Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[Sorcery]

But people under-18 aren't refusing vaccinations, they aren't being allowed them, except in very exceptional circumstances.

Yet there still there seems to be a widespread belief that because to government have excluded under 18s from vaccination, they don't get Covid.

Even on here someone recently said my arithmetic showing that only 50% of the population has been fully vaccinated was wrong because under 18's don't qualify for vaccination, as if that somehow made them immune from infection.

I think I was arguing that the BBC % vaccinated numbers excluded under 18s because no vaccine has yet been approved for them. Thus the % quoted by the BBC (86% at the time) was of people eligible to have it. Or have it your own way, I'm stupid and you are the smartest person out there ...

[Mike4]

But people under-18 aren't refusing vaccinations, they aren't being allowed them, except in very exceptional circumstances.

Yet there still there seems to be a widespread belief that because to government have excluded under 18s from vaccination, they don't get Covid.

Even on here someone recently said my arithmetic showing that only 50% of the population has been fully vaccinated was wrong because under 18's don't qualify for vaccination, as if that somehow made them immune from infection.

I think I was arguing that the BBC % vaccinated numbers excluded under 18s because no vaccine has yet been approved for them. Thus the % quoted by the BBC (86% at the time) was of people eligible to have it. Or have it your own way, I'm stupid and you are the smartest person out there ...

So fundamentally you agree with the point I was making, that only 50% of the population vulnerable to infection has been vaccinated.

[Sorcery]

Yet there still there seems to be a widespread belief that because to government have excluded under 18s from vaccination, they don't get Covid.

Even on here someone recently said my arithmetic showing that only 50% of the population has been fully vaccinated was wrong because under 18's don't qualify for vaccination, as if that somehow made them immune from infection.

I think I was arguing that the BBC % vaccinated numbers excluded under 18s because no vaccine has yet been approved for them. Thus the % quoted by the BBC (86% at the time) was of people eligible to have it. Or have it your own way, I'm stupid and you are the smartest person out there ...

So fundamentally you agree with the point I was making, that only 50% of the population vulnerable to infection has been vaccinated.

Unless we have a massively bulging under 18 cohort I don't see how you can get from the BBC's 85% for a single dose (for those eligible) to 50%. I provided a link, perhaps you are using the fully vaccinated % of those eligible.

[murraypaul]

Shouldn't your analogy be

""Well sir, your shark-cage is only 100% complete but some people don't have theirs built yet"
"That's Ok I can't wait any longer. I'm happy to swim with sharks on that basis but the others should wait until theirs are built, not sure why they haven't asked for theirs to be done yet?"
"OK sir you can use it now, Yes I am not sure why others that want to return to the water haven't bothered organising their shark cages yet"

Vaccines were opened up to all adults three weeks ago.
So there is simply no way younger adults could have 'organised their shark cages yet'.
They are swimming around in the pool, and someone is about to let sharks in.

[Mike4]

I think I was arguing that the BBC % vaccinated numbers excluded under 18s because no vaccine has yet been approved for them. Thus the % quoted by the BBC (86% at the time) was of people eligible to have it. Or have it your own way, I'm stupid and you are the smartest person out there ...

So fundamentally you agree with the point I was making, that only 50% of the population vulnerable to infection has been vaccinated.

Unless we have a massively bulging under 18 cohort I don't see how you can get from the BBC's 85% for a single dose (for those eligible) to 50%. I provided a link, perhaps you are using the fully vaccinated % of those eligible.

Jeez, can you not follow a simple argument?

I set out to show the percentage of people double vaccinated was 50%, and I showed my arithmetic. If you think there is an error in my figures, please say what the error is. If want to argue about single doses (something I didn't mention), that's fine with me but I'll probably just agree with you.

[murraypaul]

Even on here someone recently said my arithmetic showing that only 50% of the population has been fully vaccinated was wrong because under 18's don't qualify for vaccination, as if that somehow made them immune from infection.

No, I said the 50% figure made no sense to use when measuring how quickly or slowly vaccines have been rolled out.
For measuring total coverage for 'herd immunity', it does.

[dealtn]

Yet there still there seems to be a widespread belief that because to government have excluded under 18s from vaccination, they don't get Covid.

Even on here someone recently said my arithmetic showing that only 50% of the population has been fully vaccinated was wrong because under 18's don't qualify for vaccination, as if that somehow made them immune from infection.

I think I was arguing that the BBC % vaccinated numbers excluded under 18s because no vaccine has yet been approved for them. Thus the % quoted by the BBC (86% at the time) was of people eligible to have it. Or have it your own way, I'm stupid and you are the smartest person out there ...

So fundamentally you agree with the point I was making, that only 50% of the population vulnerable to infection has been vaccinated.

So 45.6 million have received a vaccination of at least one dose out of a population size of 67 million. That looks like about 68% to me have been vaccinated. That's assuming the 67 million are all "vulnerable to infection" of course. many of them may have either a natural protection either from having Covid, or potentially other Coronavirus infections.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55274833

Not sure it's that difficult to fundamentally disgaree with a claim 50% of the population has been vaccinated. I think I would make the same argument, but in reverse, if someone were claiming 100% though of course.

[servodude]

So 45.6 million have received a vaccination of at least one dose out of a population size of 67 million. That looks like about 68% to me have been vaccinated.

You're not properly vaccinated, or protected to the degree that was used in the figures used for modelling the spread of the virus, until two weeks after your second dose.

This is very well know (you probably are aware of it yourself) and has been widely advertised.

The advice has always been you should act as if you are unvaccinated, taking all possible precautions, until this time has passed.

Covid doesn't play semantic silly-buggery nor does it care whether you've got your vaccine in the post.

Having told everyone to get vaccinated for the public good, and yet having prevented many younger folk from doing so until recently, doesn't just going ahead with opening up anyway seem a little bit wrong? or reckless?

-sd

[zico]

So fundamentally you agree with the point I was making, that only 50% of the population vulnerable to infection has been vaccinated.

Unless we have a massively bulging under 18 cohort I don't see how you can get from the BBC's 85% for a single dose (for those eligible) to 50%. I provided a link, perhaps you are using the fully vaccinated % of those eligible.

Jeez, can you not follow a simple argument?

I set out to show the percentage of people double vaccinated was 50%, and I showed my arithmetic. If you think there is an error in my figures, please say what the error is. If want to argue about single doses (something I didn't mention), that's fine with me but I'll probably just agree with you.

I'm not surprised there's confusion about vaccinated percentages, given that TV news channels have been reporting the government's figures for adults only. The media are complicit in causing confusion here, by ignoring/downplaying the percentage of the total population that are covered.

The facts are that Covid doesn't care whether you are over 18 or not. If you want herd immunity, it's the percentage of the total population that matters.
It's true that the younger you are, the less likely you are to suffer from Covid, but, and it's a very big but, you can still carry the virus and infect others, which is exactly what's been happening time and again in this pandemic, where schoolchildren mix with other schoolchildren from lots of different households, pick up Covid, take it home to their families, and it works its way up through the generations.

[zico]

Is it just me or are the new plans on self-isolation totally mad?
First of all, there appears to be a plan to reduce numbers of people self-isolating by changing the NHS app to make it less sensitive. The sensitivity was designed initially for the Wuhan strain of Covid-19. Since then, the Kent variant was about 70% more transmissible, and the Delta variant a further 50-70% more transmissible. So shouldn't the NHS appn have been changed to make it much more sensitive, not less, so as to reflect the increased chance of the virus being passed on.

Secondly, the FT is reporting that NHS staff may be exempt from self-isolating. The NHS staff whose actual job it is to care for the most vulnerable in society. Grateful if someone could explain how this makes any sense at all.

[servodude]

Grateful if someone could explain how this makes any sense at all.

If you accept that there's a push for herd immunity through infection it means it gets spread quicker, and your hospitals stay staffed
- now whether THAT makes sense?!
-sd

[9873210]

Is it just me or are the new plans on self-isolation totally mad?
First of all, there appears to be a plan to reduce numbers of people self-isolating by changing the NHS app to make it less sensitive. The sensitivity was designed initially for the Wuhan strain of Covid-19. Since then, the Kent variant was about 70% more transmissible, and the Delta variant a further 50-70% more transmissible. So shouldn't the NHS appn have been changed to make it much more sensitive, not less, so as to reflect the increased chance of the virus being passed on.

I'm of two minds on this one.

On the one hand relaxing the thresholds because they are inconvenient is not a good thing.

OTOH you should change your mind when you learn things. The app should be updated based on all available information. They should know the facts that triggered each quarantine and whether it turned out to be necessary (i.e. the subject developed COVID) and adjust as indicated. This would take into account changes in transmissibility, and a lot more. If the thresholds don't change they either are not checking or the estimates used to set the original thresholds were preternaturally good.

A clearer, more detailed, explanation is certainly warranted.

[dealtn]

So 45.6 million have received a vaccination of at least one dose out of a population size of 67 million. That looks like about 68% to me have been vaccinated.

You're not properly vaccinated, or protected to the degree that was used in the figures used for modelling the spread of the virus, until two weeks after your second dose.

Agreed. So all that was needed was for someone to use the word "fully" ahead of vaccinated, and the point would have been both clearer, and nearer the truth. (Or is that semantic silly-buggery, whatever that means?).

What do you think the modelling used by the decision makers is then? I'd be surprised if they weren't well aware of the facts that full immunity doesn't arrive within minutes of the first vaccination, nor are they unaware of the potential for minors to become infected, and more importantly become infectious. I would expect both aspects to be modelled, and factored into the decision making process on whether to open up, and to what degree.

[servodude]

So 45.6 million have received a vaccination of at least one dose out of a population size of 67 million. That looks like about 68% to me have been vaccinated.

You're not properly vaccinated, or protected to the degree that was used in the figures used for modelling the spread of the virus, until two weeks after your second dose.

Agreed. So all that was needed was for someone to use the word "fully" ahead of vaccinated, and the point would have been both clearer, and nearer the truth. (Or is that semantic silly-buggery, whatever that means?).

What do you think the modelling used by the decision makers is then? I'd be surprised if they weren't well aware of the facts that full immunity doesn't arrive within minutes of the first vaccination, nor are they unaware of the potential for minors to become infected, and more importantly become infectious. I would expect both aspects to be modelled, and factored into the decision making process on whether to open up, and to what degree.

What did I say about semantic silly-buggery eh?!

I don't think they give a [expletive deleted] about the modelling of the epidemiology

I reckon they care more about the modelling of the support of brain dead gammon that "bally well don't want to be told how one should act.... We've had our jabs and anyway most of the dead this next wave will be comprised of brown people and unlucky young buggers who don't vote tory"
- don't you?

-sd

[dealtn]

I reckon they care more about the modelling of the support of brain dead gammon that "bally well don't want to be told how one should act.... We've had our jabs and anyway most of the dead this next wave will be comprised of brown people and unlucky young buggers who don't vote tory"
- don't you?

-sd

Me. I have no idea, mainly because I have no understanding of what your question is, or means.

[Julian]

...
Secondly, the FT is reporting that NHS staff may be exempt from self-isolating. The NHS staff whose actual job it is to care for the most vulnerable in society. Grateful if someone could explain how this makes any sense at all.

Project fear explanation - I heard a figure from someone from the NHS being interviewed on TV yesterday that even now about 20% of NHS staff are off work self isolating. Imagine how bad that will get if cases do grow to 50,000 let alone 100,000 or more cases a day. You can't care for the vulnerable if you're not at work.

Project hope explanation - They won't actually be exempt. As I understand it they will have to self isolate immediately upon recieving notice that they have been in contact with an infected person, for just as long as it takes them to get a test and if that is negative then, and only then, can they stop self-isolating. I'm not sure what sort of test will be required, with the general population after the 16th August relaxation of their self-isolation rules I'm reading/hearing that it will be lateral flow, but maybe for reasons related to your concerns it will be PCR for medical staff. Even with PCR, with appropriate prioritisation or even on-site hospital processing that brief period of isolation until the test result is received would I hope be less than 24 hours and maybe same day to make the determination that they are (currently) OK to continue working. If it's a lateral flow test it will be literally minutes to determine whether they are OK to return to work. And if they do test negative my understanding is that won't be a total reprieve, they will still be required to test daily for X number of days after they were contact traced and if they come up positive on any of those tests they then of course need to self isolate "properly". In a way it's a more aggressive form of the "test to release" 5 day test point that people can pay extra to do to get released from quarantine early when returning from an amber country.

Personally I think it's necessary and, assuming my understanding above is how it pans out, an appropriate balance of risk if the tests can be done as very fast turnaround PCR. I have personal experience of a hospital appointment being cancelled way back in April when cases were only about 2,000 a day because the consultant I was supposed to be seeing had been told to self-isolate and his secretary who called me 2 days before my appointment to cancel said they had no idea when he would be back at work. It ended up taking about 5 weeks, maybe even a bit longer I think, before my appointment was rescheduled for 27th May. Ironically I can type 27th May without looking it up because just an hour ago a letter came in the post which was the report from the consultant on my 27th May appointment telling me that as was agreed at my consultation I had now been put on the waiting list for surgery. So that's an over 6 week delay from consultation to even getting formally put on the waiting list. Presumably this huge delay in even processing the results of my hospital appointment is down to a combination of overload on top of staff shortages generating a massive backlog of paperwork and other back office processing. I really do think my "project fear" explanation on its own has considerable merit and "project hope" sufficiently reduces the risks that come with the relaxation of the rules.

- Julian

[ReformedCharacter]

Secondly, the FT is reporting that NHS staff may be exempt from self-isolating. The NHS staff whose actual job it is to care for the most vulnerable in society. Grateful if someone could explain how this makes any sense at all.

Seems seriously irresponsible to me given that In one in five hospitals at least a fifth of all patients found to have the virus caught it while an inpatient and one in seven patients treated for Covid between 1 August 2020 and 21 March got it while in hospital.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/26/40600-people-likely-caught-covid-while-hospital-inpatients-in-england

RC

[dealtn]

Secondly, the FT is reporting that NHS staff may be exempt from self-isolating. The NHS staff whose actual job it is to care for the most vulnerable in society. Grateful if someone could explain how this makes any sense at all.

Seems seriously irresponsible to me given that In one in five hospitals at least a fifth of all patients found to have the virus caught it while an inpatient and one in seven patients treated for Covid between 1 August 2020 and 21 March got it while in hospital.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/26/40600-people-likely-caught-covid-while-hospital-inpatients-in-england

RC

I don't know the details but if someone has had 2 vaccinations, and or can demonstrate the presence of antibodies, I'm not sure the alternative of forced self-isolation is less irresponsible with the impact of that reduced staff resource meaning fewer appointments and more cancelled operations. etc.

Analysis of the nation's healthcare provision should be viewed in the aggregate, not just in a narrow Covid sense in my opinion.

[zico]

Analysis of the nation's healthcare provision should be viewed in the aggregate, not just in a narrow Covid sense in my opinion.

I agree completely, but often when people say this they mean "we need to focus on non-Covid patients, so let's stop suppressing Covid". Or to put it another way "We treat lots of Covid patients, let's treat non-Covid patients instead." The problem is that we know that, unlike other major health problems, Covid spreads exponentially if not suppressed, and it requires NHS resources to treat it, which takes NHS resources away from treating the non-Covid disease. Also, Covid is more likely to infect vulnerable hospital patients being treated for non-Covid problems, and as we know from last year, fear of Covid infection led people to miss important cancer treatment and screening appointments.

So more Covid cases inevitably leads to fewer non-Covid treatments.

[dealtn]

Analysis of the nation's healthcare provision should be viewed in the aggregate, not just in a narrow Covid sense in my opinion.

I agree completely, but often when people say this they mean "we need to focus on non-Covid patients, so let's stop suppressing Covid". Or to put it another way "We treat lots of Covid patients, let's treat non-Covid patients instead." The problem is that we know that, unlike other major health problems, Covid spreads exponentially if not suppressed, and it requires NHS resources to treat it, which takes NHS resources away from treating the non-Covid disease. Also, Covid is more likely to infect vulnerable hospital patients being treated for non-Covid problems, and as we know from last year, fear of Covid infection led people to miss important cancer treatment and screening appointments.

So more Covid cases inevitably leads to fewer non-Covid treatments.

Doesn't sound like you agree completely to me, rather agree conditionally.

Many other health issues are also "exponential", such as flu, measles, ebola, that isn't restricted to Covid. We have similar responses to those too, with vaccinations, some where the population is universally offered an innoculation such as measles, some where it is selective such as influenza. The question here appears to be whether it is responsible for anyone exposed to Covid to be removed from front line health care provision, which will reduce resource across the entirity of the NHS, or that a more responsible approach is to accept that some exposed individuals don't have to self-isolate so they can continue to provide their resource. Personally I don't think it unreasoanable for double vaccinated NHS staff to be exempted from the isolation requirement. The resulting additional people they treat and operate probably exceeds the low transmission (and exponential spreading) and is a net health gain.