COVID-19

Virus mutating, R rate down.

We are testing 1m people per day, if we had last years testing and only tested those who are actually ill people wouldn't be absolutely shitting themselves.

Let's be honest here, are you actually bothered about people like me who has had one jab, my kids who have had none or are you actually more scared about yourself because your faith in the vaccine appears to be so low that you don't think it works, unless me and my kids are fully vaccinated when the risk to us is absolutely minimal.

I don't get a flu jab when millions of the elderly do, does that effect the safety of the people who take the flu jab?

This government have used a wave of propaganda that would put the Nazis to shame.

 

We weren't talking about restrictions. We were discussing why it is important for as many people as possible to get double jabbed, why it is socially irresponsible for people to opt out, and why the decision to opt out might exclude those people from some activities.

I've never said that we should refrain from further easing until there are zero infections/people in hospital - that's clearly implausible. What I want is for us to get back to normal life without having to throw everything back into reverse gear with more lockdowns. So I think a bit of extra caution now is worth it to be more convinced that opening up fully will be irreversible.

FWIW I'd like to see the 18+ population double jabbed before universities go back in October.
I think we'll see a four week extension of the current measures (which are now very far from a lockdown) in order to get more people vaccinated, before full opening up of unmasked, non-socially distanced indoor events. I'm comfortable with that. That will take us nearly up to the school holidays, which should assist in getting the R rate down.

Once we've got most people jabbed and schools out for summer then the R rate should go down very low. That severely restricts the likelihood of domestic mutations and should keep any autumn/winter surge pretty low. I'd keep essential overseas travel only and a strong border/quarantine policy in place until next spring, by which time many other countries will have their adult populations fully jabbed and consequent low R rates. We can then start exchanging travel with those countries with minimal risk of importing new variants.

 

The social responsibility point is an interesting, nuanced and complex question. My views are pretty clear and for the record, the idea of a two tier, medical apartheid system is one I find abhorrent. But I have a couple of questions @Offcomedun, if you wouldn't mind obliging. Neither of these are intended to be leading questions.

Would you advocate vaccinating children? Are parents who refuse to vaccinate children, socially irresponsible to your mind?

I say this factually, not prejudicially; this is currently defined as an experimental vaccine, the first ever MRNA vaccine rolled out in large numbers and developed at record speed. On what basis are you trusting the safety of the vaccine?

 

The risk to you may be minimal, but if you don't get jabbed then you are risking giving the virus to others, for whom the risk may be much higher You have no way of knowing who is unfortunate enough to be unprotected by the vaccine, and nor do they, until they've caught it.
The comparison with the flu vaccine is specious. Flu generally only kills very old, very sick people, which is not the case with Covid. Nor does flu give previously healthy people long term problems as long Covid does.

I've already said I don't think vaccinating kids is a sensible approach. We'd be better off donating those vaccine doses to other countries.

See above. I said several days ago on here that I think the vaccine is safe but I don't think vaccinating children is the most sensible use of the vaccine. I'm not a medical expert but after hundreds of millions of doses given worldwide I've seen nothing to suggest that the vaccine is problematic.

By the same token, no one actually knows that the virus is harmless to those who are asymptomatic when they catch it. There are studies looking at whether it causes damage to asymptomatic people which could cause them problems later in life. So the assumption that it really doesn't matter if kids and young people get it may prove to be incorrect in the long run. Much better to avoid catching it if at all possible and if vaccines can help with that then so much the better. I definitely trust the vaccine to be harmless for most people more than the virus.

 

Thanks for the reply.

And you're completely entitled to that view. The key point is- there's a huge amount we don't know. We don't know how safe the vaccine is, over the longer term. Its categorically not 100% safe, thats already clear. Equally, we don't know the longer term effects of the virus on those with little to no symptoms initially. So for many people there's a complex balance of risk, based on a number of factors. Based on all of the information I've sought out, I consider that my children are at next to no risk, should they catch covid. On that basis, I'm not exposing them to an experimental vaccine for a virus they have almost certainly, nothing to worry about.

 

Fair enough.

 

Useful discussion of the issues around opening up on 21st or delaying:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/12/should-england-open-up-on-21-june-the-factors-johnson-must-consider?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

 

We don't know a true summer comparative with this time last year when there wasn't a vaccine.

We have 50k cases off the back of 6m tests.

In august last year there were about 10k cases a week off the back of 1m tests and they would not allow people to take tests unless they had symptoms. Also the schools were closed compared to being open now, an absolutely no one was vaccinated.

A very high number of tests are people who have absolutely nothing wrong with them, people who's first indication they actually have the virus is because they have tested positive, not because they are in serious distress.

Things won't get better by kicking it into the autumn, if anything that combined with the flu season will make things worse.

 

I'm really not sure why a comparison with last summer is relevant to anything. Last summer, most people thought we were over the worst and that turned out to be totally wrong.

We know much more about the behaviour of the virus than we did last year. We know that this strain is more virulent, in transmissibility and impact, albeit tempered by vaccines. We know that the virus is capable of bouncing back strongly even after very low numbers last summer. We know that more people died in the second wave than the first, because we failed to act quickly enough in response to rising numbers. We know that other countries have had third waves. We know that many people are still struggling with long Covid, over a year after catching it, including plenty of previously fit and healthy people in their 20s, 30s and 40s.
We are beginning to see some signs that asymptomatic Covid may not be totally harmless and may actually be stoking up longer term health problems for some people, so your assumption that those people 'have absolutely nothing wrong with them' may be badly mistaken. Let's hope it isn't, but the fact is that we don't don't know yet. The fact that young people with asymptomatic Covid are not in serious distress doesn't necessarily mean it's fine to let them all catch it with impunity.

Clearly the most pressing current issue is whether the greater transmissibility of the Delta variant will lead to a big surge in hospital admissions, placing hospitals under excessive strain, and/or a significantly higher death rate. There are many medical experts and epidemiologists who fear that it will. You've obviously decided that they are scaremongering, even though they were spot on last autumn when they said that we were easing lockdown too quickly and shouldn't allow Christmas gatherings.

I thought the article was a fairly balanced look at the pros and cons of a few weeks delay to gain more data and buy more time for vaccinations, vs full opening now. You haven't addressed any of the concerns raised in the article; you just seem obsessed by the number of tests being done compared to last year.

 

It is important for as many people to get jabbed as possible and it is socially beneficial for that to happen. That doesn't mean that it compulsory or for people to be excluded from society if they have a different opinion on their own medical preferences. As we've discussed, they are only a "risk" to other people who have made the same decision for themselves and people who wrongly believe they are protected. However that risk is similar to many other decisions we make.

Well you've got your way. So in 4 weeks when cases are higher, hospitalisations are higher and deaths are higher I expect you to be okay with releasing the final restrictions? That fair?

 

This is what I don’t understand about the month extension, although it’d be worse it’d make far more sense if they said a third wave is coming so we’re putting out tighter restrictions again.

As we’re keeping the same restrictions cases will most likely keep rising and with it hospitalisations and deaths, not to a huge point like the 1st and 2nd waves but I would expect them to rise. If the amount of cases/hospitalisations/deaths isn’t acceptable now I don’t expect it to be in 4 weeks. Reminds me of the first lockdown, ‘we’ll see in 3 weeks’. It’ll be never ending.

 

Has it actually been announced?
Can't see anything on Google as yet.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57464097

 

Cheers....my Google must be suffering a post weekend hangover .

 

That doesn't mean that it compulsory or for people to be excluded from society if they have a different opinion on their own medical preferences.

Just out of curiosity can you name a situation where this this case? the recent 'Vaccine passports' at wembley required a 'vaccine passport' or a negative test.

As we've discussed, they are only a "risk" to other people who have made the same decision for themselves and people who wrongly believe they are protected. However that risk is similar to many other decisions we make.

people who wrongly believe they are protected. can you clarify this statement? is this everyone who had a vaccine or something else? if it is the former no vaccine on earth has a 100% efficiency rate (but it does provide provide protection for those that it works on, that can be seen here https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1088), therefore the less people who are vaccinated the more likely they are to spread it to the people who the vaccine in the first place.

 

Surely if figures still go up that confirms that the restrictions needed to be kept on rather than confirming they need removing. After reading this comment I am more and more convinced you are just on the wind up rather than anything else

when these dates for review were announce I predicted that this would happen that people would have decided that it wasn’t an earliest date but a set date unless otherwise said. It was the other way, it was the earliest possible date. Anyone that has spent money on the ‘guarantee’ that restrictions were happening did so on their own head.

 

Can't give an example of it happening because it was purely a theoretical discussion.

Yep, people who had had a vaccine but, as you say, due to the less than 100% efficacy aren't actually protected. And yes, for maybe the 10th time, the fewer people who are unvaccinated the better it will be.

 

You think I'm winding up? Why?

No - it doesn't confirm that it the slightest. Figures will go up, we all knew it when lockdown was ended. We're currently ticking along at the equivalent of about 3,350 deaths a year which we know will go up over time, perhaps by 10x and be deemed as perfectly acceptable.

The point is - if not now, then when? The numbers are almost the lowest they will possibly ever be so if we don't release now, when are we actually going to?

If people are calling for a four week extension - but are going to push back when numbers inevitably go up - then it's not really a four week extension at all, it's an indefinite one. It's the post vaccine equivalent of 'three weeks to flatten the curve'.

 

No one is saying it is compulsory for people to be excluded if they refuse the vaccine. But there will be some venues and events that won't admit such people and, as far as I'm concerned that's too bad - it's simply a consequence of their personal choice to opt out of the socially responsible option.

They are not only a risk to others who have opted out. They are also a risk to those for whom the vaccine is ineffective. And no one knows for whom the vaccine works well and for whom it doesn't, until those vaccinated people catch the virus. It's a lottery. So people assuming that it's ok to not be vaccinated, because it's only their risk, are simply wrong.

Re the four week delay, it's a question of degree. If the numbers of hospitalisations goes up drastically in that period, such that the NHS is swamped again, then of course it would be stupid to relax further in four weeks. Some A&E depts are reportedly busier now than in either of the previous waves. If the rises in hospitalisations and deaths are modest, such that the increased number of jabs and the impending school holidays are likely to drive them back down shortly thereafter, then opening up further would be justified.