FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > The vulnerable v Herd immunity
The vulnerable v Herd immunity
Jump to: Newest in thread
For those epidemiologists and vaccine experts on here...
Our strategy has been to protect the vulnerable first, the ones who are locked up in care homes, nor allowed out, restricted movements. And whilst that may benefit them with a level of protection from catching or getting it and hospitalised ...
But As they are not out and herding about as much... It doesn't take us any closer to reducing community infections and herd immunity does it? If we had wanted to do that would we not have started with the most mobile spreaders? (which if you look at these threads seem to be teenagers and students followed by supermarket workers).
Don't get me wrong protecting the vulnerable is obviously a good thing, but I wonder how much that contributes to reducing the spread in the community. Epidemiogists to the front... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *ljamMan
over a year ago
Edinburgh |
"For those epidemiologists and vaccine experts on here...
Our strategy has been to protect the vulnerable first, the ones who are locked up in care homes, nor allowed out, restricted movements. And whilst that may benefit them with a level of protection from catching or getting it and hospitalised ...
But As they are not out and herding about as much... It doesn't take us any closer to reducing community infections and herd immunity does it? If we had wanted to do that would we not have started with the most mobile spreaders? (which if you look at these threads seem to be teenagers and students followed by supermarket workers).
Don't get me wrong protecting the vulnerable is obviously a good thing, but I wonder how much that contributes to reducing the spread in the community. Epidemiogists to the front... "
Not an epidemiologist, but capable of reading. As far as I can see, pushing for naturally acquired herd immunity is widely discredited amongst scientists as it leads to massive levels of unnecessary death.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4
Vaccination is the way to exit this pandemic with the minimum of loss. Vulnerable groups have been, and are being, protected until this is possible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Also not a scientist but I read and listen.
The other thing this conversation misses is morbidity. Long Covid and other issues (known and unknown) harm people of all ages - there are even studies looking at long Covid in children, and there's a multi system inflammatory disorder which Covid seems to cause in some children.
It isn't just death or the sniffles if you're under pension age. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think you're right, vaccinating the care home residents first doesn't necessarily reduce community transmission.
However, there's plenty of vulnerable people in the community too, that helps.
From what I can understand the vulnerable and elderly are at the highest risk of death from covid so whilst it won't necessarily reduce transmission, it should reduce death numbers.
I guess only time will tell if this strategy is right though |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Vaccinating the most clinically fragile also reduces the burden on hospitals. We do know that vaccination close to eliminates hospitalisations. When a system is under so much strain, deaths go way up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those epidemiologists and vaccine experts on here...
Our strategy has been to protect the vulnerable first, the ones who are locked up in care homes, nor allowed out, restricted movements. And whilst that may benefit them with a level of protection from catching or getting it and hospitalised ...
But As they are not out and herding about as much... It doesn't take us any closer to reducing community infections and herd immunity does it? If we had wanted to do that would we not have started with the most mobile spreaders? (which if you look at these threads seem to be teenagers and students followed by supermarket workers).
Don't get me wrong protecting the vulnerable is obviously a good thing, but I wonder how much that contributes to reducing the spread in the community. Epidemiogists to the front...
Not an epidemiologist, but capable of reading. As far as I can see, pushing for naturally acquired herd immunity is widely discredited amongst scientists as it leads to massive levels of unnecessary death.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4
Vaccination is the way to exit this pandemic with the minimum of loss. Vulnerable groups have been, and are being, protected until this is possible. "
Ohhh that is interesting regarding herd immunity... I've often thought that I've seen no evidence that herd immunity is possible with this virus, as I keep an eye on the science that makes it through the Google and BBC filters and haven't yet seen any peer reviewed science stating it can be achieved and for how long... It seems a bit of a hail Mary pass at the moment... "we think this will reduce symptoms for most people and we think it will reduce infections for some period of time and we think it might reduce vital shedding" I accept its the best we've got and would have a jab as soon as offered but from what I've seen the end game seems a little over egged until there is more evidence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Also not a scientist but I read and listen.
The other thing this conversation misses is morbidity. Long Covid and other issues (known and unknown) harm people of all ages - there are even studies looking at long Covid in children, and there's a multi system inflammatory disorder which Covid seems to cause in some children.
It isn't just death or the sniffles if you're under pension age."
Very true it is hardly ever mentioned. I guess we will only find out the impact of this on long covid, by definition, after a long time. Science can do many things but not yet time travel. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There have been several studies I've heard about saying that various forms of immunity last for X amount of time, usually infection date minus testing date (SARS survivors, we can prove 17 years so far). The one that sticks in my head is by Shane Crotty (Google name plus 'covid immunity' and results will pop up - can't link due to forum rules), which suggests durable but not necessarily permanent immunity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Also not a scientist but I read and listen.
The other thing this conversation misses is morbidity. Long Covid and other issues (known and unknown) harm people of all ages - there are even studies looking at long Covid in children, and there's a multi system inflammatory disorder which Covid seems to cause in some children.
It isn't just death or the sniffles if you're under pension age.
Very true it is hardly ever mentioned. I guess we will only find out the impact of this on long covid, by definition, after a long time. Science can do many things but not yet time travel. "
It's another reason to protect each other, even if personally we're low risk |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
We've seemingly protected those most at risk of serious illness and death, which coincidentally helps the NHS to cope better. If we'd instead jabbed younger people it would not have had the same direct effect as the NHS, with a lower reduced death toll, as the highest risk groups would have still been infected. Care homes wouldn't have benefitted as much, their vulnerable residents still ravaged by the virus.
There's a numbers position too - there's a much higher volume of younger people than there is of vulnerable elderly people so, as doses are limited, you get the greatest return from targeting the smaller, elderly group.
Herd immunity will become present in closed smaller groups, even if not in the full population |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *D835Man
over a year ago
London |
"Also not a scientist but I read and listen.
The other thing this conversation misses is morbidity. Long Covid and other issues (known and unknown) harm people of all ages - there are even studies looking at long Covid in children, and there's a multi system inflammatory disorder which Covid seems to cause in some children.
It isn't just death or the sniffles if you're under pension age."
This  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For those epidemiologists and vaccine experts on here...
Our strategy has been to protect the vulnerable first, the ones who are locked up in care homes, nor allowed out, restricted movements. And whilst that may benefit them with a level of protection from catching or getting it and hospitalised ...
But As they are not out and herding about as much... It doesn't take us any closer to reducing community infections and herd immunity does it? If we had wanted to do that would we not have started with the most mobile spreaders? (which if you look at these threads seem to be teenagers and students followed by supermarket workers).
Don't get me wrong protecting the vulnerable is obviously a good thing, but I wonder how much that contributes to reducing the spread in the community. Epidemiogists to the front...
Not an epidemiologist, but capable of reading. As far as I can see, pushing for naturally acquired herd immunity is widely discredited amongst scientists as it leads to massive levels of unnecessary death.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4
Vaccination is the way to exit this pandemic with the minimum of loss. Vulnerable groups have been, and are being, protected until this is possible. "
Herd immunity was decided by boris early last year ,not shutting airports a massive indicator |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those epidemiologists and vaccine experts on here...
Our strategy has been to protect the vulnerable first, the ones who are locked up in care homes, nor allowed out, restricted movements. And whilst that may benefit them with a level of protection from catching or getting it and hospitalised ...
But As they are not out and herding about as much... It doesn't take us any closer to reducing community infections and herd immunity does it? If we had wanted to do that would we not have started with the most mobile spreaders? (which if you look at these threads seem to be teenagers and students followed by supermarket workers).
Don't get me wrong protecting the vulnerable is obviously a good thing, but I wonder how much that contributes to reducing the spread in the community. Epidemiogists to the front...
Not an epidemiologist, but capable of reading. As far as I can see, pushing for naturally acquired herd immunity is widely discredited amongst scientists as it leads to massive levels of unnecessary death.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4
Vaccination is the way to exit this pandemic with the minimum of loss. Vulnerable groups have been, and are being, protected until this is possible.
Herd immunity was decided by boris early last year ,not shutting airports a massive indicator"
Yeah don't let your political leanings obstruct your critical thinking. We wouldn't be locking down a 3td time if natural acquired herd immunity (if at all achievable) was the strategy. Look at what other countries are doing as well, especially regarding their vaccine strategy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those epidemiologists and vaccine experts on here...
Our strategy has been to protect the vulnerable first, the ones who are locked up in care homes, nor allowed out, restricted movements. And whilst that may benefit them with a level of protection from catching or getting it and hospitalised ...
But As they are not out and herding about as much... It doesn't take us any closer to reducing community infections and herd immunity does it? If we had wanted to do that would we not have started with the most mobile spreaders? (which if you look at these threads seem to be teenagers and students followed by supermarket workers).
Don't get me wrong protecting the vulnerable is obviously a good thing, but I wonder how much that contributes to reducing the spread in the community. Epidemiogists to the front...
Not an epidemiologist, but capable of reading. As far as I can see, pushing for naturally acquired herd immunity is widely discredited amongst scientists as it leads to massive levels of unnecessary death.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4
Vaccination is the way to exit this pandemic with the minimum of loss. Vulnerable groups have been, and are being, protected until this is possible.
Herd immunity was decided by boris early last year ,not shutting airports a massive indicator
Yeah don't let your political leanings obstruct your critical thinking. We wouldn't be locking down a 3td time if natural acquired herd immunity (if at all achievable) was the strategy. Look at what other countries are doing as well, especially regarding their vaccine strategy. "
My understanding is that they talked about going for herd immunity initially. I even joked about going and getting myself infected to do my bit. I remember.
They realised that it wouldn't be a few thousand old dears but it might be worse and changed their mind. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think that the strategy of vaccinating vulnerable first is very much a "oh fuck, we've got a catastrophe on our hands, what the hell do we do" decision. Damned one way, damned the other.
Fwiw I think that doing it this way may just about keep the NHS from being totally swamped, at the expense of allowing covid to continue circulating across the general population for a little while longer. As I've posted in other threads, my (back of an envelope) epidemiology calculations indicate that it's only when we hit a magic 50% of total population fully vaccinated that the case load will start to drop off quickly. Every jab past the 50% point will provide an increasing benefit towards vaccine provided herd immunity, which is the only long term solution. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think that the strategy of vaccinating vulnerable first is very much a "oh fuck, we've got a catastrophe on our hands, what the hell do we do" decision. Damned one way, damned the other.
Fwiw I think that doing it this way may just about keep the NHS from being totally swamped, at the expense of allowing covid to continue circulating across the general population for a little while longer. As I've posted in other threads, my (back of an envelope) epidemiology calculations indicate that it's only when we hit a magic 50% of total population fully vaccinated that the case load will start to drop off quickly. Every jab past the 50% point will provide an increasing benefit towards vaccine provided herd immunity, which is the only long term solution."
Yes I wasn't being critical of the chosen strategy but i was just curious of the reasoning of choosing the least mobile and most protected groups to go first.
Actually the way they are steaming through the first doses has been surprisingly, pleasantly impressive so chapeau to the powers that be.
Though I'm sure it won't be many days before someone calls bullshit on those numbers too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think that the strategy of vaccinating vulnerable first is very much a "oh fuck, we've got a catastrophe on our hands, what the hell do we do" decision. Damned one way, damned the other.
Fwiw I think that doing it this way may just about keep the NHS from being totally swamped, at the expense of allowing covid to continue circulating across the general population for a little while longer. As I've posted in other threads, my (back of an envelope) epidemiology calculations indicate that it's only when we hit a magic 50% of total population fully vaccinated that the case load will start to drop off quickly. Every jab past the 50% point will provide an increasing benefit towards vaccine provided herd immunity, which is the only long term solution.
Yes I wasn't being critical of the chosen strategy but i was just curious of the reasoning of choosing the least mobile and most protected groups to go first.
Actually the way they are steaming through the first doses has been surprisingly, pleasantly impressive so chapeau to the powers that be.
Though I'm sure it won't be many days before someone calls bullshit on those numbers too. "
The science changes all the time. It's how we learn and do better  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Yesterday we vaccinated nearly 600000 people.
I think this is amazing and we could realistically be looking at everybody having both doses by the end of summer and that is an achievement to be proud of.
I think hes absolutely right decision that we vaccinate in priority order of those most likely to get sick because also we don't know much about whether it prevents spread.
Catching Covid isn't necessarily a problem, Catching covid and getting seriously sick and needing hospital treatment or passing it on to someone that will is so it makes sense to me that those most vulnerable to being hospitalised and therefore dying get vaccinated 1st. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think a lot of people misunderstand the concept of herd immunity.
Herd immunity isn't just letting the virus run it's course unchecked. Herd immunity is simply acquiring a large enough percentage of a population with immunity (from vaccination or infection) that those without immunity are statistically unlikely to a. become infected and b. cause an epidemic if they are infected.
Cal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There are many reasons as some have mentioned why the way we are doing this is the right way to do it.
But I will throw in another...do you think the take up of the vaccine would have been as high as it is at 90% takeup if we had started the opposite end and worked up? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Not a scientist or anything but what I’ve read and understood so far.
My belief was that lockdown was instigated to ‘protect the nhs’, or try to reduce the number of people using the service so they don’t become overwhelmed.
The reason for focusing on the elderly was that something like 93% of virus deaths has come from the elderly and high risk. To vaccinate them would remove the overwhelmingly large majority of burden on the nhs, allowing us to reopen. The goal never being the eradication of the virus, only the suppression to a point of acceptable reduction. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There are many reasons as some have mentioned why the way we are doing this is the right way to do it.
But I will throw in another...do you think the take up of the vaccine would have been as high as it is at 90% takeup if we had started the opposite end and worked up?"
I have no way of knowing. But I would expect it to have been yes. Because if you explain to people who have most to gain from it, that they can get their lives back sooner... I'm confident that any group would do so.
If people assumption is that the young are the super spreaders and the assumption is that the vaccine reduces infections, then it make more sense to me to achieve a better reduction in infection numbers by hitting the group that (we are told) spread it the most.
Lots of assumptions in there and being devil's advocate because I personally don't believe a lot of the negative headlines without any evidence to back them up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not a scientist or anything but what I’ve read and understood so far.
My belief was that lockdown was instigated to ‘protect the nhs’, or try to reduce the number of people using the service so they don’t become overwhelmed.
The reason for focusing on the elderly was that something like 93% of virus deaths has come from the elderly and high risk. To vaccinate them would remove the overwhelmingly large majority of burden on the nhs, allowing us to reopen. The goal never being the eradication of the virus, only the suppression to a point of acceptable reduction. "
. Pretty sure you are spot on with that conclusion. Harsh reality is that financially we as a nation are living on borrowed time. The economy has to be re opened as soon as the number of hospitalisations reaches a level the nhs can cope with. Otherwise we will reach a point where there will be no money to pay the nurses. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not a scientist or anything but what I’ve read and understood so far.
My belief was that lockdown was instigated to ‘protect the nhs’, or try to reduce the number of people using the service so they don’t become overwhelmed.
The reason for focusing on the elderly was that something like 93% of virus deaths has come from the elderly and high risk. To vaccinate them would remove the overwhelmingly large majority of burden on the nhs, allowing us to reopen. The goal never being the eradication of the virus, only the suppression to a point of acceptable reduction. . Pretty sure you are spot on with that conclusion. Harsh reality is that financially we as a nation are living on borrowed time. The economy has to be re opened as soon as the number of hospitalisations reaches a level the nhs can cope with. Otherwise we will reach a point where there will be no money to pay the nurses. "
The financial aspect as a country is dire and I have 0 desire to pay for a lockdown that I haven’t really supported. Add on top of this all the problems that lockdown is creating, from homelessness, mental health problems, educational problems, job and business closures. The cost of lockdown is sky rocketing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not a scientist or anything but what I’ve read and understood so far.
My belief was that lockdown was instigated to ‘protect the nhs’, or try to reduce the number of people using the service so they don’t become overwhelmed.
The reason for focusing on the elderly was that something like 93% of virus deaths has come from the elderly and high risk. To vaccinate them would remove the overwhelmingly large majority of burden on the nhs, allowing us to reopen. The goal never being the eradication of the virus, only the suppression to a point of acceptable reduction. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rman82Man
over a year ago
Manchester |
Maybe we could take another look at was proposed in The Great Barrington Declaration? Given the majority of the high risk category are now vaccinated it would make this proposal even more realistic. We do need to end this cycle of opening then locking down. The effects of locking down have so far been swept under the carpet, with the vaccine in play surely now they can no longer be ignored. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Maybe we could take another look at was proposed in The Great Barrington Declaration? Given the majority of the high risk category are now vaccinated it would make this proposal even more realistic. We do need to end this cycle of opening then locking down. The effects of locking down have so far been swept under the carpet, with the vaccine in play surely now they can no longer be ignored."
We’ve vaccinated 15% of the population and a vast swathe of the highest risk. We should now be looking at reopening. If the vaccine is ineffective then so be it. Is the plan to remain on lockdown for eternity if vaccines don’t work? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not a scientist or anything but what I’ve read and understood so far.
My belief was that lockdown was instigated to ‘protect the nhs’, or try to reduce the number of people using the service so they don’t become overwhelmed.
The reason for focusing on the elderly was that something like 93% of virus deaths has come from the elderly and high risk. To vaccinate them would remove the overwhelmingly large majority of burden on the nhs, allowing us to reopen. The goal never being the eradication of the virus, only the suppression to a point of acceptable reduction. "
The issue I have with that is thta we have demonstrated already that we as a population are pretty thick. Or dense as some people have used that double entendre. We have shown three times that we have little ability to think sensibly for ourselves. As soon as this non lockdown lockdown is called off.. There will be 1000s of house parties, crowds in pubs, not sure we can do much more loo roll shopping but we will be be out there licking eachother like we have never tasted air before. And 8 weeks later the hospitals will be rammed again. We all have to be better. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe we could take another look at was proposed in The Great Barrington Declaration? Given the majority of the high risk category are now vaccinated it would make this proposal even more realistic. We do need to end this cycle of opening then locking down. The effects of locking down have so far been swept under the carpet, with the vaccine in play surely now they can no longer be ignored."
Whilst not totally disagreeing with most of what you say. Pretty much everything in The Barrington declaration has been debunked as impractical. Yes once we get at least everyone over 50 vaccinated then we can start to open up. Of course some measures are going to around for a good while yet but we can start to get on with life a bit more normally. Getting the over 50s vaccinated is very important as although 50 to 65 are not likely to die as long as treatment is available, they are the ones that tie up hospital and ICU beds the most with covid. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not a scientist or anything but what I’ve read and understood so far.
My belief was that lockdown was instigated to ‘protect the nhs’, or try to reduce the number of people using the service so they don’t become overwhelmed.
The reason for focusing on the elderly was that something like 93% of virus deaths has come from the elderly and high risk. To vaccinate them would remove the overwhelmingly large majority of burden on the nhs, allowing us to reopen. The goal never being the eradication of the virus, only the suppression to a point of acceptable reduction.
The issue I have with that is thta we have demonstrated already that we as a population are pretty thick. Or dense as some people have used that double entendre. We have shown three times that we have little ability to think sensibly for ourselves. As soon as this non lockdown lockdown is called off.. There will be 1000s of house parties, crowds in pubs, not sure we can do much more loo roll shopping but we will be be out there licking eachother like we have never tasted air before. And 8 weeks later the hospitals will be rammed again. We all have to be better. "
. Have you not noticed the effect the vaccines are having. The calculations generally are that once all the over 50’s have been vaccinated we will be able to have crowded pubs again without causing massive health problems |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm not very clear on the herd immunity concept, whether by vaccination or antibodies, seeing as we don't have herd immunity with the long established flu virus and its mutations?
And Covid is worse than flu? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rman82Man
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Maybe we could take another look at was proposed in The Great Barrington Declaration? Given the majority of the high risk category are now vaccinated it would make this proposal even more realistic. We do need to end this cycle of opening then locking down. The effects of locking down have so far been swept under the carpet, with the vaccine in play surely now they can no longer be ignored.
Whilst not totally disagreeing with most of what you say. Pretty much everything in The Barrington declaration has been debunked as impractical. Yes once we get at least everyone over 50 vaccinated then we can start to open up. Of course some measures are going to around for a good while yet but we can start to get on with life a bit more normally. Getting the over 50s vaccinated is very important as although 50 to 65 are not likely to die as long as treatment is available, they are the ones that tie up hospital and ICU beds the most with covid."
I’d have to disagree with you there, it may be been debunked but it’s whether you trust the debunkers! The people that signed it were pretty well up on this kind of thing and they stand by it.
Also we really need to stop moving the goalposts, I don’t agree that we need to get the over 50s vaccinated before we start opening up. In the grand scheme of things this is a low risk category and they will be able to make their own health choices about whether they go out or not. Until they get the vaccine, at this rate it won’t take long. The NHS is always under pressure, the population has had a massive influx, the hospital are underfunded and can’t cope with the demand all year round, we need to deal with those issues separately.
The affects of lockdown can no longer be ignored, the affects on the economy are going to be a hell of a lot worse, no economy, no NHS. Let’s get things moving and start to realise that life must go on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think as I have said many times it makes perfect sense to vaccinate those most at risk of hospitalisation.
In phase 2 if we know more about the vaccine and how effective it is at Reducing spread then we can look at groups that are more likely to pass it on to others.
Ultimately we want this to be the last lockdown so I'm thinking as awful as it is id rather stay in lockdown longer and only open up slowly so that we don't have to go back.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those epidemiologists and vaccine experts on here...
Our strategy has been to protect the vulnerable first, the ones who are locked up in care homes, nor allowed out, restricted movements. And whilst that may benefit them with a level of protection from catching or getting it and hospitalised ...
But As they are not out and herding about as much... It doesn't take us any closer to reducing community infections and herd immunity does it? If we had wanted to do that would we not have started with the most mobile spreaders? (which if you look at these threads seem to be teenagers and students followed by supermarket workers).
Don't get me wrong protecting the vulnerable is obviously a good thing, but I wonder how much that contributes to reducing the spread in the community. Epidemiogists to the front... "
Not an epidemiologist but just want to point out that the teenage spreaders you refer to can't be vaccinated anyway... the vaccine is not licensed for use in anyone under 16.
So even with huge swathes of the population vaccinated, we are always going to have millions who won't be vaccinated. Not to mention those who can't receive the vaccine for other reasons.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think as I have said many times it makes perfect sense to vaccinate those most at risk of hospitalisation.
In phase 2 if we know more about the vaccine and how effective it is at Reducing spread then we can look at groups that are more likely to pass it on to others.
Ultimately we want this to be the last lockdown so I'm thinking as awful as it is id rather stay in lockdown longer and only open up slowly so that we don't have to go back.
"
I get the feeling that's their plan. Some reports today of wanting there to be under 1,000 new infections a day before lockdown is released. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think as I have said many times it makes perfect sense to vaccinate those most at risk of hospitalisation.
In phase 2 if we know more about the vaccine and how effective it is at Reducing spread then we can look at groups that are more likely to pass it on to others.
Ultimately we want this to be the last lockdown so I'm thinking as awful as it is id rather stay in lockdown longer and only open up slowly so that we don't have to go back.
I get the feeling that's their plan. Some reports today of wanting there to be under 1,000 new infections a day before lockdown is released. "
There's a plan? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think as I have said many times it makes perfect sense to vaccinate those most at risk of hospitalisation.
In phase 2 if we know more about the vaccine and how effective it is at Reducing spread then we can look at groups that are more likely to pass it on to others.
Ultimately we want this to be the last lockdown so I'm thinking as awful as it is id rather stay in lockdown longer and only open up slowly so that we don't have to go back.
"
There’s no wanting. This must be the last lockdown. The country cannot afford to keep doing this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think as I have said many times it makes perfect sense to vaccinate those most at risk of hospitalisation.
In phase 2 if we know more about the vaccine and how effective it is at Reducing spread then we can look at groups that are more likely to pass it on to others.
Ultimately we want this to be the last lockdown so I'm thinking as awful as it is id rather stay in lockdown longer and only open up slowly so that we don't have to go back.
There’s no wanting. This must be the last lockdown. The country cannot afford to keep doing this."
Question is then matt.... Is the country doing everything it possibly can to ensure this is the last lock down? Or are people still spreading the infection.? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Long and short of it is the government will continue with lockdown as a strategy until it becomes unachievable. One of two things will make it unachievable. Either mass civil disobedience or economic damage beyond recovery. I don’t see anything else even being considered. Likelihood is they’ll push it until we’re on the brink of utter economic collapse then spin it so that lockdowns can be ended, consequences be damned. Or they allow it to rumble on until it gets warmer and then we’ll see the power keg blow and mass disorder. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think as I have said many times it makes perfect sense to vaccinate those most at risk of hospitalisation.
In phase 2 if we know more about the vaccine and how effective it is at Reducing spread then we can look at groups that are more likely to pass it on to others.
Ultimately we want this to be the last lockdown so I'm thinking as awful as it is id rather stay in lockdown longer and only open up slowly so that we don't have to go back.
There’s no wanting. This must be the last lockdown. The country cannot afford to keep doing this.
Question is then matt.... Is the country doing everything it possibly can to ensure this is the last lock down? Or are people still spreading the infection.? "
That's why they can't really have a plan.
Scientific data says do plan X.
Public does FW.
Plan fails. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe we could take another look at was proposed in The Great Barrington Declaration? Given the majority of the high risk category are now vaccinated it would make this proposal even more realistic. We do need to end this cycle of opening then locking down. The effects of locking down have so far been swept under the carpet, with the vaccine in play surely now they can no longer be ignored.
Whilst not totally disagreeing with most of what you say. Pretty much everything in The Barrington declaration has been debunked as impractical. Yes once we get at least everyone over 50 vaccinated then we can start to open up. Of course some measures are going to around for a good while yet but we can start to get on with life a bit more normally. Getting the over 50s vaccinated is very important as although 50 to 65 are not likely to die as long as treatment is available, they are the ones that tie up hospital and ICU beds the most with covid.
I’d have to disagree with you there, it may be been debunked but it’s whether you trust the debunkers! The people that signed it were pretty well up on this kind of thing and they stand by it.
Also we really need to stop moving the goalposts, I don’t agree that we need to get the over 50s vaccinated before we start opening up. In the grand scheme of things this is a low risk category and they will be able to make their own health choices about whether they go out or not. Until they get the vaccine, at this rate it won’t take long. The NHS is always under pressure, the population has had a massive influx, the hospital are underfunded and can’t cope with the demand all year round, we need to deal with those issues separately.
The affects of lockdown can no longer be ignored, the affects on the economy are going to be a hell of a lot worse, no economy, no NHS. Let’s get things moving and start to realise that life must go on."
The barrington declaration falls down on one main thing. To protect the vunerable they have to shield totally not lock down til covid has hit covid herd immunity. Also so do anyone they live with and anyone that care or treats them. This is totally impractical the number of peoplè involved would be huge and would take years. That is why virtually no one sensible agrees with it now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ornLordMan
over a year ago
Wiltshire and London |
"Long and short of it is the government will continue with lockdown as a strategy until it becomes unachievable. One of two things will make it unachievable. Either mass civil disobedience or economic damage beyond recovery. I don’t see anything else even being considered. Likelihood is they’ll push it until we’re on the brink of utter economic collapse then spin it so that lockdowns can be ended, consequences be damned. Or they allow it to rumble on until it gets warmer and then we’ll see the power keg blow and mass disorder. "
Well, covid is being used to disguise the economic damage being caused by this government's disastrous policy elsewhere. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Long and short of it is the government will continue with lockdown as a strategy until it becomes unachievable. One of two things will make it unachievable. Either mass civil disobedience or economic damage beyond recovery. I don’t see anything else even being considered. Likelihood is they’ll push it until we’re on the brink of utter economic collapse then spin it so that lockdowns can be ended, consequences be damned. Or they allow it to rumble on until it gets warmer and then we’ll see the power keg blow and mass disorder.
Well, covid is being used to disguise the economic damage being caused by this government's disastrous policy elsewhere."
I think covid has done more than enough economic damage all on its lonesome. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think as I have said many times it makes perfect sense to vaccinate those most at risk of hospitalisation.
In phase 2 if we know more about the vaccine and how effective it is at Reducing spread then we can look at groups that are more likely to pass it on to others.
Ultimately we want this to be the last lockdown so I'm thinking as awful as it is id rather stay in lockdown longer and only open up slowly so that we don't have to go back.
There’s no wanting. This must be the last lockdown. The country cannot afford to keep doing this.
Question is then matt.... Is the country doing everything it possibly can to ensure this is the last lock down? Or are people still spreading the infection.?
That's why they can't really have a plan.
Scientific data says do plan X.
Public does FW.
Plan fails. "
And there's the great British public conundrum...
"I want someone else to wave a magic wand and make this disappear so I am not inconvenienced anymore."
"what are YOU prepared to do or sacrifice to make the magic work?"
"not very much, why should I? The leaders are all wankers, everyone else is a selfish twat and besides Dominic cummings drove to Durham a year ago so I should be able to go anywhere and do anything, and why haven't they fixed it yet, god they are useless". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think as I have said many times it makes perfect sense to vaccinate those most at risk of hospitalisation.
In phase 2 if we know more about the vaccine and how effective it is at Reducing spread then we can look at groups that are more likely to pass it on to others.
Ultimately we want this to be the last lockdown so I'm thinking as awful as it is id rather stay in lockdown longer and only open up slowly so that we don't have to go back.
There’s no wanting. This must be the last lockdown. The country cannot afford to keep doing this.
Question is then matt.... Is the country doing everything it possibly can to ensure this is the last lock down? Or are people still spreading the infection.?
That's why they can't really have a plan.
Scientific data says do plan X.
Public does FW.
Plan fails.
And there's the great British public conundrum...
"I want someone else to wave a magic wand and make this disappear so I am not inconvenienced anymore."
"what are YOU prepared to do or sacrifice to make the magic work?"
"not very much, why should I? The leaders are all wankers, everyone else is a selfish twat and besides Dominic cummings drove to Durham a year ago so I should be able to go anywhere and do anything, and why haven't they fixed it yet, god they are useless". "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think as I have said many times it makes perfect sense to vaccinate those most at risk of hospitalisation.
In phase 2 if we know more about the vaccine and how effective it is at Reducing spread then we can look at groups that are more likely to pass it on to others.
Ultimately we want this to be the last lockdown so I'm thinking as awful as it is id rather stay in lockdown longer and only open up slowly so that we don't have to go back.
There’s no wanting. This must be the last lockdown. The country cannot afford to keep doing this.
Question is then matt.... Is the country doing everything it possibly can to ensure this is the last lock down? Or are people still spreading the infection.? "
Nothing will ever stop the spread, only slow it down. Lockdown is a postponement tactic. The reality is we desperately need to start reopening ASAP. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rman82Man
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Maybe we could take another look at was proposed in The Great Barrington Declaration? Given the majority of the high risk category are now vaccinated it would make this proposal even more realistic. We do need to end this cycle of opening then locking down. The effects of locking down have so far been swept under the carpet, with the vaccine in play surely now they can no longer be ignored.
Whilst not totally disagreeing with most of what you say. Pretty much everything in The Barrington declaration has been debunked as impractical. Yes once we get at least everyone over 50 vaccinated then we can start to open up. Of course some measures are going to around for a good while yet but we can start to get on with life a bit more normally. Getting the over 50s vaccinated is very important as although 50 to 65 are not likely to die as long as treatment is available, they are the ones that tie up hospital and ICU beds the most with covid.
I’d have to disagree with you there, it may be been debunked but it’s whether you trust the debunkers! The people that signed it were pretty well up on this kind of thing and they stand by it.
Also we really need to stop moving the goalposts, I don’t agree that we need to get the over 50s vaccinated before we start opening up. In the grand scheme of things this is a low risk category and they will be able to make their own health choices about whether they go out or not. Until they get the vaccine, at this rate it won’t take long. The NHS is always under pressure, the population has had a massive influx, the hospital are underfunded and can’t cope with the demand all year round, we need to deal with those issues separately.
The affects of lockdown can no longer be ignored, the affects on the economy are going to be a hell of a lot worse, no economy, no NHS. Let’s get things moving and start to realise that life must go on.
The barrington declaration falls down on one main thing. To protect the vunerable they have to shield totally not lock down til covid has hit covid herd immunity. Also so do anyone they live with and anyone that care or treats them. This is totally impractical the number of peoplè involved would be huge and would take years. That is why virtually no one sensible agrees with it now."
I’m sure if they spent half the money they have on furlough, on this, they could have devised some sort of plan. As I said though with the vaccine in play now, this really is not such a big task. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Long and short of it is the government will continue with lockdown as a strategy until it becomes unachievable. One of two things will make it unachievable. Either mass civil disobedience or economic damage beyond recovery. I don’t see anything else even being considered. Likelihood is they’ll push it until we’re on the brink of utter economic collapse then spin it so that lockdowns can be ended, consequences be damned. Or they allow it to rumble on until it gets warmer and then we’ll see the power keg blow and mass disorder. "
You posit only 2 outcomes of the lockdown and current immunisation strategy, which both fail - it could be viewed that that's very blinkered.
The evidence from the vaccines show massive reductions in deaths and serious illness (very welcome outcomes). The evidence from reducing social contact is also clear - it reduces the opportunity for the virus to be passed on to others.
2 positive benefits from the current strategy.
As vaccination progresses on from the highly vulnerable older population, to less vulnerable segments of the population, this still gains significant benefits.
Doing this very slowly, should we take several years to get through the majority of the population, would be the wrong approach and would test public support. That we're currently moving with the momentum to have huge proportions of the population vaccinated quickly, doesn't suggest only the 2 types of outcome that you forecast.
After 3 lockdowns, I think the majority prefer to end this 1 appropriately, when we won't have the NHS overloaded with high levels of the tragic deaths and illness severity that we've had for a year. And that we don't relax things too quickly, easing the wrong things that will foster increases in the r number. Keeping that well below 1, means that it's a shrinking problem. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
They've been pretty clear from the start restrictions were in place to manage intensive care intake. Protecting the vulnerable, shielding, immunisation group decisions, have all been done with that in mind to keep NHS admissions at a manageable level.
Letting it rip amongst the able would have doubtless cost more lives, doctors forced to make decisions on who to treat based on their capacity not clinical need, which would have led to more deaths because not everyone who's vulnerable lives in a bubble on their own.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Long and short of it is the government will continue with lockdown as a strategy until it becomes unachievable. One of two things will make it unachievable. Either mass civil disobedience or economic damage beyond recovery. I don’t see anything else even being considered. Likelihood is they’ll push it until we’re on the brink of utter economic collapse then spin it so that lockdowns can be ended, consequences be damned. Or they allow it to rumble on until it gets warmer and then we’ll see the power keg blow and mass disorder.
You posit only 2 outcomes of the lockdown and current immunisation strategy, which both fail - it could be viewed that that's very blinkered.
The evidence from the vaccines show massive reductions in deaths and serious illness (very welcome outcomes). The evidence from reducing social contact is also clear - it reduces the opportunity for the virus to be passed on to others.
2 positive benefits from the current strategy.
As vaccination progresses on from the highly vulnerable older population, to less vulnerable segments of the population, this still gains significant benefits.
Doing this very slowly, should we take several years to get through the majority of the population, would be the wrong approach and would test public support. That we're currently moving with the momentum to have huge proportions of the population vaccinated quickly, doesn't suggest only the 2 types of outcome that you forecast.
After 3 lockdowns, I think the majority prefer to end this 1 appropriately, when we won't have the NHS overloaded with high levels of the tragic deaths and illness severity that we've had for a year. And that we don't relax things too quickly, easing the wrong things that will foster increases in the r number. Keeping that well below 1, means that it's a shrinking problem. "
I still believe the government will continue with lockdown. Yeah they’ll get more people vaccinated but I’m convinced the only thing that’ll end it now is financial collapse or disobedience. More about saving face than any other factor. Lockdown has to be seen as the right thing to have done. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
