeneca Covid vaccine study on children
Even without a causal link identified, if a child suffers a bloodclot after being vaccinated, then they're will be problems with full vaccine rollout
Which again, was always a strong possibility.
The amount of people who shit themselves at the thought of a vaccine because they think they'll turn autistic and then huff a cigarette whilst doing a 5th line of coke is mind boggling. One minor additional risk that was identified later on was always going to cause a shit storm. There are lots and lots of people out there who think the man/nerds/elites are out to get them.
The vaccine programme will fail based on that, unless governments make it mandatory world wide, especially here in Europe where vaccine stupidity seems to be more rampant than the UK.
For some insight, I spoke to my friend in Paris last night about this. He said "well we're French, we always complain. If it was 100% safe and 100% effective we'd complain we didn't like the colour, or the name."
I'm sue he did a Gallic shrug whilst telling me that.
Apparently vaccine hesitancy is at 50 percent in France and was at 75 percent before the EMA approved the Pfizer vaccine.
Which is ****ing nuts. The only other sensible countries seem to be the Italians and the Spanish - maybe that's because they're socially less liberal than the Dutch/French/Germans?
I see both sides. I was mildly concerned when reports first came out, and prevaricated for a day about getting my jab before getting the AZ (and defending the mild side effects that seem relatively common, expected, and not atypical of vaccines in general to others on here)
But the longer this goes the more it looks like there is a link, and although the incidence is still very small (30/18.1M means 18,099,970/18,100,000 didn't get a clot side effect) when you also look at the higher incidence in F<50 year olds and the likelihood of that same demographic catching and dying from Covid, while still hugely in favour of the vaccine the picture becomes a little hazier.
Then take into the fact that death is not the only outcome; that vaccine also should protect others, or protect you from long covid or whatever, i see completely why people are starting to get increased hesitancy.
So I fully support the clear, unambiguous messaging so that people who are unqualified to understand properly risk/ reward equations, particularly when it is risk to self vs benefit to the wider population, get the info they need. But I also understand why people are suspicious of clear unambiguous messaging given the Gov in particular's shocking track record of making bad decisions and frankly lying.
NB for avoidance of doubt - 'understand' does not mean the same as 'agree with'. I understand why people are hesitant. I still think they are wrong.....
Maybe a grown up political type could grasp the nettle and tell us the slightly unpleasant truth.
short version - you cant handle the truth.
@theotherjonv - excellent post.
Humans are very bad at dealing with risks beyond the immediate. We've also been sold a wrong view of science - the newspaper version is very black and white and if you can't say something is 100% true it's not true.
Somehow, we need to get the iterative nature of science across better. Newton had a good model of gravity that works for almost anything , Einstein had a better one that agrees with Newton mainly but matches observation a better, someone will come up with a better model in the future.
Then there's the idea that falsifying something is good - people like certainty, the idea that it's a good idea to change your mind when facts show your idea is wrong is hard.
It would also be good if we could get to a position where politicians can be a bit more nuanced - there are always trade offs, but the messages now are very black and white. Was Trump a bad president? Yes in my view. Did he do some good things? Yes, Operation Warp Speed was the right thing to do.
same back to you Murray
the idea that it’s a good idea to change your mind when facts show your idea is wrong is hard
absolutely, to me it's the only rational response to new info. But we've made it harder by the press and others queuing up to shout "U-TURN!!" at the top of their voices. We see it everywhere; from pensioners duped by conmen selling investments who then suck up the loss because to admit they were duped is worse than losing their life savings, to the person who knows they just did something stupid in their car but has to make it the other person's fault - "(I know it was me that pulled out but) YOU WERE DRIVING TOO FAST, YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STOP!!!"
And to your second point. Yep - even bad people do the right things sometimes*, but our politics has become so entrenched / divisive there are some that will reject anything that the Gov proposes simply because it was them who proposed it. The opposition will be called Gov lackeys if they vote for it. We have to relearn how to play the ball, not the man.
* and vice-versa
@soobalias Or we may point out that a normal human being could have done a better job than the current mess of barely sentient mince currently occupying Westminster and masquerading as a government!
hey, im not suggesting that a mass of barely sentient mince couldnt have done better.....
I’d rather know they’ll be two lockdowns a year for the next 5 years and live with the expectation.
If the government tried to say something like that there'd be some loony libertarian anti-lockdown party riding high in the polls and scaring them off from making any more talk of that nature before you could say "oh look, Nigel Farage is back".
I’ve spent the last year being really pissed off with morons, Covidiot neighbours etc. My wife is a community based NHS worker visiting vulnerable people in their homes so we’ve both been as good as gold …all year. It drives me mad but I’ve decided to ignore it from now on. I need to focus on making sure that our small family unit is okay.
When this is over there is a whole bunch of people that I will never talk to again. If they were on fire I wouldn’t piss on them. Society will not miss them.
Not succeeding with the "ignore them" bit just yet, but agree with the sentiment.
Very much agree with the comments about people's inability to understand risk. Like theotherjonv I understand where vaccine hesitancy comes from even if I disagree with it. I imagine the risk of dying from one of these rare clots is much less than the chance of dying from a lot of other every day occurrences, but that kind of informed perspective seems to be lacking
Not entirely sure why they think it's a good idea to announce that the under 30s will be offered an alternative jab, but not the 30-50 range
As far as I understand the rational it's because the risk of covid in under 30s is so small that it doesn't offset the risk of clotting, whereas for the older age groups the risk of dying from covid means it's worth taking the gamble on the vaccine not killing you
I'm sure however that there are now many many thousands of healthy folks in their mid 30s thinking 'well the risk to me of covid is miniscule also, if it's not safe enough for a 28 year old its also not safe enough for me'
As a 45 year old I'll take whatever vaccine I'm offered as the risks of clotting are tiny, but I can't blame folks if they now refuse the az jab and start demanding a different option.
Supposing, for the sake of simplicity, that for over 30's the risk of dying of a blood clot after vaccination is less than the risk of dying of Covid, but for under 30's the situation is reversed, is it morally acceptable to ask a 25 year old to get vaccinated and expose themselves to a higher risk because of the value to society of a fully vaccinated population?
What does the panel think?
What does the panel think?
Other vaccinations are available. Use them for the younger cohorts. As is often the case, raise your eyes beyond the waters surrounding the British Isles to see the answers already in use.
Other vaccinations are available. Use them for the younger cohorts. As is often the case, raise your eyes beyond the waters surrounding the British Isles to see the answers already in use.
Before raising your eyes, maybe read what I actually wrote and clamber down from your snooty perch. Clue: I didn't mention "Oxford AstraZenica".
I know you didn’t. But you mentioned clots. There are vaccines available for the under 30s that are perfectly safe. And yes they should be encouraged to have them. Pfizer trails for secondary school aged kids look to have fantastic results so far, and I hope we can be offering that to years 10-13 later this year. My kids will have one as soon as it is available to them.
Thanks so much for your comments. Meanwhile, I am curious as to what answers people might have to the question I actually asked.
Your hypothetical problem we don’t have? **** that game. There are enough real concerns to talk about.
Your hypothetical problem we don’t have? **** that game. There are enough real concerns to talk about.
Then feel free to not reply. If you hadn't been so quick to tell me to "raise my eyes" you'd have had all kinds of time to address "real concerns".
Personally, as a mid-thirties fit person who works at home and is very cautious on the covid rules side of things, I'd not have the AZ vaccine at present.
I am a scientist and I understand risk. I've not had a chance to dig into the published numbers but from a skim read, at present it seems too close cut. Have enough non-health issue <50 year olds had the the AZ vaccine yet to have a good handle on the numbers of something very rare? I though so far we were still on over 50s or health issues.
Also conceptually, if something bad happens, there is a difference in making a choice to have a jab and accidentally catching covid.
I'd happily have the Pfiezer if offered though.
Then feel free to not reply.
Likewise.
Talk of vaccines being unsafe was always going to be overblown at this stage, with millions of people receiving them. Add to that feeling with your games if you want. Expect replies that don’t play along with you.
We have enough vaccines in production to aim them at the demographics each are best suited to. Young people should be offered the one(s) that are most appropriate for them. Every healthy person should be getting a vaccine shown to be safe for their age group, even if the risk of Covid is vanishingly small for them. Why? Not everyone can have the vaccine and are relying on those that can to keep them protected. Also, we should not use the younger generations as an incubator for new variants.
Jog on, fella.
Massive backtracking on AZ safety now.
No doubt the dumb ****s and their dumb **** ex-wives who should have put blind faith in the UK regulator a month ago when the message was “take it” (because UK science knew better) are still dumb ****s not to blindly trust the regulator now that it’s saying the opposite (because UK science didn’t).
Maybe it’s time for some of you to open your minds a bit... it clearly isn’t black and white.