United Kingdom VI: Summer Lovin'

[Soundwave]

Daily cases? That’s not correct is it?

Not even close to being correct
A quick Google shows all those countries have well under 10,000 cases per day
We are easily 5 times worse then any of them

[ZipZap]

Daily cases? That’s not correct is it?

Ah yeah, you may be right. I was basing it on this (which is from today!) https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...europe-compare but when I went back to it it's based on the last 2 weeks of 2020.

[ZipZap]

Not even close to being correct
A quick Google shows all those countries have well under 10,000 cases per day
We are easily 5 times worse then any of them

You have to look at per 100,000 to compare though, but yes, I appreciate the WHO stats I was quoting are not the current picture. I should've checked before quoting it!

[Neon Ignition]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/05/almost-a-quarter-of-over-80s-have-had-covid-jab-boris-johnson-says

24hrs since Lockdown 03 was announced and we've already gone from mid-Feb, to March and now Johnson says the Lockdown's duration is based on many caveats and he can't guarantee that it won't last for many months or that schools might return to being open at all before the summer. Whitty has also warned that restrictions of some sort might still be needed come Winter 2021.

Johnson estimates that over 20% of over 80yr olds have already had the vaccination but there appears to be no clarification over whether that's the full course or just the first jab so it could mean almost nothing at all.

[saif]

It will mean the one that isn't quite right.

I think, because he doesn't understand how vaccines work but does understand what sounds better, it will mean that 20% have had a jab rather than are vaccinated.

[charlesr]

How did previous plagues go away without vaccines? Did they just mutate themselves out of existence? Is there any comparison? Or is this just like a bad cold virus that will never go away

[MartyG]

It didn't go away, it lingered for decades. Its transmission reduced because it killed about a third of the population so there weren't very many people left to infect.

I think, because he doesn't understand how vaccines work but does understand what sounds better, it will mean that 20% have had a jab rather than are vaccinated.

The 2,000,000 a week target isn't jabs given, it's "jabs offered", so it might not even be that.

[fallenangle]

The single jab of either vaccine being used in the UK is actually good at increasing protection to a useful level (60+%). There are 'expert' opinions that suggest it might be a better strategy to inoculate twice the number of people with just one jab than use twice the amount of vaccine to fully (90%) inoculate them with two.

The fuller protection you get from the second jab doesn't diminish with a longer delay between the two.

[MartyG]

It may be the case, but there's no data to definitely say for sure because that's not what's been tested - it's not science led, it's politically led just so they can say, look at our numbers, best in the world (which is what they're already doing).

The dangers are that

1) there could be a diminishing immunity over time from the first jab without a booster being given within the period actually tested
2) with delaying the booster, more people disregarding social distancing and other protective measures because they wrongly believe they are immune, and thereby increasing infection rates

Given Johnson's track record, I wouldn't believe a single word of assurance coming from that direction - Pfizer/BioNTech in particular have said the booster should be given within three weeks. To diverge from the testing regime is a BIG gamble. It may pay off, it may not.

[saif]

A thought experiment with simplifications.
Let us say that one person has a disease and normally, they give it to three people, then they give to three people and so on. In ten steps, about 60,000 people have it. (this number is familiar...)
At 60% efficacy, that one first step only goes to one person. And then they only pass to one person. In ten steps - 10 people get it.
At 90% efficacy, that one step might go to one but chance for it to go to more than one step is pretty low - so let's say 2people get it.

From a public health perspective, the drop is from 60k to 10 or 60k to 2. 99.983% or 99.997%. Very close and definitely into "rounding territory.
From a personal health perspective, 8 more people die.

If 100 people have a vaccine (not "the" - we don't know how it affects spread...) at 60% efficacy, that stops spread. Some people will get it but they will die and not be able to spread it very far. At 90% fewer people will get it but for someone that is a number of steps away, the risk is very similar.
The problem is that we are not starting from a low base and you can argue that 5 times as many lives can be saved. And we know lives are lost.

[saif]

And, on top of this general comment about vaccines, in the case of this vaccine we are actually talking about Pfizer have not tested the effect of not having the booster.
Simplistically, I can get a malaria jab which last a short time (1 year). I can then get another booster jab which multiplies the effect so the second jab gives me 10 years - the second jab is 9 times more effective. That is bang for buck.

Pfizer are not saying how long the vaccination will last for. What if it takes a year to jab everyone and then everyone becomes vulnerable again just a little later?

[Dogg Thang]

Yeah, I think we need to be careful about pulling percentages from some random orifice. The bottom line is that the creators and testers of the vaccines have outlined how to give it and they are the ones with the information. And even then, it is limited information. But it is information. And they are not recommending holding off on that second dose.

[Hirst]

Apparently there are no plans to take all the homeless off the streets this time round. I guess knowing some poor people will either be arrested or die outside in the cold will help Conservative MPs sleep more soundly in these stressful times.

[Neon Ignition]

The first dose reliance can only be done for a few weeks in any case, whether at 3 weeks or 12 weeks at some point you have to start administering the second doses which means the rate of initial vaccinations will drop dramatically in any case and the risk will be higher that those who have had the first dose once will need to have it again to be properly inoculated if they time between doses grows too great.

The key concern with the plan should come from looking at the utter disaster made of Test and Trace, the Government can't be relied on to get this right and it's their shortcuts that have led us to this point as it is. Failure to properly vaccinate will also mean other countries keep their borders with use closed too dragging on issues. The Government has no basis to assume it can override the guidance of the very makers of the vaccines, it's just them once again failing badly to handle the situation properly. Given the groups and NHS/Carers etc being the initial ones to receive the vaccine there's absolutely no reason to short cut ensuring their safety just so the low risk groups can get access a few weeks earlier yet still late in the year.

[QualityChimp]

Embedded Tweet