I’ve just finished nights on ITU, a sweaty, awkward, physically and mentally draining experience complete with a number of body bags; they’re not points on a graph, they’re dead people.

This+1 and Thanks indeed, infact my younger sister is an ICU nurse and they are experiencing double the first wave. Her friends parents came through last week after catching if from their kitchen fitter. The dad died this week and the mum was intubated today :_(

Really hammers home why we are doing this.

My first thought. We’ll be asking for Hancocks resignation again by March.

So xxxx-up after xxxx-up and he’s still there. Why would this be any different ?
plus he’s got the extra excuse the EU stole our vaccines or something?

My biggest worry about vaccination is the number of people that will refuse to have it,I have seen a couple of informal polls on weather or not people would be vaccinated and something like 40% of those that replied said they wouldn’t even consider having it

I don’t believe for a minute that when the vaccine is actually here, 40% will be thick enough to turn it down.

Gobshites.

If me and mine all have it, what is the risk to me if the anti-vaxxers refuse?

If me and mine all have it, what is the risk to me if the anti-vaxxers refuse?

Vaccination isn’t just about you though

Vaccination isn’t just about you though

I think that was his question

Anti-vaxiteers?

Blue on blue surely?

Through the more that have it the better I know. I mean the vaccine, not the disease!

My sister/ bil are saying they won’t have it (both at risk due to age/ conditions) as “it’s not been tested”. They love Boris though, so might do if he tells them it’s world beating or something.

I don’t believe for a minute that when the vaccine is actually here, 40% will be thick enough to turn it down.

Why? What’s it matter to them unless there is some sort of reward or penalty?
Unless they make it something like no access to public transport or schools, the ballet etc. why would people get vaccinated – ?

They love Boris though, so might do if he tells them it’s world beating or something.

Based on current form and assuming he’s still here I can’t see him actually doing anything to encourage those…and the rest are basically going to say “no” to stick it to the man anyway.

My sister/ bil are saying they won’t have it (both at risk due to age/ conditions) as “it’s not been tested”.

To be honest there is a lot in that I think. Drugs normally take a very long time to develop (going by new reports) and all we hear about this is how quick its been done. It doesn’t make you wonder how safe is it. Likely a lot of NHS staff will get some work/social pressure to get it and the rest of us will be waiting until the new year.

Unless they make it something like no access to public transport or schools, the ballet etc. why would people get vaccinated – ?

I’d love the rule to be if you don’t get vacinnated you pay for your own treatment when you get sick.

I think the risk of others not getting vaccinated very much depends on what the vaccine actually does. If it just massively reduced symptoms but not transmission I don’t really give a shit about other folks not getting it, with the caveat that they are last in queue for treatment.

If vaccination also prevents transmission then there need to be a few more ‘incentives’ for folks to be vaccinated. That said, if school kids aren’t getting vacinatted then there will always be a fair amount of it floating around

joepud

To be honest there is a lot in that I think. Drugs normally take a very long time to develop (going by new reports) and all we hear about this is how quick its been done. It doesn’t make you wonder how safe is it. Likely a lot of NHS staff will get some work/social pressure to get it and the rest of us will be waiting until the new year.

I’d agree, of all the reasons I’ve heard for not having the jab it’s the most understandable. That said, given the relevant risks involved vs catching Covid and the assurances I’ve read on here/ elsewhere that the vaccine trials have not cut corners I don’t think it’s valid.

I’d love the rule to be if you don’t get vacinnated you pay for your own treatment when you get sick.

but most people won’t get sick, certainly not enough to need medical treatment

I think the risk of others not getting vaccinated very much depends on what the vaccine actually does. If it just massively reduced symptoms but not transmission I don’t really give a shit about other folks not getting it, with the caveat that they are last in queue for treatment.

Unless it reduces transmission there is little point most people getting it.

That said, given the relevant risks involved vs catching Covid and the assurances I’ve read on here/ elsewhere that the vaccine trials have not cut corners I don’t think it’s valid.

Unless you’re at risk then the risks from you catching the virus are not very high…
TiReD gave them earlier… but fatality is something very low if you’re under 60… very very low if you’re under 50… there is of course the risk of long tail etc. but I’d guess (pre guess) that’s not much different to the risk to the vaccine long term?

I suspect people with living older parents who didn’t already have the virus might be accepting…
Those who lost parents/grandparents from covid might go one way or another..

^^ I agree, carer for a 91 year old here so she’ll be getting it asap hopefully. Me? I’d like to get it when I can due to long Covid but mostly due to the fact (I hope) it makes me less likely to transmit it to her, effectively enhancing the effectiveness of her jab.

I’ll have it because it’s a tiny relative risk to me age 56 of something bad happening and it will reduce the risk of me (or someone like me in the wider population) giving it to my friend’s immunosuppressed child. And also old(er) people.

It’s all about risk. If you get a hip replacement there’s a risk of adverse outcome up to death but if it works (which is far more likely) you’ll be able to walk again. There’s a risk of serious injury or death of riding your bike but it’s far more likely that you’ll have a good ride and it’ll help your mental health.

I don’t have a problem with people making a different choice. I hope people will consciously make their choices taking into account all the available info.

It’s all about risk. ….

I don’t have a problem with people making a different choice. I hope people will consciously make their choices taking into account all the available info.

Based on our local FB most objections are not about risk.
Obviously a few nutters who think Bill Gates is injecting a mind control device operated through 5G… but most people who object seem to be doing so due to “not being told what to do”

If the vaccine is presented honestly then most people have a very low risk anyway… vs apathy and doing nothing.

I’m 39, no health issues and pretty fit. I’d happily have it, not because I think I’ll be seriously ill or die but because I’d like to see mine and the Mrs’s family. I also really, really don’t want the long term issues.

On a side note, my cousin who is 2-3 years older but pretty overweight, was on a ventilator for 10 days really early on, is now back to being healthier and fitter than he’s ever been.

I think I might get it not because I’m worried about infection, but for the simple pleasure I will derive from pissing off all those mad anti-vaxxers, 5G conspiracists and HCQ fantasists out there.

dantsw13
Free Member

If me and mine all have it, what is the risk to me if the anti-vaxxers refuse?

It’s not 100% effective, is the thing. But 95% effective plus massive reduction of prevalence = pretty damn good, 5% of not much is very not much. 95% effective but not enough people getting it to really smash prevalence (because of course infection rates will be reduced by vaxxination but increased by returning to normal)- not so good.

Still, I think once they’ve seen the benefits and the lack of downsides, most doubters’ll change their minds and only the actual idiots will refuse it. That’s a much smaller demographic. I don’t know about anyone else but, I’ve met enough sensible adults who’re worried about the vaccine that I’ve had to stop thinking about it as the work of idiots.

It’s a bigger scale vaccination program than I was expecting? A lot of the chat seemed to be moving away from mass vaccination and really focusing on targeting the vulnerable/exposed but this feels like it’s almost closer to eradication than it is to that limited plan…

Reduction in risk of hospital admissions and protection against COVID19 (the disease) would be good outcomes for all. Such a therapeutic vaccine would be a huge advance because we’d still be able to open up contacts.

Instead of viewing it as sterile protection from the virus, think of it as giving you the lifetime of past infections you did not have. Kids will continue to build up their immunity as they do for other cornoaviruses.

The sterile protection and reduced transmission might be upsides.

Cases are not a true representation of underlying community transmission. They are confounded by testing practices. Look at hospital admissions, which are based on symptoms not testing. Analysis of hospital admissions at the acute trust level shows that the Tier 2/3 hospitals had a slower rate of growth (longer doubling time) than those in Tier 1. This is also evident at the NHS region data. Which is publicly available. North West (lots of Tier 2/3) admissions turned over from the end of October. South West (Tier 1) did not.

North West – showing turnover due to Tiers 2/3 from Oct 14 feeding in a week later

South West – showing limited effect of Tier 1 and later turnover due to lockdown from Nov 04 feeding in a week later

This is not immunity in the NW and not the SE, immunity is only about 10-20% of any restriction of growth. It is contact restrictions working.

Tier 3 appears to restrict spread, Lockdown will add to that, but the additional incremental benefit of lockdown with schools open is still being studied.

Tired, thanks for the reply. I agree that hospital admissions are a more reliable metric so I have found what appears to be the same data set that you are using and have broken down the data for the Liverpool City Region hospitals.

Just trying to figure out how to link the charts…

Think the analysis is sound but happy to be challenged on anything that doesn’t look right.

Do the charts not suggest that the hospital admissions in the Liverpool City Region had already plateaued before tier 3 was introduced? Am I missing something?

I use postimage for images. I only share analyses of public domain data. My other analyses are based on trust-level admissions across all tiers. I’m not sure if those are public, but point me in the right direction of the source. Wales abs Northern Ireland admissions fell off a cliff during their restrictions. I’m working on a policy plot to show this more clearly.

Looking at that data, it looks like tiers have an effect, but it’s also possible that other hospital admissions policies might have also helped with Liverpool university(did they move to other hospitals instead?) or not. Single trusts have relatively noisy data, but aggregation to regions shows a clearer less noisy picture. But it is nice data

Have had a search and have found reports of Liverpool hospitals approaching capacity but can’t find anything suggesting people were being directed to hospitals outside the region. Also, the flat spot in the overall North West line coincides with the beginning of the drop in Liverpool. If people were being transferred to other hospitals this flat spot wouldn’t be there would it?

Have added the trend line for cases on top. I can’t find the data for positivity rate. Nevertheless, assuming they haven’t reduced the quantity of testing while the region is experiencing a surge (why would they?) the infection rate is dropping long before tier 3 restrictions were introduced.

Note that the hospital admissions appear to drop 8 days after the case rate starts to drop (as would be expected).

I’m by no means suggesting that they shouldn’t have gone into tier 3 but the data available seems to suggest (to me at least) that infection rate was dropping about 2 weeks before we would expect to see any effects of the tier 3 restrictions.

Can anyone explain this? Have I missed something?

I don’t really count cases as truly informative due to sampling, other than ONS and REACT (which are randomized). universities returned last week of September, at which point there was a bit of a testing epidemic in university towns and cities.

The admissions shows a more expected shape. With dip from Tier 3 – which also coincides with school holidays so as to confound things further. Also admissions fall slower than cases, again implying sampling bias in cases.

Squaredog – thanks for the graphics – very clear and easy to understand.

Tired.

Thanks for the reply.

I don’t have any data to suggest otherwise but do you have any data to demonstrate that the shape of the cases curve reflects an increase in testing in Liverpool?

Also, why do the hospital admissions peak about a week later than the peak in cases? Isn’t this what we would expect to see?

Irrespective of whether case rate reflects actual infection rate this still does not explain why hospital admissions started dropping before tier 3 was introduced.

There are two independent data sets, cases (even if less reliable) and hospital admissions, both suggesting that infection rate was dropping before tier 3 was introduced.

Haven’t read all the comments but seems to be a lot of hate for people who might choose not to vaccinate.

I’m but no means an anti-vaxxer, and probably wouldn’t have given it much thought had I not been working with someone who’s son was one of a minority who developed narcolepsy from the swine flu vaccine and heard just how much impact on his life it’s had.

Even if the risk is low, I think I’ll let others go first on this one thanks.

the infection rate is dropping long before tier 3 restrictions were introduced

You could well be correct… but without admissions being seen to be dropping, deciding not to act at that point could well have been dooming hospitals to cope with a continuing rise. The decision was made working with figures that suggested admissions could keep rising… and rising from a high point. The hindsight knowledge about admissions dropping (but still high) might well have made a different decision possible (for a time traveller)… but even then you could have been missing an opportunity to drive admissions down before we get into winter proper, and the now usual winter hospital crisis.

Each vaccine already has been put into approx 50,000 people, and millions by the time it gets to you or I.

Even if the risk is low, I think I’ll let others go first on this one thanks.

That’s alright, we’ll take it for you. For the sake of you and your family, just hope that there is enough of us to do so to help keep you safe as well.

Also some of the vaccines (not so sure about the new RNA type but attenuated virus types) are essentially based on old technology with years of safe use, so the changes are relatively minor and pretty well understood from a safety POV

Kind of like having to redo the whole NCAP testing on a car because you changed the colour of the upholstery (massive exaggeration but….)

Sure, but the point made is that in the not too distant past we have an example of a rushed out vaccine causing problems, and whether slightly irrational or not, it is understandable that people may be hesitant about taking it until it’s more of a known quantity.

Don’t have the vaccine then. Just hope that enough other people do. I’m not judging.

Every drug has potential for side effects.

I work in big pharma, albeit on a different scale, we produce penicillin in its bulk form, before it goes into the secondary process, and you wouldn’t believe the quality and validation that it goes through, even on an age old, tried and tested process.

There’s no hate btw, just frustration at people making decisions without being informed. If you’ve done your homework and not sure, fair enough, it’s your choice.

Don’t have the vaccine then.

That’s what he said he was going to do

I’d say throughout this thread there is hate & I think judgement clearly is being made.

If the government wants a high uptake then it has got to really understand the reasons why people might be fearful of this and do more to address that; because those fears are not unfounded.

It will have to do more to spell out exactly why it is in people’s interests to vaccinate, and even more so if they are in a group that feels invulnerable to this disease because statistics are overwhelmingly in their favour.

You could well be correct… but without admissions being seen to be dropping, deciding not to act at that point could well have been dooming hospitals to cope with a continuing rise. The decision was made working with figures that suggested admissions could keep rising… and rising from a high point. The hindsight knowledge about admissions dropping (but still high) might well have made a different decision possible (for a time traveller)… but even then you could have been missing an opportunity to drive admissions down before we get into winter proper, and the now usual winter hospital crisis.

100% agree with everything you said Kelvin.

I accept that what I presented is based on a limited data set and am happy for this to be challenged. Assuming the analysis is sound though, I think it is interesting that the infection rate appears to have been attenuated by something other than additional restrictions.

Squaredog – thanks for the graphics – very clear and easy to understand.

Thanks dantsw13.

Here’s another interesting one which I created recently. This shows the ‘Registered Deaths/Expected Deaths’ by week for each region and plots the first wave against the second wave. Data up ton 6th November.

This is based on Public Health England data from here….

https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/static-reports/mortality-surveillance/excess-mortality-in-england-latest.html

I think someone (pondlife?) had suggested earlier in the thread that London was the region hit hardest during the first wave of the pandemic.

If we are using these metrics, he/she appears to be correct.

If the government wants a high uptake then it has got to really understand the reasons why people might be fearful of this and do more to address that; because those fears are not unfounded.

How do they do this exactly? They’ve said it will be fully tested and appropriate regulatory scrutiny applied. I’d argue that Joe Public knows more about the testing regime of these vaccines than almost any other given how much of it has been headline news. It appears to me that you are saying that you are aware of that but aren’t going to take it anyway because of the side effects of a completely different vaccine. Not entirely sure of the logic.