Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[Bouleversee]

I received all the letters re shielding (in triplicate in foolscap envelopes; what did that cost if they were sent to over £3m, I wonder) but I was never asked to complete a survey. I think CEV people will be more at risk now than previously and I will only be venturing out for essentials, mainly to take my never ending garden rubbish to the dump, which is pretty safe. I haven't time for a social life, anyway.

I gather Prince Charles has tested positive for C19 again and had recently visited the Queen. Need I say more?

[Julian]

It strikes me that the early cessation of covid laws is 100% political.

Deaths are creeping down glacially slowly and new infections running at a record levels so nothing has suddenly changed medically. But Johnson badly needed a dead cat to dump on the table at PMQs yesterday, and decided this would do nicely.

No more and no less than that to it, IMO.

You might be right but the other aspect to consider is - is this the right thing to do?

In one news report on this today I heard a quote, I’m not sure who from, along the lines of “the correct decision can be taken even if it is for the wrong reasons”. If indeed this was a 100% political move it might yet fall into that category of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

- Julian

[Lootman]

It strikes me that the early cessation of covid laws is 100% political.

Deaths are creeping down glacially slowly and new infections running at a record levels so nothing has suddenly changed medically. But Johnson badly needed a dead cat to dump on the table at PMQs yesterday, and decided this would do nicely.

No more and no less than that to it, IMO.

You might be right but the other aspect to consider is - is this the right thing to do?

In one news report on this today I heard a quote, I’m not sure who from, along the lines of “the correct decision can be taken even if it is for the wrong reasons”. If indeed this was a 100% political move it might yet fall into that category of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

True, but is it even the wrong reason?

After 2 years people are utterly sick of these restrictions. So it can be the right decision simply because a majority favour it. At least in a democracy.

[Mike4]

It strikes me that the early cessation of covid laws is 100% political.

Deaths are creeping down glacially slowly and new infections running at a record levels so nothing has suddenly changed medically. But Johnson badly needed a dead cat to dump on the table at PMQs yesterday, and decided this would do nicely.

No more and no less than that to it, IMO.

You might be right but the other aspect to consider is - is this the right thing to do?

In one news report on this today I heard a quote, I’m not sure who from, along the lines of “the correct decision can be taken even if it is for the wrong reasons”. If indeed this was a 100% political move it might yet fall into that category of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

True, but is it even the wrong reason?

After 2 years people are utterly sick of these restrictions. So it can be the right decision simply because a majority favour it. At least in a democracy.

I think that depends what you mean by the 'right decision'. Your argument seems circular. It is the 'right decision' only because (arguably) a majority would say they want it if asked.

I'm tempted to quote the trope where by your measure it would be the 'right decision' to increase public spending on the NHS (or education, or policing, or almost anything and everything) whilst at the same time it would also be the 'right decision' to cut taxes. But I won't as your argument obviously makes no sense

[Lootman]

It strikes me that the early cessation of covid laws is 100% political.

Deaths are creeping down glacially slowly and new infections running at a record levels so nothing has suddenly changed medically. But Johnson badly needed a dead cat to dump on the table at PMQs yesterday, and decided this would do nicely.

No more and no less than that to it, IMO.

You might be right but the other aspect to consider is - is this the right thing to do?

In one news report on this today I heard a quote, I’m not sure who from, along the lines of “the correct decision can be taken even if it is for the wrong reasons”. If indeed this was a 100% political move it might yet fall into that category of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

True, but is it even the wrong reason?

After 2 years people are utterly sick of these restrictions. So it can be the right decision simply because a majority favour it. At least in a democracy.

I think that depends what you mean by the 'right decision'. Your argument seems circular. It is the 'right decision' only because (arguably) a majority would say they want it if asked.

I'm tempted to quote the trope where by your measure it would be the 'right decision' to increase public spending on the NHS (or education, or policing, or almost anything and everything) whilst at the same time it would also be the 'right decision' to cut taxes. But I won't as your argument obviously makes no sense

I never said you weren't asking the right question. And defining the word "right" there is a part of that.

But the only way we have of knowing what is right is to ask people. Essentially in a democracy the majority decides what is right.

Which of course always leads the minority who lost to declare "we lost but we were right"(*), rather like a losing football team might claim that even though they lost, they were the better team.

We have no other way of knowing what is right. If the voters are willing to accept more deaths in return for more freedoms, then that is the right decision.

(*) Remember Corbyn declaring, after being thrashed in the GE, that Labour "had won the debate but lost the election"? Oxymoron.

[servodude]

In one news report on this today I heard a quote, I’m not sure who from, along the lines of “the correct decision can be taken even if it is for the wrong reasons”. If indeed this was a 100% political move it might yet fall into that category of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

- Julian

Sounds believable; have a read at Leviticus and there's some common sense there (you just need to divorce it from the stone age religious connotations)

I am actually surprised to hear that there are "things" still to repeal; well things that might impact you in any meaningful way
- I guess that might be part of the fallout of NPI being subsumed by this omnipresent anti-factual culture war? It has throughout this made decisions tribal rather than sensible (and that's on both sides)
- and really who needs more bamboo planes!?

Anyways I hope it all flushes through quickly - it doesn't seem like there is actually that much risk to the "extremely clinically vulnerable" now if they are vaccinated (going by hospital occupancy and make up of places with good vaccine coverage).
Exposure to omnomnom while everything in the body is supercharged would probably be a very good idea for the future (as widely as possible for everyone involved); given that at some point, very soon, there will be minimal social interventions.

Fingers crossed
-sd

[odysseus2000]

This is an interesting 9 minute pod cast with Lex Friedman & a physician making all manner of claims of how pharma folk have got rich out of vaccines:

https://youtu.be/E7PLet4tmME

It makes little sense to me as although it is true that the turnover from the mRNA vaccines has been huge as is noted, the profit accruing to e.g. Pfizer bottom line has not been in proportion. There could be large “special” payments to directors as he implies, but I have seen no evidence of such.

The whole thing seems a bit ridiculous to me, but perhaps there are truths that I am unaware of.

Regards,

[Julian]

This is an interesting 9 minute pod cast with Lex Friedman & a physician making all manner of claims of how pharma folk have got rich out of vaccines:

https://youtu.be/E7PLet4tmME

It makes little sense to me as although it is true that the turnover from the mRNA vaccines has been huge as is noted, the profit accruing to e.g. Pfizer bottom line has not been in proportion. There could be large “special” payments to directors as he implies, but I have seen no evidence of such.

The whole thing seems a bit ridiculous to me, but perhaps there are truths that I am unaware of.

Regards,

When he (the interviewee) is talking about 32 billionaires extracting $50bn I wonder if, assuming it's true, a large percentage of that is from share price movements. Pfizer and AZ have had a fairly rollercoaster ride although for the period from December 2019 to now some good gains could have been made if one were lucky enough to buy a dip and sell into a good peak (especially with Pfizer). Moderna and Novavax have maybe had more of an upward climb although both have seen retreats from their peaks in 2021 but still good/fortuitous timing could have yielded spectacular gains.

There definitely (at least according to reports) have been billionaires created by the pandemic. This article "Covid vaccine profits mint 9 new pharma billionaires" might be of interest to you...

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/21/busi ... index.html

Note however that the article says things like ...

Topping the list of new billionaires are Moderna (MRNA) CEO Stéphane Bancel and Ugur Sahin, the CEO of BioNTech (BNTX), which has produced a vaccine with Pfizer (PFE). Both CEOs are now worth around $4 billion, according to an analysis by the People's Vaccine Alliance, a campaign group that includes Oxfam, UNAIDS, Global Justice Now and Amnesty International.

I bolded what is to me the key phrase, "are now worth". That doesn't necessarily mean cold hard cash extracted but could in large part be from the value of shares still held and/or the current value of stock options not yet exercised. It might even include the value of additional stock options not yet vested in which case I personally would use the term "potentially worth" since it would be assuming that the executives stay long enough for all of their unvested options to vest and for the market price to remain at or above the current level at time of disposal.

If one is allowing unrealised, or even realised share price gains to be included in the figures then that probably ropes in other billionaires who have nothing to do with the pharma industry, wouldn't know a vaccine from a vacuum cleaner(*), but just happened to have some of their private wealth invested in the relevant pharma companies. Possibly some of the billionaire hedge fund managers with fortuitously positioned portfolios might also contribute to that count of 32 billionaires.

I'm not defending or condemning the content of the podcast by the way, just trying to add context. I do have some thoughts on the interplay of capitalism and the pandemic response but have a few things I need to get done this afternoon so will leave that until later.

- Julian

(*) My "vacuum cleaner" quip was honestly not an accusation or pop at Dyson, it was simply the first object that occurred to me that gave me some alliteration and I can't be bothered to come up with an alternative so I thought I'd better add this disclaimer.

[Bouleversee]

In one news report on this today I heard a quote, I’m not sure who from, along the lines of “the correct decision can be taken even if it is for the wrong reasons”. If indeed this was a 100% political move it might yet fall into that category of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

- Julian

Sounds believable; have a read at Leviticus and there's some common sense there (you just need to divorce it from the stone age religious connotations)

I am actually surprised to hear that there are "things" still to repeal; well things that might impact you in any meaningful way
- I guess that might be part of the fallout of NPI being subsumed by this omnipresent anti-factual culture war? It has throughout this made decisions tribal rather than sensible (and that's on both sides)
- and really who needs more bamboo planes!?

Anyways I hope it all flushes through quickly - it doesn't seem like there is actually that much risk to the "extremely clinically vulnerable" now if they are vaccinated (going by hospital occupancy and make up of places with good vaccine coverage).
Exposure to omnomnom while everything in the body is supercharged would probably be a very good idea for the future (as widely as possible for everyone involved); given that at some point, very soon, there will be minimal social interventions.

Fingers crossed
-sd

I don't know how you can assume that there isn't much risk to the extremely critical vulnerable now that people have been told they will not need to isolate when they have tested positive for Covid. If there is not an excessive number of serious cases in this group, it is most likely that that is because such people are being even more cautious and self-shielding than before, avoiding places where unmasked people are close together. Sadly, however, if you are hospitalised for another reason and contract the virus in hospital, as did my sister, your chances of survival would seem to be very low, especially if you are elderly even if normally pretty fit.

FWIW there were many such people making this point on Any Answers on R4 on Saturday.

[odysseus2000]

Hi Julian,

There has been a large influx of cash from most governments into pharma. Pharma argue this has been at a not for profit business & Pfizer accounts show a huge rise in turnover, but little change in earnings. The arguments made in the pod cast seem lame to me. I imagine suppliers to pharma have done well, those that are private have limited reporting requirements & there may be folk in these business who have come out like bandits, but it ids hard to get at this kind of information. Casting aspersions as happens on the pod cast doesn’t really help anyone trying to get a big picture view, but it’s a lot easier than doing the research.
My working assumption is that some serious wealth will have flowed into private business but that the comparisons between existing drugs & government covid spend doesn’t tell anyone where that money ended up.

Regards,

[servodude]

In one news report on this today I heard a quote, I’m not sure who from, along the lines of “the correct decision can be taken even if it is for the wrong reasons”. If indeed this was a 100% political move it might yet fall into that category of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

- Julian

Sounds believable; have a read at Leviticus and there's some common sense there (you just need to divorce it from the stone age religious connotations)

I am actually surprised to hear that there are "things" still to repeal; well things that might impact you in any meaningful way
- I guess that might be part of the fallout of NPI being subsumed by this omnipresent anti-factual culture war? It has throughout this made decisions tribal rather than sensible (and that's on both sides)
- and really who needs more bamboo planes!?

Anyways I hope it all flushes through quickly - it doesn't seem like there is actually that much risk to the "extremely clinically vulnerable" now if they are vaccinated (going by hospital occupancy and make up of places with good vaccine coverage).
Exposure to omnomnom while everything in the body is supercharged would probably be a very good idea for the future (as widely as possible for everyone involved); given that at some point, very soon, there will be minimal social interventions.

Fingers crossed
-sd

I don't know how you can assume that there isn't much risk to the extremely critical vulnerable now that people have been told they will not need to isolate when they have tested positive for Covid. If there is not an excessive number of serious cases in this group, it is most likely that that is because such people are being even more cautious and self-shielding than before, avoiding places where unmasked people are close together. Sadly, however, if you are hospitalised for another reason and contract the virus in hospital, as did my sister, your chances of survival would seem to be very low, especially if you are elderly even if normally pretty fit.

FWIW there were many such people making this point on Any Answers on R4 on Saturday.

You're right; I sounded more optimistic than I probably should.

I will confess that I am guilty of looking at the situation now relative to where we (as populations) were, and the possible outcomes we could have had. A good part of that is that I think the infectiousness of omicron has made exposure inevitible ("more infectious than measles" isn't something I ever thought I'd hear)

In the past couple of months I've seen omicron rip through two aged care centres of vaccinated people and barely register
- well only register in the sense that they would re-impose visit restrictions, but while the residents were technically sick no one was actually that bad
- that would have been a completely different story even six months ago; both in terms of the virus getting in and in the outcomes we could have expected if it did

So yes... I should have been more judicious with my words; "that much risk" would have been better as "much less risk than before"
I do think we've reached what will be the status-quo for quite some time
- and it could have been much worse (e.g. if omicron had had the severity of delta)
Apologies if I sounded like I was minimising the situation.

people have been told they will not need to isolate when they have tested positive for Covid.

That's disgraceful and reckless. Unless the intent is just another salvo in the post-fact culture war; that whole aspect of this is tawdry and depressing. Just cheap showy decisions made for the sake of seeming popular for a short while. It sets an alarming precedent in legislation that might attempt to curtail communicable disease.

I tried Any Answers a while ago; but couldn't really get along with the show
I thought I could hear the presenter's eyes rolling whenever she started to terminate the callers (fair enough though as most of them sounded like they were just parrotting whatever headline or soundbite they thought might get them on the radio - it seemed at the time to fall in to the trap where "balance" meant equal time for every nutter)

Stay well
- sd

[daveh]

An interesting article on the BBC on why Canada is doing much better than the USA even though the populations are very similar:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60380317

Canada has lower cases per 100,000, lower deaths per 100,000 and lower hospitalisations and particularly lower numbers of people ending up in ICU. They discuss possible reasons why:
1) stricter covid policies that are being eased more slowly than USA
2) better vaccine uptake
3) universal health insurance

are some of the suggestions

[Julian]

An interesting article on the BBC on why Canada is doing much better than the USA even though the populations are very similar:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60380317

Canada has lower cases per 100,000, lower deaths per 100,000 and lower hospitalisations and particularly lower numbers of people ending up in ICU. They discuss possible reasons why:
1) stricter covid policies that are being eased more slowly than USA
2) better vaccine uptake
3) universal health insurance

are some of the suggestions

Does anyone know what 1st/2nd dosing interval has been used in Canada? I'm pretty sure that the USA has stuck with the intervals used for the FDA approvals namely 3 weeks for Pfizer and 4 weeks for Moderna whereas the UK, subsequently followed by at least Germany, moved to longer intervals intervals during their vaccine rollouts. There is a lot of evidence around now that extended intervals increase the effectiveness so if Canada has done a lot of its initial vaccinations using an extended interval that might be another contributing factor.

- Julian

[Julian]

I wonder what if any effect the following will have on UK holiday makers given that our initial booster eligibility was no less than 6 months after the second dose so those of us who rushed out to get boosted would not, according to these new French rules, have a valid vaccine pass...

Starting on February 15, to maintain a valid vaccination pass in France, a booster dose of the Covid-19 vaccine will have to be administered no later than four months after the end of the initial vaccination, except for those who have contracted the disease since.

[ Source: https://www.france24.com/en/video/20220 ... eactivated ]

Not an issue for me but maybe something to seek clarification on for anyone considering visiting France in the near future.

Is there is any science behind this or is it more of a case of desperation to get boosters into people as soon as possible given France's huge case numbers? A fair amount of data are available now wrt how the dosing interval between first and second doses affects the effectiveness of various Covid-19 vaccines but is there much data regarding the effect of the interval between second dose and booster as far as overall strength and durability of the resulting immune response is concerned? I wonder if it is similar to the 1st-2nd dose interval where a longer gap leads to better results - at the risk of leaving a longer window of only being double-jabbed of course so I do realise that even if a longer interval is immunologically better there would be trade offs that need to be considered.

- Julian

[9873210]

I wonder what if any effect the following will have on UK holiday makers given that our initial booster eligibility was no less than 6 months after the second dose so those of us who rushed out to get boosted would not, according to these new French rules, have a valid vaccine pass...

Starting on February 15, to maintain a valid vaccination pass in France, a booster dose of the Covid-19 vaccine will have to be administered no later than four months after the end of the initial vaccination, except for those who have contracted the disease since.

[ Source: https://www.france24.com/en/video/20220 ... eactivated ]

Not an issue for me but maybe something to seek clarification on for anyone considering visiting France in the near future.

Is there is any science behind this or is it more of a case of desperation to get boosters into people as soon as possible given France's huge case numbers? A fair amount of data are available now wrt how the dosing interval between first and second doses affects the effectiveness of various Covid-19 vaccines but is there much data regarding the effect of the interval between second dose and booster as far as overall strength and durability of the resulting immune response is concerned? I wonder if it is similar to the 1st-2nd dose interval where a longer gap leads to better results - at the risk of leaving a longer window of only being double-jabbed of course so I do realise that even if a longer interval is immunologically better there would be trade offs that need to be considered.

- Julian

The headline will cause British holiday makers to rant and rave and call Macron a *****. It will not cause them to read the rules or even the article.

A French vaccine passport now expires four months after the second jab, to renew it one needs a booster. If the booster is six months after the second dose the passport lapses for two months and is then restored. They did not write a rule that if you miss the four-month window you are hurled into the outer darkness never to be redeemed.

Yes, the French want to get boosters in arms. The science is that this will reduce cases and deaths and that many will not do this without coercion.

[Steveam]

From article in today’s FT:

“Ministers have hailed the national vaccination programme as a great success. But as the UK enters the next stage of the pandemic, there is urgency among health and government officials to reach out to the estimated 8.5 per cent of people aged 12 and over who remain unvaccinated.”

Best wishes, Steve

[redsturgeon]

I think the vaccination programme has indeed been a success. I am however not sure about the benefits of vaccinating children. The vaccine has proved itself in keeping down hospitalisations and deaths amid a high cases load (that continues today and is actual still growing in Scotland) but by definition this high case load shows how poor the vaccine has been in stopping Omicron transmission.

Given the incredibly low incidence of serious events among the young surely we are now at the stage where natural immunity is preferred over vaccine immunity in the non vulnerable younger population. Where the age break happens is open to question but I'd need a lot of convincing that under 15s need the vaccine for either personal protection or to protect others.

John

[redsturgeon]

From article in today’s FT:

“Ministers have hailed the national vaccination programme as a great success. But as the UK enters the next stage of the pandemic, there is urgency among health and government officials to reach out to the estimated 8.5 per cent of people aged 12 and over who remain unvaccinated.”

Best wishes, Steve

I wonder how many of those 8.5% have actually have had covid, I guess the majority, in which case why bother with the vaccine.

John

[vrdiver]

I wonder how many of those 8.5% have actually have had covid, I guess the majority, in which case why bother with the vaccine.

Pretty much what would be going through their minds as well...

"I don't trust the vaccine."
"Covid isn't serious for me."
"Omicron is no worse than flue."
"I've probably already had it."

Why would anybody who's refused the vaccine for over a year, decide that now it's suddenly a good idea?

Personally, I think the government needs to accept that those who are willing to have it have had it, and policy needs to deal with the reality that there will remain unvaccinated individuals within the population. I'd rather they spent any additional effort on commissioning a report on what we need to do to make our public spaces (including schools and hospitals, as well as shops, bars and restaurants) able to withstand the next airborne epidemic.
(Spoiler alert - air filtration and circulation regulations).

VRD

[dealtn]

I wonder how many of those 8.5% have actually have had covid, I guess the majority, in which case why bother with the vaccine.

Pretty much what would be going through their minds as well...

"I don't trust the vaccine."
"Covid isn't serious for me."
"Omicron is no worse than flue."
"I've probably already had it."

Why would anybody who's refused the vaccine for over a year, decide that now it's suddenly a good idea?

Personally, I think the government needs to accept that those who are willing to have it have had it, and policy needs to deal with the reality that there will remain unvaccinated individuals within the population. I'd rather they spent any additional effort on commissioning a report on what we need to do to make our public spaces (including schools and hospitals, as well as shops, bars and restaurants) able to withstand the next airborne epidemic.
(Spoiler alert - air filtration and circulation regulations).

VRD

Well as someone responsible for attendees in such a public space I'd rather the Government didn't make such decisions on what we "need to do". My preference, if they were to do anything would be to educate us, (that is providers, and attendees), on what the science tells us. The risks associated with that, and the choices we undertake are "ours" to make, and mandatory "needs" would be no different to other existing types of legislation surrounding similar Health and Safety measures.