Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[Lootman]

The UK is likely to see a "summer surge" in Covid cases as lockdown is relaxed, a government scientist says.

It seems very likely that we will see cases go up.

Hopefully vaccination levels will make it a manageable increase.

Yes, and in fact if the numbers do not go up this summer, the obvious conclusion would be that the latest lockdown was too restrictive and too long in duration.

There seems to be a fallacy out there that we must have zero cases. Maybe one day, like with smallpox, there will be zero cases. But that is nowhere close to the short-term or medium-term objective, which is to keep the numbers moderate and acceptable. The aim is management not eradication.

After all, we have non-zero numbers for a wide range of diseases, including a number of infectious diseases, and nobody is screaming for zero cases. The reality is that the voters will accept cases and deaths, in return for more freedoms, as long as they can continue to be contained.

[XFool]

The UK is likely to see a "summer surge" in Covid cases as lockdown is relaxed, a government scientist says.

It seems very likely that we will see cases go up.

Hopefully vaccination levels will make it a manageable increase.

Yes, and in fact if the numbers do not go up this summer, the obvious conclusion would be that the latest lockdown was too restrictive and too long in duration.

There seems to be a fallacy out there that we must have zero cases.

Yeah, I know. You keep pushing it at us.

After all, we have non-zero numbers for a wide range of diseases, including a number of infectious diseases, and nobody is screaming for zero cases. The reality is that the voters will accept cases and deaths, in return for more freedoms, as long as they can continue to be contained.

Which is and always has been, the whole idea. Though bare in mind varieties and that this is still a global pandemic.

[murraypaul]

The UK is likely to see a "summer surge" in Covid cases as lockdown is relaxed, a government scientist says.

It seems very likely that we will see cases go up.

Hopefully vaccination levels will make it a manageable increase.

Yes, and in fact if the numbers do not go up this summer, the obvious conclusion would be that the latest lockdown was too restrictive and too long in duration.

So if they do, is the reverse true?

[Lootman]

It seems very likely that we will see cases go up.

Hopefully vaccination levels will make it a manageable increase.

Yes, and in fact if the numbers do not go up this summer, the obvious conclusion would be that the latest lockdown was too restrictive and too long in duration.

So if they do, is the reverse true?

Depends by how much they go up. I would expect and accept a moderate increase which would be manageable, to use your word. Meaning that there would be no need to change policy.

If instead the numbers go up by a lot then I think the real question would be why the vaccinations had no effect.

[Mike4]

Yes, and in fact if the numbers do not go up this summer, the obvious conclusion would be that the latest lockdown was too restrictive and too long in duration.

So if they do, is the reverse true?

Depends by how much they go up. I would expect and accept a moderate increase which would be manageable, to use your word. Meaning that there would be no need to change policy.

If instead the numbers go up by a lot then I think the real question would be why the vaccinations had no effect.

I can help you there.

1) Vaccinations will have little effect on the 50% of the UK population who are not vaccinated
2) 5% of the vaccinated people will still get COVID
3) Sooner or later a vaccine-resistant variant will evolve if it hasn't already, and Boris's policy of paying only lip-service to keeping it out will, er... let it in. Watch this space.

[Lootman]

So if they do, is the reverse true?

Depends by how much they go up. I would expect and accept a moderate increase which would be manageable, to use your word. Meaning that there would be no need to change policy.

If instead the numbers go up by a lot then I think the real question would be why the vaccinations had no effect.

I can help you there.

1) Vaccinations will have little effect on the 50% of the UK population who are not vaccinated
2) 5% of the vaccinated people will still get COVID
3) Sooner or later a vaccine-resistant variant will evolve if it hasn't already, and Boris's policy of paying only lip-service to keeping it out will, er... let it in. Watch this space.

Sadly that does not help me nor anyone else that much because:

1) We were talking about this summer, when far more than 50% will have been vaccinated, unless the NHS really screws up.
2) The claimed efficacy rate of Covid vaccines greatly exceeds that of almost any other vaccines, which themselves have been successful in neutralising many infectious diseases.
3) There is no evidence that any variant present in the UK in significant numbers is resistant to vaccines.

Lockdown isn't a cure; it is at best a deferral mechanism, which causes much damage. The real solution is vaccination, and always was.

[Mike4]

Depends by how much they go up. I would expect and accept a moderate increase which would be manageable, to use your word. Meaning that there would be no need to change policy.

If instead the numbers go up by a lot then I think the real question would be why the vaccinations had no effect.

I can help you there.

1) Vaccinations will have little effect on the 50% of the UK population who are not vaccinated
2) 5% of the vaccinated people will still get COVID
3) Sooner or later a vaccine-resistant variant will evolve if it hasn't already, and Boris's policy of paying only lip-service to keeping it out will, er... let it in. Watch this space.

Sadly that does not help me nor anyone else that much because:

1) We were talking about this summer, when far more than 50% will have been vaccinated, unless the NHS really screws up.
2) The claimed efficacy rate of Covid vaccines greatly exceeds that of almost any other vaccines, which themselves have been successful in neutralising many infectious diseases.
3) There is no evidence that any variant present in the UK in significant numbers is resistant to vaccines.

Lockdown isn't a cure; it is at best a deferral mechanism, which causes much damage. The real solution is vaccination, and always was.

1) I'll be impressed if more than 70% of the population gets vaccinated by the end of the summer, given that 20% is ineligible and perhaps 10% are "vaccine hesitant", to put it politely.
2) Claim what you like. The trial data proves 95% near as dammit.
3) This reactive rather than pro-active approach has been the trouble all along. Far better to stop it getting in that wait until you have evidence it is running riot before you deign to take any action. Pandemics need proactivity not reactivity.
4) Where did I mention lockdowns? Another of these straw men you have gained yourself a fine reputation for setting up then shooting at.

[Clitheroekid]

I particularly enjoyed this comment in the 'High-income worker complaince' section:

"The most unique attitude of this group was that many seemed clear about what they should be doing but were confident in arguing that they had good reasons for ignoring the guidance or that they had assessed and minimised the risk."

Point of order, Mr Chairman - one can't apply a comparative word such as `most' to `unique'. It's either unique or it's not unique, a bit like being pregnant.

Illiterate civil servants!

[Lootman]

This reactive rather than pro-active approach has been the trouble all along. Far better to stop it getting in that wait until you have evidence it is running riot before you deign to take any action. Pandemics need proactivity not reactivity.

Since we disagree on that point, it follows that we will disagree on all others. I am comfortable with our current flexible data-driven approach rather than a fear, panic and speculation based approach.

[Mike4]

This reactive rather than pro-active approach has been the trouble all along. Far better to stop it getting in that wait until you have evidence it is running riot before you deign to take any action. Pandemics need proactivity not reactivity.

Since we disagree on that point, it follows that we will disagree on all others. I am comfortable with our current flexible data-driven approach rather than a fear, panic and speculation based approach.

Comfortable too then, with the 140,000 people who have died in the last year or so presumably.

Personally I find this is too high a price to pay for sitting back and reacting to events as opposed to anticipating and heading them off, which we could so easily have done. All the knowledge about how to is well established in the public health profession, but our politicians seem to want to learn it from scratch by trial and error.

[Lootman]

This reactive rather than pro-active approach has been the trouble all along. Far better to stop it getting in that wait until you have evidence it is running riot before you deign to take any action. Pandemics need proactivity not reactivity.

Since we disagree on that point, it follows that we will disagree on all others. I am comfortable with our current flexible data-driven approach rather than a fear, panic and speculation based approach.

Comfortable too then, with the 140,000 people who have died in the last year or so presumably.

Personally I find this is too high a price to pay for sitting back and reacting to events as opposed to anticipating and heading them off, which we could so easily have done. All the knowledge about how to is well established in the public health profession, but our politicians seem to want to learn it from scratch by trial and error.

The voters are giving broad approval to Boris's strategy, which matters a lot more than whether individuals like you or I like what has happened. And the UK approach was not much different to the rest of Europe.

It is sad that about 2 people in 1,000 in the UK have succumbed. But I disagree that it was ever obvious that we should have handled it much differently. The challenge was always to balance minimising the body count with maintaining some semblance of an economy and human freedoms.

I prefer our approach of measured and flexible responses, managed spread and widespread vaccination to that of almost any other country.

[Nimrod103]

It is sad that about 2 people in 1,000 in the UK have succumbed. But I disagree that it was ever obvious that we should have handled it much differently. The challenge was always to balance minimising the body count with maintaining some semblance of an economy and human freedoms.

Not much has been made of the fact that the vast majority of the body count comprised the very elderly, very frail, very sick and very unproductive. If I were young, I would be very angry that the economy has been trashed for so long, and colossal debts have been run up, which will blight my future and my childrens' future. All to protect the unproductive.

[servodude]

It is sad that about 2 people in 1,000 in the UK have succumbed. But I disagree that it was ever obvious that we should have handled it much differently. The challenge was always to balance minimising the body count with maintaining some semblance of an economy and human freedoms.

Not much has been made of the fact that the vast majority of the body count comprised the very elderly, very frail, very sick and very unproductive. If I were young, I would be very angry that the economy has been trashed for so long, and colossal debts have been run up, which will blight my future and my childrens' future. All to protect the unproductive.

Indeed. When they were using lockdown to reduce the load on hospitals I said at the time they should clear ICU by getting rid of the older 50%. The median age of those using up the beds at the time was 62 and we know those above there are just a drain on us productive guys.

-sd

[Lootman]

It is sad that about 2 people in 1,000 in the UK have succumbed. But I disagree that it was ever obvious that we should have handled it much differently. The challenge was always to balance minimising the body count with maintaining some semblance of an economy and human freedoms.

Not much has been made of the fact that the vast majority of the body count comprised the very elderly, very frail, very sick and very unproductive. If I were young, I would be very angry that the economy has been trashed for so long, and colossal debts have been run up, which will blight my future and my childrens' future. All to protect the unproductive.

Certainly that 2 in 1,000 fatality number is probably closer to 2 in 10,000 in terms of person-years of life lost.

I am not so callous as to dismiss the value of older people, not least because I am hurtling towards old age myself. But I can certainly understand why, by some measures and reports, 90% of people in the UK do not fully comply with the restrictions. As with anything, if you push too hard with restrictions then the people will rebel. Which is all part of why we never give scientists any real power, but rather regard them as merely one of several inputs into the decision making.

Lockdowns merely defer; vaccines fix.

[Gersemi]

It is sad that about 2 people in 1,000 in the UK have succumbed. But I disagree that it was ever obvious that we should have handled it much differently. The challenge was always to balance minimising the body count with maintaining some semblance of an economy and human freedoms.

Not much has been made of the fact that the vast majority of the body count comprised the very elderly, very frail, very sick and very unproductive. If I were young, I would be very angry that the economy has been trashed for so long, and colossal debts have been run up, which will blight my future and my childrens' future. All to protect the unproductive.

But remember that 2 in 1,000 figure is with the restrictions. Without it the count would have been higher. There is still the possibility of mutations that mean that younger people become iller and die.

[richfool]

Interesting that I have just had a letter from the NHS saying that the JCVI has advised because I am an immunosuppressed person, all contacts over 16 years of age living in my household should be vaccinated and asked them to contact their local surgery to make the appropriate arrangements. My wife (under 50) already has an appointment for her first vaccination (AZN - no choice due to local availability of vaccines).

My step-daughter is under 30. The letter said that contacts under 30 will be given the choice to have an alternative vaccine to the Oxford/Astra Zeneca, though the local surgery seemed unaware of that and were initially saying that only the OAZN (Oxford Astra Zeneca) vaccine was available locally. I then pointed out that the Gov had said last week that women under 30 should not be given the OAZN vaccine. After consulting someone else, the surgery then said they would put her on a waiting list (as had been mentioned in the NHS letter) until supplies of an alternative vaccine become available (as they currently only have the OAZN vaccine available locally for first vaccinations). I wonder if that might at some point be the Moderna vaccine.

I think I/we would prefer that as a female under 30 it would be preferable to hold out for an alternative to OAZN. Would members concur?

The way I see it is that with the OAZN vaccine, there is the slightly increased risk of blood clots in younger women particularly those under 30, the OAZN has a lower efficacy and the OAZN is less effective against the South African and Brazilian mutations.

[murraypaul]

But I disagree that it was ever obvious that we should have handled it much differently. The challenge was always to balance minimising the body count with maintaining some semblance of an economy and human freedoms.

We should have done the same things, a few weeks earlier each time.
I think in general the strategy has been right, once applied, but we keep umming and ahing about actually doing things, and are always a bit late.

[redsturgeon]

But I disagree that it was ever obvious that we should have handled it much differently. The challenge was always to balance minimising the body count with maintaining some semblance of an economy and human freedoms.

We should have done the same things, a few weeks earlier each time.
I think in general the strategy has been right, once applied, but we keep umming and ahing about actually doing things, and are always a bit late.

Are you applying that to both tightening and releasing restrictions or just the tightening?

John

[murraypaul]

Are you applying that to both tightening and releasing restrictions or just the tightening?

The tightening.

[Nimrod103]

The way I see it is that with the OAZN vaccine, there is the slightly increased risk of blood clots in younger women particularly those under 30, the OAZN has a lower efficacy and the OAZN is less effective against the South African and Brazilian mutations.

As far as I am aware there is no scientific data or studies yet published which indicates that one vaccine type has less risk than any other, in any particular cohort or against any particular variant. (It looks very much like a difference in marketing and PR)

I rely for this info on Dr John Campbell's daily Youtube videos, which can be easily found.

The only data as yet is in a paper by Oxford Univ (un peer reviewed or published, produced in the last few days by a different bit to that responsible for the vaccine), which Campbell has cited as claiming that brain blood clots are almost the same for AZ and Pfizer, while portal vein clots are much higher with Pfizer. I await updates on this story with interest.