# One-jab efficacy questions



## Chris152

On 18th March, Johnson said that 'a single dose of either Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccine provides a 60 percent prevention from Covid-19 [he didn't specify which variant, not sure if that makes a difference] and that it reduces hospitalisation by 80 percent, as well as death by 85 percent'.
What did the PM say in his speech tonight, Thursday, March 18?
Two questions:
1. Does that mean if you've had the jab but still contract the disease, you're only 20% less likely to end up in hospital / 25% less likely to die than if you'd not had the vaccine?
2. If we're 60% protected against contracting the virus, but the virus is now 50-70% more contagious than this time last year, aren't we back where we were last April in terms of likely spread? R seems to have risen to around 1 in England at the top end of the estimate, now.
Thanks if you can clarify any of this. Oh, and I don't want to know it's unimportant etc, just clarification on the stats.
Confused of Cardiff.


----------



## MARK.B.

The first question i would think, is you are 80% less likely to end up in hospital and 75% less likely to die if you do go to hospital.
As for number 2 i don't have a answer, a lot of unknown's still to be found as the Virus is still mutating.


----------



## Chris152

I think that was my initial understanding of what he said (a NHS spokeswoman had made a real mess of stating the same stats a few days before, so I guess he was trying to clarify) but on reflection, from the govt's perspective, it'd be quite reasonable to state that the vaccine provides 80% protection against hospitalisation/ 85% against death from the position of a non-infected, single-jabbed person - as those are the figures they're focused on. If so, then the vaccine only provides 20-25% further protection against hospitalisation/ death if you contract the disease?


----------



## powertools

All I can say is that I think that we are all confused but the main stats show that since to vax roll out started all the bad news seems to have gone down to a low level.
I am happy to say that today I have had my second jab and I accept that I could still get covid but assume that it would not be as bad but I am still going to be cautious how I lead my life.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

As I read the numbers:

with one jab you are 60% less likely to catch the virus
if you do get the virus you are 80% less likely to be hospitalised
if hospitalised you are 85% less likely to die
So compared to the unvaccinated my chance of dying from Covid is:

40% x 20% x 15% = 1.2%

Perhaps I'm just an optimist. It would be nice to know what the figure so casually bandied actually mean!


----------



## RobinBHM

Chris152 said:


> If we're 60% protected against contracting the virus, but the virus is now 50-70% more contagious than this time last year, aren't we back where we were last April in terms of likely spread? R seems to have risen to around 1 in England at the top end of the estimate, now.



its an interesting point, I would say the reality is: we simply dont know, early date feedback indicates the vaccine reduces transmission, but thats only small studies.

Im not sure your maths would add up as Im not sure the 2 would cancel each other out.


----------



## RobinBHM

Chris152 said:


> If so, then the vaccine only provides 20-25% further protection against hospitalisation/ death if you contract the disease?



I think it means that you have 80% further protection against hospitalisation if you contract covid.

I know somebody that caught covid over 3 weeks after being vaccinated -she was quite ill for 2 weeks and still recovering after 4 weeks. I know statistically it means nothing but given she is mid 70's my guess is its possible she may have been hospitalised from it. (its rather sad really, her husband got ill not from covid, got covid in hospital, came home and gave it to his wife. He got readmitted to hospital and then died (not from covid).


----------



## Chris152

Thanks fellas. I've done a fair bit of searching on the net but can't find the answers. Odd that we seem to be left guessing what the figures mean, different readings make a big difference to where we stand I think.


----------



## Rorschach

Confusion is the name of the game, the confused are scared and scared people are easier to control.


----------



## Chris152




----------



## TRITON

STOP IT, Just STOP IT.
I've been trying to avoid looking at threads such as these  It's 8:34 now and I've an appointment today at 9:40 to get the vaccine.


----------



## Ozi

Terry - Somerset said:


> As I read the numbers:
> 
> with one jab you are 60% less likely to catch the virus
> if you do get the virus you are 80% less likely to be hospitalised
> if hospitalised you are 85% less likely to die
> So compared to the unvaccinated my chance of dying from Covid is:
> 
> 40% x 20% x 15% = 1.2%
> 
> Perhaps I'm just an optimist. It would be nice to know what the figure so casually bandied actually mean!


These are population stats so don't multiply quite like that basically if you compare two groups one vaccinated one not then the treated group

will have
60% less infections
80% less hospitalized
85% less deaths 

so if we had a new infection rate of 6000 per day that would become 2400 etc.


presumably it also means that of those infected a higher proportion will be symptom less. This is why all the children that are back at school are being tested and the tests logged nationally so that the effect of each step of reducing lock down can be measured. It's also why vaccinated people still need to be cautious as we could still be spreading it. A problem is that it's difficult to isolate effects within a population and this may be seasional or if not directly then effected by seasonal events (at the start we were told that if you got flue and covid together you were 8 times more likely to die. What happens in the next flue season will really tell us how successful this has been, but probably the most important thing is that as many people on earth as possible get the vacine, it's in the self interest of rich nations to reduce the sorce of potential mutation before something comes along to put us back to square one.


----------



## Chris152

Ozi said:


> These are population stats so don't multiply quite like that basically if you compare two groups one vaccinated one not then the treated group
> will have
> 60% less infections
> 80% less hospitalized
> 85% less deaths


Makes sense, but less optimistic than it originally sounded to my ears! But obvs still worth getting the shot, Triton - be brave


----------



## Ozi

Yes good luck Triton.

Today's figures are pretty positive on Official UK Coronavirus Dashboard

it's a good site if you want local information just put your post code in. We have no new deaths in Rugby for over two weeks now


----------



## Woody2Shoes

Chris152 said:


> Makes sense, but less optimistic than it originally sounded to my ears! But obvs still worth getting the shot, Triton - be brave


The other thing worth noting is that after a second ("booster") jab the figures improve further by a reasonably encouraging margin. As suggested upthread, the biggest risk is from a new variant - developing where the infection rate is highest, most likely - evolving to evade the current set of vaccines. We know that the vaccines can be 'tweaked' within months, now that their basic function has been proven. The human race is not out of the woods yet - probably.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Policy seems to be increasingly driven by the possibility that the Covid virus may mutate, evade current vaccines, transmit more freely, or have more severe consequences.

I am unclear whether this is a real threat, or fearmongering to keep the proletariat in line.

All viruses mutate - flu, chicken pox, measles, mumps, AIDS, etc. The risk of mutation must increase with numbers infected worldwide yet we just accept this risk.

What makes Covid different.


----------



## Ozi

Terry - Somerset said:


> Policy seems to be increasingly driven by the possibility that the Covid virus may mutate, evade current vaccines, transmit more freely, or have more severe consequences.
> 
> I am unclear whether this is a real threat, or fearmongering to keep the proletariat in line.
> 
> All viruses mutate - flu, chicken pox, measles, mumps, AIDS, etc. The risk of mutation must increase with numbers infected worldwide yet we just accept this risk.
> 
> What makes Covid different.


The number of people it's killed and the speed of mutation. 

Chicken pox, measles and mumps mutate relatively slowly and the bodies immune response persists so if you get then once and fight off the infection you are likely protected for life from any new variety as your body can cope with small changes. AIDS is not an airborne infection and quite difficult to catch. Flu is in many ways similar to covid and sometimes throws up a dangerous strain like Spanish flu, it evolves quickly so we need new vaccines each year, but we have been living with flu a long time, it's nasty but most people can cope with it, the annual death rate doesn't overwhelm our health service although in a bad year it can get close. 

With luck covid will become like flu something most people can live with and our lives can get back to normal. The fight does seem to be going our way but we should learn some lessons.

This bits politics and just my opinion

we need to stop letting our votes be bought with tax cuts, I remember income tax at 30%, I think most people here probably do, it's the fairest tax going although any tax will be unfair on someone. We need to rebuild the NHS and take some urgent actions to clean this place up.

We need to stop treating elections like reality TV and vote for people who can show they have achieved something, why is MP the only job you can apply for without a CV.

We need to stop being NIMBYs. People need houses and old environmentally unsound houses need to be replaced, that means building in your area, it means richer areas subsidizing poorer areas.


Sorry, climbs off soap box again


----------



## Rorschach

Be interesting to see how recent news affects take up among the young.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

Terry - Somerset said:


> Policy seems to be increasingly driven by the possibility that the Covid virus may mutate, evade current vaccines, transmit more freely, or have more severe consequences.
> 
> I am unclear whether this is a real threat, or fearmongering to keep the proletariat in line.
> 
> All viruses mutate - flu, chicken pox, measles, mumps, AIDS, etc. The risk of mutation must increase with numbers infected worldwide yet we just accept this risk.
> 
> What makes Covid different.


The truth is, nobody knows - but 'common' sense suggests it is right to be cautious. Covid-19 has characteristics which make it fairly unusual (in our lifetimes at least):
1) There was no natural immunity in the human population anywhere on the planet, as far we know, before about 16-18 months ago.
2) It has a characteristic 'spike' protein which most/all vaccines seem to be relying on as the 'marker' for the virus. The 'signature' of this spike can vary with mutations - a tiny random mutation might stop the vaccines working (or at least badly reduce their chances of being effective) while allowing the virus to have similar effects on the human body. The more infections, the more mutations, until we can vaccinate everybody we have no choice but to accept the associated risks.
3) It's becoming increasingly clear that there is a post-covid-syndrome/long covid which is affecting a lot of people - often more likely to be younger and female more often than those who simply get killed by it. It's a pernicious, highly transmissible virus however you look at it.


----------



## George_N

Terry - Somerset said:


> Policy seems to be increasingly driven by the possibility that the Covid virus may mutate, evade current vaccines, transmit more freely, or have more severe consequences.
> 
> I am unclear whether this is a real threat, or fearmongering to keep the proletariat in line.
> 
> All viruses mutate - flu, chicken pox, measles, mumps, AIDS, etc. The risk of mutation must increase with numbers infected worldwide yet we just accept this risk.
> 
> What makes Covid different.


“All viruses mutate” but some mutate much more rapidly than others. Chicken pox, measles and mumps mutate much more slowly than flu or coronaviruses and are well controlled by vaccination programs. Coronavirus appears to be much more infectious than flu, given that it has continued to spread despite lockdown, mask use and social distancing, whereas flu cases have been the lowest ever recorded.
You are right that the bigger the pool of infected individuals, the greater opportunity there is for mutant strains of the virus to arise. Which just reinforces the need to get everyone vaccinated ASAP. To get proper protection we need BOTH shots, the first shot only gives partial protection that will wane relatively quickly (a few months).


----------



## Jonm

TRITON said:


> STOP IT, Just STOP IT.
> I've been trying to avoid looking at threads such as these  It's 8:34 now and I've an appointment today at 9:40 to get the vaccine.


Let us know how it goes, mine was totally painless injection and just a slightly sore arm. Hope yours is the same.


----------



## Jonm

Rorschach said:


> Be interesting to see how recent news affects take up among the young.


Are you referring to the blood clot issue?


----------



## Chris152

Ok, I think I'm clear on Q.1; how about the second - does the one cancel the other? (I agree, Robin - not sure about the maths!)


Chris152 said:


> 2. If we're 60% protected against contracting the virus [after one jab], but the virus is now 50-70% more contagious than this time last year, aren't we back where we were last April in terms of likely spread? R seems to have risen to around 1 in England at the top end of the estimate, now.


eta - I should have written 'aren't we back where we were last April in terms of the likelihood of catching it'.


----------



## Ozi

Chris152 said:


> Ok, I think I'm clear on Q.1; how about the second - does the one cancel the other? (I agree, Robin - not sure about the maths!)
> 
> eta - I should have written 'aren't we back where we were last April in terms of the likelihood of catching it'.


Fortunately the incidence in our population is much lower and as vaccination spreads we are getting some background immunity, take a look at whats happening in Brazil


----------



## Chris152

Ozi said:


> Fortunately the incidence in our population is much lower and as vaccination spreads we are getting some background immunity, take a look at whats happening in Brazil


Yes, I meant if we strip away the broader context - so in the same narrow scenario (say, sitting across the table from a contagious person) are my chances of contracting the disease now (4 weeks after first dose sat opposite a Kent variant carrier) about the same as they were a year ago with the old variant and no jab?


----------



## Ozi

Chris152 said:


> Yes, I meant if we strip away the broader context - so in the same narrow scenario (say, sitting across the table from a contagious person) are my chances of contracting the disease now (4 weeks after first dose sat opposite a Kent variant carrier) about the same as they were a year ago with the old variant and no jab?


I see what you mean, sorry was a bit slow on the uptake. I may be wrong but I think the answer is probably yes but that the consequences are much less likely to be serious. I'm looking forward to my second jab in June, feeling quite dopey after the first one but at least that means I'm getting an immune responce


----------



## Chris152

My fault - I realised the original second question was too vague and tried to narrow it a bit but should have rewritten it completely.
Ok, this is the nub of the matter:


Ozi said:


> I may be wrong but I think the answer is probably yes but that the consequences are much less likely to be serious.


If I've lost the 60% protection against catching the virus (by catching it!), aren't I now only 20% protected against hospitalisation and 25% protected against the worst scenario? (I'm ignoring developments in treatments since then, too, which also make a difference.)
I was dopey a day or two after mine - tho in lock down it's hard to tell the difference.
In case anyone's wondering, I'm not trying to talk down the vaccine (the opposite, looking forward to my second dose), just trying to be clear about what our situation is after one dose.


----------



## Garno

Ozi said:


> Yes good luck Triton.
> 
> Today's figures are pretty positive on Official UK Coronavirus Dashboard
> 
> it's a good site if you want local information just put your post code in. We have no new deaths in Rugby for over two weeks now
> 
> View attachment 107387




Thank you for posting that link. 
We have had 3 positive in the 7 day period and have 44.5 per 100k which is below average.

Gary


----------



## NormanB

Chris152 said:


> On 18th March, Johnson said that 'a single dose of either Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccine provides a 60 percent prevention from Covid-19 [he didn't specify which variant, not sure if that makes a difference] and that it reduces hospitalisation by 80 percent, as well as death by 85 percent'.
> What did the PM say in his speech tonight, Thursday, March 18?
> Two questions:
> 1. Does that mean if you've had the jab but still contract the disease, you're only 20% less likely to end up in hospital / 25% less likely to die than if you'd not had the vaccine?
> 2. If we're 60% protected against contracting the virus, but the virus is now 50-70% more contagious than this time last year, aren't we back where we were last April in terms of likely spread? R seems to have risen to around 1 in England at the top end of the estimate, now.
> Thanks if you can clarify any of this. Oh, and I don't want to know it's unimportant etc, just clarification on the stats.
> Confused of Cardiff.


The fundamental problem with the answer you are seeking is that efficacy figures are actually based on population level statistics they do not read across to individuals at all. They may give an ‘indication of expectation’, however the reality of that being fulfilled depends entirely on that individuals physiology and specifically, their immune system response. The only pre disease test that can indicate protection in the vaccinated individual is a blood test that specifically looks for antibodies and these are not done on request, but are done for those engaged in clinical trials. In Sum, when you see an efficacy of 90% for the vaccine, you do not know if you will or are in the protected population or the unlucky 10% unresponsive and unprotected population.


----------



## Chris152

NormanB said:


> The fundamental problem with the answer you are seeking is that efficacy figures are actually based on population level statistics they do not read across to individuals at all. They may give an ‘indication of expectation’, however the reality of that being fulfilled depends entirely on that individuals physiology and specifically, their immune system response. The only pre disease test that can indicate protection in the vaccinated individual is a blood test that specifically looks for antibodies and these are not done on request, but are done for those engaged in clinical trials. In Sum, when you see an efficacy of 90% for the vaccine, you do not know if you will or are in the protected population or the unlucky 10% unresponsive and unprotected population.


Yes, I was assuming an average person.


----------



## Rorschach

Jonm said:


> Are you referring to the blood clot issue?



Blood clot issue is just one of many, others include coercion, threats, ungratefulness and pointlessness since we are scheduled to be full open before most young will even get their first jab. 

Personally I will not be having it. My partner was considering it but certainly will not take the AZ if she does have it.


----------



## Spectric

Be careful when looking at statistics, they can be manipulated or read to support a case either way. Only trust data provided by instruments capable of accurate and repeatable measurement that cannot introduce prejudice or ulterior motive.


----------



## Jacob

As I understand it (or not as the case may be!) a single shot to a larger number of people is better than a double shot for a smaller number - not for the individual but for the disease spread in the population as a whole.


----------



## Rorschach

Jacob said:


> As I understand it (or not as the case may be!) a single shot to a larger number of people is better than a double shot for a smaller number - not for the individual but for the disease spread in the population as a whole.



Correct. All we really needed to do was lower deaths and lower pressure on the hospitals. We don't need to stop the spread because it's not a dangerous disease for 99%+ of the population. This is why we don't need lockdown anymore and haven't done for weeks.


----------



## Lefley

TRITON said:


> STOP IT, Just STOP IT.
> I've been trying to avoid looking at threads such as these  It's 8:34 now and I've an appointment today at 9:40 to get the vaccine.


You have a 20% chance of catching covid from the jabber! Just saying.


----------



## Jacob

Rorschach said:


> Correct. All we really needed to do was lower deaths and lower pressure on the hospitals. We don't need to stop the spread because it's not a dangerous disease for 99%+ of the population. This is why we don't need lockdown anymore and haven't done for weeks.


Too soon to say. Another wave is on the cards following the current easings. We are still above October rates of new infections but the vaccine will be having an effect.


----------



## Rorschach

Jacob said:


> Too soon to say. Another wave is on the cards following the current easings. We are still above October rates of new infections but the vaccine will be having an effect.



Of course there will be another wave, we will have at least one wave every year for eternity, just like we do with flu.


----------



## Ozi

Rorschach said:


> Blood clot issue is just one of many, others include coercion, threats, ungratefulness and pointlessness since we are scheduled to be full open before most young will even get their first jab.
> 
> Personally I will not be having it. My partner was considering it but certainly will not take the AZ if she does have it.


As far as blood clots go 7 out of 31,000,000 as opposed to 126,000 out of 65,000,000 also a number of people suffer blood clots vaccinated or not. On those odds I decided to take my chance. Coercion, threats, ungratefulness we are supposed to be a free society and although I think you are making the wrong decision you have access to the same data that I do and nobody has the right to make your decisions for you. As far as pointless goes if I was in the middle of an air raid and someone offered me a tin hat I'd take it, I wouldn't say no as I didn't have it at the start, also we chose how much we individually come out of lock down, once fully vaccinated I will still be keeping contact to a minimum until others get their chance at a jab. 

Hope it goes well for you which ever path you take


----------



## Ozi

Rorschach said:


> Of course there will be another wave, we will have at least one wave every year for eternity, just like we do with flu.


Very true


----------



## Jacob

Rorschach said:


> Of course there will be another wave, we will have at least one wave every year for eternity, just like we do with flu.


But Covid is 10 times as lethal, and it's not all over yet


----------



## Rorschach

Jacob said:


> But Covid is 10 times as lethal, and it's not all over yet



Nah it's not, it's a little bit more lethal but not 10x more, we are still way to early to compare it properly to flu.


----------



## Jacob

Rorschach said:


> Nah it's not, it's a little bit more lethal but not 10x more, we are still way to early to compare it properly to flu.


It's a rough measure but most studies say 10 times. here's just one: Coronavirus Disease 2019 vs. the Flu _"at present, it is thought to be substantially higher (possibly 10 times or more) than that of most strains of the flu."_
Maybe you should drop them a line and tell them they got it wrong?


----------



## Rorschach

Jacob said:


> It's a rough measure but most studies say 10 times. here's just one: Coronavirus Disease 2019 vs. the Flu _"at present, it is thought to be substantially higher (possibly 10 times or more) than that of most strains of the flu."_
> Maybe you should drop them a line and tell them they got it wrong?



I have seen quotes of 10x 5x 3x and 1.5x as deadly as flu. We don't test for flu much, we certainly don't count flu deaths within 28 days of a positive test. We have a (varying efficacy) vaccine for flu as well as hundreds if not thousands of years of natural immunity to flu. Spanish flu was very deadly the first time it hit, it now comes almost every year and barely marks the register.
Like I said, it's way to early to tell, this is a new virus, we are overhyping everything and it will take time for sense to prevail and normality to resume. We have no idea of how many real cases we have had. Some estimates say we could have had 5x as many cases as the official tested figures suggest, maybe even more when you have so many asymptomatic children. That would change the stats greatly if we could get better data on that.
Come back in a few years and we'll get a much better idea of really how much more deadly it is than flu. I am not saying it isn't more deadly, I am sure it is, but very unlikely to be as high as 10x.


----------



## TRITON

Jonm said:


> This is a woodworking and metalworking site which also discusses other things. First of all, this is your first post, do you have any interest in woodwork or metalwork.
> 
> I know a number of people who have been treated for cancer and survived beyond five years and are still alive and deemed to be “cured”. One was treated 40 years ago.
> 
> As regards the COVID vaccine, take up so far in the target groups, has been 95% so not many agree with you.


You got that spot on, its some twerp anti vaccination halfwit.


Naff off, go back to your conspiracy sites and spout your low intellect nonsense there.


----------



## Ozi

Rorschach said:


> Nah it's not, it's a little bit more lethal but not 10x more, we are still way to early to compare it properly to flu.


It varies a lot but about 10,000 people a year die from flu in the UK, this year is very low probably partly because the take up of vaccine is very high. If by how deadly you mean the percentage of infected people who die you will get one result, if you mean how many people die from a population you will get another, either way there are a lot of excess deaths this last year. Not all Covid, there will be people who die due to increased waiting lists or not going to the doctor or even economic effects etc. but 126,000 is still a lot of people.


----------



## Ozi

TRITON said:


> You got that spot on, its some twerp anti vaccination halfwit.
> 
> 
> Naff off, go back to your conspiracy sites and spout your low intellect nonsense there.


If you look at the trends it's quite probable that Measles would have been eradicated in the US by now if it wasn't for the anti vax lobby. Anybody remember Polio it's almost gone. Small pox who?

This isn't the place for it but the history of the anti measles lobby makes interesting / disturbing reading if you want a real conspiracy not one based on fantasy.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Jacob said:


> It's a rough measure but most studies say 10 times. here's just one: Coronavirus Disease 2019 vs. the Flu _"at present, it is thought to be substantially higher (possibly 10 times or more) than that of most strains of the flu."_



Up to 10 times, possibly as low as 4 times based on a simplistic analysis with imperfect data.

Bear in mind that the lower flu deaths are from a population where the most vulnerable are vaccinated annually (in the UK) and covid where deaths are almost entirely before vaccine intervention.

Separating the impact of lockdown and vaccination is difficult, but together they have radically reduced hospitalisations and deaths.

There may be a cyclical rise in covid cases in the winter - the best description I've heard is a "ripple" not a tsunami!


----------



## Jonm

Rorschach said:


> Correct. All we really needed to do was lower deaths and lower pressure on the hospitals. We don't need to stop the spread because it's not a dangerous disease for 99%+ of the population. This is why we don't need lockdown anymore and haven't done for weeks.


You may be correct in your statement that Covid is “not a dangerous disease for 99%+ of the population”. I suspect that if we include long Covid and an overwhelmed NHS then it would be less than 99%. The problem of course is that we cannot identify the people that are susceptible to covid. We know that they either have pre existing conditions or are in the over 50 age group. The risk increasing with age. There is also the issue of variants. There is the South African variant which may be in uk and there could be others.

I think the problem is that if we end lockdown and end all restrictions now, we would have lots of people with Covid very quickly. The vaccine is not 100 percent effective, there could be variants which get past the vaccine, there is a real risk of a rapid rise in hospitalisation and deaths and a return to some form of lockdown. On the other hand it could go really well.

I can understand the governments caution. One step at a time, and monitor what happens. Ease restrictions and if things go wrong we can go back one step for a while. We may be able to identify the cause, it may be pubs and clubs or perhaps spectator sport like football matches. If we open up fully in one go and it’s s disaster then the step back is lockdown and this needs to be the last one for us. This second wave with the UK variant has been dreadful for us, more deaths than the first wave.

But yes, I take your point, perhaps we are being too cautious, but I can understand why the government us taking this approach. It is almost a first, me agreeing with Johnson, perhaps he is listening to the experts.


----------



## Jonm

Rorschach said:


> Blood clot issue is just one of many, others include coercion, threats, ungratefulness and pointlessness since we are scheduled to be full open before most young will even get their first jab.
> 
> Personally I will not be having it. My partner was considering it but certainly will not take the AZ if she does have it.


I am in the vulnerable age group so it was a case of either protecting myself against a fairly high risk of serious illness or death versus the very low risk of an unknown side effect. It was a simple choice, I took the vaccine, as did everyone I know who has been offered it.

For someone younger it is not so simple, the risk of the disease to them Is far less and they hopefully have more years to live for any long term effect to become apparent.

Not so sure about the bad press for AZ, seems to be coming from Germany. Phizer, German company selling vaccine at £15 per dose AZ selllng at £3 per dose. EU getting criticised for not placing order early enough so AZ could put infrastructure in place to produce the vaccine. Macron calling AZ " quasi-ineffective" in older people. Lot of politics in this.

I do know that it is vaccines like AZ which are stored at normal fridge temperature which are needed to get to the poor countries, refugee camps and ghettos of the world. Phizer stored at -70 deg C in batches of 1000 in special nitrogen filled flasks will not do it.


----------



## Echo-Star

Thoughts on the vaccine, this is voluntary. Give it to the old and weak first then work your way down the age groups, people below 50 are not on the list to be vaccinated as yet. we don't know the implication and long term affect off this drug. If things go pear shaped and people start dying on masse, then it could take many deaths before they pin it down to these vaccines. Remember the thalidomide drug and the consequences. Don't jab young, as we may need them to repopulate.


----------



## Ozi

If anyone wants to read about the development of mRNA vaccines over the last ten years or so try 








mRNA vaccines â€” a new era in vaccinology - Nature Reviews Drug Discovery


mRNA vaccines represent a promising alternative to conventional vaccine approaches, but their application has been hampered by instability and delivery issues. Here, Pardi and colleagues discuss recent advances in mRNA vaccine technology, assess mRNA vaccines currently in development for cancer...




www.nature.com




It's a bit heavy going and pitched at people with a significant level of understanding of immune response well above my own. Most of the early work appears to have been directed at treating Rabies, cancer and AIDs


----------



## Rorschach

Jonm said:


> I am in the vulnerable age group so it was a case of either protecting myself against a fairly high risk of serious illness or death versus the very low risk of an unknown side effect. It was a simple choice, I took the vaccine, as did everyone I know who has been offered it.
> 
> For someone younger it is not so simple, the risk of the disease to them Is far less and they hopefully have more years to live for any long term effect to become apparent.
> 
> Not so sure about the bad press for AZ, seems to be coming from Germany. Phizer, German company selling vaccine at £15 per dose AZ selllng at £3 per dose. EU getting criticised for not placing order early enough so AZ could put infrastructure in place to produce the vaccine. Macron calling AZ " quasi-ineffective" in older people. Lot of politics in this.
> 
> I do know that it is vaccines like AZ which are stored at normal fridge temperature which are needed to get to the poor countries, refugee camps and ghettos of the world. Phizer stored at -70 deg C in batches of 1000 in special nitrogen filled flasks will not do it.



If I was 60 or had an underlying health condition, heck even if I was just really fat, I would be getting jabbed. But I am young, healthy, slim, no health problems and I hope to live for a long time yet. I will wait a while before getting jabbed, who know what the long term complications could be? Look at something like Gulf War syndrome for example, vaccines and medication given with no long term testing, didn't turn out well did it.

The chance of my dying of C19 (according to Aus Uni study of the first wave) are approx 1 in 120,000, less than 0.0001%. The chance of me dying in a road accident this year are around 1 in 30,000. I am still driving.


----------



## Chris152

Covid-related conspiracy theories tend to be pretty poor. There are much more interesting and convincing ones out there, ones with clear means and purpose that we don't tend to see but that affect our daily lives. I like the idea that people promoting the covid conspiracies have been conspired against by people who want the world's economies to keep rolling along in spite of the effect on human life, and that the people who are regurgitating the theories have themselves been duped - it's a pleasing irony.

Anyway, I think we have a reasonable answer to Q.1, but Q.2 hangs in the balance. As I recall, a couple of members on here are specialists and might be able to answer that one more fully but for some reason, they seem now to avoid threads with the word 'Covid' in them 
Thanks all who tried to answer.


----------



## selectortone

Rorschach said:


> Blood clot issue is just one of many, others include coercion, threats, ungratefulness and pointlessness since we are scheduled to be full open before most young will even get their first jab.
> 
> Personally I will not be having it. My partner was considering it but certainly will not take the AZ if she does have it.


You might regret not having it if you get the disease and then become one of the not inconsequential number of those suffering from long covid in the aftermath. That definitely doesn't sound like fun.

And before you trot out some stats suggesting your age group is golden and suffers the least, is it worth the risk?


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> You might regret not having it if you get the disease and then become one of the not inconsequential number of those suffering from long covid in the aftermath. That definitely doesn't sound like fun.
> 
> And before you trot out some stats suggesting your age group is golden and suffers the least, is it worth the risk?



Yes, totally worth the risk at the moment. I am not saying my opinion won't change with future data but as it stands at the moment I am very comfortable in my decision. Remember, I am one of the people who was never scared in the beginning, catching covid hasn't worried me over the past year so certainly no need to start worrying now. Given the vast majority shows no symptoms or so mild they don't recognise it there is an increasing chance I have already had it, had some weird bugs/malaises in the last 18 months.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> I am very comfortable in my decision


It is a free country, you are perfectly entitled to be wrong.
I just wish you wouldn't spread misinformation.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> It is a free country, you are perfectly entitled to be wrong.
> I just wish you wouldn't spread misinformation.



What misinformation have I spread on vaccines?


----------



## Jacob

RobinBHM said:


> It is a free country, you are perfectly entitled to be wrong.
> I just wish you wouldn't spread misinformation.


And we don't want you or anybody else to die out of ignorance!


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> What misinformation have I spread on vaccines?


Strawman

I never mentioned vaccines
And your post I quoted contained lots of stuff that had nothing to do with vaccines.


----------



## RobinBHM

Jacob said:


> And we don't want you or anybody else to die out of ignorance!


Exactly.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Yes, totally worth the risk at the moment. I am not saying my opinion won't change with future data but as it stands at the moment I am very comfortable in my decision. Remember, I am one of the people who was never scared in the beginning, catching covid hasn't worried me over the past year so certainly no need to start worrying now. Given the vast majority shows no symptoms or so mild they don't recognise it there is an increasing chance I have already had it, had some weird bugs/malaises in the last 18 months.



Theo Usherwood, political correspondent on LBC, had Covid last March.

He recently said it took him 6 months before he felt better and even now he's reduced stamina.

He is 38


Why is it worth the risk?
What is your risk from having the vaccine - let's see your analysis of how that risk is higher.


----------



## Spectric

If you watched the program on long covid you would go into hibernation, it can turn a young fit athletic person into an old person with symptoms like asthma and overall is going to cost this country millions in looking after them all. Now too many people are acting like it is all over and believing things are back to near normal when in reality we are far from being back to normal. The current virus is now a much lower hazard and once everyone has been vacinated it will be very low but we must not let our guard down and allow any mutant strains to develope or to allow them into the country. 

Borris is starting to try and run before fully walking and now poses a real threat to us all, to even contemplate allowing foreign holidays without making quarantine a legal requirement on return is just insane, we all know it will only take one person to start a new wave of a new strain that coulds be vacine immune.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Strawman
> 
> I never mentioned vaccines
> And your post I quoted contained lots of stuff that had nothing to do with vaccines.



Ok which bit in the post you quoted was misinformation? If you are going to accuse me of something, provide the evidence.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Ok which bit in the post you quoted was misinformation? If you are going to accuse me of something, provide the evidence.


its the same stuff you have repeated on here ad nauseam for many months and debunked by me and others.

for example your claim the risk of dying is approx 1 in 120,000 -the only data we have to show that is from deaths that have occurred despite considerable non pharmaceutical interventions. Yet you claim such interventions weren't necessary....so you are contradicting yourself

You need to either admit the figures you quoted are small because of lockdown measures or you need to quote what the death rate wouldve been without lockdown measures. But you want it both ways.


----------



## Jacob

RobinBHM said:


> its the same stuff you have repeated on here ad nauseam for many months and debunked by me and others.
> 
> for example your claim the risk of dying is approx 1 in 120,000 -the only data we have to show that is from deaths that have occurred despite considerable non pharmaceutical interventions. Yet you claim such interventions weren't necessary....so you are contradicting yourself
> 
> You need to either admit the figures you quoted are small because of lockdown measures or you need to quote what the death rate wouldve been without lockdown measures. But you want it both ways.


UK. CASES so far 4,357,091. DEATHS: 126,826.
That's 1 in 34 of the infected
Or about 1 in 450 of the UK population
Some way to go, but it looks like the odds on any one person dying of covid could pan out at 350:1?
Seems like short odds to me!


----------



## Chris152

Jacob said:


> UK. CASES so far 4,357,091. DEATHS: 126,826.
> That's 1 in 34 of the infected
> Or about 1 in 450 of the UK population
> Some way to go, but it looks like the odds on any one person dying of covid could pan out at 350:1?
> Seems like short odds to me!


And:
'A total of 1.1 million people in the UK have reported having long COVID, latest estimates show.
The data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) defined the condition as *COVID* symptoms that lasted more than four weeks and are self-reported, rather than clinically diagnosed.
Of the 1.1 million from private households, 674,000 people were thought to have symptoms that affected their daily life, with 196,000 estimated to have their ability to undertake everyday tasks limited a lot.'








COVID-19: 1.1 million in the UK recently reported having long COVID


Of those sufferers, 674,000 said the condition affected their day-to-day life - and 196,000 of those said it did so markedly.




news.sky.com


----------



## MikeJhn




----------



## RobinBHM

Chris152 said:


> And:
> 'A total of 1.1 million people in the UK have reported having long COVID, latest estimates show.
> The data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) defined the condition as *COVID* symptoms that lasted more than four weeks and are self-reported, rather than clinically diagnosed.
> Of the 1.1 million from private households, 674,000 people were thought to have symptoms that affected their daily life, with 196,000 estimated to have their ability to undertake everyday tasks limited a lot.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> COVID-19: 1.1 million in the UK recently reported having long COVID
> 
> 
> Of those sufferers, 674,000 said the condition affected their day-to-day life - and 196,000 of those said it did so markedly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.sky.com



I would say long covid is a far greater concern than death for many people and a great concern for the health service.


the health service has learnt a lot about covid treatments -and many more people are surviving, however it means longer in hospital -which takes up more resources


----------



## George_N

Echo-Star said:


> Thoughts on the vaccine, this is voluntary. Give it to the old and weak first then work your way down the age groups, people below 50 are not on the list to be vaccinated as yet. we don't know the implication and long term affect off this drug. If things go pear shaped and people start dying on masse, then it could take many deaths before they pin it down to these vaccines. Remember the thalidomide drug and the consequences. Don't jab young, as we may need them to repopulate.


The problem with not vaccinating “the young” is that you create a population pool in which the virus can circulate and mutate. A population pool that is highly socially active too. Given that the immunity induced by the vaccine is transient, even after two shots it may only last a year or so, we could very quickly be back to square one. The risks from vaccination are minuscule compared with catching Covid, even for young people.


----------



## Rorschach

1281 Men in the 15-44 age bracket have died with C19. Out of nearly 4.5 million confirmed cases, who knows how many real infections there actually have been, definitely more than 4.5 million though. I would suspect that most of those dying were obese, or had underlying health conditions because I am not seeing news headlines about healthy people dying. In fact I don't think I have seen a single headline of an otherwise healthy person dying with covid.


----------



## Rorschach

Jacob said:


> UK. CASES so far 4,357,091. DEATHS: 126,826.
> That's 1 in 34 of the infected
> Or about 1 in 450 of the UK population
> Some way to go, but it looks like the odds on any one person dying of covid could pan out at 350:1?
> Seems like short odds to me!



Your knowledge of statistics is almost as bad as your knowledge of what voters want.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> its the same stuff you have repeated on here ad nauseam for many months and debunked by me and others.
> 
> for example your claim the risk of dying is approx 1 in 120,000 -the only data we have to show that is from deaths that have occurred despite considerable non pharmaceutical interventions. Yet you claim such interventions weren't necessary....so you are contradicting yourself
> 
> You need to either admit the figures you quoted are small because of lockdown measures or you need to quote what the death rate wouldve been without lockdown measures. But you want it both ways.



Non pharmaceutical interventions are (supposedly) to stop infections, they have zero effect on the mortality rate. Even you know that!


----------



## selectortone

Rorschach said:


> Yes, totally worth the risk at the moment. I am not saying my opinion won't change with future data but as it stands at the moment I am very comfortable in my decision. Remember, I am one of the people who was never scared in the beginning, catching covid hasn't worried me over the past year so certainly no need to start worrying now. Given the vast majority shows no symptoms or so mild they don't recognise it there is an increasing chance I have already had it, had some weird bugs/malaises in the last 18 months.


So you'd rather risk long covid than the fleetingly small chance of a blood clot.


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> So you'd rather risk long covid than the fleetingly small chance of a blood clot.



Personally not too concerned about blood clots as I am not a middle aged woman.

Long covid doesn't worry me at all.


----------



## Jonm

Rorschach said:


> 1281 Men in the 15-44 age bracket have died with C19. Out of nearly 4.5 million confirmed cases, who knows how many real infections there actually have been, definitely more than 4.5 million though. I would suspect that most of those dying were obese, or had underlying health conditions because I am not seeing news headlines about healthy people dying. In fact I don't think I have seen a single headline of an otherwise healthy person dying with covid.


I find myself agreeing with you. Here is the latest government heat map. Clearly shows that the under 45 are not at much risk, even less so if you are fit, well and not overweight.

As for long Covid I think it is very unclear at the moment. Self diagnosis indicates that 1.1 million have some symptoms after 4 weeks. I had the very nasty bug which was circulating a bit before Covid, I was certainly still feeling the effects after 4 weeks, it is not unusual to take this time to shake things off. As for the 196 000 who found it affected their ability to undertake everyday tasks after four weeks, this again is a self diagnosis, some people get a sniffle and are knocked for six, others can battle on seemingly unaffected by anything. Is long Covid related to weight, 63% of adult population is overweight or obese. Is it related to some disabilities, there are apparently 14 million disabled in the uk, not sure of the definition though.

I do not want to belittle long covid, it is very serious for some people, I just do not think we have sufficient clinically assessed data available to us to make an assessment of risk for young healthy adults. Perhaps by the time you are offered the vaccine This issue will be clearer.

As for myself, in the older Group, I received a text to book the jab and was there the next day. As we come out of lockdown I will continue to be careful to minimise mine and my wife’s risk.


----------



## Spectric

George_N said:


> The problem with not vaccinating “the young” is that you create a population pool in which the virus can circulate and mutate


That is so true yet our government decided to have a race with the virus to see if it can vacinate everyone starting with the oldest before it can mutate, these are very high stakes because the wrong mutation will put us straight back onto the starting line. Our national debt is already at record levels and still growing so we would be in a really dire situation, especially with Borris & co ratling swords with China and trying to restart the cold war with Russia just as they are putting troops on the Ukraniun border. We should have vacinated a percentage of all age groups because that would have distrupted the virus transmission more effectively I believe, rather than concentrate the virus into the younger age groups where long covid is a bigger threat than actually dying and so leaving them still capable of transmission.


----------



## Rorschach

Spectric said:


> That is so true yet our government decided to have a race with the virus to see if it can vacinate everyone starting with the oldest before it can mutate, these are very high stakes because the wrong mutation will put us straight back onto the starting line. Our national debt is already at record levels and still growing so we would be in a really dire situation, especially with Borris & co ratling swords with China and trying to restart the cold war with Russia just as they are putting troops on the Ukraniun border. We should have vacinated a percentage of all age groups because that would have distrupted the virus transmission more effectively I believe, rather than concentrate the virus into the younger age groups where long covid is a bigger threat than actually dying and so leaving them still capable of transmission.



Totally pointless worrying about mutations arising here in the UK. We could completely vaccinate every single human in the country, but unless we keep our borders totally closed for eternity there will be new variants coming in. They are unlikely to occur here, they will come from 3rd countries. This why flu needs a new vaccine every single year. Better to keep training our immune systems so we build plenty of natural immunity as well as making use of vaccination where appropriate, then we can manage it like we do flu and we will keep deaths each year in the low 10's of thousands.


----------



## Spectric

Jonm said:


> Here is the latest government heat map. Clearly shows that the under 45 are not at much risk, even less so if you are fit, well and not overweight.


There is an obvious problem that increases the risk of catching Covid in your statement, not overweight. I do not know what it is like in your areas but even before Covid in nearly all the places I visited there were a very large number of under 45's that were doing very good impersonations of a spacehopper. This cannot have improved since Covid so although they should be at lower risk they are probably at higher risk than some of the people in the older groups and therefore should have been vacinated.


----------



## Rorschach

Spectric said:


> There is an obvious problem that increases the risk of catching Covid in your statement, not overweight. I do not know what it is like in your areas but even before Covid in nearly all the places I visited there were a very large number of under 45's that were doing very good impersonations of a spacehopper. This cannot have improved since Covid so although they should be at lower risk they are probably at higher risk than some of the people in the older groups and therefore should have been vacinated.



I think he was referring to my personal risk.


----------



## Spectric

I agree with Rorschach that mutations will be very hard to deal with but we must do everything possible so as the risk is reduced, this means people need to prove negative before entering the Uk and we do the same before going abroad. It may want to mutate but we need to make it difficult and not an open invite.


----------



## Rorschach

Spectric said:


> I agree with Rorschach that mutations will be very hard to deal with but we must do everything possible so as the risk is reduced, this means people need to prove negative before entering the Uk and we do the same before going abroad. It may want to mutate but we need to make it difficult and not an open invite.



You have to be careful using phrases like "everything possible" because clearly you don't believe that. If you wanted to do everything possible you would lock everyone up in their homes from birth till death. I am assuming you would like some freedom?


----------



## Spectric

Yes and no, would total loss of freedom for say three months in the begining have been that bad if we now had total freedom now within the UK and fewer deaths. It all comes down to the guy with no balls at the top who wanted his cake and to eat it, before he realised you can't it was to late.


----------



## Rorschach

We couldn't have total loss freedom though could we? We still needed to eat, some people still needed to work. There was never an option of a total shutdown to prevent spread.


----------



## Jacob

Rorschach said:


> Your knowledge of statistics is almost as bad as your knowledge of what voters want.


From United Kingdom Coronavirus: 4,357,091 Cases and 126,826 Deaths - Worldometer
If you can see an error you should drop them a line, I'm sure they would be very grateful to be corrected!


----------



## Jonm

George_N said:


> The problem with not vaccinating “the young” is that you create a population pool in which the virus can circulate and mutate. A population pool that is highly socially active too. Given that the immunity induced by the vaccine is transient, even after two shots it may only last a year or so, we could very quickly be back to square one. The risks from vaccination are minuscule compared with catching Covid, even for young people.


You are assuming that vaccines make a substantial reduction in spread of the virus and I have not seen much evidence about that occurring. The only figures I can recall seeing is that vaccines reduce the spread by 30%. Given that the uk strain is said to transmit 70% faster than the original strain, a 30% reduction in transmission would mean that even with extensive vaccination the current uk strain would circulate faster than the original strain. Of course Vaccines may make a very substantial reduction in transmissions.

With regard to mutations the real dangers to us are from the slums and refugee camps of the world.


----------



## Jacob

Jonm said:


> ......
> With regard to mutations the real dangers to us are from the slums and refugee camps of the world.


Not really. They are the ones who find it hardest to get here and are least likely to be visited by freewheeling travellers.
It's the well off world travellers, whether for business or pleasure, who will spread it fastest.


----------



## Jacob

Jonm said:


> You are assuming that vaccines make a substantial reduction in spread of the virus and I have not seen much evidence about that occurring. .................Of course Vaccines may make a very substantial reduction in transmissions.
> ......


Which is it? Do they or don't they reduce the spread/transmissions?


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Non pharmaceutical interventions are (supposedly) to stop infections, they have zero effect on the mortality rate. Even you know that!


No supposedly about it, NPIs do lower rate of infection spread.

Less people getting Covid mean less hospital and less deaths.....that's a clear effect on mortality rate.

You have no data on mortality rates with no NPIs.....although your arguments all assume that basis.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> No supposedly about it, NPIs do lower rate of infection spread.
> 
> Less people getting Covid mean less hospital and less deaths.....that's a clear effect on mortality rate.
> 
> You have no data on mortality rates with no NPIs.....although your arguments all assume that basis.



You were talking about the chances of dying though, so more accurately we should say infection fatality rate rather than mortality rate which is what I was referring to and assumed you were too. Are you claiming NPI lower the IFR of Covid?


----------



## Jacob

Rorschach said:


> You were talking about the chances of dying though, so more accurately we should say infection fatality rate rather than mortality rate which is what I was referring to and assumed you were too. Are you claiming NPI lower the IFR of Covid?


If NPI reduces infections there will be fewer infected people to infect other people. Would a little diagram help?


----------



## Echo-Star

Did we not have the lid on covid back in July last, Then this government opened the flood gates and let everyone go traveling round the world, and gave us lockdown 2 It'll happen again this summer and we'll be dubbed up by September, if not before then.


----------



## John Brown

Rorschach said:


> If I was 60 or had an underlying health condition, heck even if I was just really fat, I would be getting jabbed. But I am young, healthy, slim, no health problems and I hope to live for a long time yet. I will wait a while before getting jabbed, who know what the long term complications could be? Look at something like Gulf War syndrome for example, vaccines and medication given with no long term testing, didn't turn out well did it.
> 
> The chance of my dying of C19 (according to Aus Uni study of the first wave) are approx 1 in 120,000, less than 0.0001%. The chance of me dying in a road accident this year are around 1 in 30,000. I am still driving.


Well, what do you know! I'm 68, but I always assumed you were older, based on your political viewpoints and opinions.


----------



## Rorschach

John Brown said:


> Well, what do you know! I'm 68, but I always assumed you were older, based on your political viewpoints and opinions.



Do I sound old? lol


----------



## TominDales

Rorschach said:


> Blood clot issue is just one of many, others include coercion, threats, ungratefulness and pointlessness since we are scheduled to be full open before most young will even get their first jab.
> 
> Personally I will not be having it. My partner was considering it but certainly will not take the AZ if she does have it.


I think the threat of a vaccine passport will weight on the young, otherwise they will have to get frequent tests to be able to go to clubs etc. As you say, more coercion.

Taking the vaccine is a personal choice in this country, small pox vaccines were compulsory in the mid 19th century and there were protesters, most famously in Leicester, the government moved on, it realised the best course is persuasion and being open with the data. Its a very personal choice as individuals are receiving a foreign body into themselves. Compulsion is self defeating as it builds mistrust. Most people are choosing to take the vaccine as they perceive the risks of not taking it to out-way those of taking it. with over 80% uptake, herd immunity is likely. But importantly its a free choice for the individual.

I would re-assure your partner about the AZ vaccine through, if she wants a vaccine, she may not get a choice of manufactuer for some time. The data on AZ safety is very good worldwide, its got a unjustifiable bad press by overseas politicians shooting their mouths-off. The blood clot issue is of v. low incidence - about 1 in 1million in the UK, and seems to effect younger women (20 to 40 age group) who are taking certain contraceptive pills. If she or any young person falls in that category then the risk seems a higher, its still very small even for that age group. There is still little data to really be sure its a problem at all. 

One thing with the AZ vaccine is it tends to be associated with a couple of days feeling like having a dose of flue, raised temperature, exhaustion. It is milder in older people and more severe in the younger age group. My wife felt rotten for 3 days whilst I hardly noticed it. The second dose has less reported side effects, whilst the Pfizer version has more the second time round. None of the side effects are due to an illness, just the way the body naturally responds to foreign proteins in the blood.


----------



## TominDales

Rorschach said:


> Correct. All we really needed to do was lower deaths and lower pressure on the hospitals. We don't need to stop the spread because it's not a dangerous disease for 99%+ of the population. This is why we don't need lockdown anymore and haven't done for weeks.


Lowering deaths in the older population was the original strategy, but recent studies are showing how much more dangerous the decease is for the young. Long covid and damage to organs is becoming apparent in younger people who had quite mild symptoms at the time. The Kent variant seems to be more serous in the young. There maybe 1 million with serous side effects out of the roughly 5million cases, so it could be effecting the lives of 20% of those infected. Early data, but going in the wrong direction.


----------



## TominDales

Echo-Star said:


> Thoughts on the vaccine, this is voluntary. Give it to the old and weak first then work your way down the age groups, people below 50 are not on the list to be vaccinated as yet. we don't know the implication and long term affect off this drug. If things go pear shaped and people start dying on masse, then it could take many deaths before they pin it down to these vaccines. Remember the thalidomide drug and the consequences. Don't jab young, as we may need them to repopulate.


Luckily for us, the side effects of vaccines are manifested very early on ie in weeks. In 200 years of vaccination, contra indications have shown up quickly. 

You are absolutely right that extreme caution is required with vaccines as they are given to otherwise healthy people, especially for the very young. That is why it usually take 5 to 10 years to develop a completely new vaccine (flue variants excepted). A vaccine is not a drug as such, so does not interfere with the body's metabolism or with DNA as a small molecule drug could, as Thalidomide did. A vaccine produces piece of virus protein, our bodies receive these all the time from natural infections. The side effects of vaccines are seen very quickly. 

If there was a high incidence ie 1 in 10,000 of a side effect, it would show up in the early clinical trials, the ones granted a licence passed all these tests very well. The Covid vaccine is being rolled out globally to billions of people, we should start to see rare side effects (blood clots could be one such side effect) that affect say 1 in 250,000 or 1 in a million emerging. This data would help when rolling the vaccine out to the young, but so far trial are showing very little effect.


----------



## Jonm

Jacob said:


> Which is it? Do they or don't they reduce the spread/transmissions?


The government with all their resources do not know or are not telling us so how do you expect me to know.

The point I am making is that statements are being made about how we should behave assuming that vaccination substantially reduces transmission, but we do not know that.


----------



## TominDales

Rorschach said:


> If I was 60 or had an underlying health condition, heck even if I was just really fat, I would be getting jabbed. But I am young, healthy, slim, no health problems and I hope to live for a long time yet. I will wait a while before getting jabbed, who know what the long term complications could be? Look at something like Gulf War syndrome for example, vaccines and medication given with no long term testing, didn't turn out well did it.
> 
> The chance of my dying of C19 (according to Aus Uni study of the first wave) are approx 1 in 120,000, less than 0.0001%. The chance of me dying in a road accident this year are around 1 in 30,000. I am still driving.


Provided you are careful, waiting is a fine strategy, its what the Leicester folk did when fighting epidemics in the 19th century, good contact tracing and isolation. Vaccination is really a strategy for getting the population socialising again.
I must stress that vaccines today are a safe medication - at least by comparison with any other medication. Gulf war syndrome is still not really understood, but the most likely suspect is Sarin poisoning, it fits the symptoms and the soldier were exposed. There have been no known vaccine side effects that give gulf war syndrome, and nothing on that scale.


----------



## RobinBHM

Jonm said:


> The government with all their resources do not know or are not telling us so how do you expect me to know


We won't know for a while because vaccines haven't been around long enough.


----------



## Jacob

Jonm said:


> The government with all their resources do not know or are not telling us so how do you expect me to know.
> 
> The point I am making is that statements are being made about how we should behave assuming that vaccination substantially reduces transmission, but we do not know that.


You seemed to be contradicting yourself. OK so you don't know but it's reasonable to assume that reducing infection will reduce transmission - unless/until it is shown to be otherwise.


----------



## RobinBHM

Useful info on whether the vaccine lower infection spread:

Preliminary analyses suggest that at least some vaccines are likely to have a transmission-blocking effect. But confirming that effect — and how strong it will be — is tricky because a drop in infections in a given region might be explained by other factors, such as lockdowns and behaviour changes. Not only that, the virus can spread from asymptomatic carriers, which makes it hard to detect those infections.

“These are among the hardest types of studies to do,” says Marc Lipsitch, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts. “All of us are out there, hungrily trying to see what we can get out of little bits of data that do come out,” he says. Results from some studies are expected in the next few weeks.









Can COVID vaccines stop transmission? Scientists race to find answers


Controlling the pandemic will require shots that prevent viral spread, but that feature is difficult to measure.




www.nature.com


----------



## Echo-Star

TominDales said:


> Luckily for us, the side effects of vaccines are manifested very early on ie in weeks. In 200 years of vaccination, contra indications have shown up quickly.
> 
> You are absolutely right that extreme caution is required with vaccines as they are given to otherwise healthy people, especially for the very young. That is why it usually take 5 to 10 years to develop a completely new vaccine (flue variants excepted). A vaccine is not a drug as such, so does not interfere with the body's metabolism or with DNA as a small molecule drug could, as Thalidomide did. A vaccine produces piece of virus protein, our bodies receive these all the time from natural infections. The side effects of vaccines are seen very quickly.
> 
> If there was a high incidence ie 1 in 10,000 of a side effect, it would show up in the early clinical trials, the ones granted a licence passed all these tests very well. The Covid vaccine is being rolled out globally to billions of people, we should start to see rare side effects (blood clots could be one such side effect) that affect say 1 in 250,000 or 1 in a million emerging. This data would help when rolling the vaccine out to the young, but so far trial are showing very little effect.


I agree with what your saying, I am not anti vaccine, I was just putting my tuppence worth in. I've had my letter a few week back, I just ain't been to get it, I've never heard off anyone in my area who has died with covid, and if any have, then it must be few in number, and my area has had an R rate below 1 for nearly 6 months. Still locked down though. Anyway the planet could do with loosing 2 or 3 billion people and if covid can do that, then it's not such a bad thing really.


----------



## Jonm

Jacob said:


> Not really. They are the ones who find it hardest to get here and are least likely to be visited by freewheeling travellers.
> It's the well off world travellers, whether for business or pleasure, who will spread it fastest.


There are over 1 billion slum dwellers. If we look at influenza it is rife in slums due to the high numbers and density of people, insanitary conditions, lack of health care, lack of vaccine, poor nutrition etc. I imagine that coronavirus is similarly rife. Slum dwellers do not stay in the slums, many go outside and work in the local communities. The very high number of Infections mean it is more likely for mutations to occur, then in to the wider community through possibly the slum dwellers who work outside the slum. From there to international travellers.

This is a worldwide problem


----------



## John Brown

The planet doesn't give a dung. What nonsense!
The planet will survive pandemics, nuclear wars...
The human race may suffer, but that's hardly the same thing.
Do you consider yourself to be one of those the planet could do with "loosing"?


----------



## TRITON

...


----------



## Jonm

Jacob said:


> You seemed to be contradicting yourself. OK so you don't know but it's reasonable to assume that reducing infection will reduce transmission - unless/until it is shown to be otherwise.


If you accuse someone of contradicting themselves then you have to be very precise yourself. Vaccines do not reduce infection they produce antibodies which reduce the effect of the infection. That is what they are designed to do, protect the individual from the disease. They may also reduce the onward transmission of the disease but that is not measured in the approval process.

There is lots of talk about vaccine passports or negative Covid test to do certain things like go on an Aeroplane or the pub or football matches. To assume that the vaccinated group will not pass on coronavirus to the unvaccinated group seems a bit iffy to me. Surely we need to have some scientific basis that the vaccines we are using substantially reduce onward transmission before we go down this route.


----------



## TominDales

Chris152 said:


> On 18th March, Johnson said that 'a single dose of either Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccine provides a 60 percent prevention from Covid-19 [he didn't specify which variant, not sure if that makes a difference] and that it reduces hospitalisation by 80 percent, as well as death by 85 percent'.
> What did the PM say in his speech tonight, Thursday, March 18?
> Two questions:
> 2. If we're 60% protected against contracting the virus, but the virus is now 50-70% more contagious than this time last year, aren't we back where we were last April in terms of likely spread? R seems to have risen to around 1 in England at the top end of the estimate, now.
> Thanks if you can clarify any of this. Oh, and I don't want to know it's unimportant etc, just clarification on the stats.
> Confused of Cardiff.


Your 2nd question
Although the Kent variant is more contagious and has a higher mortality rate especially for the young. Most data indicates that the current vaccines are equally effective at preventing serious infection from it as they did for the early variants.

So simple answer is , we are in a much better position than a year ago. A US study indicates that the AZ vaccine, after 3 weeks is close to 100% effective at preventing death and serous illness - that is way higher than the PMs March claim. Also UK data indicates that where there have been deaths and serous cases post vaccine, all the cases were from people with symptoms in the first week of taking the vaccine. They were either pre-infected, infected at the centre or shortly afterwards. Both AZ and Pfizer seem to be about as effective against the Kent variant as the previous strains of COVID.
A recent study in South Africa indicates the Pfizer vaccine is 80% effective against the SA strain, its probably safe to assume the AZ one will be as it produced anti-bodies against the spike protein as does Pfizer. Lab work had shown Pfizer to produce about 1/8th the antibodies to the SA variant compared to the normal variants, however the vaccines are so effective at producing antibodies that this lower number seems to be sufficient. The AZ vaccine tends to bost the T cells response which should help with immune memory - we will have to wait to see if this is borne out.

I have some experience of the vaccine programme, my company is working on the new variant vaccines. There seem to be several reasons to be optimistic going forward despite the appearance of more infectious variants and the expectation of still more variants.
- The virus mutates relatively slowly, much slower than flu, but faster than measles, so chances are the vaccines will hold up for a few more months by which time cases will be lower and the WHO etc will be able to focus on countries like Brazil where there are serous outbreaks
- Secondly new variant vaccines would be rolled out quite quickly. The mRNA technology is relatively quick to modify.
- We now know that vaccines are effective, 12 months ago its was an educated gamble - UK government put £13bn into the vaccine programme not knowing what would work, now the whole world industry is expanding rapidly. Within the next 12 months we will have global capacity to rapidly vaccinate the world population, which means we will get on top of the virus. At present there is not enough supply, that will change in a few months, the US and EU will have surplus supply and be exporting to the developing world. Once that happens new variants wont be produced so quickly and in such numbers.
- This was a new decease to mankind 12 months ago, so we had low natural immunity and it could produce bad symptoms, we know how to teat is better, we will carry residual immunity from vaccines which should reduce the seriousness of infection (CF Spanish flue) and we have medical treatments that are effective in reducing complications. We have better isolation practices and more available PPE
- we have effective assays to do test and trace at scale so can more effectively quarantine those with new variants and hence not to need the sledgehammer of a national lockdown so often if at all - we may see more draconian approaches to quarantine in the UK if other European countries find it effective as time goes on.
- even after lockdown has ended, we can still practice social distancing and continue to take sensible precautions until the disease is under control

So for all these reason we are in a much better place than 12 months ago, let the vaccine programme roll out and we should start to get on top of the disease. It will remain for a few years, but it should be consolable. There is a small chance that a variant will totally escape the vaccines, especially as that will be the evolutionary driver for the virus, but that worry seems a low probability, does seem to be the medical establishments biggest worry.


----------



## Lefley

Jacob said:


> But Covid is 10 times as lethal, and it's not all over yet


It’s never going to be over Covid is the new flu. Drug companies have a new vaccine to sell us every flu season for ever!


----------



## Echo-Star

John Brown said:


> The planet doesn't give a dung. What nonsense!
> The planet will survive pandemics, nuclear wars...
> The human race may suffer, but that's hardly the same thing.
> Do you consider yourself to be one of those the planet could do with "loosing"?


I think you missed the point, or it just went right over the top of your head, humans have raped the plant and caused global warming. I believe we are already past the tipping point, though you or I wont see it, the planet is already over populated, but your alright jack. dying doesn't worry me one bit


----------



## TRITON

> Anyway the planet could do with loosing 2 or 3 billion people and if covid can do that, then it's not such a bad thing really.



I take it you're not thinking of yourself as one of these 2 or 3 billion 


> the planet is already over populated


Is it ?. 
Some cities are densely packed, but much of the planet is uninhabited. in fact great swathes of land have nobody living there. 
Here is a link to the Wikipedia page for the Earth. Earth - Wikipedia
According to this source, land occupies just over 29% of the Earth’s surface, or 148,940,000 square kilometres. There are 1,000,000 square meters in a square kilometre, so there are 148,940,000,000,000 square meters of land on the surface of the Earth. That’s approximately 150,000 billion square meters of land.

According to this source, World Population Clock: 7.5 Billion People (2017)
there are approximately 7.5 billion people currently living on earth.

If you divide 150,000 billion square meters by 7.5 billion people, you get about 20,000 square meters per person. You can think of that as a square about 140 meters on a side. That’s enough for a very nice house and a big garden.


----------



## Rorschach

@TominDales my partner falls right into the affected category for blood clots, uses the contraceptive pill and has a family history of strokes, biggest killer in her family and several survived but long term disabled.


----------



## Chris152

Thanks for your really helpful reply, TominDales.


TominDales said:


> Your 2nd question
> [...]
> So simple answer is , we are in a much better position than a year ago. A US study indicates that the AZ vaccine, after 3 weeks is close to 100% effective at preventing death and serous illness - that is way higher than the PMs March claim.


That US study was after two doses, right? Johnson was talking about the effect of the first dose, and it was his stats relating to that that got me wondering - most of us who are eligible are in the one-dose state at the moment and many will be for some time to come as we unlock, schools are already back, and it's looking pretty busy out there at the moment (Easter hols, good weather etc.), and the Kent variant's much more easily transmitted than the original form we had (which by all accounts spread easily itself). Certainly, the broader context looks much better in terms of vaccinations and treatments.


----------



## Chris152

TRITON said:


> If you divide 150,000 billion square meters by 7.5 billion people, you get about 20,000 square meters per person. You can think of that as a square about 140 meters on a side. That’s enough for a very nice house and a big garden.


Brilliant!I'll have my share along the south-west coast of France, down toward Hossegor. Not sure where the rest of you will go but i'd like nice neighbours.


----------



## TRITON

Chris152 said:


> Brilliant!I'll have my share along the south-west coast of France, down toward Hossegor. Not sure where the rest of you will go but i'd like nice neighbours.



Maybe avoid Leven then


----------



## Jacob

Jonm said:


> If you accuse someone of contradicting themselves


Not an "accusation" just a suggestion 


> ...... Vaccines do not reduce infection they produce antibodies which reduce the effect of the infection. That is what they are designed to do, protect the individual from the disease. They may also reduce the onward transmission of the disease but that is not measured in the approval process.


Well yes. Brakes do not slow down a bicycle they merely stop the wheels from turning.


> ..... Surely we need to have some scientific basis that the vaccines we are using substantially reduce onward transmission before we go down this route.


Yes, but in the absence of scientific proof it's reasonable to assume that if the vaccines halt the disease this will probably halt the transmission


----------



## Jacob

[


Jonm said:


> ....
> 
> This is a worldwide problem


Exactly, so the problem isn't the slum dwellers themselves it's the failure if agencies worldwide to alleviate slum dwelling and all the associated ills.


----------



## RobinBHM

Jonm said:


> Surely we need to have some scientific basis that the vaccines we are using substantially reduce onward transmission before we go down this route


No, I don't think we do.

This is a novel virus, decision making has to be done concurrently with data collection.

The difficulty with highly transmissible viruses is infection rates soar exponentially....slow decision making will always be too late.


----------



## D_W

Woody2Shoes said:


> The other thing worth noting is that after a second ("booster") jab the figures improve further by a reasonably encouraging margin. As suggested upthread, the biggest risk is from a new variant - developing where the infection rate is highest, most likely - evolving to evade the current set of vaccines. We know that the vaccines can be 'tweaked' within months, now that their basic function has been proven. The human race is not out of the woods yet - probably.



This variant nonsense is the media's last gasp at getting a scare out of people. I say that because there is no evidence that a variant that actually evades vaccines will develop any time soon. 

As soon as there is, we'll know by the data, but for so long, we relied on the data to know how we're doing, and now we're supposed to ignore it. Even fauci is on this nonsense here.

Everyone I know who hasn't had covid is getting vaccinated, but if you watch the news, you'll be convinced that 50% of the population won't get it by misusing surveys.


----------



## Spectric

So here we go again, as we get the numbers down and begin to get life more normal here in the UK with a high percentage of vacinations what does the government decide to do, lower the drawbridge and allow international travel with some hair brain traffic light system even with the virus staring them in the face. It could work if there was 100% compliance and measures in place to prevent onward travel but there won't be. So nothing to stop people going to a green country and then having their holiday in a red country and returning via the green country or going to a green country and coming into contact with others who have come in from a neighbouring red country so why lower the drawbridge just when things within are settling down and we have a fair measure of control.


----------



## Spectric

D_W said:


> This variant nonsense is the media's last gasp at getting a scare out of people. I say that because there is no evidence that a variant that actually evades vaccines will develop any time soon.


There was no evidence that Covid 19 was about to cause a global pandemic either until it happened.


----------



## D_W

Spectric said:


> There was no evidence that Covid 19 was about to cause a global pandemic either until it happened.



How about the spread in China that was covered up? That was pretty clear evidence. Just as all of the data so far is clear that the vaccines control all of the variants. 

Washington state has tracked 1.2 million people so far, and found only 100 positive pcr tests among those vaccinated, and only 10 hospitalized. Out of 1.2 million. I'm sure all of the variants are present there. The virus isn't fast mutating. 

It's as if reality is just too positive for people. 

Vaccine rate here is over 90% while the news was obsessed with claiming only half of the population would take the vaccine because !trump!. What they did to claim that was count the half of the respondents who said yes as a yes and count the people who said they would consider it if it worked without harm as no. That was about 30-40% of respondents. Of course more than that yet have taken the vaccine, which was predictable. People got hysterical over some supposition that would never happen. 

If there ever is a new variant that isn't controlled, we'll know within days. Until then, to ignore actual data is foolish.


----------



## Spectric

Perhaps not all deaths were directly Covid, perhaps some were from taking disinfectant!


----------



## TominDales

Chris152 said:


> Thanks for your really helpful reply, TominDales.
> 
> That US study was after two doses, right? Johnson was talking about the effect of the first dose, and it was his stats relating to that that got me wondering - most of us who are eligible are in the one-dose state at the moment and many will be for some time to come as we unlock, schools are already back, and it's looking pretty busy out there at the moment (Easter hols, good weather etc.), and the Kent variant's much more easily transmitted than the original form we had (which by all accounts spread easily itself). Certainly, the broader context looks much better in terms of vaccinations and treatments.


OK this is a hard question to answer with any precision as there are 3 variables, Transmissibility (as measured by R0), Vaccine efficacy %, and vaccine coverage %, all of which have uncertainty. Back in October 2020 it was thought that the vaccine efficacy needed to by 60% with 100% coverage and r0 of 2.5 to3.5 to prevent an epidemic. Efficacy needed to be 70% if coverage is only 75%, to prevent an epidemic and 80% efficacy to suppress the epidemic.

The R0 is very difficult to measure, for 1918 flu it was estimated at 1.4 to 2.8 with an average of 1.8, for measles its given an average of 12-18 but the range is 4-200. So its hard to pin down R0. For Covid its in the rand 2.5 to 5.7. Wuhan variant average of 2.8. if Kent is 50% higher then it would be in the 4.2 range but with an uncertainty.
The good news is that the vaccines seem to have >60% efficacy for the new variants, which means they are capable of supressing the epidemic is full rolled out.

From this it can be seen why the UK is prioritising 1st vaccine roll out as getting coverage up with a vaccine that has efficacy of 70% for 1st dose is the best way to supress the epidemic and prevent deaths. the second dose is primarily about extending immujnity to 12 to 18 months, however eventually the 2nd dose will help in eliminating the epidemic. 

The consensus of opinion is that herd immunity is now unlikely for Covid19 and that we will have ongoing bouts, similar to measles etc so ultimately we will have to get to a situation where everyone is vaccinated and childhood vaccination are the norm. This means that until that happens, schools will have to continue regular testing of students to keep the virus supressed.

As I've commented earlier, the mix of measures today, including, rapid testing and isolation of infected individuals, vaccine roll out, and sensible social distancing should enable us to open up the economy and live with the new variants. We will have to do this until we achieve ca 85% of the population vaccinated.
Sorry not be be clearer - my view is we have the tools to get on top of the epidemic, but it will take several months to get there.


----------



## Chris152

Thanks again TominDales, very clear. I really don't want to take more of your time but, in case your patience isn't already at the limit, I rephrased the second question with Ozi this way, ignoring the broader context:
Given that one dose reduces likelihood of infection by about 60% and that the Kent variant is 50-70% more readily transmitted, in the same narrow scenario (say, sitting across the table from a contagious person) are my chances of contracting the disease now (4 weeks after first dose sat opposite a Kent variant carrier) about the same as they were a year ago with the old variant and no jab?
So I'm not thinking (to use Ozi's term) at the population level, but at an individual level of risk.


----------



## Anthraquinone

Rorschach said:


> Long covid doesn't worry me at all.



I can see your point as you are living on borrowed time anyway.


----------



## TominDales

Chris152 said:


> Thanks again TominDales, very clear. I really don't want to take more of your time but, in case your patience isn't already at the limit, I rephrased the second question with Ozi this way, ignoring the broader context:
> Given that one dose reduces likelihood of infection by about 60% and that the Kent variant is 50-70% more readily transmitted, in the same narrow scenario (say, sitting across the table from a contagious person) are my chances of contracting the disease now (4 weeks after first dose sat opposite a Kent variant carrier) about the same as they were a year ago with the old variant and no jab?
> So I'm not thinking (to use Ozi's term) at the population level, but at an individual level of risk.


Simple questions but actually hard to answer at all precisely but as a rough guide, I'd say it was 100% probability of catching it last year vs 24% for Kent Variant this year, but this year your chance of dying has been reduced to nearly zero.

Simply put assume you spent a meal next to a person last year indoors who had Covid, you would be close to 100% likely to get it and depending on your age your age the case fatality rate CFR as of August 2020 was about 4% for men but 56% for men over 80. Age has a huge bearing on severity and CFR. Bear in mind that CFR is very hard to measure with any degree of accuracy.

If you sat next to a similar person this year (with the Kent variant) on having had 1st does of vaccine at 60% efficacy, then you would have a 40% chance of catching Kent variant. But there is likely to be a 40% chance that person was vaccinated so your chance of getting covid is reduced further to about 24%. Furthermore your chances of dying drop to near zero.

That early scenario is a bit biased as we assumed 100% transmission which cant be increased, so lets take another case, a bit more of a race between the two Covid variants. Suppose you sat some way away from the person and you are in a younger age group so that your chance of getting covid was reduced to 50%. we can assume that last year you were 50% likely to catch it, whereas the Kent version would be 70% more transmissible, so your likely chance of infection pre-vaccine goes up by 50*70% ie up by 35%, giving you an 85% chance of getting before vaccination, but after vaccination that 85% reduces to 51% (85%x60%) and down to 30% if when taking into account that your neighbour may have been vaccinated (40% probability depending on age). Your probability of dieing is still near to zero. Also once vaccine roll out has hit 80% of the population, your chance of getting new variant covid would fall to near zero.

Statisticians tend to give answers in terms of groups of people. this link has a set of apps - mainly us based that give you your chance of getting COVID. there case case is if you dine out with a group of 10 people in Boston USA chances of 1 person getting Covid is 30%. What’s your risk of catching COVID? These tools help you to find out

If you sat next to them outdoors, your chances reduce 18 fold, ie down to 5% last year and about 1.5% this year. Hope this helps.


----------



## TRITON

Jonm said:


> Let us know how it goes, mine was totally painless injection and just a slightly sore arm. Hope yours is the same.


Yes, thats same too. Sore arm for the last 48h, which is now pretty much akin to a stiff shoulder. 
But by sore i dont mean agonizing, more like someone punched you there and you dont notice unless you move it.

Another step forward and i'm happier its been done. Now hopefully things might start to improve, but i fear this could be like the flu jab and a yearly thing. 
Still better that the virus itself, as with the flu which always hits me quite hard.


----------



## profchris

TominDales said:


> If you sat next to a similar person this year (with the Kent variant) on having had 1st does of vaccine at 60% efficacy, then you would have a 40% chance of catching Kent variant. But there is likely to be a 40% chance that person was vaccinated so your chance of getting covid is reduced further to about 24%. Furthermore your chances of dying drop to near zero.



Can I ask for clarification, as you clearly know more about this subject than most, including me.

My understanding (which could be wrong) is that 60% efficacy means that 60% of those vaccinated have enough antibodies to prevent infection serious enough to cause illness, while 40% do not.

If I got that right, then for an individual whose antibody levels we don't know, your example is correct. However, if we know their antibody levels, then either they won't (if they are in the 60%) or will (if in the 40%) catch the Kent variant. _[Caveat, I know this is simplistic if only because catching the virus seems to depend on how much viral load you receive from the infected person, but I recognise you are simplifying for those with no strong statistical training]_

I think my point is that statistics don't tell us exactly at an individual level, though they do at a population level. If so, a better way of understanding it would be "If a group of 10 of us, all vaccinated, sit next to the infected person, probably four of us would become infected but we can't say which four."

Encouragingly, my own reading suggests that the tentative conclusions which are being drawn from the data is that a single dose of any of the vaccines reduces the risk of infection requiring hospitalisation to nearly 0%, and the risk of infection causing serious illness below that level to less than 20%. And this is the risk if you are exposed to a sufficiently high viral load to cause infection, which depends on who you meet, where you meet them, how long you spend together, etc.


----------



## TominDales

profchris said:


> Can I ask for clarification, as you clearly know more about this subject than most, including me.
> 
> My understanding (which could be wrong) is that 60% efficacy means that 60% of those vaccinated have enough antibodies to prevent infection serious enough to cause illness, while 40% do not.


You are quite correct, statistically my answer does not hold water as we don't know the transmittable of the mystery neighbour (they could be highly infectious or infectious at all which is why I chose to give some specific scenarios for this 'hypothetical virus race' concerning a the person sitting next to Chris123 to give a feel to the answer to his questions.
Simply put, Chris is asking are we better off now than a year ago, given the Kent variant. His question is a good one as its trying to put in personal terms what the comparative risk is. I think those two scenarios allow for us to make that simple comparison. Its not a mathematically robust answer but I think its give as a rough picture.

To do the risk analysis properly lots of factors have to be taken into account and that point it gets pretty tricky, but I think Chris is after a rule of thumb are we in a better situation or not and my view is yes and if you take any situation that is compatible with last year the effect of the vaccine is highly significant.
The link is to a Nature article has some good statistical models that allow for a better analysis if you want to go into it properly.
I know a bit about the vaccines as at my work, is the UKs flagship programme on the new variant vaccines, but I don't pretend to know much more than the rest of this forum as the statistics gets very specialised.


----------



## Chris152

profchris said:


> a single dose of any of the vaccines reduces the risk of infection requiring hospitalisation to nearly 0%, and the risk of infection causing serious illness below that level to less than 20%.


I'm still struggling to understand this, in spite of Tom's helpful answer - maths was never my strong point, to say the least.
But in relation to what you wrote, Whitty was on tv just now with a diagram showing a reduction in hospitalisations after one jab of 80% (to 20%) (see pic).
The stats seem to be the same as Johnson described a few weeks ago, in which he also described an 80% reduction in hospitalisations and an 85% reduction in deaths. So I'm still stuck with the idea that if you as an individual are unlucky enough to contract the disease, there's only a 20% reduction in the likelihood of ending up in hospital and only a 15% reduction in the likelihood of death?
I'm caught between my own dodgy maths and reassurances from people who say I shouldn't be!

ps I'm pursuing this for two reasons: first is personal, I have two kids in school and I can't help but think as cases rise, there's every chance they could bring it home; second, as we unlock, what can we expect next and to what extent do we as individuals need to be careful.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Surely the chances of infection are a function of two issues:

the probability of a vaccinated individual being able to transmit the virus. The extent to which the vaccine inhibits transmission is still somewhat unknown (or unpublished!).
the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing infection, serious illness and death
So a more realistic assessment of personal risk in (say) a restaurant may be as follows:

risk that an adjacent individual is currently infectious - approx 1 in 350. This is a very simplistic average with could vary materially.
risk they are infectious assuming one jab - approx 40%
risk that we are sufficiently close for sufficiently long for me to be infected - (say) 25%
risk of me catching covid given I have been vaccinated - 40%
risk of hospitalisation (say) ~5% (65+ years old)
risk of death (say) ~5%
Deliberately simplistic I know - my personal risk were restaurants open today (sadly they are not) would be: 0.3% x 40% x 25% x 40% x 5% x 5% = 1 in 3.3m chance of death. More chance of death driving to/from the restaurant!!


----------



## TominDales

Rorschach said:


> @TominDales my partner falls right into the affected category for blood clots, uses the contraceptive pill and has a family history of strokes, biggest killer in her family and several survived but long term disabled.


I'm sorry to hear that. It is a worrying time for you both. This is probably something she should speak to her GP about. They may be able to get her onto a list for the Pfizer or another alternative vaccine. I suspect there will be rules on who can get what as they wont want a free for all, but as time goes by and the risks get better known then the role out may get nuanced. A good GP will understand, but they may not have much discretion at the moment - the NHS is trying to keep the AZ programme running. Its a situation, as Covid can cause increase risk of stroke in some patients and the contraceptive pill also has contra indications of which stroke is one with some type of contraceptive. Given how few cases of blood clots have emerged it may take a while to understand what is behind it. In the meantime there maybe precautions that you and the wider family can take to reduce risk of infection until the situation is clarified.
My partner had a nasty dose of pleurisy last year just before covid and our family including the kids took extra precautions until she was fully recovered. It made her feel a lot safer even if it didn't help her medical condition she was grateful for it.. Best wishes Ton


----------



## TominDales

Chris152 said:


> I'm still struggling to understand this, in spite of Tom's helpful answer - maths was never my strong point, to say the least.
> But in relation to what you wrote, Whitty was on tv just now with a diagram showing a reduction in hospitalisations after one jab of 80% (to 20%) (see pic).
> The stats seem to be the same as Johnson described a few weeks ago, in which he also described an 80% reduction in hospitalisations and an 85% reduction in deaths. So I'm still stuck with the idea that if you as an individual are unlucky enough to contract the disease, there's only a 20% reduction in the likelihood of ending up in hospital and only a 15% reduction in the likelihood of death?
> I'm caught between my own dodgy maths and reassurances from people who say I shouldn't be!
> 
> ps I'm pursuing this for two reasons: first is personal, I have two kids in school and I can't help but think as cases rise, there's every chance they could bring it home; second, as we unlock, what can we expect next and to what extent do we as individuals need to be careful.
> 
> 
> View attachment 107582


Its confusing, my interpretation of these figures is;
If you are aged 80+ then the chance of hospitalization has fallen to 20% of what it was ie 80% reduction. and deaths have fallen by 85% from what they were. Given the the Case fatality rate (CFR) for 80+ bracket was 56% last summer ( I think its much lower now due to better treatment) then I suppose the CFM for 80+ years olds is now about 7.5% (15% of 50%) and for the average male its dropped from 4% to 0.6%. its very low people below the age of 40 in any case. These figures seem conservative as I'm read elsewhere that fatalities are virtually zero after 4 weeks, as recent deaths seem to be in people who caught covid within two weeks of the vaccine. There have been studies of care homes that are encouraging. I'll see if I can find them - just need to get a bit more gardening done tonight or I'll get shouted at ....


----------



## Rorschach

TominDales said:


> I'm sorry to hear that. It is a worrying time for you both. This is probably something she should speak to her GP about. They may be able to get her onto a list for the Pfizer or another alternative vaccine. I suspect there will be rules on who can get what as they wont want a free for all, but as time goes by and the risks get better known then the role out may get nuanced. A good GP will understand, but they may not have much discretion at the moment - the NHS is trying to keep the AZ programme running. Its a situation, as Covid can cause increase risk of stroke in some patients and the contraceptive pill also has contra indications of which stroke is one with some type of contraceptive. Given how few cases of blood clots have emerged it may take a while to understand what is behind it. In the meantime there maybe precautions that you and the wider family can take to reduce risk of infection until the situation is clarified.
> My partner had a nasty dose of pleurisy last year just before covid and our family including the kids took extra precautions until she was fully recovered. It made her feel a lot safer even if it didn't help her medical condition she was grateful for it.. Best wishes Ton



There is no option to choose your jab and to be honest we don't know the data on the other jabs yet either as they have not seen widespread use in younger people.

Honestly though, we aren't worried, we will be back to normal activities as soon as possible, we have a holiday planned for literally the day the hotels open. We don't live in fear, we enjoy life, it's far too short to worry about what could happen if you go outside.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

TRITON said:


> I take it you're not thinking of yourself as one of these 2 or 3 billion
> 
> Is it ?.
> Some cities are densely packed, but much of the planet is uninhabited. in fact great swathes of land have nobody living there.
> Here is a link to the Wikipedia page for the Earth. Earth - Wikipedia
> According to this source, land occupies just over 29% of the Earth’s surface, or 148,940,000 square kilometres. There are 1,000,000 square meters in a square kilometre, so there are 148,940,000,000,000 square meters of land on the surface of the Earth. That’s approximately 150,000 billion square meters of land.
> 
> According to this source, World Population Clock: 7.5 Billion People (2017)
> there are approximately 7.5 billion people currently living on earth.
> 
> If you divide 150,000 billion square meters by 7.5 billion people, you get about 20,000 square meters per person. You can think of that as a square about 140 meters on a side. That’s enough for a very nice house and a big garden.


I think that your simplistic arithmetic fails to take account of the fact that large areas of the land are effectively uninhabitable - to a greater or lesser degree - and climate change will increase the uninhabitable-ness of many places (which will either disappear underwater or simply be too hot)


----------



## Woody2Shoes

D_W said:


> This variant nonsense is the media's last gasp at getting a scare out of people. I say that because there is no evidence that a variant that actually evades vaccines will develop any time soon.


Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The whole point is, nobody knows what mutations will happen (other than that we know they will) and what the effect of those mutations might be - Covid came as a surprise to governments all round the world, after all. We also know that vaccines exert an 'evolutionary pressure' on viruses. Yes, we're all better prepared than we were a year ago, but variants can/could still cause us all a lot of trouble (I don't need 'evidence' to believe that!).


----------



## Woody2Shoes

Spectric said:


> So here we go again, as we get the numbers down and begin to get life more normal here in the UK with a high percentage of vacinations what does the government decide to do, lower the drawbridge and allow international travel with some hair brain traffic light system even with the virus staring them in the face. It could work if there was 100% compliance and measures in place to prevent onward travel but there won't be. So nothing to stop people going to a green country and then having their holiday in a red country and returning via the green country or going to a green country and coming into contact with others who have come in from a neighbouring red country so why lower the drawbridge just when things within are settling down and we have a fair measure of control.


Just spoken to an aquaintance who flew into London from New York last week - but "had to come via Madrid", presumably to take best advantage of all the various rules that differrent countries are dreaming up.


----------



## TRITON

Woody2Shoes said:


> I think that your simplistic arithmetic fails to take account of the fact that large areas of the land are effectively uninhabitable - to a greater or lesser degree - and climate change will increase the uninhabitable-ness of many places (which will either disappear underwater or simply be too hot)


I didnt say it was perfect. And that said some people from hotter climates find the UK too cold and vice versa.
" simplistic arithmetic"
Its not my 'simplistic' arithmetic, go criticize wiki, its there I got the info from.

Besides the entire thing was tongue in cheek, obviously some areas arent ideal because it would obviously include Death Valley and other deserts, or 1/2 way up mount Everest. I think you're being a tad overly critical like there bud.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Woody2Shoes said:


> Just spoken to an aquaintance who flew into London from New York last week - but "had to come via Madrid", presumably to take best advantage of all the various rules that differrent countries are dreaming up.


Aren’t the rules the same for arriving in the UK from Spain and the US?


----------



## 1steven

Some may find this very interesting


----------



## D_W

Woody2Shoes said:


> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The whole point is, nobody knows what mutations will happen (other than that we know they will) and what the effect of those mutations might be - Covid came as a surprise to governments all round the world, after all. We also know that vaccines exert an 'evolutionary pressure' on viruses. Yes, we're all better prepared than we were a year ago, but variants can/could still cause us all a lot of trouble (I don't need 'evidence' to believe that!).



No evidence in a situation where evidence is very easy to observe. No concern. Vaccines are more effective than their initial claims. No variant evades moderna or Pfizer, despite the fact that even if one did, it would be easily controlled by a booster. 

No evidence, no evidence of any need for fearmongering or unscientific policy making.


----------



## Jonm

'


RobinBHM said:


> No, I don't think we do.
> 
> This is a novel virus, decision making has to be done concurrently with data collection.
> 
> The difficulty with highly transmissible viruses is infection rates soar exponentially....slow decision making will always be too late.


I really do not follow you. I think that perhaps you need to re-read what I said.

I am talking about opening up the economy with rules based on the assumption that vaccines reduce transmission. As you say “The difficulty with highly transmissible viruses is infection rates soar exponentially”. We are talking about greatly reduced social distancing in confined spaces as in aeroplanes. The assumption being that those who have been vaccinated will not pass it on to those who have tested negative. As I said, seems a bit iffy to me. For all we know the vaccine may turn some people in to asymptomatic carriers.

As yet I have not heard anything from Whitty or Van Tam on transmission and vaccines, I tend trust them, as opposed to the buffoon in the middle.


----------



## Jonm

Jacob said:


> [
> Exactly, so the problem isn't the slum dwellers themselves it's the failure if agencies worldwide to alleviate slum dwelling and all the associated ills.


Good, so we now agree that mutations originating in the one billion plus slum dwellers pose a risk to us.


----------



## D_W

100 positive tests out of 1.2 million vaccinated in Washington state. If coronavirus doesn't show up on a test, someone won't have enough viral load to pass it on.

I'd bet all 100 of those cases were transmitted from non vaccinated folks. Think about what that suggests. When most of an area is vaccinated, it disappears completely.


----------



## TominDales

1steven said:


> Some may find this very interesting



This clip seems very dated in April 2021. Science works by people publishing their findings based on experimentation, they may be trying to prove or disprove a hypothesis and they do it by publishing so that other scientist can check their work and validate it or critique it. As time goes by a consensus emerges which we take to be a scientific truth. with Covid the consensus of known truths have been emerging over the past year, however at any one point in time the latest ideas are still being 'debated' and checked.

Bhakdi is arguing in this clip two points of view that have been proven over the past 9 months to be wrong.
Firstly the claim that the virus posed no more threat than influenza has not been born out by events. The virus has a higher transmissibility than Influenza A and a higher case fatality rate CFR (death rate). Even when he said this last August the data was showing R0 twice that of typical influenza and a CFR significantly higher. He also seemed to suggest that as the disease did not effect the young then life should go on as normal, this overlooked the possibility that the old would fill up the worlds hospitals and bring normal healthcare to a standstill, also that even the young don't like to see their grandparents dying in droves from a preventable event. As it turns out the disease is affecting a considerable number of the young as new variants emerge.
He also claimed that any Covid -19 vaccine would be pointless for two reasons, the virus will mutate and also our immune system will unlearn the virus. That was a very strong concern for the medical community 12 months ago. Many diseases do not yet have a vaccine and the profession worried that Covid19 may have been one of them. However trying to make a vaccine was not pointless, he was wrong in that assumption. That does not mean he is a bad scientist for expressing a contrary opinion, its important that these opinions get tested, but we have to be careful not to take on trust what random scientist say. Their arguments have to stack up. He should have known better as by last August early trials were showing promise, so he was either not following events or had got carried away with his views or his ego. The best scientist have to be humble and follow the data and facts as they emerge, he seems to have forgotten to do that. His old employer, the university of Mainz has distanced themselves from his views. Sad as a distinguished career and reputation has ended.


----------



## TominDales

TominDales said:


> Its confusing, my interpretation of these figures is;
> If you are aged 80+ then the chance of hospitalization has fallen to 20% of what it was ie 80% reduction. and deaths have fallen by 85% from what they were. Given the the Case fatality rate (CFR) for 80+ bracket was 56% last summer ( I think its much lower now due to better treatment) then I suppose the CFM for 80+ years olds is now about 7.5% (15% of 50%) and for the average male its dropped from 4% to 0.6%. its very low people below the age of 40 in any case. These figures seem conservative as I'm read elsewhere that fatalities are virtually zero after 4 weeks, as recent deaths seem to be in people who caught covid within two weeks of the vaccine. There have been studies of care homes that are encouraging. I'll see if I can find them - just need to get a bit more gardening done tonight or I'll get shouted at ....


Chris - I've done a bit of google this lunchtime, here are two articles that we can probably trust. Looking at the raw data, its clearn that we should be multiplying the benefits of vaccination in reducing infection and then in reducing hospitalization or deaths as both the studies measure improvements in death rate and hospitalisation on those already infected. So in summary. The vaccines reduce the chance of hospitalision for the over 70s to 2.5% vs those not vaccinated and deaths in the 80+ aged group to 0.7% compared to those not vaccinated.

The first is government blog from 21 February - note its quite old, but it supports the Johnson/Whitty numbers. COVID-19: analysing first vaccine effectiveness in the UK - Public health matters
But intriguingly ends by quoting a public heath Scotland report showing vaccine effectiveness of 85% for Pfizer and 94% for AZ and that recent PHE data will be published to support the Scottish numbers - not seen it published yet.

The second article is a published report from PHE - I think this is where BJ and Whitty get there numbers: https://assets.publishing.service.g...e/971017/SP_PH__VE_report_20210317_CC_JLB.pdf this is quite comprehensive, probably using data gathered in January and February in care homes and the community so probably from data gathered 6 weeks ago. Both of these studies will be showing vaccination effectiveness against a mix of variants that were circulating at the time, the dominant one being the Kent variant estimated to be 96% of cases by the beginning of February.

If we look at the PHE study and do some maths.

First set of table are effectiveness of vaccine against infection as indicated by PCR tests average of 72% in 70+ years olds ie 28% got covid (70+ olds were the ones vaccinated at that time). Its safe to assume younger people will show a greater resistance to covid than this.

Of those that got covid 8.5% were hospitalised, so of those vaccinated 28%* 8.5% that is 2.5% went to hospital with COVID compared to 15% of unvaccinated group.
In numerical terms its was 9000 cases of unvaccinated people led to 1361 hospitalisations, wheres for the vaccinated only 2000 got covid and 172 were hospitalised. Again its safe to assume the younger age groups would be more protected.

Note the different numbers used in headlines, this is where statistics is hard for the lay person to comprehend from newspaper headlines. The vaccine reduced hospitalisations of those infected in this age group by about 40% BUT that is the IMPORTANT BUT, they were already less likely to be infected so you have to multiply the two benefits together to get the overall benefit, ie only about 2% of vaccinated group (9000 unvaccinated got covid cf 172 vaccinated ended up in hospital) vs to 15%, 2% vs 15% is an improvement of 8 fold. In absolute numbers: 172 went to hospital of those vaccinated but 1361 unvaccinated went to hospital. The statisticians don't do what I have just done as you cant be sure that 9000 people got exposed to Covid in both gourp of people - the vaccined vs the unvaccinated . But the overall effect is much more pronounced that the Johnson numbers indicated.

Death rates (CFR):
Here the data is for the over 80s (not comparing like with like as it was the over 70s in the previous data set, as it was the over 80s who had the vaccine and survived or died within 28 days whereas the over 70s hasn't had the vaccine for 28 days during the period of the study so this is very much a worse case scenario as younger aged groups are less likely to die,

Here the overall conclusion is it reduce deaths by 54% of those who caught covid. 13% died unvaccinated vs 6.6% vaccinated an improvement of 54% BUT again that is on a number that is already reduced by the vaccine so the true ratio is 8625 unvaccinated got covid of whom 1115 died whereas only 914 vaccinated got covid of whom 60 died. to my mind that is a 60 out of 8625 (who were exposed to coved) who died or 0.7% - again not statistically a valid thing to do but it kind of give the real world numbers. If you bear this in mind for younger aged groups this is very reassuring as the data is almost certainly for the Kent variant of covid. 
Incidentally the Scottish PH number of 94% mentioned in the first article - the blog - may be explained by the data in the second article. 
In this study 1115 unvaccinated died compared with 60 vaccinated that is only 6% (5.3% precisely) of vaccinated died ie the vaccine reduced deaths by 94%


----------



## D_W

Articles


For immediate release: March 30, 2021 (21-089)Spanish Contact: DOH Communications Public inquiries: State COVID-19 Assistance Hotline, 1-800-525-01230 Cases of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough confirmed in Washington state OLYMPIA -- The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) is investigating r



www.doh.wa.gov





I may have mentioned the washington state data here. Note the size of the group. Of course, there were probably more than 102 cases, but how many? They wouldn't have been hospitalized folks or even moderate - those folks would've been caught when they went to the doctor. 

So, looking at the group as is- 1.2 million vaccinated people. A wild guess at the average vaccinated (effective duration), but let's assume it's 1 1/2 monhts. 

two deaths. Both with underlying conditions and over 80.

Can you imagine how many people over age 80 with underlying conditions have been exposed to covid and haven't so much as even gotten a bit of infection at all? It has to be thousands and thousands. 

over 2 months - 8 people have been hospitalized in that group (2/1 through the article date). 

8

How many absolute health basket cases do you think there must be in that group? Certainly there are gobs of people on chemotherapy or with immune deficiencies. 

I talked to a transplant patient this week - she emerged unscathed due to due care avoiding the virus and now she is vaccinated. She will go this week to confirm that she has antibodies (to make sure that her suppressed immune system still had some kind of protective response to the vaccine. It's likely that she will be fine, but she has to get confirmation - that seems sensible to me). 

There is not enough thankfulness for this in my opinion. When I brought this up each time someone told me to wash my hands (that itself is hogwash - it has been well known from the start, but we're all still choking on lysol and novel sterilizing products - the CDC now estimates perhaps 1 in 10,000 covid cases has been contracted due to surface contact, and the same people who exhort you to wash your hands constantly think sitting in a "reduced capacity" restaurant is a reasonable measure. 

Just griping as above- if we're going to follow science, please let's do it all the time and be thankful when it works. Not suspicious because it does.


----------



## TominDales

D_W said:


> Articles
> 
> 
> For immediate release: March 30, 2021 (21-089)Spanish Contact: DOH Communications Public inquiries: State COVID-19 Assistance Hotline, 1-800-525-01230 Cases of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough confirmed in Washington state OLYMPIA -- The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) is investigating r
> 
> 
> 
> www.doh.wa.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I may have mentioned the washington state data here. Note the size of the group. Of course, there were probably more than 102 cases, but how many? They wouldn't have been hospitalized folks or even moderate - those folks would've been caught when they went to the doctor.
> 
> So, looking at the group as is- 1.2 million vaccinated people. A wild guess at the average vaccinated (effective duration), but let's assume it's 1 1/2 monhts.
> 
> two deaths. Both with underlying conditions and over 80.
> 
> Can you imagine how many people over age 80 with underlying conditions have been exposed to covid and haven't so much as even gotten a bit of infection at all? It has to be thousands and thousands.
> 
> over 2 months - 8 people have been hospitalized in that group (2/1 through the article date).


Whats interesting about the DOH article, is how its written in plane English, with jargon explained to the layperson ie what breakthrough cases are etc. The PHE paper is much more full of scientific jargon and statistical language which makes it far less readable. I've often noticed how North American scientists usually explain their subject in more accessible ways than we do in the UK. 

The two articles are not directly comparable, so expect different numbers between the two even thought the vaccines are likely to be equally effective. There are two big differences in analysis between the two studies, the DOH is taking a wider age cohort of people, they haven't said exactly what the age distribution is, whereas the UK one is aged 70+, secondly the DOH study is on people 2 weeks after the second dose of vaccine - fully vaccinated whereas the PHE report I sighted is 2 weeks after the first dose - I was directly answering Chris's question regarding the first dose. Looking at the DOH figures, I'd expect the UK to have similar results to them given what the PHE study is showing after 1 dose. This is a very high degree of protection. Another difference that may be significant is the PHE study is almost certainly dominated by the Kent variant of covid, the Washington cohort may not yet have experienced the Kent variant to such an extent at that time. I gather this variant is pretty widespread now in the USA unfortunately.


----------



## D_W

The washington state cohort would probably be mostly front line workers, plus nursing home residents, plus people with significant risk factors. Not sure about other states, but in my state, the whole general population will be eligible 4/19. 

I did see an article that the kent variant has been in WA state since at least January of this year, so there's some chance that it's the dominant strain. If there is any resistance to the vaccines for any of the strains, it's not enough for them to not control them at this point (though the news outlets try every day to come up with a doomsday story of some sort - this mornings was "double mutation!!!" with lots of coulds, woulds and shoulds. 

The relatively plain language is often a legislative requirement for releases here. It's nice, because you can see what you're looking at before deciding whether or not you want to read technical documents.


----------



## Jonm

TominDales said:


> But intriguingly ends by quoting a public heath Scotland report showing vaccine effectiveness of 85% for Pfizer and 94% for AZ and that recent PHE data will be published to support the Scottish numbers - not seen it published yet.


Thankyou for such informed comments. I attach a link to the BMJ article which I had found very re-assuring.








Covid-19: First doses of vaccines in Scotland led to a substantial fall in hospital admissions


Rollout of the Pfizer BioNTech and Oxford AstraZeneca vaccines has led to a substantial fall in severe covid-19 cases requiring hospital admission in Scotland, suggest the results of the first study to report on the impact of the UK’s vaccination strategy.1 The results, available as a preprint...




www.bmj.com





In the “responses” section there is one comment by
*23 February 2021*
Graeme J Ackland 
Professor 
University of Edinburgh 
Edinburgh

He said “...................the risk of hospitalisation from covid-19 fell by up to 85% (95% confidence interval 76 to 91) and 94% (95% CI 73 to 99), respectively." but you don't mention that after three weeks, AND after five weeks, the effectiveness is significantly lower. 
So, while your article is technically correct, it is quite misleading.”

I had expected the bmj article to be unbiased and objective but this professor has questioned that. Looks like he is a physicist/engineer/computer guy so I would expect him to be good at statistics.


----------



## TominDales

Jonm said:


> Thankyou for such informed comments. I attach a link to the BMJ article which I had found very re-assuring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Covid-19: First doses of vaccines in Scotland led to a substantial fall in hospital admissions
> 
> 
> Rollout of the Pfizer BioNTech and Oxford AstraZeneca vaccines has led to a substantial fall in severe covid-19 cases requiring hospital admission in Scotland, suggest the results of the first study to report on the impact of the UK’s vaccination strategy.1 The results, available as a preprint...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bmj.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the “responses” section there is one comment by
> *23 February 2021*
> Graeme J Ackland
> 
> He said “...................the risk of hospitalisation from covid-19 fell by up to 85% (95% confidence interval 76 to 91) and 94% (95% CI 73 to 99), respectively." but you don't mention that after three weeks, AND after five weeks, the effectiveness is significantly lower.
> So, while your article is technically correct, it is quite misleading.”
> 
> I had expected the bmj article to be unbiased and objective but this professor has questioned that. Looks like he is a physicist/engineer/computer guy so I would expect him to be good at statistics.


Thanks, the stats are not layed out in a way that is digestable to the public.

I think the issue of waning immunity was properly mentioned on BMJ artielce of 22nd Feb, the problem is not enough data to looks at it at that time. Prof Ackland is right to say that is an area to be investigated but his comments seem a bit harsh given that the lady did address this issue in the article and press conference - its says - half way down the page:

''Only four weeks of follow-up data were available for the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, but the longer period for the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine showed that that the impact on hospital admissions lessened slightly five and six weeks after vaccine administration, raising the question of whether this decline might be related to waning immunity.

“We haven’t specifically looked at waning immunity,” said Chris Robertson, professor of public health epidemiology at University of Strathclyde, and statistics lead for the health protection group at Public Health Scotland, pointing out that these were preliminary data. “It’s an important point, but we can’t, at the minute, say anything about that,” he added. “With our further analyses, when we’ve got a longer follow up then we will be able to provide more information.”

Clearly time is needed to see how things unfold, from what I've seen of more recent publications, they tend to be pointing in the right direction. Israel is a bit further ahead of the UK and their economy is unlocking successfully without a resurgence. On the other hand Chile also had a rapid vaccine roll out - Pfizer and Sinovac, but their unlocking was - in hind sight, rushed, and they got a resurgence of cases and have had to lock down again. i can see why Whitty et all are urging caution. But on the whole new data is looking more positive.


----------



## Chris152

'the impact on hospital admissions lessened slightly five and six weeks after vaccine administration, raising the question of whether this decline might be related to waning immunity' - if that's the case, it would suggest a really short peak in first-dose effectiveness, wouldn't it? Second doses are really ramping up on the daily rate, good news.


----------



## Jonm

Thank you for that response. I find getting at the figures for reduction in hospitalisation and deaths is really difficult. Looking at numbers of hospitalisations we need to know the numbers vaccinated Vs unvaccinated and exposure to the virus.

We have a situation in the older age groups where 95% have had the vaccine. It is possible that in the future we will have more or similar hospitalisation and deaths in the vaccinated groups than the unvaccinated. I can just see the posts on social media “more people die who have been vaccinated than unvaccinated”.

I have had the vaccine and am following the rules. As we open up I will be maintaining social distancing and continue to be careful. No aeroplanes, buses, trains etc in 2021. Will go to cafes/pubs and sit outside, inside perhaps occasionally if it has good social distancing. May change this if the data shows it is OK. But that is easy for me, not so easy for others.


----------



## Spectric

Woody2Shoes said:


> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The whole point is, nobody knows what mutations will happen (other than that we know they will) and what the effect of those mutations might be - Covid came as a surprise to governments all round the world, after all. We also know that vaccines exert an 'evolutionary pressure' on viruses. Yes, we're all better prepared than we were a year ago, but variants can/could still cause us all a lot of trouble (I don't need 'evidence' to believe that!).


That is exactly how real safety is analysed when looking at potential hazzards and the risk factors, you either have conclusive data that supports the level of the hazzard and the risk of it happening in order to categorise it otherwise it has to be treated as potentially high until such times as you do. So we have to accept variants will happen because that is what viruses do and common sense tells us that without needing data which will come later.


----------



## Chris152

Interesting in the FT on second doses is the decision in France and Germany to recommend that younger people who have had a first dose of the O/AZ vaccine be given a different jab for their follow-up shot.


----------



## TRITON

I think that everyone who caught the virus, was hospitalized by it or came to suffer from long covid couldnt get a rats testicle for what the statistics say.

The statistics say using unguarded machinery is bloody dangerous, and yet...


----------



## TominDales

Chris152 said:


> 'the impact on hospital admissions lessened slightly five and six weeks after vaccine administration, raising the question of whether this decline might be related to waning immunity' - if that's the case, it would suggest a really short peak in first-dose effectiveness, wouldn't it? Second doses are really ramping up on the daily rate, good news.


There is very low statistical confidence in the six week observation, so I think its best not to draw any conclusions until more data has emerged. So far the 1st and 2nd dose data it looking to be better than earlier data.


----------



## Jonm

Chris152 said:


> Interesting in the FT on second doses is the decision in France and Germany to recommend that younger people who have had a first dose of the O/AZ vaccine be given a different jab for their follow-up shot.


There is a lot of politics in this.
Phizer vaccine, German. 
AZ at start, Germany said not enough evidence it protects elderly, only give to young. Macron said quasi effective.
EU behind in vaccine rollout due to delay and commit to pay for vaccines at an early stage so got a “best endeavours” contract with AZ. Lots of criticism of EU procurement so leaders fling some mud and spread the blame. 
Germany then finds AZ link to blood clots so stops use then changes to only for elderly. France does similar.

The problem here is that the EU countries are now having to deal with the Kent mutation, cases and deaths are rising. I can see the logic of not giving AZ to people vulnerable to these very rare clots but the way Germany and France are behaving is undermining the confidence people have in the AZ vaccine.

Politician logic, let us undermine confidence in AZ so public will think that lack of doses is no big loss and not blame us. Also, good for German business!

On the news there was a French woman being wheeled in to hospital with Covid, she had refused AZ vaccine and was waiting for Phizer, she still thought she had made the correct decision.

The important point is that AZ is cheap and can be stored at normal fridge temperatures. It is therefore suitable for use in third world countries. Phizer is five times the price to buy and has to be kept at -70 deg C, transported in special liquid nitrogen filled flasks in batches of 1000 doses. Not easy to transport and administer in areas with dirt roads, high heat, intermittent electricity etc. A local hospital here in uk lost 1000 doses due to mis handling.

It would be a disaster if AZ vaccine is not rolled out worldwide due to these continuous attacks by some EU Leaders. Vaccines like Phizer will not get to many places in the world which AZ can reach.

I have had first dose of the AZ vaccine and will take the second dose immediately I am offered it.


----------



## TominDales

Chris152 said:


> Interesting in the FT on second doses is the decision in France and Germany to recommend that younger people who have had a first dose of the O/AZ vaccine be given a different jab for their follow-up shot.


That's interesting as its a big departure from data driven work and clearly a reaction in France to the high vaccine skepticism. On the whole France has been very cautious about rolling out the vaccine. France is the most vaccine sceptic country in the EU if not the world. Here is an article explaining the reasons.








France's vaccine-skepticism is making its Covid immunization drive much harder


France is known to be one of the most vaccine-skeptic nations in the world, and that makes its Covid-19 immunization drive much harder.




www.cnbc.com




, France had a number of medical scandals in the 1970s/80 the worst being the blood scandal where France delayed changing its blood transfusion regime and prescribing of drugs fro HIV, as it wanted to develop an all French test and drug response. That scandal caused a massive loss of trust in French public heath. Also there have been other scandals where the French elite enacted policies that served them and not the citizens. So there is even less trust in the political and professional classes in France than in the UK and most developed countries.
We had our blood transfusion scandal, but that was due to ignorance, a bit of incompetence and a slowness on behalf of the NHS to respond to the data, it was not due to any deliberate scheme as in France.
I don't know Germany so well, but suspect they too have some vaccine hesitancy. The UK is up there on the vaccine positive side, largely because however under-resourced or inefficient the NHS is, we trust it and its staff and they tend to build that trust by being open with their data.


----------



## TominDales

TRITON said:


> I think that everyone who caught the virus, was hospitalized by it or came to suffer from long covid couldnt get a rats testicle for what the statistics say.
> 
> The statistics say using unguarded machinery is bloody dangerous, and yet...


That's true for that cohort, but the purpose of releasing good data in a timely manor that is statistically robust is all about building and maintaining public confidence our public heath system. Having independent doctors, academics etc access to proper studies and publishing the results - good or bad, although inconvenient in the short term is the best way to maintaining public trust. 

The AZ vaccine in holding up well in the Uk for a number of reasons, not least a very consistent message or cautious confidence from out leaders, and timely open and transparent updates and measured reactions to new information. That is where statistics plays an important role. 

You make a good case in pointing out that we should not get carried away with every data point. Its important that we follow this story, we check the those in charge are making logical and self consistent statements, its that that keeps our confidence in their decisions. But reacting to every development on a long evolving story is, as implied in your comment, a bit OTT.


----------



## D_W

TominDales said:


> There is very low statistical confidence in the six week observation, so I think its best not to draw any conclusions until more data has emerged. So far the 1st and 2nd dose data it looking to be better than earlier data.



Ditto - what is "slight" or "very slight". Unless it's significant, and then "statistically significant", it doesn't amount to a lot. 

The initial news centered around "people don't have detectible antibodies after ____" without addressing whether or not there was an observation in significant levels of community sickness (as in an uptick in symptomatic covid cases, or even more important, moderate and severe). 

Too little has been made of the fact that vaccinated folks and those who had covid already don't generally have symptomatic reinfection even when they no longer have detectible antibodies. 

Reference back to the WA study which is likely at least 1.2MM person-months of exposure, and probably more than that. 100 proven cases, 10 hospitalizations, 2 deaths with a positive PCR, and hard to know if the deaths were with covid present or because of it. I'd bet much of that cohort was vaccinated earlier and toward the end of that, doesn't have detectible antibodies. Given that much of the cohort will be a very vulnerable segment of the population, I can't imagine how many complete basket cases would be in that group to begin with.

Just taking a whack at some statistics using the excel files from WA state, confirmed cases of covid (i'm guesstimating some) - 40k (vaccinated group is about 1/6th of the population), so normalizing the rest of the group and ignoring everything else (which isn't wholesome, but it's better than nothing), figure 100 vaccinated cases vs. 8000 per 1/6th slice of unvaccinated population)

deaths - 185 total (2 from vaccinated, or was it 3? assume 2). about 37 per slice (and on average, those slices are less vunlerable than the vaccinated slices - but who knows, maybe the vulnerable did more to avoid covid - too many variables to tell for sure, but 5 slices averaging 37 against 2 is stark)

hospitalizations - 10 for the vaccinated slice, 2678 for all others, or 536 per equivalent population slice vs. the 10. 

If the data could be any better, I can't reasonably see how. Given the case load outside of the vaccinated population, it would be interesting to guess what the number of vaccinated cases would be if those folks didn't have to live among the unvaccinated. It would likely be very tiny.


----------



## D_W

(it's not just death, either - there will be tons of morbidity among the non-deaths, and even some disabling conditions for people who weren't ever hospitalized).


----------



## RobinBHM

it seems some things are starting to reopen, with a few minor changes


----------



## Jacob

Down for AZ jab 2 next week! No worries.


----------



## Chris152

'A "significant" cluster of the South African Covid-19 variant has been found in two areas of south London where surge testing has been implemented.'








Covid: South African variant in Wandsworth and Lambeth surge test areas


NHS Test and Trace says 44 cases of the South African variant in two areas is "significant".



www.bbc.co.uk




Does anyone have a link to up-to-date info on how effective the AZ vaccine is in relation to that variant? Latest I can find is the small study done in SA, reported in February, which doesn't tell us a lot (maybe 12% effective against mild/ moderate disease).


----------



## TominDales

There is not a lot of data yet. Personally I see this emphasis on surge testing as a sign our government and PH England are taking the virus seriously and doing what is necessary to protect the population from Covid. If we had done this 14 months ago we would have seen far less infections and deaths. I don't read the surge testing as a panic measure, but part of the normal PH responsive that will be needed until Covid is supressed worldwide we will need to do this and other measures to keep new variants down - see it as business as usual.

As for the data - its very sketchy and I would not read too much into it at the moment.
Here is an Israeli newspaper report. Indicating that with vaccinated vs unvaccinated people the prevalence of the SA variant in infected patients was 8 times that of the unvaccinated. - take the 8 times with a pinch of salt. Real-world Israeli study shows SA variant can break through Pfizer vaccin 
So few people had Covid that the sample was too small to rely on the data. There methodology looks sound, but with only 400 cases it was just too few to make any sensible numerical conclusion that 8 times could in reality be only 2 or 3 times if there had been just a couple more or less cases in the study!! so BEWHARE OF NEWPAPER HEADLINES editors run with these numbers to get us to read the article.

In this JP article, they compare vaccinated vs vaccinated patients who tested positive for covid and try to see if there is a difference in SA variant, ie assume the undying SA variant is in the unvaccinated cohort and then see what the effect of vaccination is in the proportion of the vaccinated cohort. 

The SA variant was 1% of patents ie 4 people in total in the unvaccinated population - so very small numbers. If Pfizer is 5% ineffective against Covid in general ie 95% effective (seems to be the consensus at the moment) that would mean is nearer 40% ineffective against SA (probably an over estimate) so vaccine effectiveness against inaction is only about 60% effective, probably high enough for getting population immunity eventually. I would treat this as a crude guess as there is very little quantitative data published you only needed one or two less people in the study to increase the vaccine effectiveness to 80% or more, remember to get 400 cases of Covid in vaccines people they would have needed 20 times as many people to get their 400 cases and they may have stubled accross a gropu who had come back from SA. We need to be careful not to read too much into the data. Your can see where the 8x number came from, but it could be much less. There were some reports that the AZ vaccine is more effective than Pfizer against the SA variant (maybe due to T cell response), but that could also be a statistical anomaly due to small numbers of cases.

SA variant is not as transmissible as the UK variant. This is highly significant as transmissibility increases morbidity as it leads to greater exponential growth of the disease. The Kent variant is much more transmissible, but UK data seems to show vaccine is highly effective against this variant. So while the SA variant may be less susceptible to vaccination, it is more susceptible to being supressed by all forms of action such as social distancing.

What has not appeared yet, is the hospitalisation and death rates from those vaccinated, I would expect those rates to be very low for the reasons given on the overall effect of vaccination.

If your question is - am I worried by this?
Personally not especially, its what we expected to happen. The UK is in a much better place than 12 months ago. The testing, social distancing / mask measures are well established and effective. The at long last government seems to be taking 'track-and-trace' for new variants as a national priority. We hare rolling out effective vaccines (if only 60+% effective against the SA variant) and new variant vaccines are being readied at speed for release in the autumn. Also the UK and many countries are now regularly sequencing the RNA of the virus from PCR tests (10% of all positive samples are sequenced in the UK). This provides an early warning for new variants and picked up the Kent variant very quickly in the autumn.


It is too early to say much yet on the SA variant, its likely to be one of many that we will face over the next few years.
Many methods to suppress the virus will need to continue for the foreseeable future - we cant rely on vaccines alone. Once infection is at a low level the vaccine is pushing down on a low number. If we let the virus spread then the vaccine has more of an up-hill effect. So lockdown can be safely eased as we have many measures to control covid and lead relatively normal lives. Lockdown is a last resort when you lose control of it through these 'ordinary every days measures.

Opening up of schools this time round has gone well in the UK, with infection rates remaining low and stable. Israel has shown that you can successfully re-open an economy once infection levels are down and vaccination is well established ie >50% of the population. (Cf Chile where they opened up too early). Furthermore if a new variant appears we know how to lockdown if needed to supress it.

Not until the virus is supressed worldwide will be fully in the clear, so for the next few years we need to be vigilant, but maybe 'keep calm and carry on' until we fully suppress the virus globally is the motto.


----------



## D_W

If the Pfizer vaccine was very ineffective against the S.A. variant, there would be a lot more of the S.A. variant in israel.


----------



## Chris152

Point taken about the govt's focus now on tracking and tracing, hopefully people will use and adhere to it. 

It is about personal risk but more, for the moment at least, about how the SA variant could spread. I remember when Van-Tam explained how the vaccines we have limit the variants we have (it was a while back - essentially Covid 'Original' and Kent), how the SA variant was very marginal here and it felt like, so long as we kept such variants that cause problems for the vaccine at bay til adapted boosters could be brought in, all should be under control. The question was raised at the time: if the Kent variant is suppressed, the SA variant now has an advantage if the vaccines (esp AZ?) aren't very effective at stopping it.

Looking at the news about lifting of restrictions at the mo, I can't help but feel there's a fair chance people are starting to forget the 'ordinary, everyday measures'. It's just one bloke's comment while out celebrating, but BBC reports: "There is a wonderfully raucous hysteria everywhere. It's very celebratory. There is very little social distancing. A distinct sense that people feel the Covid restrictions have ended".








Covid lockdown eases: England 'buzzing' after first night out in 97 days


As outdoor hospitality reopens, revellers find a "celebratory" atmosphere despite the cold weather.



www.bbc.co.uk




Hm.


----------



## TominDales

Chris152 said:


> Point taken about the govt's focus now on tracking and tracing, hopefully people will use and adhere to it.
> 
> Looking at the news about lifting of restrictions at the mo, I can't help but feel there's a fair chance people are starting to forget the 'ordinary, everyday measures'. It's just one bloke's comment while out celebrating, but BBC reports: "There is a wonderfully raucous hysteria everywhere. It's very celebratory. There is very little social distancing. A distinct sense that people feel the Covid restrictions have ended".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Covid lockdown eases: England 'buzzing' after first night out in 97 days
> 
> 
> As outdoor hospitality reopens, revellers find a "celebratory" atmosphere despite the cold weather.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hm.


Let's hope people haven't forgotten, the messaging from Whitty, BJ and compnahy, they are rightly advocating for cautious steady opening, (he seems to have dropped the optimism talk) with 5 week delays between phases to allow for the data to come in and policy to be adjusted. 
BUT, if we as a population forget the everyday measures we will end up back in a lockdown situation.
The problem is , the UK (and all developed economies in West Europe US etc) have very open economies our supply chains and pattern of trade are build that way, we cant do an Australia or NZ without closing huge sectors of the economy, we therefore need to adapt to the virus. During the last lockdown business did do that, the economy didn't shrink as fast as economists feared. If we open up cautiously and keep infections down we can lead fairly normal lives, but our trading patterns, our desire as a nation for summer sun in the south will leave us vulnerable to new variants. The variants will have to be dealt with as they arise. Rapid T&T or surge T&T as they call it will be essential as will other practical everyday measures. Let's hope commons sense prevails.


----------



## Chris152

This is some very good-looking news on first jab:
'Researchers analysed the cases of 74,405 people admitted to hospital with the virus between September and March and found that only 32 had received a jab at least three weeks before.
University of Liverpool Professor Calum Semple, who is a member of SAGE, said he was "absolutely delighted" with the results. ...
He added that the findings were even more remarkable because they related to those who had received just one jab. ...
The vaccines are said to be 90% effective at _keeping those infected_ out of hospital after just one dose, according to findings reportedly relaid to the government.'








Extraordinary Covid study finds just 32 Brits hospitalised after having vaccine


University of Liverpool Professor Calum Semple said the study's results show vaccines are 'highly effective' and prove 'not only do they work, but they work extraordinarily well'




www.mirror.co.uk




Reading around, it's very clear that level of effectiveness is only reached after a few weeks, admissions are much higher after less than three weeks after first jab.
The 90% effective at keeping those already infected out of hospital answers my first question, assuming they've worded that correctly.


----------



## Jonm

Chris152 said:


> This is some very good-looking news on first jab:
> 'Researchers analysed the cases of 74,405 people admitted to hospital with the virus between September and March and found that only 32 had received a jab at least three weeks before.
> University of Liverpool Professor Calum Semple, who is a member of SAGE, said he was "absolutely delighted" with the results. ...
> He added that the findings were even more remarkable because they related to those who had received just one jab. ...
> The vaccines are said to be 90% effective at _keeping those infected_ out of hospital after just one dose, according to findings reportedly relaid to the government.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extraordinary Covid study finds just 32 Brits hospitalised after having vaccine
> 
> 
> University of Liverpool Professor Calum Semple said the study's results show vaccines are 'highly effective' and prove 'not only do they work, but they work extraordinarily well'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mirror.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reading around, it's very clear that level of effectiveness is only reached after a few weeks, admissions are much higher after less than three weeks after first jab.
> The 90% effective at keeping those already infected out of hospital answers my first question, assuming they've worded that correctly.


Looks fantastic news but but it is the Mirror. Refers to comments by University of Liverpool Professor Calum Semple but does not actually give details of who did the study. So we have a journalists report on something undertaken by persons unknown. My searches only picked up similar comments in other newspapers, nothing substantial.

I hope it is correct but would like to see some more details.


----------



## Chris152

Jonm said:


> Looks fantastic news but but it is the Mirror. Refers to comments by University of Liverpool Professor Calum Semple but does not actually give details of who did the study. So we have a journalists report on something undertaken by persons unknown. My searches only picked up similar comments in other newspapers, nothing substantial.
> 
> I hope it is correct but would like to see some more details.


It was originally released to the Telegraph, maybe you can access that?
Sky news has:

*'Data reveals impact of one vaccine dose on COVID infections*

A key government scientist has said that real-world data shows coronavirus vaccines are "working really well".

Around 74,000 people were admitted to hospitals with the virus in recent months, but only 32 of them were vaccinated, official data from March shows.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme Professor Calum Semple, one of the scientists advising the government on COVID-19, said the results are "very good news".

Prof Semple said researchers looked "very carefully" at the hospital records of the 74,000 people in the data sample.

They worked out that 43,000 had been admitted after vaccinations started. Within that number just under 2,000 people that had received a jab. They then looked at how many days there were between receiving the vaccine and the onset of their symptoms.

Prof Semple said: "Most people admitted had caught their infection within a week on either side of vaccination and then there was a really sharp drop off in numbers, so that, after three weeks after being vaccinated, we could only count 32 people out of the 2,000 that had been vaccinated.”

It works out at less than 2%, and that is in the elderly population.

"It's really good real-world data showing that this vaccine works and one dose works really well," he said.'


----------



## Jonm

Friday Morning last week my wife received a text to come for second jab, either same day or week following Monday. They presumably were trying to fill empty slots on the friday. We were going out so booked an appointment to suit. Arrived and they could fit me in as well.

Time from text to us both receiving the jab, just over one hour!

Felt a tiny prick from the injection (AZ) and no reaction whatsoever, not even a sore arm.


----------



## Rorschach

It's very good news to see the lower hospital numbers for those vaccinated, especially in the older age brackets.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

I would have expected that the scientists would be crawling all over the data to understand the effectiveness of the vaccine rollout.

This must have included data on hospital admissions and deaths recorded with Covid in respect of individuals who had been previously vaccinated.

This is so blindingly obviously an important data set that I can only come to one of two conclusions - either they are truly incompetent (which I doubt) or the data is being withheld (which seems far more likely).


----------



## D_W

This data is excellent news, and is what I've been crowing about because it's similar to Washington State. 1.2 million vaccinated there and over 2 months, only 10 of those were admitted for serious covid cases. 10 out of 1.2 million!

It's time to stop the bs fake news and scare garbage about variants and put all hands on deck to promote as many vaccinations as possible. Does anyone think a data pool of 1.2 million doesn't include some people with variants? 

And that 10 admissions includes most of the vulnerable population. It's a very real question to ask if all of Washington State was vaccinated, would there even be enough virus density for the virus to survive? 45,000 tested positive over that time and 100 of the positive tests were in the vaccinated group. 100! I'd bet zero or near zero acquired their case from another vaccinated person.


----------



## Jonm

Chris152 said:


> It was originally released to the Telegraph, maybe you can access that?
> Sky news has:
> 
> *'Data reveals impact of one vaccine dose on COVID infections*
> 
> A key government scientist has said that real-world data shows coronavirus vaccines are "working really well".
> 
> Around 74,000 people were admitted to hospitals with the virus in recent months, but only 32 of them were vaccinated, official data from March shows.
> 
> Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme Professor Calum Semple, one of the scientists advising the government on COVID-19, said the results are "very good news".
> 
> Prof Semple said researchers looked "very carefully" at the hospital records of the 74,000 people in the data sample.
> 
> They worked out that 43,000 had been admitted after vaccinations started. Within that number just under 2,000 people that had received a jab. They then looked at how many days there were between receiving the vaccine and the onset of their symptoms.
> 
> Prof Semple said: "Most people admitted had caught their infection within a week on either side of vaccination and then there was a really sharp drop off in numbers, so that, after three weeks after being vaccinated, we could only count 32 people out of the 2,000 that had been vaccinated.”
> 
> It works out at less than 2%, and that is in the elderly population.
> 
> "It's really good real-world data showing that this vaccine works and one dose works really well," he said.'


Thanks for the extra info. The telegraph article is behind a paywall. Here is a link to an article which gives the same figures.








UK hospitals data shows Covid jab has had a significant impact but scientists fear summer surge


Real-world hospital data suggests even a single dose leads to a significant drop-off in severe illness




inews.co.uk




As you said, the origin of this is Professor Calum Semple talking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Good reliable source.

UK Hospitalisations between Dec 2020 and March 2021


total hospitalisation 74 405
number of hospitalisation before vaccination available about 31000
number of hospitalisation after vaccination available about 43000
number of hospitalisation after receiving vaccination about 2000
number of hospitalisation with Covid symptoms occurring three weeks or more after vaccination, 32 number
So really good news but does not give numbers vaccinated.

If we assume that the end date is towards the end of March then three weeks before is say, end of February. I attach a graph of total vaccinations and that gives a figure of 20 million vaccinated by end of Feb.

So that is 32 hospitalisations out of 20 million vaccinated first dose, once vaccine is given time to become effective. So vaccine is 99.99984% effective against hospitalisations.

If true that is wonderful news but it seems too good to be true! I can see end of feb being too late, Covid takes a bit longer to turn in to a hospital case, perhaps middle of Feb, but still 15 million vaccinated then so makes little difference. Not sure why this information is not more widely available, is it incorrect or being suppressed?


----------



## D_W

There's usually some lag in the hospitalization numbers, and other possible confounding factors, but in keeping with the washington state numbers, 1.2MM fully vaccinated (so a more strict cohort) and 10 hospitalizations from that cohort in two months (keep in mind, that's nearly all of the elderly population). 2 deaths deemed due to covid, which is certainly possible. One would wonder just how many health basket cases there are in a group of that size, though, who may also get covid because they don't respond to the covid vaccine for other reasons (e.g., people on immunosuppressive drugs). 

But my comment above still stands - based on the confirmed cases of covid in the wa state cohort, only 100, it's likely that one or none of those cases were from other vaccinated folks. If the vaccinated folks aren't giving each other covid, and kid to kid transmission is very rare, then what would seem to be the smart thing to do?


----------



## Jake

Terry - Somerset said:


> I would have expected that the scientists would be crawling all over the data to understand the effectiveness of the vaccine rollout.



They are, it is looking really good so far on the variants currently in play. The game now is to (i) avoid causing immune pressure by having high prevalence (amongst the less vulnerable and hence non-vaccinated groups) mixing with vaccinated groups (which would promote evolutionary success of variants which escape vaccine immunity) and (ii) within that, avoid spread of variants for which the current vaccines appear not to be as effective.

That's why the concern about SA variant in particular (where AZ pulled their clinical trial because the interim trial data was showing such poor protection that it was considered unethical to continue the trial). Could be reasons etc, nothing definitively proven, but its a serious concern prior to booster development and roll-out.

Overall we need to get vaccine roll out going world wide. Not just for humanity reasons, also to reduce the mutation numbers game.


----------



## D_W

the interesting thing about the SA virus concern is that while it does appear to have some success breaking through (relative, and maybe yet to be proven statistically significant), the numbers would suggest that vaccine success aainst it may be 85-90% instead of 95-98% or some such thing. 

32 hospitalizations seems low for that cohort, but again, that may be lagging. 10 out of 1.2 million for washington state, but we are not talking about big numbers in either case, so both may be relevant. 

While health care utilization is higher here than the UK, I don't know that hospitalization is as the vast increase in facilities in the last 20 years has been in non-hospitals or non-admission type scenarios. Often due to carriers demanding less admission when it's not needed as well as surgical providers trying to get procedures off site where they can specify a higher reimbursement than in hospitals.


----------



## Jake

D_W said:


> the interesting thing about the SA virus concern is that while it does appear to have some success breaking through (relative, and maybe yet to be proven statistically significant), the numbers would suggest that vaccine success aainst it may be 85-90% instead of 95-98% or some such thing.



I haven't seen anything to support that, which isn't to say you are not right. What are the studies you are referencing?


----------



## Jake

D_W said:


> the interesting thing about the SA virus concern is that while it does appear to have some success breaking through (relative, and maybe yet to be proven statistically significant), the numbers would suggest that vaccine success aainst it may be 85-90% instead of 95-98% or some such thing.
> 
> 32 hospitalizations seems low for that cohort, but again, that may be lagging. 10 out of 1.2 million for washington state, but we are not talking about big numbers in either case, so both may be relevant.



SARS-CoV-2 Sequencing and Variants in Washington State 

This suggests that SA variant is really not very prevalent in WA so not sure how you are drawing any conclusions even tentatively.


----------



## D_W

Israel, not WA. I should've mentioned that - i'm comparing data from two different places. The panic article from israel where they use the pfizer vaccine. In israel they mentioned 8 break through cases vs. an expected 1. If that's even true - let's say for argument's sake that it's accurate despite the tiny sample size - the effectiveness of the vaccine would still be over 80. If the SA variant just completely evaded the vaccine, there would be a lot more than 8 as one gathering of vaccinated people could easily turn up that number of cases (one funeral here in September last year resulted in 25 cases and 6 hospitalizations, and people only let their guard down for the wake afterward. They all got covid within a day of each other which was also interesting to see - how identical the incubation was)


----------



## D_W

efficacy in israel, reported as different numbers in different sources, but let's go with the WSJ figure - 97% (no clue if that's infections or hospitalizations, etc). 

So that would bring my number set down to 75% effective (or quartering the SA cases vs. nothing). I suspect that's not right, though, that the pfizer vaccine will prove to be more effective than that and the 8 instead of expected 1 is just variation. 

It could also go the other way, that's the nature of the beast, but we would be hearing more about it quickly if that were true.


----------



## Jake

D_W said:


> Israel, not WA. I should've mentioned that - i'm comparing data from two different places. The panic article from israel where they use the pfizer vaccine.



The Pfizer vaccine is obviously not the AZ vaccine.


----------



## Jake

Jake said:


> The Pfizer vaccine is obviously not the AZ vaccine.



For that matter, WA data cannot show anything about AZ vaccine efficacy as the FDA has not authorised use of AZ.


----------



## Jake

Maybe you are missing the local point, these are our UK vaccine deals.


----------



## D_W

no, suggesting that the data is relatively similar and the notion that we are all in imminent danger of variants is unhelpful if people are on the fence about vaccines. of course, WA state is different, and israel is different to WA state. 

But what comes up is that the hospitalized portion of the vaccinated cohort in every single case is tiny. I pose this thought:
* there's no good data that kids are passing much covid to each other, especially at younger ages
* the data from the western vaccines tends to be unbelievably positive across the board, but if one data set is to be doubted, there are several others right behind it saying the same thing

If an enormous percentage of the non small child population is vaccinated, then covid may not spread effectively even if it's introduced from elsewhere. 

The poverty stricken areas are either going to get true herd immunity (I hope not) or be vaccinated. There's no great indication that the virus mutates fast enough for anyone to have the variant panic that seems to be popular now, and the panic itself ignore the reality that a booster would knock it out. 

We couldn't have dreamed of experience this good 10 months ago, and instead of the narratives of what-if's being posed (which just feeds into the nature of people to want to see something negative, because being positive is a burden for many), the entirety of the public message should be about the efficacy of the vaccine and the return to normalcy that it brings.


----------



## Jake

That's complacent in my view. We need to assist the less developed world, and we need to be cautious about prevalence.

The evidence suggests that secondary school kids spread as effectively as adults (which is why there is a buzz about vaccine efficacy in that cohort).

Not to lessen the amazingness of the vaccines that are available, but it's not over yet. 

There is a clear reason for concern re the SA variant and the AZ vaccine (of which I have had first dose, like the majority of UK hemi-vaccinated people). No reason not to take it, but a reason not to think it is the be all and end all of the pandemic.


----------



## Jake

I think maybe your concern about narrative is more infected with vaccine reluctance due to US attitudes, here there is very little. And transparency is the key, not obfuscation. 

It's not certain but perfectly reasonable to suppose that we (AZ people at least) may need a booster against the SA variant. Fortunately we are at an extraordinary place compared to history where that might be deliverable by autumn. 

We need to do what we can to make sure we do not waste the amazing vaccine technology by allowing prevalence to drive immune escape.


----------



## Chris152

Jake said:


> That's why the concern about SA variant in particular (where AZ pulled their clinical trial because the interim trial data was showing such poor protection that it was considered unethical to continue the trial).


I didn't know that - do you have a link to a report? I read about the small trial that showed really low effectiveness (12%?) of AZ at stopping mild to moderate illness from that variant.
If it is so ineffective, reporting here is odd - in the last couple of weeks, BBC's health/ science correspondent described the AZ vaccine effectiveness as 'slightly reduced' in relation to the SA variant. That is, if I remember right - they sometimes seem to slip around between Pfizer and AZ like there was no real difference. 'The vaccine'.
Seems to me it's of great importance to be clear on this - the SA variant is now becoming big in France, we have several hundred known cases, Kent variant is being suppressed really well, making way for other variants that can still spread. We're being warned of a likely third wave, possibly late summer. We may have boosters by autumn.


----------



## Jake

Chris152 said:


> I didn't know that - do you have a link to a report? I read about the small trial that showed really low effectiveness (12%?) of AZ at stopping mild to moderate illness from that variant.



I'm going to mea culpa here, because I cannot find what I thought I read (having spent a good couple hours looking). The root was was that same study, showing around 10-12% efficacy in stopping mild to moderate disease among a relatively young cohort of around 2000 (median age 30, so a trial skewed away from from more than moderate illness by design). What I recall (or perhaps now more accurately thought I recalled) reading referred to it being halted at that stage because it was seen as unethical to expand it to other cohorts, but I cannot find that or anything (including the trial protocols) which suggests that was the case. Either my mind mangled together the trial results with the halt on the SA AZ roll-out, or the thing I read may have done, but as I can't find it I can't say, but it looks like I did overstate that. 

When the SA trial results were announced, the Oxford group's press releases stated that work was already well underway on boosters against VOCs including SA, so it is being taken seriously by them. And so yes, boosters on the way possibly by autumn as I said.


----------



## Echo-Star

TRITON said:


> I take it you're not thinking of yourself as one of these 2 or 3 billion
> 
> Is it ?.
> Some cities are densely packed, but much of the planet is uninhabited. in fact great swathes of land have nobody living there.
> Here is a link to the Wikipedia page for the Earth. Earth - Wikipedia
> According to this source, land occupies just over 29% of the Earth’s surface, or 148,940,000 square kilometres. There are 1,000,000 square meters in a square kilometre, so there are 148,940,000,000,000 square meters of land on the surface of the Earth. That’s approximately 150,000 billion square meters of land.
> 
> According to this source, World Population Clock: 7.5 Billion People (2017)
> there are approximately 7.5 billion people currently living on earth.
> 
> If you divide 150,000 billion square meters by 7.5 billion people, you get about 20,000 square meters per person. You can think of that as a square about 140 meters on a side. That’s enough for a very nice house and a big garden.


On those figures that would be around 1.4 hectares PP what proportion of this figure have you deducted for desert. when you take into account that desert land covers 1/3 of the planets surface, then your garden has just got a whole lot smaller. In 2011 50% of habitable land was used solely for agriculture. We also need to take into account that forestry takes up another 37% of the earths habitable land. so how big is your garden now. I think your taking up more than your share of land already mate. population is expected to be 10 billion by 2050

You'll also get these figures from wiki as I did


----------



## Chris152

Jake said:


> I'm going to mea culpa here, because I cannot find what I thought I read (having spent a good couple hours looking). The root was was that same study, showing around 10-12% efficacy in stopping mild to moderate disease among a relatively young cohort of around 2000 (median age 30, so a trial skewed away from from more than moderate illness by design). What I recall (or perhaps now more accurately thought I recalled) reading referred to it being halted at that stage because it was seen as unethical to expand it to other cohorts, but I cannot find that or anything (including the trial protocols) which suggests that was the case. Either my mind mangled together the trial results with the halt on the SA AZ roll-out, or the thing I read may have done, but as I can't find it I can't say, but it looks like I did overstate that.
> 
> When the SA trial results were announced, the Oxford group's press releases stated that work was already well underway on boosters against VOCs including SA, so it is being taken seriously by them. And so yes, boosters on the way possibly by autumn as I said.


Well, that's maybe good news, Jake! 
It's clear why there's a lack of clarity on vaccine effectiveness against variants, but it seems more could be done to clarify the stats we do know - Blair was on R4 earlier this week asking for stats, esp those relating to AZ, to be made more readily available in order to increase confidence/ push back against negative media coverage.


----------



## Jonm

Chile has a high vaccine rate but has experienced a resurgence in cases and hospitalisations after easing restrictions. obviously it is a cautionary tale but there are significant differences between us and them.I attach a link to a BMJ article and here are some quotes from it.

Some 96% of the intensive care beds in the country are occupied as hospitals come under growing strain from the most severe coronavirus outbreak yet
Infections in Chile are also likely being driven by the more transmissible P.1 variant first identified in Brazil
40% of Chileans having received at least one vaccine dose—the third highest rate in the world after the UK and Israel.
Some 93% of the doses administered were the CoronaVac vaccine, manufactured by Chinese state run pharmaceutical Sinovac, and 7% the more effective Pfizer BioNTech vaccine
Most vaccinated Chileans have only had a single dose,
A study published by researchers at the University of Chile on 6 April, in which Cortés was not involved, found that the CoronaVac vaccine was 56.5% effective in preventing infections two weeks after a second dose but only 3% effective after a single dose.









Covid-19: Spike in cases in Chile is blamed on people mixing after first vaccine shot


Cases of the novel coronavirus are surging in Chile despite the country having one of the most successful vaccine rollouts in the world. Chile reported 7370 infections on 18 April, down slightly on the record high of 9151 cases reported on 9 April. Some 96% of the intensive care beds in the...




www.bmj.com





Presumably, the quoted effectiveness is against catching the disease rather than preventing hospitalisation.

If this research is correct then clearly opening up after one dose with only 3% effectiveness will result in a resurgence of Covid, more so because people will believe they are protected. Given the reported high effectiveness of Phizer/AZ against hospitalisation then I cannot see that any significant comparisons can be made between our situation and Chile.


----------



## Rorschach

Jonm said:


> Chile has a high vaccine rate but has experienced a resurgence in cases and hospitalisations after easing restrictions. obviously it is a cautionary tale but there are significant differences between us and them.I attach a link to a BMJ article and here are some quotes from it.
> 
> Some 96% of the intensive care beds in the country are occupied as hospitals come under growing strain from the most severe coronavirus outbreak yet
> Infections in Chile are also likely being driven by the more transmissible P.1 variant first identified in Brazil
> 40% of Chileans having received at least one vaccine dose—the third highest rate in the world after the UK and Israel.
> Some 93% of the doses administered were the CoronaVac vaccine, manufactured by Chinese state run pharmaceutical Sinovac, and 7% the more effective Pfizer BioNTech vaccine
> Most vaccinated Chileans have only had a single dose,
> A study published by researchers at the University of Chile on 6 April, in which Cortés was not involved, found that the CoronaVac vaccine was 56.5% effective in preventing infections two weeks after a second dose but only 3% effective after a single dose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Covid-19: Spike in cases in Chile is blamed on people mixing after first vaccine shot
> 
> 
> Cases of the novel coronavirus are surging in Chile despite the country having one of the most successful vaccine rollouts in the world. Chile reported 7370 infections on 18 April, down slightly on the record high of 9151 cases reported on 9 April. Some 96% of the intensive care beds in the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bmj.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presumably, the quoted effectiveness is against catching the disease rather than preventing hospitalisation.
> 
> If this research is correct then clearly opening up after one dose with only 3% effectiveness will result in a resurgence of Covid, more so because people will believe they are protected. Given the reported effectiveness of Phizer/AZ against hospitalisation then I cannot see any comparisons between ourselves and Chile.



The problem with what you have said there is that it doesn't fit with the narrative being pushed by those in charge, therefore you must be wrong.


----------



## Jonm

Rorschach said:


> The problem with what you have said there is that it doesn't fit with the narrative being pushed by those in charge, therefore you must be wrong.


I like things to be based on the facts and common sense. I am not sure about the governments cautious approach, though some say it is rash. 

I think the 17 May date when pubs, restaurants, cinemas and theatres open will be critical. I expect infections amongst the young will go up dramatically amongst the older population it will probably find many of those who have chosen not to be vaccinated. Let us hope it does not find those who cannot be vaccinated.


----------



## Rorschach

Jonm said:


> I like things to be based on the facts and common sense. I am not sure about the governments cautious approach, though some say it is rash.
> 
> I think the 17 May date when pubs, restaurants, cinemas and theatres open will be critical. I expect infections amongst the young will go up dramatically amongst the older population it will probably find many of those who have chosen not to be vaccinated. Let us hope it does not find those who cannot be vaccinated.



As do I, but the problem is everyone's idea of common sense is different. 

Those who cannot be vaccinated will have to make a choice about how they go about things. I would suspect they are people who are immunocompromised anyway and would have been at risk of infections long before covid reared it's head. They have to decide do they shield or do they take the risk just as they did before.


----------



## Jake

Rorschach said:


> The problem with what you have said there is that it doesn't fit with the narrative being pushed by those in charge, therefore you must be wrong.



That's daft, and not how science works. 

Sinovac is known not to be as effective, and P1 is thought problematic. Here's the latest UK study, amazing results.

COVID-19 vaccine coverage in health-care workers in England and effectiveness of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against infection (SIREN): a prospective, multicentre, cohort study - The Lancet


----------



## Rorschach

Jake said:


> That's daft, and not how science works.
> 
> Sinovac is known not to be as effective, and P1 is thought problematic. Here's the latest UK study, amazing results.
> 
> COVID-19 vaccine coverage in health-care workers in England and effectiveness of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against infection (SIREN): a prospective, multicentre, cohort study - The Lancet



You totally missed the point I was making.


----------



## Jake

Rorschach said:


> You totally missed the point I was making.



Oh OK, sorry then. What was the point you were making?


----------



## Rorschach

Jake said:


> Oh OK, sorry then. What was the point you were making?



The powers that be are using Chile as an example to say that vaccines aren't the saviour they told us they would be. However as the data shows, they vaccines are not as good as the vaccines we are using, but they don't tell us that because that would not allow them to claim it is lockdown that has saved us rather than vaccines.


----------



## Jake

Chris152 said:


> Well, that's maybe good news, Jake!



The cohort chosen leaves an open question on how much effect AZ will have against severe disease from SA variant, but no-one is going to test that deliberately . The fact the Oxford group's reaction on publication was to say that a booster is already under development seems to make it pretty clear what they think (and as they were involved in the study, they will have seen the data emerging in real time).



> It's clear why there's a lack of clarity on vaccine effectiveness against variants, but it seems more could be done to clarify the stats we do know - Blair was on R4 earlier this week asking for stats, esp those relating to AZ, to be made more readily available in order to increase confidence/ push back against negative media coverage.



I agree with that. It may be a bit of a game of whack-a-mole until worldwide prevalence is suppressed or they find more stable bits of the protein to target. Over-promising and ostriching is not going to help.


----------



## Jake

Rorschach said:


> The powers that be are using Chile as an example to say that vaccines aren't the saviour they told us they would be. However as the data shows, they vaccines are not as good as the vaccines we are using, but they don't tell us that because that would not allow them to claim it is lockdown that has saved us rather than vaccines.



OK yes I did misread you then, and apologies. We have obviously not been saved by vaccines rather than lockdowns, as we are only very recently seeing significant effects from vaccination. That's the exit route though (variants and where necessary boosters permitting).


----------



## Jonm

Jake said:


> We need to do what we can to make sure we do not waste the amazing vaccine technology by allowing prevalence to drive immune escape.


Valid concern but we are opening indoor pubs, Restaurants, clubs and cinemas on 17 May. This can only result in an increase in infections alongside large numbers of vaccinated people, ideal conditions for a vaccine resistant strain to emerge. Similarly and probably a bigger chance is a vaccine resistant strain coming in from abroad in the future, hopefully we would have more time to develop and administer a booster In that case. I think we have to take the risk, young people have given up a lot to reduce deaths amongst the older population and they are saddled with a massive national debt.


----------



## Rorschach

Jake said:


> OK yes I did misread you then, and apologies. We have obviously not been saved by vaccines rather than lockdowns, as we are only very recently seeing significant effects from vaccination. That's the exit route though (variants and where necessary boosters permitting).



And that's where we will have to disagree


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> The powers that be are using Chile as an example to say that vaccines aren't the saviour they told us they would be. However as the data shows, they vaccines are not as good as the vaccines we are using, but they don't tell us that because that would not allow them to claim it is lockdown that has saved us rather than vaccines.


I am not sure the "powers that be" are using the message that lockdown saved us.
They are putting out a cautious message because they dont want the public thinking the vaccine means they can ignore social distancing measures

the government are releasing lockdown slowly so they can see the data and act on that. infection rates grow exponentially so if you simply end lockdown you could create a big problem that is too late to stop.



You need to take the overall message, not extract the parts you want that fits your narrative.....which is "government are forcing lockdown on us for no reason" (although you cant explain the motivation)


----------



## Rorschach

@RobinBHM You did hear the Prime Minister literally say that it was lockdowns and not vaccines that had saved us didn't you?


----------



## Jonm

Rorschach said:


> The powers that be are using Chile as an example to say that vaccines aren't the saviour they told us they would be. However as the data shows, they vaccines are not as good as the vaccines we are using, but they don't tell us that because that would not allow them to claim it is lockdown that has saved us rather than vaccines.


I think that the government approach of staged removal of restrictions and monitoring the effects has a big advantage in that we find out what types of lockdown work. So far we know that keeping schools open works. We will soon know if keeping hairdressers, outdoor leisure, outdoor hospitality etc works.

In the event of a future upsurge in serious illness we can drop back to what we know works, not a complete lockdown.

If we opened up suddenly and there is a surge in severe illness then we are likely to go back to complete lockdown.

So I can see the governments point.


----------



## D_W

Jake said:


> OK yes I did misread you then, and apologies. We have obviously not been saved by vaccines rather than lockdowns, as we are only very recently seeing significant effects from vaccination. That's the exit route though (variants and where necessary boosters permitting).



"we" may not have been, but hospital ICUs and capacity have benefited enormously from vaccines.


----------



## Rorschach

Jonm said:


> I think that the government approach of staged removal of restrictions and monitoring the effects has a big advantage in that we find out what types of lockdown work. So far we know that keeping schools open works. We will soon know if keeping hairdressers, outdoor leisure, outdoor hospitality etc works.
> 
> In the event of a future upsurge in serious illness we can drop back to what we know works, not a complete lockdown.
> 
> If we opened up suddenly and there is a surge in severe illness then we are likely to go back to complete lockdown.
> 
> So I can see the governments point.



I can see where you are coming from, but it's not as simple as that is it. We are not carrying out proper controlled testing of what works, if anything. We are opening up all those things at the same time as the weather is improving so the seasonality aspect is kicking in (look at last summer) and also rolling out a massive vaccine drive. Similarly we know that large swathes of the population pick and choose the rules that suit them. We are not going to get any useful data we could use in the future. We had basically no C19 last summer, hardly any restrictions and no vaccine, if we suddenly get a big spike this summer, what on earth will you attribute that to?


----------



## D_W

you can pretty easily measure the difference - measure the prevalence of the virus at the outset and then as time goes on

the reason there was less C19 by summer last year was because of the shutdown, but the trend was easy to observe over the next 6 months where it rose and why. 

In the US, we reopened bars and such briefly around june with predictable results. The death count was high. Around the holidays, people traveled to families, anyway, because they felt like they shouldn't not do that and we had a huge spike. 

Since then, we've been vaccinating like crazy and the case rate is way down, but the economy here (restaurants, etc) is generally more open than it was in june last year. We have good information that younger kids don't do much virus spreading, and the high school aged kids do seem to at least contract symptomatic covid at a higher rate - not sure if they spread it as readily as adults, as we're just now getting some admission that viral load and symptomatic presence has to do with transmission after the overblown warning of asymptomatic transmission previously. It's *possible*, but being around symptomatic people is FAR more dangerous. So, the vulnerable population here is generally vaccinated, and the rest is driving the case rate, but with far less strain on hospitals and far less death.


----------



## Jake

D_W said:


> "we" may not have been, but hospital ICUs and capacity have benefited enormously from vaccines.



Only recently.


----------



## Jake

Rorschach said:


> And that's where we will have to disagree



When did they roll out all the imaginary vaccines before lockdowns 1 and 2 and 3 then?


----------



## Jake

D_W said:


> you can pretty easily measure the difference - measure the prevalence of the virus at the outset and then as time goes on
> 
> the reason there was less C19 by summer last year was because of the shutdown, but the trend was easy to observe over the next 6 months where it rose and why.
> 
> In the US, we reopened bars and such briefly around june with predictable results. The death count was high. Around the holidays, people traveled to families, anyway, because they felt like they shouldn't not do that and we had a huge spike.
> 
> Since then, we've been vaccinating like crazy and the case rate is way down....



Since then is carrying a lot of water there - your first vaccination was on 14 December. Our was 8 December but very limited supply so care homes only.


----------



## Rorschach

Jake said:


> When did they roll out all the imaginary vaccines before lockdowns 1 and 2 and 3 then?



They didn't, but we will disagree on lockdowns and my opinions on that get me into trouble, or rather it prompts a load of people to report me and the admins get annoyed and I get a ban lol.


----------



## Jake

India is currently doing a test on your favourite Great Barrington theory.


----------



## Rorschach

Jake said:


> India is currently doing a test on your favourite Great Barrington theory.



While that sounds like a nice little soundbite, they aren't, India is nowhere near rich enough to carry out a GBD style lockdown.


----------



## Jake

Oh yes, sorry, I forgot the impossible fantasy isolation bit.


----------



## Jonm

Rorschach said:


> if we suddenly get a big spike this summer, what on earth will you attribute that to?


There is a structure to what is opening, basically schools then things perceived to be low risk progressing to higher risk. If we do gets a spike of illness then it will depend on circumstances. We may well then know that we do not need to close, schools, hairdressers zoos, outdoor hospitality etc. If it is the vulnerable who have refused the vaccine then the answer is obvious. If it is a variant getting past the vaccine then we have a real problem. Having a staged opening does give a good indication of what works.


----------



## Rorschach

Jake said:


> Oh yes, sorry, I forgot the impossible fantasy isolation bit.



You know we did carry out about 50% of the GBD here already don't you? The bit we missed was minimal restrictions on low risk groups. We still shielded the elderly and vulnerable to fairly big extent.


----------



## Jonm

Jake said:


> We need to do what we can to make sure we do not waste the amazing vaccine technology by allowing prevalence to drive immune escape.


Valid concern but we are opening indoor pubs, Restaurants, clubs and cinemas on 17 May. This can only result in an increase in infections alongside large numbers of vaccinated people, ideal conditions for a vaccine resistant strain to emerge. Similarly and probably a bigger chance is a vaccine resistant strain coming in from abroad in the future, hopefully we would have more time to develop and administer a booster In that case.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> You know we did carry out about 50% of the GBD here already don't you?


yes and its been an abject failure -UK has amongst the highest death rates in the world due to starting lockdown late every time



Rorschach said:


> The bit we missed was minimal restrictions on low risk groups.


was never possible


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> yes and its been an abject failure -UK has amongst the highest death rates in the world due to starting lockdown late every time
> 
> 
> was never possible



 Not getting into all this with you again mate.


----------



## Jonm

Interesting data here on vaccine take up. Note explains why some percentages are over 100. Around me it is 99% plus of over 50’s have had at least one dose. At the other end of the scale we have



49 & underOver 50Westminster21.4%67%City of London23.2%68.1%Camden21.9%72.4%Kensington and Chelsea24.6%73.8%Tower Hamlets23.1%77.8%Newham25.8%82.3%Hackney20.7%82.8%

As we come out of lockdown and cases rise it will be interesting to see where the Covid hospital cases and deaths are.









COVID-19: Areas with the highest and lowest coronavirus vaccination rates for over-50s revealed


London local authorities are at the bottom of the list - but ministers say all UK adults will be offered a jab by the end of July.




news.sky.com


----------



## selectortone

Rorschach said:


> They didn't, but we will disagree on lockdowns and my opinions on that get me into trouble, or rather it prompts a load of people to report me and the admins get annoyed and I get a ban lol.


No, you keep getting banned because you come on here, a forum principally frequented by older people, intimating that older people should be allowed to die because they are disrupting your life. Lol.


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> No, you keep getting banned because you come on here, a forum principally frequented by older people, intimating that older people should be allowed to die because they are disrupting your life. Lol.



Once again, wrong. I wanted older people to take responsibility for protecting themselves (with assistance when needed) and the rest of us to get on with reaching herd immunity.

I did accept though that some older people would die, and as you might notice, even with all the measures put in place, plenty have still died.


----------



## Peterm1000

Funny that the one of the most controversial topics isn't even in the secret forum!


----------



## Jonm

Rorschach said:


> Once again, wrong. I wanted older people to take responsibility for protecting themselves (with assistance when needed) and the rest of us to get on with reaching herd immunity.
> 
> I did accept though that some older people would die, and as you might notice, even with all the measures put in place, plenty have still died.


When this all started a close relative was up to speed on the evolving situation through work. We are in the vulnerable age group so before the first lockdown down we decided to self isolate and arrange deliveries off food. We planned to do day trips out by car and maintain social distance. My attitude was one of “you youngsters get on and catch it to develop herd immunity“.

So I can see Rorschach point of view. The problem is that many people in the vulnerable groups are not able to isolate themselves as we can and this virus is a lot more deadly than I anticipated. I thought that with sensible measures there would be about 20 000 deaths, something like a bad flu year and we do not lock down for that. I think we had to lock down and even then deaths have been far too many and the NHS has been sorely stretched.

Aspects of the lockdown have been mishandled, closing parks, not allowing people to visit remote areas whilst maintaining social distancing. I can recall a tv interview with a single mother of two, lived in a bedsit, no garden, no facilities open and the park was locked. She was walking around the multi story car park with toddler and baby in pushchair. The multi story was preferable to the streets, dire.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> . I wanted older people to take responsibility for protecting themselves (with assistance when needed) and the rest of us to get on with reaching herd immunity



I think you will find the vast majority of elderly and vulnerable people did take responsibility to protect themselves.

He problem with the simplistic argument that "we protect the vulnerable and let everybody carry on reaching herd immunity", is that it's a simplistic, plausible argument.....but not possible in practice. GBD sounded sensible, but it never addressed how to identify all the vulnerable, let alone isolate them. 

I really really don't understand why you aren't able to move on from this.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> I think you will find the vast majority of elderly and vulnerable people did take responsibility to protect themselves.
> 
> He problem with the simplistic argument that "we protect the vulnerable and let everybody carry on reaching herd immunity", is that it's a simplistic, plausible argument.....but not possible in practice. GBD sounded sensible, but it never addressed how to identify all the vulnerable, let alone isolate them.
> 
> I really really don't understand why you aren't able to move on from this.



I told you, I am not getting into this with you, we know how it degrades. Please stop replying and trying to get me into trouble.


----------



## Keith Cocker

Rorschach said:


> The powers that be are using Chile as an example to say that vaccines aren't the saviour they told us they would be. However as the data shows, they vaccines are not as good as the vaccines we are using, but they don't tell us that because that would not allow them to claim it is lockdown that has saved us rather than vaccines.



We are not “saved” yet. And it is lockdown AND vaccinations that have contributed to where we are at the moment. If we had had an effective Test, Track, Trace, Isolate and Support run by NHS and local authorities public health teams rather than the Private Sector disaster lead by Lady Harding we would have been in a much better position earlier.


----------



## Rorschach

Keith Cocker said:


> We are not “saved” yet. And it is lockdown AND vaccinations that have contributed to where we are at the moment. If we had had an effective Test, Track, Trace, Isolate and Support run by NHS and local authorities public health teams rather than the Private Sector disaster lead by Lady Harding we would have been in a much better position earlier.



Well we are never going to be "saved", this is almost certainly going to be an endemic virus (unless it magically disappears like Sars1 did) so we are going to have waves of it every year, just like flu and many other diseases.


----------



## Ozi

Just over two weeks ago my son tested positive, thankfully with mild symptoms. He works in a warehouse with some really scummy people who are not taking social distancing or mask wearing seriously. I say that from what he tells me and from the fact that when I pick him up from work the police are always patrolling the car park, fights and vandalism are common. 

When he tested obviously we went into isolation, informed my daughters school, the driving instructor and some friends we had seen outdoors the day before. We all tested and only he was positive but registered all the tests.

The reason I am writing this is that test and trace worked exactly as you would want, everybody we know we had been in contact with got texts that day, we were contacted and told to isolate (no surprise there) but given all the information on how long what to do etc. plus how to get support if we needed prescriptions or other help. We were contacted again just before we were able to come out of isolation asked about symptoms etc. all retested negative and told OK to go out. 

I cannot see how the system could have worked any better.

Felt very sorry for the driving instructor, my sons lesson was the first time he had been able to work since this all started, the fact he was able to be polite when we told him says a lot about the man.


----------



## Rorschach

Ozi said:


> Just over two weeks ago my son tested positive, thankfully with mild symptoms. He works in a warehouse with some really scummy people who are not taking social distancing or mask wearing seriously. I say that from what he tells me and from the fact that when I pick him up from work the police are always patrolling the car park, fights and vandalism are common.
> 
> When he tested obviously we went into isolation, informed my daughters school, the driving instructor and some friends we had seen outdoors the day before. We all tested and only he was positive but registered all the tests.
> 
> The reason I am writing this is that test and trace worked exactly as you would want, everybody we know we had been in contact with got texts that day, we were contacted and told to isolate (no surprise there) but given all the information on how long what to do etc. plus how to get support if we needed prescriptions or other help. We were contacted again just before we were able to come out of isolation asked about symptoms etc. all retested negative and told OK to go out.
> 
> I cannot see how the system could have worked any better.
> 
> Felt very sorry for the driving instructor, my sons lesson was the first time he had been able to work since this all started, the fact he was able to be polite when we told him says a lot about the man.



How long did you isolate for?


----------



## Ozi

We were told 10 days but it ended up as 12 as we didn't need to go anywhere


----------



## Rorschach

Ozi said:


> We were told 10 days but it ended up as 12 as we didn't need to go anywhere



Were you not able to test and release? I thought that after something like 5 days you can get a test and if negative you are ok?


----------



## Ozi

Rorschach said:


> Were you not able to test and release? I thought that after something like 5 days you can get a test and if negative you are ok?


No he still had symptoms at day five, only loss of taste which they say can go on for months but although you can release after ten days even if you still have loss of taste or a cough you shouldn't any earlier. I don't pretend to understand why someone is or is not infectious at one stage or another but trust that the people who make the rules do.


----------



## Rorschach

Ozi said:


> No he still had symptoms at day five, only loss of taste which they say can go on for months but although you can release after ten days even if you still have loss of taste or a cough you shouldn't any earlier. I don't pretend to understand why someone is or is not infectious at one stage or another but trust that the people who make the rules do.



I understand for your son, but I meant for you. You tested negative, but still had to isolate for 10 days with no interim tests to see if you were still negative or became positive. That doesn't make any sense to me.


----------



## Ozi

The reason is that people in the same household and therefore in close contact with an infected person can become infected and infectious before a test will give a positive result. 

I believe there can be around a three day lag (not sure where I saw that if anybody knows I'm wrong please correct me).

To be honest for us it was not a massive hardship I was out of work although I am pleased to say I will be starting a new job in just over a weeks time. My wife works from home and my older son is studying, only my daughter was really effected but her school have on line classes to cover this


----------



## Chris152

Good news that there's strong evidence one jab prevents transmission between about 40 - 50%. 

Interesting news that the UK has ordered 60m Pfizers for our boosters in autumn. Does that reflect a reduction of faith in the traditionally formulated vaccines (AZ) in favour of mrna? I see Europe's focussing its future efforts in the latter direction.


----------



## Rorschach

Do we have the numbers? 40-50% sounds great but it would good know the numbers, if it was only a 2% chance of catching it and is now a 1% that is not really a big difference is it?


----------



## Jonm

Rorschach said:


> Do we have the numbers? 40-50% sounds great but it would good know the numbers, if it was only a 2% chance of catching it and is now a 1% that is not really a big difference is it?


Well we know that in the second half of last year, without vaccine, with the uk variant and with the restrictions then in place that infections, illness and deaths rose dramatically. Halving transmission means that what would have been an R number of 2 now becomes 1 for people who have been vaccinated. That seems a big difference to me.


----------



## Jonm

Chris152 said:


> Good news that there's strong evidence one jab prevents transmission between about 40 - 50%.
> 
> Interesting news that the UK has ordered 60m Pfizers for our boosters in autumn. Does that reflect a reduction of faith in the traditionally formulated vaccines (AZ) in favour of mrna? I see Europe's focussing its future efforts in the latter direction.


I think that German and French politicians have either deliberately or by accident undermined the AZ vaccine. Pfizer is five times the price of AZ, is transported in batches of 1000 doses and has to be stored at -70 deg C. A hospital local to me lost 1000 Pfizer doses due to a storage problem. It is not suitable for distribution to the third world, slums and refugee camps, they do not have the infrastructure or organisation to do it. AZ can get to those places. So it is correct that Europe should go for Phizer, they can afford it, have the infrastructure to distribute it, good for German industry and leaves more doses of AZ for the third world. AZ have not been good at honouring their contracts with eu and that has not helped.

As for UK, I would expect boosters to be the same manufacturer as original doses. I cannot see us going away from AZ but cannot find evidence of us ordering boosters.


----------



## selectortone

Jonm said:


> I think that German and French politicians have either deliberately or by accident undermined the AZ vaccine.



You've got to love the French - first they say the AZ vaccine is unsafe, then they say they won't give it to over 65s, then they say they won't give it to under 35s, then they say they don't want it at all. All the while saying they will sue us for not letting them have it.


----------



## francovendee

I don't think one leader has got dealing with covid spot on. 
Macron seems to have lost the plot, case numbers still very high and hospitals nearly full, yet he's easing restrictions and the schools are working again.
Just like Johnson the leaders seem unwilling or unable to learn from other countries.
Boris was slow to lock down and France underestimated the effect of the UK strain. This is now the predominant type although numbers of SA and Brazilian variants are in some numbers, 10% in the department where I live.
Macron has not made enforced hotel quarantine mandatory for people returning from these countries.
At least the UK has done this for people arriving from India where another strain has been reported


----------



## francovendee

selectortone said:


> You've got to love the French - first they say the AZ vaccine is unsafe, then they say they won't give it to over 65s, then they say they won't give it to under 35s, then they say they don't want it at all. All the while saying they will sue us for not letting them have it.


Not quite the facts. Macron at first questioned the effectiveness in older people and he was proved to be wrong.
The restriction to only over 55's having it was as a result of abnormal clotting after have the AZ vaccine. This has been the same in other countries. This information was at first poo pooed in the UK but eventually figures were released and at the time (some weeks ago) they reported 79 cases with 19 deaths from clots.
Sometimes it seems like a vaccine propaganda is in progress.
Here in France we are very short of any type of vaccine and whilst there is a preference to have Pfizer the majority of people will have either.
I had my second jab in early March but my wife is still waiting for hers and hopefully she'll be having one (either type) in the next two weeks.
I think the EU is royally p*****d off with under delivery from AZ. This is the vaccine that will be most beneficial to poorer parts of the world so sincerely hope it's never regarded as second best.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Many/most EU leaders are in defensive political mode. They want to shift the blame for their inadequacy over vaccines supply:

it has serious side effects - although the vaccine is far less a risk than catching covid.
the UK are to blame for buying up all the vaccines - ignoring the possibility that the EU were dilatory in contracting similarly
they are aided by other pharmaceutical companies unhappy that AZ are undermining their profitability by providing vaccines and manufacturing licences at cost.
Whether their public and electorates are remotely convinced or completely underwhelmed by their protestations is unclear.


----------



## Rorschach

Terry - Somerset said:


> it has serious side effects - although the vaccine is far less a risk than catching covid.



Well that depends on the person and it depends if our data on side effects is accurate. From what we know at the moment for someone under 40, healthy, they are possibly at greater chance of death or serious illness from a vaccine and that's just short term, we have zero knowledge of long term effects of the vaccine (same goes for covid too though).


----------



## francovendee

Terry - Somerset said:


> Whether their public and electorates are remotely convinced or completely underwhelmed by their protestations is unclear.


I think the outcome of the legal action by the EU against AZ will make up people's minds. It certainly will for me. I'm willing to believe, for now, the EU would be in a better position if the contract had been honoured. 
If the court finds it has been then the EU will get the blame but much of it will rub of on the heads of the leaders of the member states.


----------



## Spectric

They all need to get their heads together, forget nationality and politics and get the vacines manufactured and delivered globaly to all because this pandemic can only be beaten when everyone has been jabed and with systems in place to deliver boosters on a regular basis, this way we might just reduce the potential for a mutant strain and return to some level of normal, it will be a long while before the old normal fully returns. Then all the specialist need to work as one to be ready for anything else that turns up so we don't have a repeat of this fiasco.


----------



## D_W

Rorschach said:


> Well that depends on the person and it depends if our data on side effects is accurate. From what we know at the moment for someone under 40, healthy, they are possibly at greater chance of death or serious illness from a vaccine and that's just short term, we have zero knowledge of long term effects of the vaccine (same goes for covid too though).



Over the term that we've measured so far, the effects of moderate or severe covid are worse and despite the cry about the vaccine causing genetic changes (I don't believe it does, and academically, it makes no permanent changes other than your immune system reactions to the proteins), there is actual genetic change from severe covid. 

I saw the news headline yesterday that britain ordered 60MM pfizer. Given the data on it vs. AZ, that would seem to be a smart idea.


----------



## D_W

Jonm said:


> I think that German and French politicians have either deliberately or by accident undermined the AZ vaccine. Pfizer is five times the price of AZ, is transported in batches of 1000 doses and has to be stored at -70 deg C. A hospital local to me lost 1000 Pfizer doses due to a storage problem. It is not suitable for distribution to the third world, slums and refugee camps, they do not have the infrastructure or organisation to do it. AZ can get to those places. So it is correct that Europe should go for Phizer, they can afford it, have the infrastructure to distribute it, good for German industry and leaves more doses of AZ for the third world. AZ have not been good at honouring their contracts with eu and that has not helped.
> 
> As for UK, I would expect boosters to be the same manufacturer as original doses. I cannot see us going away from AZ but cannot find evidence of us ordering boosters.



Pfizer current price is something like $20 per dose. Given its efficacy above and beyond the AZ and the fact that it's covid, it would seem to be money well spent. Let the second and third world use the vaccines that are cheaper, somewhat less effective and much harder to transport and store.


----------



## Jonm

D_W said:


> Pfizer current price is something like $20 per dose. Given its efficacy above and beyond the AZ and the fact that it's covid, it would seem to be money well spent. Let the second and third world use the vaccines that are cheaper, somewhat less effective and much harder to transport and store.


I think you meant “ much easier to transport and store”

That is one way of looking at it. As for efficacy are you talking about preventing catching Covid, preventing hospitalisation, preventing long Covid or preventing death. Personally I am not bothered about feeling unwell for a few days but I am concerned about serious illness or death. Here is a british medical journal article on the results in Scotland showing AZ to be better than Pfizer at preventing hospitalisation.








Covid-19: First doses of vaccines in Scotland led to a substantial fall in hospital admissions


Rollout of the Pfizer BioNTech and Oxford AstraZeneca vaccines has led to a substantial fall in severe covid-19 cases requiring hospital admission in Scotland, suggest the results of the first study to report on the impact of the UK’s vaccination strategy.1 The results, available as a preprint...




www.bmj.com





There is also the issue of supply. There was a very short interview with a French woman as she was wheeled in to hospital with Covid, she still considered she had made the correct decision to refuse AZ and wait for Pfizer. Here in uk the government line is that Pfizer and AZ are both excellent vaccines and the policy is that it will be the supply of vaccines that limits the rollout. All over 50’s have been offered a vaccine and in my general area the uptake is over 99%. I have received both doses and it was AstraZeneca. The under 45’s are now being offered the vaccine. Over 21 million people have received the astra Zeneca jab out of a total of over 34 million vaccinated so over 60% of people vaccinated have received AZ.

Current situation in UK
population - 66 million
daily Covid admissions to hospital - 144
Covid patients on ventilation - 208
total number Covid patients in hospital -1700
daily Covid deaths - 20

I think the above would look very different if we had refused the AZ vaccine and waited for Pfizer. And we are dealing with the uk variant.

The EU gave come in for a lot of criticism regarding their vaccine procurement hence Macron and his “quasi effective for over 65’s“ comment regarding AZ. Mud is slung at him so he slings some back, never mind the consequences of people then refusing an excellent vaccine. In fact we have tended to use it in the care homes because the residents are vaccinated “at home” and AZ is much easier for small numbers of vaccinations.

As Van Tam said, do not get hung up about small differences in efficacy, in the trials no one having AZ vaccine was hospitalised.


----------



## D_W

You're the same person who tried to hang me up in an earlier post about mutations. If you're obsessed with mutations, why would you think a higher case rate is OK?

J&J, moderna and pfizer all do about the same in preventing severe/hospitalizing covid here. I'd rather not get it at all, not even moderate.

you posted a false dilemma - pfizer wasn't available right away so you went with AZ. That's fine. I didn't state that to be the choice (none or pfizer), i said that if you have the choice between the two and you're trying to stop covid, then pfizer. There would be fewer cases around with it in a vaccinated population and the hospitalization rate would be lower in a society vaccinated by pfizer because there would be fewer symptomatic carriers passing covid.

I'd say exactly the same thing about J&J here. If nothing else is available, get it. If pfizer is available, get that over J&J. Hospitalization rates are similar, but you have less chance of getting sick at all with pfizer.

In the US here when they paused the J&J, and quickly reversed course, I thought it was stupid - let's at least compare the vaccine complications to a fraction of what you'd get with the resulting increase in covid from not vaccinating. It' wasn't a situation where everyone scheduled to get it would just get pfizer instead, and the same with europe pausing or halting AZ. If there isn't another more viable option, then that choice results in unnecessary deaths.


----------



## Spectric

D_W said:


> You're the same person who tried to hang me up in an earlier post about mutations. If you're obsessed with mutations, why would you think a higher case rate is OK?


A higher case rate equates to a larger petri dish


----------



## D_W

I got that - it's the inconsistency that strikes me. First it matters that we have no covid cases, then when it's a sort of nationalist sentiment with a vaccine, it doesn't matter.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Both the AZ and Pfizer vaccines apparently perform well above the level originally anticipated in reducing hosptalisations and deaths.

In the short term that manufacturing capacity cannot meet demand. 

The need is to protect as many people as possible in the shortest possible time. It matters not that one may be 1-5% more effective than another.

Were time on the side of humanity it would be possible to conduct more thoughtful analysis of better quality data to understand differences in performance, side effects, different mutations etc etc.

Waiting for this is quite simply to "watch whilst Rome burns" (so to speak).


----------



## Selwyn

D_W said:


> Over the term that we've measured so far, the effects of moderate or severe covid are worse and despite the cry about the vaccine causing genetic changes (I don't believe it does, and academically, it makes no permanent changes other than your immune system reactions to the proteins), there is actual genetic change from severe covid.
> 
> I saw the news headline yesterday that britain ordered 60MM pfizer. Given the data on it vs. AZ, that would seem to be a smart idea.



Whilst I would say this is true, the chances of moderate or severe covid for people under 40 appear to be very low.


----------



## Chris152

'Researchers in the UK and United States have demonstrated the efficacy of one dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine against infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a real-world community setting in the UK.
...
As reported in _The Lancet: Infectious Diseases_, documented infection rates following a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine were 58% lower after 12 to 20 days, 69% lower after 21 to 44 days, and 72% lower after 45 to 59 days, compared with unvaccinated controls.

Following one dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) vaccine, documented infection rates were 39% lower after 12 to 20 days and 60% lower after 21 to 44 days than among unvaccinated controls.'








Safety and efficacy of Pfizer and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines even better than clinical trials predicted


Researchers in the UK and United States have demonstrated the efficacy of one dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine against infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a real-world community setting in the UK.




www.news-medical.net


----------



## D_W

Selwyn said:


> Whilst I would say this is true, the chances of moderate or severe covid for people under 40 appear to be very low.



I think if we're trying to stop transmission, we'd like to see a reduction in any symptomatic cases. An interesting study was posted on the "verboten topic" boards showing that a collection of different studies showed asymptomatic transmission among family members to be about 1/25th as common as transmission from a symptomatic person. 

There are those of us cranks who have been grouching from the beginning about the idea that asymptomatic people would've been a large contributor to transmission because they generally don't fling droplets into the air - that's done by _symptomatic_ people. 

But mildly symptomatic people sneezing or coughing are a big problem.


----------



## D_W

Chris152 said:


> 'Researchers in the UK and United States have demonstrated the efficacy of one dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine against infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a real-world community setting in the UK.
> ...
> As reported in _The Lancet: Infectious Diseases_, documented infection rates following a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine were 58% lower after 12 to 20 days, 69% lower after 21 to 44 days, and 72% lower after 45 to 59 days, compared with unvaccinated controls.
> 
> Following one dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) vaccine, documented infection rates were 39% lower after 12 to 20 days and 60% lower after 21 to 44 days than among unvaccinated controls.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Safety and efficacy of Pfizer and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines even better than clinical trials predicted
> 
> 
> Researchers in the UK and United States have demonstrated the efficacy of one dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine against infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a real-world community setting in the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.news-medical.net



Ahh, those number are evidence of some cherry picking from the prior comment about "better at avoiding hospitalization". 

We generally have 3week+ and two dose numbers here and what was a shortage of doses a couple of months ago has turned into locales having extra doses and opening to patients from outside of the locale (distribution was at the county level here, so if your county had more health care and nursing home residents, it became harder for the rest of us to get vaccinated). 

Long story short, the two doses haven't been an issue here because of the buy rate - the elderly and front line workers got two doses almost immediately and other than some news stories about a few select locales, the pressure is off.


----------



## Jonm

francovendee said:


> Not quite the facts. Macron at first questioned the effectiveness in older people and he was proved to be wrong.
> The restriction to only over 55's having it was as a result of abnormal clotting after have the AZ vaccine. This has been the same in other countries. This information was at first poo pooed in the UK but eventually figures were released and at the time (some weeks ago) they reported 79 cases with 19 deaths from clots.
> Sometimes it seems like a vaccine propaganda is in progress.
> Here in France we are very short of any type of vaccine and whilst there is a preference to have Pfizer the majority of people will have either.
> I had my second jab in early March but my wife is still waiting for hers and hopefully she'll be having one (either type) in the next two weeks.
> I think the EU is royally p*****d off with under delivery from AZ. This is the vaccine that will be most beneficial to poorer parts of the world so sincerely hope it's never regarded as second best.


Well that is a well balanced response.

I understand why the eu is unhappy with AZ and non delivery however uk placed orders and committed to buy AZ three months ahead of the EU. This allowed AZ to put manufacturing and supply chains in place to supply the uk market much earlier than for the eu.

I think the issue with Macron is that the EMA approved AZ, however as you say there was concern about the young age of the people in the trial and it’s effectiveness for the over 65’s. This was reported In uk as Macron saying "Today we think that it is quasi-ineffective for people over 65," There is a big difference between saying it’s effectiveness is “not proven” and it is ineffective. It may be in the translation or the uk media reporting.

The EU has been under a lot of criticism over vaccine ordering and supply. Putting this all together it looks like Macron was effectively saying that it does not matter that the eu did not place early orders as the AZ vaccine is not much good. And yes he had to retract but damage was done.

It is interesting to hear that people in France would have AZ if it was available. The impression we are getting is that the eu is very upset with AZ but do not want it anyway, reports of vaccine centres with vaccine but no patients because it is AZ.


----------



## Jonm

D_W said:


> You're the same person who tried to hang me up in an earlier post about mutations. If you're obsessed with mutations, why would you think a higher case rate is OK?
> 
> J&J, moderna and pfizer all do about the same in preventing severe/hospitalizing covid here. I'd rather not get it at all, not even moderate.
> 
> you posted a false dilemma - pfizer wasn't available right away so you went with AZ. That's fine. I didn't state that to be the choice (none or pfizer), i said that if you have the choice between the two and you're trying to stop covid, then pfizer. There would be fewer cases around with it in a vaccinated population and the hospitalization rate would be lower in a society vaccinated by pfizer because there would be fewer symptomatic carriers passing covid.
> 
> I'd say exactly the same thing about J&J here. If nothing else is available, get it. If pfizer is available, get that over J&J. Hospitalization rates are similar, but you have less chance of getting sick at all with pfizer.
> 
> In the US here when they paused the J&J, and quickly reversed course, I thought it was stupid - let's at least compare the vaccine complications to a fraction of what you'd get with the resulting increase in covid from not vaccinating. It' wasn't a situation where everyone scheduled to get it would just get pfizer instead, and the same with europe pausing or halting AZ. If there isn't another more viable option, then that choice results in unnecessary deaths.


Actually Phizer was available in uk before AZ, if you look at the Article I referenced about the Scottish data there were
650,000 doses of Pfizer and 490,000 doses AZ.

Perhaps in Pennsylvania you have the luxury of choice, here in UK though we do not in general have a choice but both vaccines are excellent. Ok Phizer appears to be a bit better at preventing disease after one dose, we do not know yet what the effect is after two doses. They prevent onward transmission by about 50% but we do not know which is better.

My concern is that The EU but particularly France and Germany appear to be throwing mud at AZ to divert criticism away from themselves due to EU slowness in placing orders and agreeing to pay for vaccines so manufacturers could get organised to supply the necessary doses. AZ and vaccines like it are needed to vaccinate the world and need to be credible.


----------



## Jonm

D_W said:


> Ahh, those number are evidence of some cherry picking from the prior comment about "better at avoiding hospitalization".


this article is about efficacy after one dose, and both are good. The article I referenced was about hospitalisations. What is “cherry picking” about that.


----------



## Chris152

Jonm said:


> this article is about efficacy after one dose, and both are good. The article I referenced was about hospitalisations. What is “cherry picking” about that.


Yep, it's just the latest bit of what looks like reliable research on the efficacy of the first jab that I could find. No idea about cherry picking, just seemed like some useful and hopefully quite good news.


----------



## francovendee

Jonm said:


> It is interesting to hear that people in France would have AZ if it was available. The impression we are getting is that the eu is very upset with AZ but do not want it anyway, reports of vaccine centres with vaccine but no patients because it is AZ.


 
I'm not sure of peoples attitude to the vaccine outside of France, and even here I can only go by what I her and see locally. It's more than possible that other EU countries don't want it.
I just don't understand their reluctance to take a very small risk when set against the far,far greater one of catching this killer disease. When getting my vaccination it didn't matter a jot which type, I'd have had either without hesitation.

Slightly off topic the French are to allow a test social gathering (I think it is a music concert) of 5000 people. These are to be monitored after the event to see any upsurge in outbreaks amongst the attendees. This is similar to Spain who did a similar thing a couple of months ago. Spain are reporting no massive increase of infections and the few reported cases couldn't be attributed with certainty to the concert. I guess it's being outside that lessens the risk. This would seem to be what stopped a major outbreak from the end of the first UK lock down when thousands were crowded on beaches.


----------



## D_W

Jonm said:


> this article is about efficacy after one dose, and both are good. The article I referenced was about hospitalisations. What is “cherry picking” about that.



every other statistic favors pfizer. You responded to my comment about pfizer. The hospitalization number is small enough that it's probably the least credible statistic from the group. 

Coupled with your comment in another thread about wanting to eliminate cases to avoid mutations, it's just a trail of bits suggesting that you're just picking and choosing what to say in each case to be oppositional. 

When I'm in a bad mood, I do it sometimes, but I do try to be more consistent to be fair to other people in the exchange.


----------



## D_W

Chris152 said:


> Yep, it's just the latest bit of what looks like reliable research on the efficacy of the first jab that I could find. No idea about cherry picking, just seemed like some useful and hopefully quite good news.



Anyone not in the back and forth may miss that subtlety, and I could be getting jonm and someone else with a similar length J name confused (not jacob!!- he's "unique"). But somewhere back through this thread I said something about severe cases, and less urgency for the young, and then working top down to the third world and the response was "we can't have variants!!!". Now, the response to preference for pfizer because the overall case load is less (which would actually lead to fewer severe cases in a population, even if it was slightly less efficient per case - I doubt it is) is that AZ has a better hospitalization rate (but the stats on other cases was conveniently omitted). 

Pfizer appears to be the best of all of the vaccines so far. My comment was pretty simple - if you have a choice, that's the best so far in terms of total efficacy and side effects. If I lived somewhere that only AZ was available, I would certainly take it. Europe dropped the ball by being chicken - AZ was available and they declined to use it, and then called it "not good" or some such thing after a few clotting incidence that are a pimple on the butt compared to populations with covid (even putting the whining about not getting supply ahead of someone else who ordered before them aside). 

The criticism about the cost per dose is also a little odd considering the "high priced" option is $20 per dose. I think this is probably a situation where it's money well spent. 

A look to India will provide good data on what happens if you don't have vaccine supply - each situation is different. When there is an abundance of supply, what do you do? pick the best option. When there is only one option and the choice is vs. nothing, what do you do - when the option is 100 times better than nothing, you take that option. 

We'll see how this goes in the US - the J&J vaccine appears to be less ideal as far as preventing cases, but similar in preventing hospitalizations. I got pfizer (you could vaccine shop here if you wanted to, but my first public option said "we're giving pfizer today, you're auto scheduled for your second dose in 3 weeks. Go to that room and see you then in 3 weeks after that". Lucky. My own health system was advertising that they would have a supply of J&J in a couple of weeks (meaning I could've gone to my own doc's office). No thanks - i'll go to the public stadium clinic - it's less convenient, but they're offering the version I want and sooner - I'm not looking to get mild or moderate covid, either. I've had bronchitis about 75 times in my life and done my fair share on the "shortness of breath" shift.


----------



## Rorschach

francovendee said:


> I just don't understand their reluctance to take a very small risk when set against the far,far greater one of catching this killer disease.



Depends if you really think it's that dangerous. It might be for a small section of society but for most it's nothing to fear, the IFR is well under 99% for most of the population and of course that's assuming you catch it, which isn't a certainty.


----------



## Jake

It looks like JCVI is going to recommend that the de facto policy of not using AZ for (healthy) under-30s is extended to (healthy) under-40s, on the basis the ratio of clotting deaths to COVID deaths saved in that cohort will be only in the region of 1:2.


----------



## Rorschach

Jake said:


> It looks like JCVI is going to recommend that the de facto policy of not using AZ for (healthy) under-30s is extended to (healthy) under-40s, on the basis the ratio of clotting deaths to COVID deaths saved in that cohort will be only in the region of 1:2.



That's a good start. Personally I would say (healthy) under 40's don't need vaccinating at all and doses should be used to boost the vulnerable ready for the winter. Some people are almost 6 months since their first jab now and could need a top up.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Whilst I would say this is true, the chances of moderate or severe covid for people under 40 appear to be very low.


being vaccinated reduces transmission by about 50%, so that would help reduce community transmission. 

It would seem the govt are continuing to roll out the vaccine until they reach everybody over 18. 

Given the vaccine programme is giving the govt a boost in popularity, I wonder if it's being led by politics rather than science.


----------



## Rorschach

It's being led by money, lots of money in vaccines even if a few people do die of rare blood clots or who knows what else we might find.

Same reason there is no treatments being looked at or being hushed up in the case of Ivermectin. I have no idea if IVM works but it is definitely being blocked on social media, or attempted anyway. Treatments aren't good because if you can cure it you won't need to vaccine the entire world every year.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Even if those below (say) 40 are relatively unaffected by the virus with very low probability of hospitalisation or death, they are part of the herd.

If vaccinated they will:

 reduce R0 and limit the spread of a more virulent strain,
allow for degradation over time of the vaccines effectiveness,
help deal with mutations against which the vaccine is less effective.


----------



## Jonm

D_W said:


> Coupled with your comment in another thread about wanting to eliminate cases to avoid mutations, it's just a trail of bits suggesting that you're just picking and choosing what to say in each case to be oppositional.


I do not have a clue what you are talking about, I have looked back through my threads and cannot find a discussion with you about mutations. And from your comment below you cannot either.

I had a discussion with Jacob about mutations coming from slums being a real danger. His response was


Jacob said:


> Not really. They are the ones who find it hardest to get here and are least likely to be visited by freewheeling travellers.
> It's the well off world travellers, whether for business or pleasure, who will spread it fastest.


Needless to say I disagreed with this statement. 

I think you are getting me muddled with someone else. I suggest you either find the statement which is so upsetting you or stop accusing me of inconsistencies.


----------



## Jonm

D_W said:


> Anyone not in the back and forth may miss that subtlety, and I could be getting jonm and someone else with a similar length J name confused (


I have been polite to you, I have not cast aspersions on your integrity.

You on the other hand have accused me of
“cherry picking“, “You're the same person who tried to hang me up“, “you posted a false dilemma“, “it's the inconsistency that strikes me“ “First it matters that we have no covid cases, then ......it doesn't matter“, “it's just a trail of bits suggesting that you're just picking and choosing what to say in each case to be oppositional“

I suggest you look at your conversation on this thread with *JAKE* on and about 22 April which talked about mutations. Then perhaps you may wish to review your detrimental comments about me.


----------



## Jonm

Rorschach said:


> Depends if you really think it's that dangerous. It might be for a small section of society but for most it's nothing to fear, the IFR is well under 99% for most of the population and of course that's assuming you catch it, which isn't a certainty.


I do hope that the infection to fatality rate is ”well under 99%“. a long way under like nearly 99% under 99%.


----------



## Jake

Jonm said:


> I suggest you look at your conversation on this thread with *JAKE* on and about 22 April which talked about mutations. Then perhaps you may wish to review your detrimental comments about me.



Apologies for accidentally getting you in trouble with this argumentative chap.


----------



## D_W

Ahh, jonm - it was jake. My apologies for getting you confused with him.


----------



## Jonm

D_W said:


> Ahh, jonm - it was jake. My apologies for getting you confused with him.


Thankyou, I am pleased that is sorted. We actually agree on a lot of these points.


----------



## Jake

D_W said:


> Ahh, jonm - it was jake. My apologies for getting you confused with him.



I would like to say that this j person also did not "try to hang you up".


----------



## D_W

Jake said:


> I would like to say that this j person also did not "try to hang you up".



no, you're right. I agree. It would've only been a hang up effort if both of your statements had come from the same person (they'd have been conflicting, but neither is dishonest coming from separate people). My mistake for confusing the two of you to both be the same person.


----------



## southendwoodworker

D_W said:


> ...
> Pfizer appears to be the best of all of the vaccines so far. My comment was pretty simple - if you have a choice, that's the best so far in terms of total efficacy and side effects. If I lived somewhere that only AZ was available, I would certainly take it.
> ...
> We'll see how this goes in the US - the J&J vaccine appears to be less ideal as far as preventing cases, but similar in preventing hospitalizations.



I thought the same as I was all focussed on the efficacy rate, the medical professionals all said "take any vaccine given" but in my heart I did feel a bit disappointed to get the AZ rather than pfizer or moderna jab.

I really didn't understand it until I saw this video which explained how efficacy rate is calculated and about how to compare each vaccines efficacy rate.



It explains well how effective each vaccine is in protecting us from death and hospitalisation, the main things we want - and the answer is all vaccines do it very well which is a relief.


----------



## sometimewoodworker

Echo-Star said:


> Did we not have the lid on covid back in July last


I know you intended that as a rhetorical question, but the answer is no the U.K. has never had a lid on Covid. The infection rate has been appallingly high. The deaths even more so. The U.K. has done an appallingly bad job of stopping the spread and keep people alive. 

I live in a country that until about a month ago had actually controlled Covid very effectively the population is a little larger than the U.K. Even now the total number of Covid infections since January 2020 is 1.4% of the U.K. numbers (65,000 vs over 4 million) and the number of deaths, though there has been an almost 100% increase in the last month is under 200!!! Not per day but since the first identified case in January 2020. 
Now we are in wave 2.5 there is a universal mask mandate with fine of £480, not much if your minimum wage is £9 per hour as in the U.K. but here it is £7.7 PER DAY so the fine is 2 months pay. We have a mandatory 14 day quarantine for anyone arriving, it’s been in effect for the last year, you have to get cleared by the government to even get on a flight as the borders are still closed.

So all in all while we probably get a B+ rating, Australia is an A+ the U.K. is an F or more correctly at the end of the alphabet. The only good news is the vaccination.

PS I forgot to mention that the track and trace system has been functioning here since the disease started, so for a supposedly backward country we have been well supported by our system something the U.K. can’t claim.


----------



## Echo-Star

sometimewoodworker said:


> I know you intended that as a rhetorical question, but the answer is no the U.K. has never had a lid on Covid. The infection rate has been appallingly high. The deaths even more so. The U.K. has done an appallingly bad job of stopping the spread and keep people alive.
> 
> I live in a country that until about a month ago had actually controlled Covid very effectively the population is a little larger than the U.K. Even now the total number of Covid infections since January 2020 is 1.4% of the U.K. numbers (65,000 vs over 4 million) and the number of deaths, though there has been an almost 100% increase in the last month is under 200!!! Not per day but since the first identified case in January 2020.
> Now we are in wave 2.5 there is a universal mask mandate with fine of £480, not much if your minimum wage is £9 per hour as in the U.K. but here it is £7.7 PER DAY so the fine is 2 months pay. We have a mandatory 14 day quarantine for anyone arriving, it’s been in effect for the last year, you have to get cleared by the government to even get on a flight.
> 
> So all in all while we probably get a B+ rating, Australia is an A+ the U.K. is an F or more correctly at the end of the alphabet. The only good news is the vaccination.


Though I do not give the covid situation much attention at all really, Its more the inconveniance it causes for me, IE wearing a mask to go shopping etc, and broke my glasses taking the darn thing off. If the politicians take all the advice from the who and follow there directive as they said they were doing "follow the sience, sience driven" and we end up in a worse state than we were already in. Well the only asumption you can make off that debacle, is that our sientists are just fumbling about in the dark. whoever no one should be allowed to travel outside there own contry for any reason whatsoever, regardless until this flue ist put to bed.

Anyway stay safe


----------



## sometimewoodworker

Jonm said:


> As for UK, I would expect boosters to be the same manufacturer as original doses. I cannot see us going away from AZ but cannot find evidence of us ordering boosters.


 There is no evidence to suggest that staying with the same maker of vaccines helps and quite a bit to suggest that a different one provides better protection. 

There is no evidence yet to say how long the protection will last. The only suggestion on lifespan is to look at SARS & MERS immunity, it is currently at 17 years and going up year by year. A possible 3rd dose will depend on mutations evading the current vaccination or protection reducing over time. So until there is data suggesting a 3rd injection is needed there is no point in ordering it, is there?


----------



## Rorschach

Jonm said:


> I do hope that the infection to fatality rate is ”well under 99%“. a long way under like nearly 99% under 99%.



I've phrased that badly haven't I! lol Just reading it back.


----------



## Rorschach

sometimewoodworker said:


> There is no evidence to suggest that staying with the same maker of vaccines helps and quite a bit to suggest that a different one provides better protection.
> 
> There is no evidence yet to say how long the protection will last. The only suggestion on lifespan is to look at SARS & MERS immunity, it is currently at 17 years and going up year by year. A possible 3rd dose will depend on mutations evading the current vaccination or protection reducing over time. So until there is data suggesting a 3rd injection is needed there is no point in ordering it, is there?



Once again, money. Why on earth wouldn't you want to insist on a 3rd dose when you can sell 8 billion of them?


----------



## Chris152

Can anyone help me understand these stats on BBC today? It's a recent study of one-jab efficacy:
'It suggests that around 1% of hospital admissions between December and April were of people with Covid who had already had one vaccine dose.
The study found higher numbers of Covid hospital admissions around the time of vaccination and soon after, before the jab had started to work. Admissions then tailed off as protection from the vaccine built up.
From 21 days after vaccination, when the body's immune system kicks in, rates of admission fell to very low levels - with only a tiny number of deaths from Covid.
_In the study, 526 people who tested positive for coronavirus were admitted to hospital from 21 days after one vaccine dose, and 113 died - out of more than 3,500 hospitalised patients in the study_.'








Hospital Covid admissions after jab 'very, very small'


Most of those affected were frail and elderly and at high risk of being very unwell, a study finds.



www.bbc.co.uk




The stats in the last para don't confirm the 1% claim at all, do they?

eta - they seem to have got the figures wrong - Daily Mail has:
'There were 526 people admitted with Covid three or more weeks after their first jab, out of a total of 52,000 inpatients included in the study.'








Number of people hospitalised with Covid after first vaccine is 'tiny'


A report presented to SAGE showed that seven per cent of people admitted to hospital in the UK's second wave had had a jab but 79% of them caught the virus before the vaccine kicked in.




www.dailymail.co.uk





So that sounds like very good news!


----------



## Jonm

southendwoodworker said:


> I thought the same as I was all focussed on the efficacy rate, the medical professionals all said "take any vaccine given" but in my heart I did feel a bit disappointed to get the AZ rather than pfizer or moderna jab


Good piece of information. Explains it really well, particularly the difficulties in comparing efficacy rates. At the beginning of this vaccine roll out Van Tam said , do not get hung up on efficacy percentages. I tend to listen and believe what the two experts on either side of the buffoon have to say. Personally I would take any one of them but I am in the vulnerable age group. I would not touch Sputnik or Sinovac because I do not trust Russia or China when it comes to injecting chemicals in my arm. Perhaps unfairly but novichok in Salisbury has an influence and Chile has come unstuck with Sinovac, high numbers have received one dose and they are back in lockdown, transpires Sinovac efficacy after one dose is 3%.


----------



## Jonm

sometimewoodworker said:


> I know you intended that as a rhetorical question, but the answer is no the U.K. has never had a lid on Covid. The infection rate has been appallingly high. The deaths even more so. The U.K. has done an appallingly bad job of stopping the spread and keep people alive.
> 
> I live in a country that until about a month ago had actually controlled Covid very effectively the population is a little larger than the U.K. Even now the total number of Covid infections since January 2020 is 1.4% of the U.K. numbers (65,000 vs over 4 million) and the number of deaths, though there has been an almost 100% increase in the last month is under 200!!! Not per day but since the first identified case in January 2020.
> Now we are in wave 2.5 there is a universal mask mandate with fine of £480, not much if your minimum wage is £9 per hour as in the U.K. but here it is £7.7 PER DAY so the fine is 2 months pay. We have a mandatory 14 day quarantine for anyone arriving, it’s been in effect for the last year, you have to get cleared by the government to even get on a flight as the borders are still closed.
> 
> So all in all while we probably get a B+ rating, Australia is an A+ the U.K. is an F or more correctly at the end of the alphabet. The only good news is the vaccination.
> 
> PS I forgot to mention that the track and trace system has been functioning here since the disease started, so for a supposedly backward country we have been well supported by our system something the U.K. can’t claim.


Thank you for that very interesting comment, it demonstrates how badly we have done.

UK is also an island country so has an advantage over Thailand and most other countries as everyone is arriving in a controlled way, boat, plane or rail. ( yes I know we have a border in Ireland).


----------



## Jameshow

Rorschach said:


> Once again, money. Why on earth wouldn't you want to insist on a 3rd dose when you can sell 8 billion of them?


Hey layoff the vaccine bashing - it's harming my bonus!!! 

Cheers James


----------



## sometimewoodworker

Jonm said:


> Thank you for that very interesting comment, it demonstrates how badly we have done.
> 
> UK is also an island country so has an advantage over Thailand and most other countries as everyone is arriving in a controlled way, boat, plane or rail. ( yes I know we have a border in Ireland).


Our land borders as well as inbound international travel boarders were closed on 26th of March 2020 with 1,045 cases and 4 deaths total at that time, of course since then citizens were permitted to be repatriated but all were quarantined in government facilities, some foreign residents were permitted from October all foreign entrants are required to pay for a 14 day medically supervised hotel quarantine.

I have just heard today that the capital has been locked down with police/army checkpoints, only people with permission from the local government offices can enter. I expect to hear that other cities or provinces may follow in the next few days or weeks, however the capital has 734 cases today, almost ½ the total 

Regrettably our vaccination program is just starting with medical and emergency personal getting their first shots a week or 2 ago. This was not considered a problem before the 3rd wave struck as the infection rate was so low. Until February it was at zero outside quarantine. 

The U.K. had the ability to do as well but didn’t have the political will to act.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Comparison with Thailand is somewhat flawed.

In the UK we have elections every 5 years when the electorate can express their views and change leadership. Mostly true despite the attempts to subvert the democratic process during Brexit.

Thailand has a military coup or crisis with about the same frequency. A constitutional monarchy (in theory), it is effectively a military state. They have the capacity (and willingness) for suppression of opposition in a way which would be untenable in the UK (and most of Western Europe).

I am not defending UK covid performance but there are far more appropriate comparators. Thailand clearly acted early and forcefully in a way which the UK simply would or could not.

In some respects through their actions Thailand may be storing up future problems. I understand that vaccine rollout has covered only 1 or 2% of the population. When, in a few months time, Europe and the US are largely open for business as usual, Thailand will still be locked down.


----------



## Blackswanwood

sometimewoodworker said:


> So until there is data suggesting a 3rd injection is needed there is no point in ordering it, is there?



I don’t agree. Given one thing the UK has done well is acting decisively to source a supply of vaccinations I’d say experience suggests getting an early order in is a sensible step.


----------



## Rorschach

sometimewoodworker said:


> The U.K. had the ability to do as well but didn’t have the political will to act.



Good!


----------



## Rorschach

Blackswanwood said:


> I don’t agree. Given one thing the UK has done well is acting decisively to source a supply of vaccinations I’d say experience suggests getting an early order in is a sensible step.



And certain politicians are making good money on vaccines.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Rorschach said:


> And certain politicians are making good money on vaccines.



I’m no fan of politicians and find the recent revelations distasteful but am not sure I have seen anything that supports that view? Have I missed something?

Slightly tangential but it seems money has got in the way of doing the right thing with vaccination strategy in India.


----------



## D_W

Blackswanwood said:


> I don’t agree. Given one thing the UK has done well is acting decisively to source a supply of vaccinations I’d say experience suggests getting an early order in is a sensible step.



order of what, though? If you're looking to get an early order in for mutations, do you get to change your order in line for a different formulation?


----------



## Blackswanwood

D_W said:


> order of what, though? If you're looking to get an early order in for mutations, do you get to change your order in line for a different formulation?


It would seem sensible that the contract would be negotiated on that basis.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Getting an order in early is a gamble - but the odds are very attractive.

Cost of 60m jabs at (say) £10 per time is £600m.

Cost of lockdown could be in the region of £15-20bn a month.

£600m is really just an insurance premium - as with cars, houses etc we don't plan to claim but failing to have insurance could be catastrophic.


----------



## D_W

I guess if you're the drug company, you'd want a guarantee of purchase - if you're the UK, what do you do - push for people to get a booster even if there are no variants evading a vaccine in significant numbers?

We have so much data and so much current information that while there are tons of scary stories on the news, if there was an uptick in a variant, we'd know in the states immediately. I'm reminded of how much tracking we're doing as I'm still getting regular requests from the CDC (by text) to click through a few questions under a program they call vsafe. Of course, I take the time to answer these questions as I think the data component of this is enormously important. 

Track and trace has been going on functionally here for at least a year from the county level - the county health department has long done it here to make sure that they're aware of the patterns where covid is spreading. What caused it to persist here isn't lack of tracking, but that a large part of the population just didn't care to stop exposing themselves (and they figured out through the school that most of the cases in school weren't contracted there - I'm not sure if any were, even among the high school students). Now that the schools have been back in session in person for a long time, there has been no uptick, especially among the younger kids).


----------



## selectortone

Rorschach said:


> And certain politicians are making good money on vaccines.


Where's your proof of that then? (speaking as a 'lefty' with no love of the present idiots in charge)


----------



## Spectric

sometimewoodworker said:


> I know you intended that as a rhetorical question, but the answer is no the U.K. has never had a lid on Covid. The infection rate has been appallingly high. The deaths even more so. The U.K. has done an appallingly bad job of stopping the spread and keep people alive.


Yes how true, we have had a high infection rate and wiped out a lot of older people in care homes all because the government dithered and was more focused on the economy at the time. Now what has happening, serious problem in India with infections ramping out of control and several variants so what does Borris the blunderer do, stops travel to/from India but gives people a window of opportunity to get back before the restrictions come into force so we now have over 400 new cases of Indian Covid. He should have just stopped travel immediately and anyone who turned up goes straight to quarantine.


----------



## Jonm

Terry - Somerset said:


> Comparison with Thailand is somewhat flawed.
> 
> In the UK we have elections every 5 years when the electorate can express their views and change leadership. Mostly true despite the attempts to subvert the democratic process during Brexit.
> 
> Thailand has a military coup or crisis with about the same frequency. A constitutional monarchy (in theory), it is effectively a military state. They have the capacity (and willingness) for suppression of opposition in a way which would be untenable in the UK (and most of Western Europe).
> 
> I am not defending UK covid performance but there are far more appropriate comparators. Thailand clearly acted early and forcefully in a way which the UK simply would or could not.
> 
> In some respects through their actions Thailand may be storing up future problems. I understand that vaccine rollout has covered only 1 or 2% of the population. When, in a few months time, Europe and the US are largely open for business as usual, Thailand will still be locked down.


Your comments are all very valid but our response to the pandemic has been lockdown, close borders face masks etc, the same tools that Thailand has used. Thailand however would seem to have acted more decisively and quickly with far fewer deaths. We have not covered ourselves in glory.
As for vaccine rollout, yes we have done well but our economy is well over five times the size Thailand, they perhaps cannot get the vaccine.


----------



## Jonm

Terry - Somerset said:


> In the UK we have elections every 5 years when the electorate can express their views and change leadership. Mostly true despite the attempts to subvert the democratic process during Brexit.


We had a civil war to sort out that parliament is supreme. Boris got off lightly, the previous person who tried that had his head chopped off.


----------



## Jonm

Spectric said:


> Yes how true, we have had a high infection rate and wiped out a lot of older people in care homes all because the government dithered and was more focused on the economy at the time. Now what has happening, serious problem in India with infections ramping out of control and several variants so what does Borris the blunderer do, stops travel to/from India but gives people a window of opportunity to get back before the restrictions come into force so we now have over 400 new cases of Indian Covid. He should have just stopped travel immediately and anyone who turned up goes straight to quarantine.


Then we had the “world beating” track and trace system.


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> Where's your proof of that then? (speaking as a 'lefty' with no love of the present idiots in charge)











Conflicts of interest among the UK government’s covid-19 advisers


Little is known about the interests of the doctors, scientists, and academics on whose advice the UK government relies to manage the pandemic. Attempts to discover more are frequently thwarted, finds Paul D Thacker As the number of UK deaths caused by covid-19 reached 50 000 in early November...




www.bmj.com













Rishi Sunak refuses to say if he will profit from Moderna Covid vaccine


Chancellor’s hedge fund invested heavily in Moderna, which had 94.5% trial success




www.theguardian.com





There is a lot of chattering about politicians in various countries and their links to shares in vaccines companies. It looks iffy at the very least. As I say, treatments would appear to be being ignored in favour of vaccines. I know that prevention is better than cure as the saying goes, but when the disease is not very dangerous, a cure doesn't make money as hardly anyone needs it. Prevention in the form of a vaccine can be much profitable as you can give it to everyone, regardless of need.


----------



## Jonm

Terry - Somerset said:


> Getting an order in early is a gamble - but the odds are very attractive.
> 
> Cost of 60m jabs at (say) £10 per time is £600m.
> 
> Cost of lockdown could be in the region of £15-20bn a month.
> 
> £600m is really just an insurance premium - as with cars, houses etc we don't plan to claim but failing to have insurance could be catastrophic.


The start of this was orders for Phizer boosters but not AZ. I think we have 100million AZ doses on order. So we have sufficient ordered for 33 million with two doses plus booster. Currently 21 million have been vaccinated with AZ so perhaps we have sufficient on order, with later orders being the booster.

Your analogy with insurance policy is good. The difference of course is that if we over order we can transfer the doses to other countries so it should not actually cost us anything, unless we give them to poorer countries.


----------



## Rorschach

I wonder what uptake % they are basing their orders on?

It's going to be interesting to see the uptake when under 40's are offered jabs, even more so when it reaches the under 30's.


----------



## selectortone

Rorschach said:


> There is a lot of chattering about politicians in various countries and their links to shares in vaccines companies. It looks iffy at the very least. As I say, treatments would appear to be being ignored in favour of vaccines. I know that prevention is better than cure as the saying goes, but when the disease is not very dangerous, a cure doesn't make money as hardly anyone needs it. Prevention in the form of a vaccine can be much profitable as you can give it to everyone, regardless of need.


Chatter? Conspiracy theory more like. You really believe a 'cure' for covid-19 is being suppressed so that a vast conspiracy of politicians and vaccine manufacturers can make money out of it? Really?


----------



## Chris152

Maybe political/ economic/ whatever conspiracies can make their way over to the secret forum? This thread's supposed to be an attempt to inform ourselves about jab effectiveness so we can make informed decisions about risk.


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> Chatter? Conspiracy theory more like. You really believe a 'cure' for covid-19 is being suppressed so that a vast conspiracy of politicians and vaccine manufacturers can make money out of it? Really?



I am just saying it is what is being talked about and actively supressed by facebook and twitter in the case of invermectin. I don't know how true they are and I not promoting it myself, I am just mentioning it.

What I do know is that for covid there is a lot more money in vaccines than any potential cure/treatment, especially if it's already a commonly available drug. We have a disease that is not serious at all for 99%+ of people that catch it, I mean for between 30-80% of people who catch it don't even know they have it unless they get tested. There is no money in a treatment that will only be used by a few thousand people each year (as I say, especially if it's already a drug on the market). There is however billions to be made in vaccinating tens of millions of people once or twice a year, every year for eternity. Surely you can see that?


----------



## Chris152

You're promoting it, Rorschach. Take it somewhere else.


----------



## selectortone

Rorschach said:


> We have a disease that is not serious at all for 99%+ of people that catch it.


Tell that to the people in India having to burn their relations in the street.


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> Tell that to the people in India having to burn their relations in the street.



Is my statement wrong? If 1.6 million people died from just covid in India that is only 0.1% of the population. India is a really big country with a really bad health care system.


----------



## Chris152

It's like watching a car crash in slow motion, as another thread is brought to its knees.


----------



## selectortone

Rorschach said:


> Is my statement wrong? If 1.6 million people died from just covid in India that is only 0.1% of the population. India is a really big country with a really bad health care system.


You really don't see anything at all disquieting about 1.6 million people dying?


----------



## selectortone

What is disquieting is you positing the deaths of 1.6 million people to justify your point. Disgraceful.


----------



## Rorschach

I am just pointing out that in a big country with a lot of people there are a lot of people who die. 12 million people die in India every year (approx).


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> You really don't see anything at all disquieting about 1.6 million people dying?



I never said it was a good thing. But as my mother post points out, 12 million die every year in India, that's a million a month.


----------



## D_W

Chris152 said:


> You're promoting it, Rorschach. Take it somewhere else.



Ivermectin is legitimate, either as prophylaxis or as early treatment, but it's not that practical compared to vaccinating (far more effective than nothing, far less effective than the vaccines - but pennies per dose). I'm not sure that anyone has ever taken it long term or studied it long term, either, and it's script only in the US other than veterinary use (I'd bet that getting it on the vet side is less easy now, too, including for people who actually need it as an antiparasitic for sheep).

It's effective not so much at killing the virus, but making it unable to replicate properly. Less effective for severe cases (which is the case for pretty much everything other than steroids, as far as I know).









Table: Ivermectin Clinical Data | COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines


Review clinical data on the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.



www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov





Note that this is a USA NIH site, not a quack site. There are small number and small significance outcomes, some inconclusive and a couple that are statistically significant or mild or moderate covid, but nothing great for severe covid. Comments above based on that. No prophylaxis use that I can see in these studies, but heard a doc (an MD, one practicing, not a quack) suggest that population studies show efficacy as prophylaxis (not controlled studies - there's an ethical problem with that type of study, anyway -if you see better outcomes for one group vs. the control group and some of those are life and death, you cannot ethically continue the study - you provide access). 

Not in a class of options with any of the vaccines, though - as mentioned above. Not close. Just viable for treatment, possibly prophylaxis, like high dose steroids. The MD mentioned above suggested very high dose steroids for severe covid cases early on and was more or less shunned, but that has become routine treatment now.


----------



## Flynnwood

Time line - there was a fear at the time that mortality could be four to five percent.


December 31st 2019
27 cases of atypical viral pneumonia in Wuhan

January 3rd 2020
44 cases
Traced to South China Seafood City

January 8th 2020
Coronavirus identified on Chinese state media

January 11th 2020
61 year old man dies, severe underlying health issues
Risk of human to human transmission low

January 17th 2020
US starts screening flights from Wuhan

January 20th 2020
Beijing, Shenzhen, Thailand, Japan
Person to person transmission

January 22nd 2020
Wuhan travel lockdown
Deaths 17

January 24th 2020 
China transport links shut down in 13 cities
Threat to the UK is "low".

January 30th 2020
WHO; global health emergency. 

January 31st 2020
US; public health emergency

February 3rd 2020
China completes first Hospital build in eight days.


February 6th 2020
Dr Li Wenliang

February 22nd 2020
Deaths in Italy.

February 29th 2020
Republic of Ireland, first case

March 5th 2020
First UK death.

March 11th 2020
The Covid-19 outbreak is declared a pandemic by the WHO.

March 14th 2020
US travel ban extended to the UK and Ireland

March 20th 2020
Pubs closed

March 23rd 2020
UK lockdown - Stay at home.

Between Mid-March until around Mid-May 2020, over 15 million people flew into the UK. I watched arrivals on an App (i.e. five passenger flights each weekday morning from New York to Heathrow, and more from Italy).


----------



## Spectric

Jonm said:


> Then we had the “world beating” track and trace system.


I am not sure whether they were just having a laugh or more worryingly if they were serious but have we really fallen to this level of incompetance when it comes to delivering a technical solution to such a basic problem. In this modern world we have all the ingredients for delivering such a system and the software would not have been such a great challenge, infact there were other systems that actually worked so we could have brought in the system and just tweeked it to suit our requirements. I think maybe the issue boils down to human rights, we are so entangled with our so called rights that they now prevent people from delivering anything that might help save lives because we don't want big brother spying on us or anyone accessing our "data" because that has become such a commodity.


----------



## sometimewoodworker

Blackswanwood said:


> I don’t agree. Given one thing the UK has done well is acting decisively to source a supply of vaccinations I’d say experience suggests getting an early order in is a sensible step.


However there are significant problems with that reasoning.

There is no data to suggest that a 3rd injection is of any benefit.

There is some data that shows that current vaccines are protective against hospitalisation and severe disease In all variants known to date, (some people can catch it again but nobody gets badly sick)

There is no data showing the time line for vaccination to become less effective. Some vaccines protect for life, some for 10 years. Some are annual because the disease is different each year and they are only 60% or less protective even then.

Since there is no known reason for the formula to change, possibly tweaked a little yes, but not a significant change, a 3rd vaccination is redundant. All medical treatment has risk, many people had a worse reaction to the second vaccination, with no proof that a 3rd vaccination is needed or has any benefits, the risk is disproportionately high.

The only reason for the short interval between vaccination shots was the need to produce vaccines fast. Because of that more usual times of 3 to 6 months between 1st and 2nd doses were not in the trials, if they had tested at those intervals no vaccines would be available today. The British government took a huge step in the dark by not following the test protocol timing. That gamble has paid off and shown that, for the AZ at least, 3 months is better than 4 weeks.


----------



## sometimewoodworker

Terry - Somerset said:


> Comparison with Thailand is somewhat flawed.
> 
> In the UK we have elections every 5 years when the electorate can express their views and change leadership. Mostly true despite the attempts to subvert the democratic process during Brexit.
> 
> Thailand has a military coup or crisis with about the same frequency. A constitutional monarchy (in theory), it is effectively a military state. They have the capacity (and willingness) for suppression of opposition in a way which would be untenable in the UK (and most of Western Europe).
> 
> I am not defending UK covid performance but there are far more appropriate comparators. Thailand clearly acted early and forcefully in a way which the UK simply would or could not.
> 
> In some respects through their actions Thailand may be storing up future problems. I understand that vaccine rollout has covered only 1 or 2% of the population. When, in a few months time, Europe and the US are largely open for business as usual, Thailand will still be locked down.


You have a very superficial knowledge of Thailand and most of your conclusions are wrong. It has a military government, yes, it isn’t and hasn’t been a military state. It is far more of a constitutional monarchy than the U.K. the King is of much more influence than the HRH is in the U.K. 

Until January the number of infections was under 40,000 and deaths under 100 it has a larger population than the U.K. the health system is less good than the U.K. the tracing system is infinitely better than the U.K. 

Given the level of infection and death a timeline of vaccination starting in June was sensible. That it has been moved up almost 2 months is remarkably good given that countries like the EU are stopping or restricting vaccine exports.

the U.K. has an absolute need to vaccinate fast as it has killed off 0.18% of the population (127,000) that is 1,870 per million, Thailand has managed 0.00032% (224) or 3 per million
And infected at a minimum 06.47% of the population (4.4 million) or 64 thousand per million, with Thailand managing 0.096% (64 thousand) or under 1000 per million 

Trying a comparison with any other country will always be poor however it's far better than you suggest.


----------



## sometimewoodworker

Jonm said:


> Your comments are all very valid but our response to the pandemic has been lockdown, close borders face masks etc, the same tools that Thailand has used. Thailand however would seem to have acted more decisively and quickly with far fewer deaths. We have not covered ourselves in glory.
> As for vaccine rollout, yes we have done well but our economy is well over five times the size Thailand, they perhaps cannot get the vaccine.


The U.K. responses have been far slower than the responses here in Thailand so the lockdowns much more severe in the U.K. and other reactions stronger but much less effective in the U.K. reported deaths to date is 244 here of course they are under reported as they have been in the U.K. but even if the under reporting means they should be 10 times greater (it isn’t that bad) it’s still tiny compared to the U.K. which is 640 times greater per million.
as to vaccination see my previous post


----------



## Blackswanwood

sometimewoodworker said:


> However there are significant problems with that reasoning.
> 
> There is no data to suggest that a 3rd injection is of any benefit.
> 
> There is some data that shows that current vaccines are protective against hospitalisation and severe disease In all variants known to date, (some people can catch it again but nobody gets badly sick)
> 
> There is no data showing the time line for vaccination to become less effective. Some vaccines protect for life, some for 10 years. Some are annual because the disease is different each year and they are only 60% or less protective even then.
> 
> Since there is no known reason for the formula to change, possibly tweaked a little yes, but not a significant change, a 3rd vaccination is redundant. All medical treatment has risk, many people had a worse reaction to the second vaccination, with no proof that a 3rd vaccination is needed or has any benefits, the risk is disproportionately high.
> 
> The only reason for the short interval between vaccination shots was the need to produce vaccines fast. Because of that more usual times of 3 to 6 months between 1st and 2nd doses were not in the trials, if they had tested at those intervals no vaccines would be available today. The British government took a huge step in the dark by not following the test protocol timing. That gamble has paid off and shown that, for the AZ at least, 3 months is better than 4 weeks.



You obviously see it differently to me. As discussed in the posts after the one you quote it’s like buying insurance and if the contract securing supply is for the most up to date version (to me) it feels like a sensible thing to do.


----------



## RobinBHM

selectortone said:


> Where's your proof of that then? (speaking as a 'lefty' with no love of the present idiots in charge)


It is a common conspiracists theory.....along with Bill Gates and the great reset.

This govt have been opportunistic with Covid making money from private contracts, but there is no great conspiracy in terms of them pushing for vaccinating everybody over 18. This govt made many mistakes early on resulting in high death rates and so it has thrown the kitchen sink at vaccine procurement and rollout.


----------



## RobinBHM

Blackswanwood said:


> You obviously see it differently to me. As discussed in the posts after the one you quote it’s like buying insurance and if the contract securing supply is for the most up to date version (to me) it feels like a sensible thing to do.



The govt have gone for a money no object approach to vaccine procurement, buying anything and everything they can.

Given that vaccines are the only way out of endless lockdown cycles it seems to me a good policy.

I think your analogy of buying insurance is a good one.


----------



## Rorschach

Spectric said:


> we are so entangled with our so called rights



See it's phrases like this that worry me so much.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Given that vaccines are the only way out of endless lockdown cycles it seems to me a good policy.



See once again, you think lockdowns are the only option available. If you only have a hammer, everything becomes a nail.


----------



## Jonm

Rorschach said:


> I wonder what uptake % they are basing their orders on?
> 
> It's going to be interesting to see the uptake when under 40's are offered jabs, even more so when it reaches the under 30's.


Judging by the orders to date it is nothing to do with uptake %. We appear to have ordered the following:

AstraZeneca 100 million
Pfizer 40 million plus 60 million boosters, total 100 million
Moderna 17 million
Novavax 50 million
Valneva 100 million
Janssen 30 million
Sanofi. 60 million

Total 457 million doses

Adult population of UK is about 50 million so what the logic is for ordering 450 million doses, I do not know. Perhaps it is to ensure sufficient supply for us, or in case of issues with effectiveness or side effects with certain vaccines. Perhaps it is to boost supply and the intention is that most will go elsewhere, or use them as bargaining chips in our trade talks or maybe sell them to fund Boris’s flat. Does anyone know?


----------



## Rorschach

Well some of that ordering was based on not know what would be effective so I can understand over ordering but ordering from a range so whichever works you have coverage. I meant more for future orders now we "know" what works.


----------



## Keith Cocker

Rorschach said:


> What I do know is that for covid there is a lot more money in vaccines than any potential cure/treatment, especially if it's already a commonly available drug.


Vaccine is the “cure” for Covid-19 just as vaccinations was the way to deal with polio, diphtheria and flu etc. As my mum used to say “Prevention is better than Cure”


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> See once again, you think lockdowns are the only option available. If you only have a hammer, everything becomes a nail.


That's because the evidence proves it.
Every govt in the world agrees and they have vast numbers of scientists doing the modelling all the time......yet Rorschach thinks he knows better (actually you don't, but your confirmation bias prevents you from critical thinking)

You keep on repeating the claim that protecting the vulnerable whilst allowing younger people to get on is the solution.

But you constantly refuse to offer any solution as to how it's possible to protect the vulnerable....(GBD doesn't either)

Until you provide a comprehensive and evidence based answer, your alternative is just plausible opinion driven by your libertarian ideology.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> the disease is not very dangerous


India?


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> actively supressed by facebook and twitter in the case of invermectin


Do you really think the NHS wouldn't use the best treatments available?

During the pandemic clinicians around the world have been constantly collaborating on best treatment methods, hence why hospitalised patients have had better outcomes in the 2nd and 3rd waves. 

How has information on invermectin been suppressed, there's plenty of scientific information online about it.

"EMA therefore concluded that use of ivermectin for prevention or treatment of COVID-19 cannot currently be recommended outside controlled clinical trials. Further well-designed, randomised studies are needed to draw conclusions as to whether the product is effective and safe in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19"




__





EMA advises against use of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment COVID-19 outside randomised clinical trials - European Medicines Agency


EMA advises against use of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment COVID-19 outside randomised clinical trials




www.ema.europa.eu


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> I know that prevention is better than cure as the saying goes, but when the disease is not very dangerous, a cure doesn't make money as hardly anyone needs it


Your reasoning in this argument is predicated on "the disease is not very dangerous"

Well it's a view


----------



## rwillett

I have followed this thread with interest. It's noticeable that it has stayed a lot more closer to the target and hasn't strayed away into some of the more conspiracy orientated ones that have had to be stopped. 

I also recently discovered that I can block certain people. That has significantly improved the quality of the thread. I would suggest other people check it out. 

Please keep posting as this is helpful 

Rob


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> We have a disease that is not serious at all for 99%+ of people that catch it


Untrue.

The vulnerable have been shielding for most of the pandemic period, so the data is not based on a random sample of people.

That's the problem with those advocating herd immunity....they base their arguments on Covid death rates which occurred despite extensive NPIs.


If you want to try the "Covid isn't that dangerous" let's see the data based on allowing Covid to rip through the community without any interventions.


----------



## RobinBHM

rwillett said:


> I have followed this thread with interest. It's noticeable that it has stayed a lot more closer to the target and hasn't strayed away into some of the more conspiracy orientated ones that have had to be stopped.
> 
> I also recently discovered that I can block certain people. That has significantly improved the quality of the thread. I would suggest other people check it out.
> 
> Please keep posting as this is helpful
> 
> Rob


There are some really informative posts on this thread from people like Jonm.....it's really interesting to read his posts because they written from a scientific perspective avoiding emotive arguments and confirmation bias.


----------



## Jonm

rwillett said:


> I have followed this thread with interest. It's noticeable that it has stayed a lot more closer to the target and hasn't strayed away into some of the more conspiracy orientated ones that have had to be stopped.
> 
> I also recently discovered that I can block certain people. That has significantly improved the quality of the thread. I would suggest other people check it out.
> 
> Please keep posting as this is helpful
> 
> Rob


Good post, we need to try and stay on topic. I got dragged in to a slanging match with d_w, now sorted, case of mistaken identity, but no doubt bored everyone else. Once we start arguing from entrenched positions and slinging mud the post becomes pointless.


----------



## Jonm

RobinBHM said:


> There are some really informative posts on this thread from people like Jonm.....it's really interesting to read his posts because they written from a scientific perspective avoiding emotive arguments and confirmation bias.


Thank you, I try to be objective and yes my background is science but not biology. I am a retired engineer, mostly design.


----------



## Peterm1000

Surely the sobering thing about the Indian situation should be that it is an illustration of what happens when your health system has no more capacity. For most people the virus appears to be survivable IF you have access to medical facilities. We never experienced that in the UK.


----------



## RobinBHM

Peterm1000 said:


> Surely the sobering thing about the Indian situation should be that it is an illustration of what happens when your health system has no more capacity. For most people the virus appears to be survivable IF you have access to medical facilities. We never experienced that in the UK.



Healthcare spend per capita (2019)

USA $11,000
United Kingdom $4,600
India $275

*India* is among the countries having the lowest public *healthcare* budget in the world, with the public *healthcare* system in the country merely getting 1.26% of the total *GDP*.


----------



## Rorschach

Robin you never fail to disappoint 

I wonder how you would feel if you lived in Sweden, would you be following the governments path then? Interesting thought experiment, how much of your views are based on what you are told to think by the BBC et al?


----------



## D_W

Peterm1000 said:


> IF you have access to medical facilities.



Steroids and oxygen being the two most important and a doc who isn't afraid to keep you alive by thinking they need to follow typical steroid script indications to "keep you healthy". Healthy doesn't amount to much if you suffocate. 

Two very cheap things to supply, but deadly when not available.


----------



## Spectric

we are so entangled with our so called rights 



Rorschach said:


> See it's phrases like this that worry me so much.



Why?

Yes we all have certain rights but we have to accept there is a limit, they are not endless and at times they may need to be curbed for the greater good. But in times of crisis we just have to accept that these rights may have to be compromised along with our freedom. 

Personally I cannot see anything wrong with all humans being chipped, it would save the country billions of pounds, reduce fraud, allow a fairer political system and drastically reduce crime. The only people who would object are those who are corrupt or criminal, imagine the unsolved murders we currently have, if people were chipped then you would know everyone in the vicinity and those close enough to have commited the murder, could be the start of a crime free country and with the saved cash used to offset poverty and address so many other social issues.


----------



## D_W

Jonm said:


> Good post, we need to try and stay on topic. I got dragged in to a slanging match with d_w, now sorted, case of mistaken identity, but no doubt bored everyone else. Once we start arguing from entrenched positions and slinging mud the post becomes pointless.



There's a term in pro-wrestling, "in a shoot, the fans always lose."

A shoot in wrestling being what happens when two guys don't like each other and they use the cover of a match to have a real fight. Two wrestlers beat each other and nothing interesting to the fans happens. 

Again, my apologies - I do pick steadily in debates, but I never try to falsely accuse anyone of something - it's not an excusable tactic.


----------



## D_W

Spectric said:


> we are so entangled with our so called rights
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Yes we all have certain rights but we have to accept there is a limit, they are not endless and at times they may need to be curbed for the greater good. But in times of crisis we just have to accept that these rights may have to be compromised along with our freedom.
> 
> Personally I cannot see anything wrong with all humans being chipped, it would save the country billions of pounds, reduce fraud, allow a fairer political system and drastically reduce crime. The only people who would object are those who are corrupt or criminal, imagine the unsolved murders we currently have, if people were chipped then you would know everyone in the vicinity and those close enough to have commited the murder, could be the start of a crime free country and with the saved cash used to offset poverty and address so many other social issues.



I suspect 95% of the time, chipping will result only in curbing rights of people for things they have no control of, but someone will step up in the other 5% and show us why it's a really bad idea with something more closely related to genocide or eugenics (politically motivated or idealistic). 

We'll lose our humanity and some people who think of themselves as just will go along with it if it happens a little at a time.


----------



## Rorschach

Peterm1000 said:


> Surely the sobering thing about the Indian situation should be that it is an illustration of what happens when your health system has no more capacity. For most people the virus appears to be survivable IF you have access to medical facilities. We never experienced that in the UK.



It's an illustration of spending your money on a space programme and nuclear programme instead of healthcare, amongst other things. India is not a poor country, it just chooses to spend it's money in different ways.


----------



## Rorschach

Spectric said:


> we are so entangled with our so called rights
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Yes we all have certain rights but we have to accept there is a limit, they are not endless and at times they may need to be curbed for the greater good. But in times of crisis we just have to accept that these rights may have to be compromised along with our freedom.
> 
> Personally I cannot see anything wrong with all humans being chipped, it would save the country billions of pounds, reduce fraud, allow a fairer political system and drastically reduce crime. The only people who would object are those who are corrupt or criminal, imagine the unsolved murders we currently have, if people were chipped then you would know everyone in the vicinity and those close enough to have commited the murder, could be the start of a crime free country and with the saved cash used to offset poverty and address so many other social issues.



Ahh I am so glad that your thoughts are (hopefully) in a small minority and most value freedom even if it does come at some risk.


----------



## D_W

to be fair, their GDP is $2k per capita or just slightly over that, but they do have the means to provide health care given they probably manufacture a majority of the world's drugs and plenty of medical equipment. 

English friend here had to go to the outer regions there for work and said "there's one good thing about india. If you're suicidal, you'll visit and come home feeling like life is a lot better than you thought it was. Other than that, no reason to go there. ". 

Looks like they chose political rallies despite increasing covid numbers. It'll be interesting to see if their leadership gets re-elected anyway. I have a feeling that in Russia, they could make a covid outbreak into a patriotic thing to rally behind putin.


----------



## Blackswanwood

D_W said:


> English friend here had to go to the outer regions there for work and said "there's one good thing about india. If you're suicidal, you'll visit and come home feeling like life is a lot better than you thought it was. Other than that, no reason to go there. ".



Your friend is pretty small minded if that’s his summary. India is an amazing country which makes what is happening at the moment all the more sad.


----------



## Rorschach

Blackswanwood said:


> Your friend is pretty small minded if that’s his summary. India is an amazing country which makes what is happening at the moment all the more sad.



Side note, do you think there are any countries that are not amazing in their own way? I like to think everywhere has it's charms.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Rorschach said:


> Side note, do you think there are any countries that are not amazing in their own way? I like to think everywhere has it's charms.


I agree ... although I did once have to remind myself on a wet Wednesday in Prestatyn


----------



## Spectric

D_W said:


> English friend here had to go to the outer regions there for work and said "there's one good thing about india. If you're suicidal, you'll visit and come home feeling like life is a lot better than you thought it was. Other than that, no reason to go there. ".


Why go all the way to India, you can get the same feeling by visiting the west coast of Cumbria in the Copeland district.


----------



## Jameshow

Spectric said:


> Why go all the way to India, you can get the same feeling by visiting the west coast of Cumbria in the Copeland district.



Bradford ... !


----------



## Jonm

I have been looking at the recent reports of vaccines reducing the transmission of coronavirus. No distinction is made between types of vaccine. Here are some links

Covid: One dose of vaccine halves transmission - study

One dose of COVID-19 vaccine can cut household transmission by up to half

expert reaction to preprint looking at COVID-19 vaccination and household transmission | Science Media Centre

Public Health England have investigated the effect of the vaccine on 
transmission of coronavirus within households 

They have looked at 24000 cases of vaccinated people with laboratory confirmed symptoms of coronavirus, and how it spread to their household members who had not been vaccinated. 
They then compared this with unvaccinated people with laboratory confirmed symptoms of coronavirus, and how it spread to their household members who had not been vaccinated

They found that the vaccine reduced onward transmission by between 38% and 49%.

This protection is on top of the reduced risk of a vaccinated person developing symptomatic infection in the first place, which is around 60 to 65% – 4 weeks after one dose of either vaccine. 

So putting that together, one dose of the vaccine reduces catching Covid and showing symptoms, by 62% and reduces passing it on to an unvaccinated household member by a further 43%. So the vaccine reduces onward transmission to an unvaccinated household member by nearly 80% overall (that is my conclusion).

It is good news that the vaccine actually reduces onward transmission in the home setting and hopefully It will do even better after two doses and possibly even better again in the non home setting. It seems to be a thorough unbiased analysis.

I am not sure where it leaves us with asymptomatic disease and I have some concerns about it possibly being elderly vaccinated people with younger unvaccinated people, not being as physically close as say an unvaccinated couple.

Perhaps I am being too critical or cautious but this disease has wrong footed us a number of times.


----------



## TRITON

Well I'm thinking we are on the right track, but still we have the problem of the public rushing out and gathering in groups, which thus far precedes a rise in infections and hospital admissions. I'm waiting and watching to see what happens that way over the coming weeks.
Yup, nice to get out and about and nicer to gather with friends, but if thats just going to cause more infections then I'd rather stay home,stay safe and not put myself, family or anyone else at risk. 

It should be noted that the Scientists* are still warning we should be cautious.
.
*This is a term the tabloids use to justify anythign they have to say in order to elicit their clickbait articles. They bandy the term/word about to justify mistrust in the vaccine, the lockdown or anything else,


----------



## sometimewoodworker

Jonm said:


> I am not sure where it leaves us with asymptomatic disease and I have some concerns about it possibly being elderly vaccinated people with younger unvaccinated people, not being as physically close as say an unvaccinated couple.


That paragraph end is a bit confused. However vaccinated individuals of any age 4 weeks after the second dose have an extremely low chance first of getting an infection and second an even smaller chance of getting COVID-19 that is severe enough to require hospitalisation. So yes they can possibly catch Covid but it’s unlikely to, even if noticed, do much to them.

with unvaccinated individuals the dangers are there. They must not change their safe practices around anyone. They can catch it from anyone.


----------



## Rorschach

Remember, asymptomatic transmission is still highly theoretical and has not actually been proven to exist with Covid.


----------



## Robbo60

Do we actually know how many people died because of Covid, rather than with Covid?
"Anyone dying within 28 days of a positive test". 
I get really fed up with the "wise after the event" brigade.
How many people reading this have ever had to make decisions on the scale that Govts around the World have had to this past year?


----------



## Ozi

Rorschach said:


> Be interesting to see how recent news affects take up among the young.


Both my boys (in their 20s) are keen to get the jab and it sounds like their friends feel the same


----------



## Keith Cocker

Jameshow said:


> Bradford ... !



Dubai!! Never again!!


----------



## Ozi

Blackswanwood said:


> Your friend is pretty small minded if that’s his summary. India is an amazing country which makes what is happening at the moment all the more sad.


Some years ago I told an Indian friend who's a doctor that I was thinking of going to India, hoping for some local knowledge and advice on places to visit. I got much the same reaction as D_W from his friend best summed up as why the hell would you do that! Went to New Zealand instead never regretted it.


----------



## Rorschach

Ozi said:


> Both my boys (in their 20s) are keen to get the jab and it sounds like their friends feel the same



Any insight as to why they want it?


----------



## Jonm

sometimewoodworker said:


> That paragraph end is a bit confused. However vaccinated individuals of any age 4 weeks after the second dose have an extremely low chance first of getting an infection and second an even smaller chance of getting COVID-19 that is severe enough to require hospitalisation. So yes they can possibly catch Covid but it’s unlikely to, even if noticed, do much to them.
> 
> with unvaccinated individuals the dangers are there. They must not change their safe practices around anyone. They can catch it from anyone.


I shall try to explain my last but one paragraph. My comment is specifically about this research which is the onward transmission of Covid by people living in the same household , showing symptoms of Covid and the effect of the vaccination on transmission. It is not about the vaccines in general and reducing hospitalisation.

I am talking about the type of households being compared. A household with a vaccinated person living with unvaccinated people is likely to be an elderly person (vaccinated and showing signs of Covid) living with younger unvaccinated people. This is different to the households without a vaccinated person where the unvaccinated person is more likely to be part of a couple who sleep in the same room together. The social distancing is very different in the two above cases and could account for some of the difference in transmission.

The reports I have seen do not explain how the households were selected, other than to say “_There were 552,984 residential households of two to 10 people where there was at least one case.” After excluding households that didn’t meet the (very appropriate) study criteria there were 365,447 households, 1,018,842, and 102,662 secondary cases in the study. These are substantial numbers, so the conclusions are robust_”

I hope that explains the point I am trying to make.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Untrue.
> 
> The vulnerable have been shielding for most of the pandemic period, so the data is not based on a random sample of people.
> 
> That's the problem with those advocating herd immunity....they base their arguments on Covid death rates which occurred despite extensive NPIs.
> 
> 
> If you want to try the "Covid isn't that dangerous" let's see the data based on allowing Covid to rip through the community without any interventions.



The data is pretty solid now. Covid is not at all likely to increase "exponentially". There is evidence all over the world to show this now. It will ebb and flow. 

We are still pretending that every covid death in the UK would mean someone would have survived if not for covid. It is absolutely insane. We have never ever recorded deaths like this in the UK. See Dr John Lee, Pathologist.


----------



## Selwyn

Peterm1000 said:


> Surely the sobering thing about the Indian situation should be that it is an illustration of what happens when your health system has no more capacity. For most people the virus appears to be survivable IF you have access to medical facilities. We never experienced that in the UK.



Lets see how it plays out in 2-3 weeks time. They are currently having a viral spike although there is a lot of selective media around it, peoples behaiviour will change and the likelihood is it will peter out downwards again.


----------



## Selwyn

Spectric said:


> we are so entangled with our so called rights
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Yes we all have certain rights but we have to accept there is a limit, they are not endless and at times they may need to be curbed for the greater good. But in times of crisis we just have to accept that these rights may have to be compromised along with our freedom.
> 
> Personally I cannot see anything wrong with all humans being chipped, it would save the country billions of pounds, reduce fraud, allow a fairer political system and drastically reduce crime. The only people who would object are those who are corrupt or criminal, imagine the unsolved murders we currently have, if people were chipped then you would know everyone in the vicinity and those close enough to have commited the murder, could be the start of a crime free country and with the saved cash used to offset poverty and address so many other social issues.



This is all very well if you trust the government.


----------



## Ozi

Rorschach said:


> Any insight as to why they want it?


The same reason that I was vaccinated, they don't want to catch it and don't want to spread it. The chances of someone their age being seriously ill are very low but not as low as the chances of serious vaccine side effects, particularly now that the blood clotting issue is better understood and treatment nolonger makes things worse. Also they understand the possibilities of mutation and that if a nastier variant does turn up the more people in our population with some immunity the better we will cope. Take a look at the age profile of people dying in Brazil if you don't think this is relevant to younger people.


----------



## Ozi

Selwyn said:


> This is all very well if you trust the government.


There has to be a balance between individual rights and the rights of society, certain infectious diseases will get you locked up for the general good. Most people accept this as necessary Typhoid Marry didn't. 

I am disinclined to trust governments but also disinclined to trust a significant part of our population, take the man pictured on the front page of the London Metro last week who thought his right to protest against restrictions to his freedom entitled him to punch a police woman in the head. In any functional society rights have to be balanced by responsibilities, fail to live up to responsibilities and loose rights. We just need to make sure that those in charge do not loose sight of the fact that this applies to them as much as us, and that when they do there are consequences. This is why it matters if BJ did misappropriate funds to decorate that flat even if the money involved is negligible compared to party funding.

Anybody else concerned that the allowable annual budget for that flat to be decorated was £30K and that all occupants from which ever party have spent pretty much that amount, shows how far removed they are from ordinary people.


----------



## Rorschach

Ozi said:


> The same reason that I was vaccinated, they don't want to catch it and don't want to spread it. The chances of someone their age being seriously ill are very low but not as low as the chances of serious vaccine side effects, particularly now that the blood clotting issue is better understood and treatment nolonger makes things worse. Also they understand the possibilities of mutation and that if a nastier variant does turn up the more people in our population with some immunity the better we will cope. Take a look at the age profile of people dying in Brazil if you don't think this is relevant to younger people.



Fair enough, they are entitled to their opinion on it.


----------



## Ozi

Rorschach said:


> Fair enough, they are entitled to their opinion on it.


I'm interested in why you disagree, whats the down side?


----------



## Rorschach

Ozi said:


> I'm interested in why you disagree, whats the down side?



I probably won't be allowed to share it here. I am totally in favour of them having the choice by the way, would never tell someone to have or not have it if they want it. I was just curious as to their motivation.


----------



## Jonm

Robbo60 said:


> I get really fed up with the "wise after the event" brigade.
> How many people reading this have ever had to make decisions on the scale that Govts around the World have had to this past year?


You make a valid point and it is a case of looking at what has happened here and around the world when we get to a better situation regarding Covid. The government will talk about vaccine rollout and try to make us forget what happened before.

Personally I want to know what “Exercise Cygnus, a 2016 exercise to test the UK’s preparedness for a flu pandemic“ told the government and what action they took. This report has been suppressed but it may now be published. 









Pandemic preparedness: Government must release 2016 report, says information commissioner


The Information Commissioner’s Office has ordered the government to release an unpublished report on Exercise Cygnus, a 2016 exercise to test the UK’s preparedness for a flu pandemic. Six months ago the NHS doctor Moosa Qureshi submitted a request under freedom of information legislation to the...




www.bmj.com





It seems that countries who have dealt with mers and SARS did better than us so what lessons did we learn from them at the start of the pandemic.

Yes it is easy to be wise after the event but the government has vast resources and advice to call upon. It is a case of whether they took the threat seriously, looked at what other countries were doing, obtained and listened to the available advice and made informed decisions. Or did follow their instincts until they were forced to change by the number of deaths and serious Illness.

In the end it is what people believe at the next election, whether it is relevant then and what the alternatives are.


----------



## Selwyn

Ozi said:


> There has to be a balance between individual rights and the rights of society, certain infectious diseases will get you locked up for the general good. Most people accept this as necessary Typhoid Marry didn't.
> 
> I am disinclined to trust governments but also disinclined to trust a significant part of our population, take the man pictured on the front page of the London Metro last week who thought his right to protest against restrictions to his freedom entitled him to punch a police woman in the head. In any functional society rights have to be balanced by responsibilities, fail to live up to responsibilities and loose rights. We just need to make sure that those in charge do not loose sight of the fact that this applies to them as much as us, and that when they do there are consequences. This is why it matters if BJ did misappropriate funds to decorate that flat even if the money involved is negligible compared to party funding.
> 
> Anybody else concerned that the allowable annual budget for that flat to be decorated was £30K and that all occupants from which ever party have spent pretty much that amount, shows how far removed they are from ordinary people.



That man didn't have a right to punch a policewoman in the head. He will be punished accordingly. But you can't lock a man up in case he "might" punch a policewoman in the head. Unless you are North Korea.

I would expect the Prime Minister to be somewhat removed from ordinary people by the very nature of the job. I'm not a bit concerned about £58k redecoration. The investigations into it all will cost more all footed by the taxpayer.


----------



## Ozi

Rorschach said:


> I probably won't be allowed to share it here. I am totally in favour of them having the choice by the way, would never tell someone to have or not have it if they want it. I was just curious as to their motivation.


Like wise I'm also in favour of choice, I prefer it to be informed choice. I also acknowledge that choice is a luxury that has it's limits. In our current situation compulsory vaccination would be wrong even if you believe as I do that if all people able to take the vaccine did so we as a society would be better off. Where would you draw that particular line. If this pandemic had been going to kill 1% of us, or 10%, if it was going to kill 20% but the vaccine killed 1%. However you value personal freedom I bet the would be a point where you would change your mind.


----------



## Selwyn

Sensible, measured man


----------



## Selwyn

Ozi said:


> Like wise I'm also in favour of choice, I prefer it to be informed choice. I also acknowledge that choice is a luxury that has it's limits. In our current situation compulsory vaccination would be wrong even if you believe as I do that if all people able to take the vaccine did so we as a society would be better off. Where would you draw that particular line. If this pandemic had been going to kill 1% of us, or 10%, if it was going to kill 20% but the vaccine killed 1%. However you value personal freedom I bet the would be a point where you would change your mind.



We know already its not even going to be anywhere near 1% of us. Its not even 1% of over 70's

As John Lee says the initial framing has never moved


----------



## Rorschach

Ozi said:


> Like wise I'm also in favour of choice, I prefer it to be informed choice. I also acknowledge that choice is a luxury that has it's limits. In our current situation compulsory vaccination would be wrong even if you believe as I do that if all people able to take the vaccine did so we as a society would be better off. Where would you draw that particular line. If this pandemic had been going to kill 1% of us, or 10%, if it was going to kill 20% but the vaccine killed 1%. However you value personal freedom I bet the would be a point where you would change your mind.



Absolutely, it's a not a black/white topic, I can only base my response on the situation as I see it now.


----------



## Ozi

Selwyn said:


> That man didn't have a right to punch a policewoman in the head. He will be punished accordingly. But you can't lock a man up in case he "might" punch a policewoman in the head. Unless you are North Korea.
> 
> I would expect the Prime Minister to be somewhat removed from ordinary people by the very nature of the job. I'm not a bit concerned about £58k redecoration. The investigations into it all will cost more all footed by the taxpayer.


The reason the £58K concerns me and the reason I think the money to investigate it well spent is that he seems to think it's his right to spend money that's not his. Remember some of the things put on expenses not so long ago, this as ongoing and always will be it's human nature but needs to be challenged. 

Also very glad I don't live in NK


----------



## Selwyn

Ozi said:


> The reason the £58K concerns me and the reason I think the money to investigate it well spent is that he seems to think it's his right to spend money that's not his. Remember some of the things put on expenses not so long ago, this as ongoing and always will be it's human nature but needs to be challenged.
> 
> Also very glad I don't live in NK



It wasn't tax payers money either. Storm in a teacup


----------



## Ozi

Selwyn said:


> We know already its not even going to be anywhere near 1% of us. Its not even 1% of over 70's


I never suggested it was, my point is that there would be a level of danger that the average person would consider justified removal of personal freedom, thankfully we are nowhere near that


----------



## Ozi

Selwyn said:


> It wasn't tax payers money either. Storm in a teacup


Or the thin end of a wedge - lets agree to disagree my workshop is calling me.


----------



## Selwyn

Ozi said:


> I never suggested it was, my point is that there would be a level of danger that the average person would consider justified removal of personal freedom, thankfully we are nowhere near that



Fair point you didn't.

We never were near that level of danger


----------



## Blackswanwood

Ozi said:


> Some years ago I told an Indian friend who's a doctor that I was thinking of going to India, hoping for some local knowledge and advice on places to visit. I got much the same reaction as D_W from his friend best summed up as why the hell would you do that! Went to New Zealand instead never regretted it.


New Zealand is a great place too. I don’t know what motivated your friend to say that but most educated Indian people are proud of their country (while recognising it’s shortcomings) and will give you a list of great places to visit and things to see.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Selwyn said:


> Lets see how it plays out in 2-3 weeks time. They are currently having a viral spike although there is a lot of selective media around it, peoples behaiviour will change and the likelihood is it will peter out downwards again.


Hi Selwyn

What evidence do you have of selective media and which way do you feel it’s being selective - over estimating or down playing the seriousness of the position?


----------



## Ozi

Blackswanwood said:


> New Zealand is a great place too. I don’t know what motivated your friend to say that but most educated Indian people are proud of their country (while recognising it’s shortcomings) and will give you a list of great places to visit and things to see.


I think the fact he grew up in a very poor area didn't help, have to admire his family, they somehow put their oldest son through school then each child in turn supported the rest, they are a family of ten and all qualified in one profession or another. Now scattered around the world but the two I know are the sort of people that if a friend needs a hand you don't have to ask twice.


----------



## Selwyn

Blackswanwood said:


> Hi Selwyn
> 
> What evidence do you have of selective media and which way do you feel it’s being selective - over estimating or down playing the seriousness of the position?



Deaths per 1000 for a very start. Its already slowing there


----------



## RobinBHM

Robbo60 said:


> Do we actually know how many people died because of Covid, rather than with Covid?
> "Anyone dying within 28 days of a positive test".
> I get really fed up with the "wise after the event" brigade.
> How many people reading this have ever had to make decisions on the scale that Govts around the World have had to this past year?


Yes the details are on the ONS site.

Deaths involving Covid 133k
Deaths due to Covid 120k





__





The number of deaths recorded within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test who died solely from COVID-19 - Office for National Statistics






www.ons.gov.uk


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> The data is pretty solid now. Covid is not at all likely to increase "exponentially". There is evidence all over the world to show this now. It will ebb and flow


1 "the data is pretty solid now" sorry, that's wrong.

2. "Covid is not at all likely to increase exponentially" I never said was

3. "There is evidence all over the world to show this now, it will ebb and flow" ah but without NPIs the peaks would be far far higher. 


The data is pretty solid now: NPIs are effective.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> I'm not a bit concerned about £58k redecoration. The investigations into it all will cost more all footed by the taxpayer


Cost is not the key issue.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> 1 "the data is pretty solid now" sorry, that's wrong.
> 
> 2. "Covid is not at all likely to increase exponentially" I never said was
> 
> 3. "There is evidence all over the world to show this now, it will ebb and flow" ah but without NPIs the peaks would be far far higher.
> 
> 
> The data is pretty solid now: NPIs are effective.




No they aren't. Have you watched the John Lee video - do you know how silly masks and social distancing sound?


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Cost is not the key issue.



In this context it is.

Everyone lies. This is a minor issue, come polling day it won't reflect at all


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Remember, asymptomatic transmission is still highly theoretical and has not actually been proven to exist with Covid.


I am sorry but the evidence does say otherwise:

"Under a broad range of values for each of these assumptions, at least 50% of new SARS-CoV-2 infections was estimated to have originated from exposure to individuals with infection but without symptoms"








SARS-CoV-2 Transmission From People Without COVID-19 Symptoms


This decision analytical model assesses the proportion of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmissions in the community that likely occur from persons without symptoms.




jamanetwork.com





"We strongly believe that the rapid spread of the second wave of Covid-19 is linked to the circulation of the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic subjects in post-lockdown settings"








Could asymptomatic carriers spread the SARS-CoV-2 infection? Experience from the Italian second wave - Journal of Translational Medicine







translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com


----------



## Chris152




----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> I am sorry but the evidence does say otherwise:
> 
> "Under a broad range of values for each of these assumptions, at least 50% of new SARS-CoV-2 infections was estimated to have originated from exposure to individuals with infection but without symptoms"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SARS-CoV-2 Transmission From People Without COVID-19 Symptoms
> 
> 
> This decision analytical model assesses the proportion of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmissions in the community that likely occur from persons without symptoms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jamanetwork.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We strongly believe that the rapid spread of the second wave of Covid-19 is linked to the circulation of the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic subjects in post-lockdown settings"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could asymptomatic carriers spread the SARS-CoV-2 infection? Experience from the Italian second wave - Journal of Translational Medicine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com



You're wrong.


----------



## Ozi

It's hard enough to know whats going on in our own country the clearest world data I can find is here









COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Comparing India and the UK

India UK
ICU beds 1 per 20000 1 per 11000
Cases 19557457 4434157
Deaths 215542 127782
Fatality rate 1.1% 2.9%


Does that mean India is nearly 3 times better at treating Covid than we are? Or that their population is more resilient than ours, when in our country the worst effected part of our population is of south east Asian origin. Or that a lot of Indian deaths are going unrecorded, possibly only those who die after getting medical attention are being recorded?

To quote India's chief minister in 2016 "There exist pervasive inconsistencies in the population estimates"

In short we do not know what is happening in many parts of the world but the sooner mass vaccination gets delivered the better for everyone. Never forget how privileged we are to have the choice of accepting a free at point of use medical service.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> No they aren't. Have you watched the John Lee video - do you know how silly masks and social distancing sound?


Dr John Lee writes controversial stuff for self promotion....he writes articles for Daily Mail, Telegraph and appears on shows like Julie Hartley Brewer.

It's plausible stuff in a shallow way....not backed up by data or evidence.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> You're wrong.


Ive quoted from reliable, trusted sources, I wonder what makes you think they are wrong?


----------



## Ozi

Selwyn said:


> Sensible, measured man





RobinBHM said:


> Dr John Lee writes controversial stuff for self promotion....he writes articles for Daily Mail, Telegraph and appears on shows like Julie Hartley Brewer.
> 
> It's plausible stuff in a shallow way....not backed up by data or evidence.


One question I would put to Dr Lee. If as he said masks and social distancing have no significant effect on the transmission of respiratory virus could he explain this winters flu related death total.


----------



## Rorschach

Ozi said:


> One question I would put to Dr Lee. If as he said masks and social distancing have no significant effect on the transmission of respiratory virus could he explain this winters flu related death total.



Flu kills vulnerable people, Covid kills vulnerable people, Flu isn't generally tested for and it's method of killing is similar to that of Covid. More thant 30% of Covid cases are caught in hospital. Essentially anyone who enters hospital with Flu catches Covid or already had Covid, gets tested, dies and gets marked as a Covid death. Nobody cares about Flu, it's old hat.


----------



## D_W

flu is less transmissible and generally kills a smaller subset of older people. It doesn't have a significant impact in cohorts like people age 50 who are moderately obese, but covid takes a slice out of those. 

I don't think the catching of covid in hospitals is that standard or the staff would've all gone down early. Spouse works in a hospital a floor above the ER but not critical patient area (or maybe it's below, whatever it is, the ER is close in proximity). If you come into the hospital with flu, you'll be identified as having the flu and not put with the covid patients. 

How do I know that the covid catching isn't that big of an issue in places outside of the negative pressure areas where covid patients are? Only one person in spouse's practice has gotten covid prior to vaccination (out of ten). Most work full time and only with surgical masks (they weren't allowed to wear even their own N95 due to hospital rules - which is stupid - but very big on "if you have your own, people will think you're taking them from the ER and ICU".)

Nobody wearing a surgical mask in an area with covid in the air would last long before they get it (their patients are noncompliant). 

I suspect the care taken in avoiding exposure to covid has made enormous differences in flu since flu isn't passed as easily. My kids are back in school 4 days a week - when the flu goes around, they're puking in their lunchboxes at lunch and putting on all kinds of spectacular displays. Nothing this year.


----------



## D_W

Rorschach said:


> Flu kills vulnerable people, Covid kills vulnerable people, Flu isn't generally tested for and it's method of killing is similar to that of Covid. More thant 30% of Covid cases are caught in hospital. Essentially anyone who enters hospital with Flu catches Covid or already had Covid, gets tested, dies and gets marked as a Covid death. Nobody cares about Flu, it's old hat.



(by the way, the CDC does track positive flu samples - they're at about 1/10th the rate of last year. There are, of course, flu deaths involved. Limited contact in nursing homes and with the elderly almost certainly makes a huge difference. Covid deaths are WAY down in the elderly population here, too, due to vaccinations, but flu deaths haven't bounced back with covid deaths disappearing).


----------



## rwillett

Selwyn said:


> It wasn't tax payers money either. Storm in a teacup



It's not a storm in a teacup at all. It's not about the money per se, it's about the possible advantage that loaning/donating the £58K gives the loaner/donater. 

The PM appears to have an expensive lifestyle, having >= 6 kids, plus expensive divorces, means he is struggling to survive on his PM's salary of £150K. 

Lending or donating money to him creates an 'obligation' that will have to paid at some time. This might be a small favour of getting access to the PM to talk them about something, having them lean on a civil servant in a procurement bid, help write an obscure updater to the tax code, perhaps introducing them to somebody in a foreign government. Once you have bent the rules ever so slightly, the next time is easier and the next time easier still. No doubt the PM will bluster as he nornally does, try to switch the topic, but the rules are there for a reason, to stop corruption. Corruption is not normally £100M arms deals to the Saudis (see Private Eye passim), but little things adding up and up and up.

The money means nothing, the debt is everything. I work very closely with govt depts though I am not and never have been a civil servant. I have to be 100% up front about what I can do, what I say and if I go out with good friends who are civil servants, they are very insistent that they MUST pay their own way. There can be no hint of improprietry. I respect that. What the PM is done is appalling, he has opened himself up to suggestions of influence and potentially criminal liability. He knows the rules as he has broken them repeatedly.

I also note that James Clevelly has already started laying the groundwork for the PM not to resign if he has been caught lying. I fully expect other ministers to start supporting this position. So if you're caught taking dodgy loans and you're caught lying to Parliament, does this mean it's still a "storm in a teacup"? please don't say they all do it, so thats OK coz it's not. He's the PM, he's the head of the govt, he signs the ministerial code of conduct and is expected to abide by it though his past history as a serial lier does rather suggest he had his fingers crossed behind his back when he did so.

As an aside it does appear that one can get onto VIP PPE equipment contracts with nothing more than a good word from your local publican to a health minister so Boris might have got a good deal on his loan. 

Rob


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Dr John Lee writes controversial stuff for self promotion....he writes articles for Daily Mail, Telegraph and appears on shows like Julie Hartley Brewer.
> 
> It's plausible stuff in a shallow way....not backed up by data or evidence.



Lockdown isn't based on data or evidence. We've not even done a cost benefit on it!


----------



## Selwyn

Ozi said:


> One question I would put to Dr Lee. If as he said masks and social distancing have no significant effect on the transmission of respiratory virus could he explain this winters flu related death total.



I would imagine given the amount of PCR testing going on for Covid in hospitals that Covid has displaced it as a casue of death. Its not as if only one virus kills you when your 88 and been in a care home for 6 years.


----------



## Selwyn

D_W said:


> flu is less transmissible and generally kills a smaller subset of older people. It doesn't have a significant impact in cohorts like people age 50 who are moderately obese, but covid takes a slice out of those.
> 
> I don't think the catching of covid in hospitals is that standard or the staff would've all gone down early. Spouse works in a hospital a floor above the ER but not critical patient area (or maybe it's below, whatever it is, the ER is close in proximity). If you come into the hospital with flu, you'll be identified as having the flu and not put with the covid patients.
> 
> How do I know that the covid catching isn't that big of an issue in places outside of the negative pressure areas where covid patients are? Only one person in spouse's practice has gotten covid prior to vaccination (out of ten). Most work full time and only with surgical masks (they weren't allowed to wear even their own N95 due to hospital rules - which is stupid - but very big on "if you have your own, people will think you're taking them from the ER and ICU".)
> 
> Nobody wearing a surgical mask in an area with covid in the air would last long before they get it (their patients are noncompliant).
> 
> I suspect the care taken in avoiding exposure to covid has made enormous differences in flu since flu isn't passed as easily. My kids are back in school 4 days a week - when the flu goes around, they're puking in their lunchboxes at lunch and putting on all kinds of spectacular displays. Nothing this year.



The R value was averaging 14 in some hospitals back in the winter. There is no doubt that hospitals were driving some "infections". But the reality is covid viral particles are everywhere anyway


----------



## Chris152

rwillett said:


> It's not a storm in a teacup at all. It's not about the money per se, it's about the possible advantage that loaning/donating the £58K gives the loaner/donater.
> 
> The PM appears to have an expensive lifestyle, having >= 6 kids, plus expensive divorces, means he is struggling to survive on his PM's salary of £150K.
> 
> Lending or donating money to him creates an 'obligation' that will have to paid at some time. This might be a small favour of getting access to the PM to talk them about something, having them lean on a civil servant in a procurement bid, help write an obscure updater to the tax code, perhaps introducing them to somebody in a foreign government. Once you have bent the rules ever so slightly, the next time is easier and the next time easier still. No doubt the PM will bluster as he nornally does, try to switch the topic, but the rules are there for a reason, to stop corruption. Corruption is not normally £100M arms deals to the Saudis (see Private Eye passim), but little things adding up and up and up.
> 
> The money means nothing, the debt is everything. I work very closely with govt depts though I am not and never have been a civil servant. I have to be 100% up front about what I can do, what I say and if I go out with good friends who are civil servants, they are very insistent that they MUST pay their own way. There can be no hint of improprietry. I respect that. What the PM is done is appalling, he has opened himself up to suggestions of influence and potentially criminal liability. He knows the rules as he has broken them repeatedly.
> 
> I also note that James Clevelly has already started laying the groundwork for the PM not to resign if he has been caught lying. I fully expect other ministers to start supporting this position. So if you're caught taking dodgy loans and you're caught lying to Parliament, does this mean it's still a "storm in a teacup"? please don't say they all do it, so thats OK coz it's not. He's the PM, he's the head of the govt, he signs the ministerial code of conduct and is expected to abide by it though his past history as a serial lier does rather suggest he had his fingers crossed behind his back when he did so.
> 
> As an aside it does appear that one can get onto VIP PPE equipment contracts with nothing more than a good word from your local publican to a health minister so Boris might have got a good deal on his loan.
> 
> Rob


Was it even a loan, or was the cost 'covered' by him when BJ realised he'd been caught out? Obviously that's an incredibly difficult question for him to answer, and will require a complicated enquiry that'll take long enough that hopefully people will have forgotten about it. 
And yes, I've given up trying to keep the thread on track, and this should be in the secret forum.


----------



## D_W

Selwyn said:


> The R value was averaging 14 in some hospitals back in the winter. There is no doubt that hospitals were driving some "infections". But the reality is covid viral particles are everywhere anyway



Yes, some. But not the majority, unless there was a particularly well-protected cohort who was only exposed in hospitals. 

I would suspect there are some flu cases that went unreported just due to poor focus (as in, flu cases are confirmed cases - which means someone needs to send something to a lab). We haven't had unrestricted indoor access to vulnerable classes, though, so the hump that usually exists for flu season just didn't happen this year in the US, but the non-seasonal rate appears to be little changed.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Lockdown isn't based on data or evidence. We've not even done a cost benefit on it!


the term "lockdown" really means a collection of non pharmaceutical interventions, lockdown as a term doesnt have any definition.

there is evidence that confirms the effectiveness of NPIs

here is one such report from a trusted source:

"Our results show that major non-pharmaceutical interventions—and lockdowns in particular—have had a large effect on reducing transmission. Continued intervention should be considered to keep transmission of SARS-CoV-2 under control."








Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe - Nature


Modelling based on pooled data from 11 European countries indicates that non-pharmaceutical interventionsâ€”particularly lockdownsâ€”have had a marked effect on SARS-CoV-2 transmission, driving the reproduction number of the infection below 1.




www.nature.com


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> I would imagine given the amount of PCR testing going on for Covid in hospitals that Covid has displaced it as a casue of death. Its not as if only one virus kills you when your 88 and been in a care home for 6 years.


PCR testing is accurate.

a covid death is one where the person dies within 28 days of a positive test -it would be a stretch to say flu got that person first.


----------



## Selwyn

D_W said:


> Yes, some. But not the majority, unless there was a particularly well-protected cohort who was only exposed in hospitals.
> 
> I would suspect there are some flu cases that went unreported just due to poor focus (as in, flu cases are confirmed cases - which means someone needs to send something to a lab). We haven't had unrestricted indoor access to vulnerable classes, though, so the hump that usually exists for flu season just didn't happen this year in the US, but the non-seasonal rate appears to be little changed.



Not the majority no. But where there were lots of covid deaths localised in one hospital (where the blame went on people having parties or breaking lockdown rules) it was often a spread within the hospital environment. 

Remember when people die when they are old it is not one single virus or morbidity that carts them off.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> PCR testing is accurate.
> 
> a covid death is one where the person dies within 28 days of a positive test -it would be a stretch to say flu got that person first.



You still don't get it. Watch the video I put up. When you are old and die there are many multiples of factors that will cause you to take your last breath.


----------



## selectortone

RobinBHM said:


> Ive quoted from reliable, trusted sources, I wonder what makes you think they are wrong?


And if there is any veracity at all in this evidence, it beggars belief that people can still push the argument that we should all just go back to pre-lockdown norms right now and to hell with the consequences.

btw; if anyone is wondering why I keep jumping on Rorschach because of his to-hell-with-them-it's-hurting-my-business views on the risks to others; I have a daughter who has a chronic condition that requires medication that cripples her immune system. Idiots wandering unmasked around supermarkets (as has been her experience twice) who could be asymptomatic scare me to death.

Ps: and despite his predictions, she's somehow, at the age of 34, survived both AZ jabs without incident.


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> And if there is any veracity at all in this evidence, it beggars belief that people can still push the argument that we should all just go back to pre-lockdown norms right now and to hell with the consequences.
> 
> btw; if anyone is wondering why I keep jumping on Rorschach because of his to-hell-with-them-it's-hurting-my-business views on the risks to others; I have a daughter who has a chronic condition that requires medication that cripples her immune system. Idiots wandering unmasked around supermarkets (as has been her experience twice) who could be asymptomatic scare me to death.



It didn't hurt my business too much in the end, an initial lull picked up pretty well and with government handouts I had a pretty good year after all. 

I am sorry to hear about your daughter, but I don't think that justifies lockdowns. Your daughter was/is at risk of all sorts of infectious diseases when she leaves the house, it's up to her to take steps to protect herself. Ironically the lockdown that was intended to keep her safe will likely in the long run cause her more harm because we are storing up major healthcare problems for the future. You might just find in a few years time there isn't the money to treat her illness. If she had taken steps to shield herself while the healthy carried on with life we would all benefit in the long run. Too late now though. As I have mentioned before, a family member is now permanently disabled and dying of cancer because of lockdown, their consultant has admitted that if lockdown had not delayed treatment they would have a (pretty much) fully functioning arm and their cancer would be cured rather than killing them.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Selwyn said:


> Deaths per 1000 for a very start. Its already slowing there



Thanks for your explanation but I am afraid I do not follow your logic.

You said that there was selective reporting and have quoted the death rate per 1000 which by all accounts Is increasing.

I have inserted the data on daily deaths below. My understanding which is based on speaking with people I work with in India is that the reported numbers are significantly understated.







If you have alternative data I would be very interested if you could share it.


----------



## Selwyn

Blackswanwood said:


> Thanks for your explanation but I am afraid I do not follow your logic.
> 
> You said that there was selective reporting and have quoted the death rate per 1000 which by all accounts Is increasing.
> 
> I have inserted the data on daily deaths below. My understanding which is based on speaking with people I work with in India is that the reported numbers are significantly understated.
> 
> View attachment 109692
> 
> 
> If you have alternative data I would be very interested if you could share it.



Lets revisit this in about 8 or 9 days and see. Everywhere else has a sharp upward curve and then a tail off. India won't be any different but carry on believing that it is an exponential killer if you wish. Its an endemic and nasty virus making its way through


----------



## rwillett

Chris152 said:


> Was it even a loan, or was the cost 'covered' by him when BJ realised he'd been caught out? Obviously that's an incredibly difficult question for him to answer, and will require a complicated enquiry that'll take long enough that hopefully people will have forgotten about it.
> And yes, I've given up trying to keep the thread on track, and this should be in the secret forum.



Such a cynical response, it's so easy to forget how that £58,000 turned up in his account. It must happen all the time, It does to me, small and piffling amounts of money just happen to drop into my account all the time just when I need them, given *he* has so many other things to remember, e.g. exactly how many kids he has, who is last lover was, who is current lover is, is he friends with Gove or not this week, these small insignificant matters just aren't worth mentioning. Bit like who paid for his last holiday, simply not worth filling the forms in for.

Rob


----------



## selectortone

Rorschach said:


> It didn't hurt my business too much in the end, an initial lull picked up pretty well and with government handouts I had a pretty good year after all.
> 
> I am sorry to hear about your daughter, but I don't think that justifies lockdowns. Your daughter was/is at risk of all sorts of infectious diseases when she leaves the house, it's up to her to take steps to protect herself. Ironically the lockdown that was intended to keep her safe will likely in the long run cause her more harm because we are storing up major healthcare problems for the future. You might just find in a few years time there isn't the money to treat her illness. If she had taken steps to shield herself while the healthy carried on with life we would all benefit in the long run. Too late now though. As I have mentioned before, a family member is now permanently disabled and dying of cancer because of lockdown, their consultant has admitted that if lockdown had not delayed treatment they would have a (pretty much) fully functioning arm and their cancer would be cured rather than killing them.


And if I was some gullible sap on the internet and heeded you, I might have persuaded her not to have her jabs and she'd still be un-vaccinated and unprotected.


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> And if I was some gullible sap on the internet and heeded you, I might have persuaded her not to have her jabs and she'd still be un-vaccinated and unprotected.



Oh no, I would definitely have recommended she get jabbed, as I have recommended to all the vulnerable in my family.


----------



## selectortone

.


Rorschach said:


> Your daughter was/is at risk of all sorts of infectious diseases when she leaves the house, it's up to her to take steps to protect herself.



Thanks for that pearl of wisdom. That had never occurred to any of us.


----------



## Chris152

Sadly, our culture seems to have encouraged a dangerous mix of ignorance and arrogance, which leads people to think they can blurt out their groundless opinions (esp on the net), spread them like they were significant, and encourage others to do the same and act accordingly. Complete contempt for hard-earned learning and expertise. It's a factor as real and dangerous as the disease, another thing to take into account as we make decisions about what we can and can't do in the midst of the pandemic.


----------



## selectortone

Rorschach said:


> It. As I have mentioned before, a family member is now permanently disabled and dying of cancer because of lockdown, their consultant has admitted that if lockdown had not delayed treatment they would have a (pretty much) fully functioning arm and their cancer would be cured rather than killing them.



And not implementing lockdown and allowing the NHS to become completely overwhelmed with covid cases would have improved that situation in what way?


----------



## Blackswanwood

Selwyn said:


> Lets revisit this in about 8 or 9 days and see. Everywhere else has a sharp upward curve and then a tail off. India won't be any different but carry on believing that it is an exponential killer if you wish. Its an endemic and nasty virus making its way through


Thanks. I did not put forward a view that it is an exponential killer. I take it from that you don’t have any data that supports your view that India’s death rate per 1,000 is falling.


----------



## Jacob

Chris152 said:


> Sadly, our culture seems to have encouraged a dangerous mix of ignorance and arrogance, which leads people to think they can blurt out their groundless opinions (esp on the net), spread them like they were significant, and encourage others to do the same and act accordingly. Complete contempt for hard-earned learning and expertise. It's a factor as real and dangerous as the disease, another thing to take into account as we make decisions about what we can and can't do in the midst of the pandemic.


It's a right wing thing. They have a prob navigating through debates/discussion about issues and instead choose opinions from a menu, usually offered to them by the right wing media


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> e lockdown that was intended to keep her safe will likely in the long run cause her more harm because we are storing up major healthcare problems for the future



This is a false argument.

You are trying to argue if NHS had continued as it was with no changes and lockdowns didn't happen.......somehow there would have been hospital capacity for non Covid treatments.

I can't for the life of me see how herd immunity would have created more NHS capacity.



Rorschach said:


> As I have mentioned before, a family member is now permanently disabled and dying of cancer because of lockdown, their consultant has admitted that if lockdown had not delayed treatment they would have a (pretty much) fully functioning arm and their cancer would be cured rather than killing them


I am very sorry to hear that, having to deal with healthcare during Covid is very very stressful. I have a bit of an idea, my Dad died last May and my FIL spent from March last year until Jan this year in a care home, then got ill and died. I have had many really tough, emotional decisions to make that wouldn't have occurred without Covid.


I respectfully disagree with your belief the cause is lockdown. Really the cause is the Covid pandemic.


----------



## Selwyn

Blackswanwood said:


> Thanks. I did not put forward a view that it is an exponential killer. I take it from that you don’t have any data that supports your view that India’s death rate per 1,000 is falling.



Lets see how it pans out. I would say it is slowing rapidly now.


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> And not implementing lockdown and allowing the NHS to become completely overwhelmed with covid cases would have improved that situation in what way?



Our hospital had zero, or pretty much zero covid patients at the beginning of lockdown, the hospital never came close to being overwhelmed it was a ghost town. His treatment should have started the first week of April 2020, he was not allowed to enter an empty hospital for treatment. He is not alone, his consultant has many patients who he could have cured (or at least had a damn good crack at it) but are now dying. His treatment had an excellent chance of success with minimal side effects, not my words, his consultants.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> You still don't get it. Watch the video I put up. When you are old and die there are many multiples of factors that will cause you to take your last breath.


I did watch it.

It is all very plausible....but devoid of evidence or facts.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Really the cause is the Covid pandemic.



NO! The cause is the response to the Covid pandemic.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Lets see how it pans out. I would say it is slowing rapidly now.


An opinion that matches your narrative.

Mmmm......


----------



## Selwyn

selectortone said:


> RobinBHM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did watch it.
> 
> It is all very plausible....but devoid of evidence or facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't devoid of facts at all!
Click to expand...


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> An opinion that matches your narrative.
> 
> Mmmm......



Lets revisit in a few days as I say. You retired non working types just stick to the BBC reports and I will look at the other data


----------



## selectortone

Rorschach said:


> Our hospital had zero, or pretty much zero covid patients at the beginning of lockdown, the hospital never came close to being overwhelmed it was a ghost town. His treatment should have started the first week of April 2020, he was not allowed to enter an empty hospital for treatment. He is not alone, his consultant has many patients who he could have cured (or at least had a damn good crack at it) but are now dying. His treatment had an excellent chance of success with minimal side effects, not my words, his consultants.


That doesn't answer my question. One of my daughter's best friends is a scrub nurse at Bournemouth General. She has been seconded to the covid wards for most of the last 12 months. I know for a fact that they were close to being overwhelmed. She loved her job but she hates getting up in the morning right now. At one point they were sending patients to the Nightingale hospital in Exeter. I'll ask again: how would not implementing lockdown, and allowing hospitals to become overwhelmed, have improved waiting times for non-covid conditions?

I'm sorry about your relative. My wife died of cancer so you don't have a monopoly there.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> This is a false argument.
> 
> You are trying to argue if NHS had continued as it was with no changes and lockdowns didn't happen.......somehow there would have been hospital capacity for non Covid treatments.
> 
> I can't for the life of me see how herd immunity would have created more NHS capacity.



I don't think anyone advocated doing nothing.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> NO! The cause is the response to the Covid pandemic.


Herd immunity strategy would have overloaded the hospitals.

You believe it was a choice between lockdown and economy or perhaps NHS treating Covid versus NHS treating other healthcare issues.

I may agree in some local instances that might have been true, but on a countrywide scale....no.

You've suggested 30% of Covid deaths might be related to catching Covid in hospital - well had hospitals not reconfigured for Covid and non Covid sections and leaving more non Covid capacity.....that % would've been higher

In fact had a very hard and fast total lockdown have been put in place with a prevent strategy....hospitals wouldn't have had to be converted to Covid treatment centres.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> I don't think anyone advocated doing nothing.


No they advocated protecting the vulnerable....but Rorschach and any other pro herd immunity / GBD believer has yet to say how this could be done (it can't)


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> That doesn't answer my question. One of my daughter's best friends is a scrub nurse at Bournemouth General. She has been seconded to the covid wards for most of the last 12 months. I know for a fact that they were close to being overwhelmed. She loved her job but she hates getting up in the morning right now. At one point they were sending patients to the Nightingale hospital in Exeter. I'll ask again: how would not implementing lockdown, and allowing hospitals to become overwhelmed, have improved waiting times for non-covid conditions?
> 
> I'm sorry about your relative. My wife died of cancer so you don't have a monopoly there.



Because the hospital was closed purely on the precautionary principle. It wasn't closed during the most recent lockdown when hospitals were actually full of covid patients (ours still wasn't).


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Herd immunity strategy would have overloaded the hospitals.



You don't know that because we never tried it. Stop parroting your BBC nonsense please.


----------



## selectortone

Rorschach said:


> Because the hospital was closed purely on the precautionary principle. It wasn't closed during the most recent lockdown when hospitals were actually full of covid patients (ours still wasn't).


We'll, you're very lucky that your particular hospital wasn't full of covid patients. You still haven't answered my question.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> No they advocated protecting the vulnerable....but Rorschach and any other pro herd immunity / GBD believer has yet to say how this could be done (it can't)



Exactly the same way we already protected the vulnerable, we locked them up, the difference being I wouldn't have locked up millions of healthy people as well.


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> We'll, You're very lucky that your particular hospital wasn't full of covid patients. You still Haven't answered my question.



Yes I have.


----------



## RobinBHM

selectortone said:


> how would not implementing lockdown, and allowing hospitals to become overwhelmed, have improved waiting times for non-covid conditions


If I understand correctly I believe it comes from the simplistic argument of false choice....i.e. It must be a choice between protecting the elderly or the economy.

Or it must be a choice between protecting the elderly or destroying the lives of young people.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> No they advocated protecting the vulnerable....but Rorschach and any other pro herd immunity / GBD believer has yet to say how this could be done (it can't)



To be honest it wouldn't make much difference. The "vulnerable" as you call it were still going to Tesco like everyone else throughout. Viral particles are absolutely everywhere, its rather sweet that you think they can be controlled. 

If furlough wasn't so convenient a lot more people would have gone back to work but it remains a fig leaf for lockdown. Loads of companies worked anyway throughout lockdown - all the trades carried on. Very few people use their mask properly which don't work anyway - the whole thing is a pantomime now. But to be fair the vaccine did 95% of the job in the first 3 to 4 weeks of it being injected into everyone


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Blackswanwood said:


> If you have alternative data I would be very interested if you could share it.


There are always alternative facts. It's a known fact, in fact.

These are fun: Arundhati Roy peddles blatant lies in her propaganda article in The Guardian








NYPost spreads fake news to claim people dying on streets in India


Though the misleading image has been replaced, the NY Post is yet to update the title of the article which still reads that people in India are dying on streets due to COVID-19 outbreak | OpIndia News




www.opindia.com





The problem with India is the colossal number of people. Everyone is excited by the numbers, but no one is putting it in context. India currently has the same number of deaths per 100,000 as Greece. We are coming out of lockdown and getting ready for tourists - no dead littering the streets and overflowing hospitals here, but the number of deaths as a percentage of population is the same. How does that work?


----------



## selectortone

Rorschach said:


> Yes I have.


You haven't. I gave you a pretty typical first hand experience from the covid front-line. How would not implementing lockdown, and allowing the NHS to become overwhelmed, have improved waiting times for non-covid conditions?


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Herd immunity strategy would have overloaded the hospitals.
> 
> You believe it was a choice between lockdown and economy or perhaps NHS treating Covid versus NHS treating other healthcare issues.
> 
> I may agree in some local instances that might have been true, but on a countrywide scale....no.
> 
> You've suggested 30% of Covid deaths might be related to catching Covid in hospital - well had hospitals not reconfigured for Covid and non Covid sections and leaving more non Covid capacity.....that % would've been higher
> 
> In fact had a very hard and fast total lockdown have been put in place with a prevent strategy....hospitals wouldn't have had to be converted to Covid treatment centres.



You are making a lot of assumptions there.

People change their behaviour based on percieved and actual risk. They don't need a govt edict to do it.


----------



## Selwyn

selectortone said:


> You haven't. I gave you a pretty typical first hand experience from the covid front-line. How would not implementing lockdown, and allowing the NHS to become overwhelmed, have improved waiting times for non-covid conditions?



Well how about for a start, hospitals that did not have loads of covid patients and never got lots of covid patients stay open for business last year? They didn't.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Exactly the same way we already protected the vulnerable, we locked them up, the difference being I wouldn't have locked up millions of healthy people as well.



You haven't provided any detail.

How would you identify every vulnerable person?
how would you be able to shield them?

There are millions of vulnerable people, I'd be interested to know how much you think the cost of shielding them would've cost over a year.


If you really believe that was the solution, you can't keep glossing over the detail, bland, dismissive claims don't cut it.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> You are making a lot of assumptions there.
> 
> People change their behaviour based on percieved and actual risk. They don't need a govt edict to do it.


People did change their behaviour, the vulnerable did indeed shield as much as they could.
And still we had hospitals full.

So herd immunity would been much much worse


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Well how about for a start, hospitals that did not have loads of covid patients and never got lots of covid patients stay open for business last year? They didn't.


Do you mean there were thousands of NHS clinical staff with no work to do?


----------



## selectortone

Selwyn said:


> Well how about for a start, hospitals that did not have loads of covid patients and never got lots of covid patients stay open for business last year? They didn't.


Well, I'm glad you had covid-free hospitals. That certainly wasn't the case anywhere around here.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> I'd be interested to know how much you think the cost of shielding them would've cost over a year.



A lot less than lockdown cost. Lockdown cost the economy 251 billion £'s so far. Assuming 10 million vulnerable people that's £25k each to help shield them.


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> Well, I'm glad you had covid-free hospitals. That certainly wasn't the case anywhere around here.



It was the case here, so my relative could have been treated.


----------



## selectortone

Rorschach said:


> It was the case here, so my relative could have been treated.


So you keep saying. It doesn't answer my question.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> People did change their behaviour, the vulnerable did indeed shield as much as they could.
> And still we had hospitals full.
> 
> So herd immunity would been much much worse



Hospitals weren't always all full of covid patients. Many many hospitals were empty. Some were busy for sure but crucially these peaks did not last long - they have not lasted long anywhere in the world - they level off quite quickly and the pattern is the same worldwide - doesn't matter if there has been a lockdown/ masks etc or not

This whole shielding idea doesn't really stand up to scrutiny anyway. Unless you genuinely stayed indoors alone 24/7 then you may have reduced risk but every clinically vulnerable person would likely have been exposed to all these covid particles. 




RobinBHM said:


> Do you mean there were thousands of NHS clinical staff with no work to do?



Oh yes for sure. For a short time. GP's managed to get rid of quite a few timewasters as well though. I've met about 6-10 nursing and paramedic people who were twiddling thumbs for a bit.


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> So you keep saying. It doesn't answer my question.



So you keep saying, I can't do any more if you refuse to read it.


----------



## Selwyn

selectortone said:


> Well, I'm glad you had covid-free hospitals. That certainly wasn't the case anywhere around here.



I think you need to read the answer properly. I did not say they were covid-free. Covid free is a fantasy


----------



## Chris152

It's a real shame the thread has degenerated to this level. Same old nonsense.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Trainee neophyte said:


> There are always alternative facts. It's a known fact, in fact.
> 
> These are fun: Arundhati Roy peddles blatant lies in her propaganda article in The Guardian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYPost spreads fake news to claim people dying on streets in India
> 
> 
> Though the misleading image has been replaced, the NY Post is yet to update the title of the article which still reads that people in India are dying on streets due to COVID-19 outbreak | OpIndia News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.opindia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with India is the colossal number of people. Everyone is excited by the numbers, but no one is putting it in context. India currently has the same number of deaths per 100,000 as Greece. We are coming out of lockdown and getting ready for tourists - no dead littering the streets and overflowing hospitals here, but the number of deaths as a percentage of population is the same. How does that work?



I agree that the data is incomplete, imperfect and open to interpretation. 

I would suggest there are many differences between India and Greece. Based on what I know from people I work with the number of deaths reported since the Indian Government realised they had an emerging problem has been massively understated which is probably one factor. FWIW I’d be surprised if a number of other countries have not also massaged their data to suit their narrative.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Many many hospitals were empty


Please could you provide the evidence.....as you seem to be stating opinion as fact.


----------



## D_W

Selwyn said:


> Not the majority no. But where there were lots of covid deaths localised in one hospital (where the blame went on people having parties or breaking lockdown rules) it was often a spread within the hospital environment.
> 
> Remember when people die when they are old it is not one single virus or morbidity that carts them off.



That's probably trackable (number of cases that originate in a hospital). Of staff at mayo clinic,, it's about 7% (not 7% of people get covid, but 7% of staff that had positive covid tests were tracked to an internal source, 93% external). 

Not getting too far into the debate about whether someone with heart failure (who may otherwise live several years) dies of covid or heart failure, they do die much earlier on average if they're exposed to covid. Around half a million excess deaths here last year , almost identical to the number of covid cases with no drop in cause of death for most other cases other than the flu (which is a tiny fraction of that number any given year). average life years lost for patients across the board (which means deaths and most deceased have a comorbidity) is about 10 years here, meaning that introducing covid to a same cohort (not vs. healthy people) reduces life expectancy 10 years. Overall population life expectancy decreases 1.13 years in one year due to covid. Not sure when the last time was that such a thing happened - WWII?


----------



## Blackswanwood

Chris152 said:


> It's a real shame the thread has degenerated to this level. Same old nonsense.


I agree Chris - a few pages back there was comment that it was good that the thread had avoided the nastiness of the previous threads.


----------



## RobinBHM

Chris152 said:


> It's a real shame the thread has degenerated to this level. Same old nonsense.


Yes I was thinking the same thing.

We need to get back to the thread title.

The data is still emerging on vaccine efficacy and its really useful to have this thread alive to discuss it as it does.


----------



## RobinBHM

Blackswanwood said:


> I agree Chris - a few pages back there was comment that it was good that the thread had avoided the nastiness of the previous threads.


That's very true.

It is partly my fault, I should know better than just going over old ground. I will drop out until this thread returns to its title....which is highly relavent still.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

RobinBHM said:


> Do you mean there were thousands of NHS clinical staff with no work to do?


----------



## Selwyn

I'm just astonished so few of you on here see the role of natural immunity. It does a massive job

The other issue of course is if the comfy pensioners on here look the other way they may see the damage they do to the poor.


----------



## Jonm

To try and get this back on track, I posted some information about onward transmission of coronavirus. There has been much talk in the media about restricting access to say theatres to people who were either vaccinated or tested negative for coronavirus. The assumption being that if you are vaccinated you are not likely to pass coronavirus on but with no evidence to support that.

The research suggested a reduction of only about 43%. It is not as simple as that but my comments received very little in the way of response to what seems to me to be an important issue about how we get back to near normal.

Here are some links to my comments. 



Jonm said:


> I have been looking at the recent reports of vaccines reducing the transmission of coronavirus. No distinction is made between types of vaccine. Here are some links
> 
> Covid: One dose of vaccine halves transmission - study
> 
> One dose of COVID-19 vaccine can cut household transmission by up to half
> 
> expert reaction to preprint looking at COVID-19 vaccination and household transmission | Science Media Centre
> 
> Public Health England have investigated the effect of the vaccine on
> transmission of coronavirus within households
> 
> They have looked at 24000 cases of vaccinated people with laboratory confirmed symptoms of coronavirus, and how it spread to their household members who had not been vaccinated.
> They then compared this with unvaccinated people with laboratory confirmed symptoms of coronavirus, and how it spread to their household members who had not been vaccinated
> 
> They found that the vaccine reduced onward transmission by between 38% and 49%.
> 
> This protection is on top of the reduced risk of a vaccinated person developing symptomatic infection in the first place, which is around 60 to 65% – 4 weeks after one dose of either vaccine.
> 
> So putting that together, one dose of the vaccine reduces catching Covid and showing symptoms, by 62% and reduces passing it on to an unvaccinated household member by a further 43%. So the vaccine reduces onward transmission to an unvaccinated household member by nearly 80% overall (that is my conclusion).
> 
> It is good news that the vaccine actually reduces onward transmission in the home setting and hopefully It will do even better after two doses and possibly even better again in the non home setting. It seems to be a thorough unbiased analysis.
> 
> I am not sure where it leaves us with asymptomatic disease and I have some concerns about it possibly being elderly vaccinated people with younger unvaccinated people, not being as physically close as say an unvaccinated couple.
> 
> Perhaps I am being too critical or cautious but this disease has wrong footed us a number of times.





Jonm said:


> I shall try to explain my last but one paragraph. My comment is specifically about this research which is the onward transmission of Covid by people living in the same household , showing symptoms of Covid and the effect of the vaccination on transmission. It is not about the vaccines in general and reducing hospitalisation.
> 
> I am talking about the type of households being compared. A household with a vaccinated person living with unvaccinated people is likely to be an elderly person (vaccinated and showing signs of Covid) living with younger unvaccinated people. This is different to the households without a vaccinated person where the unvaccinated person is more likely to be part of a couple who sleep in the same room together. The social distancing is very different in the two above cases and could account for some of the difference in transmission.
> 
> The reports I have seen do not explain how the households were selected, other than to say “_There were 552,984 residential households of two to 10 people where there was at least one case.” After excluding households that didn’t meet the (very appropriate) study criteria there were 365,447 households, 1,018,842, and 102,662 secondary cases in the study. These are substantial numbers, so the conclusions are robust_”
> 
> I hope that explains the point I am trying to make.


----------



## Peterm1000

Very amused that the most controversial thread right now is not in the controversial forum!


----------



## RobinBHM

Jonm said:


> The research suggested a reduction of only about 43%. It is not as simple as that but my comments received very little in the way of response to what seems to me to be an important issue about how we get back to near normal



It seems to me we have multiple factors that will lead to a return to a (new) normal

1. Almost all vulnerable cohorts are now vaccinated.
2. Those vaccinated have a much reduced chance of being hospitalised
3 those vaccinated are 43% less likely to spread infection
4 the remaining cohorts are in age groups far less likely to be very ill.

I suppose it could be argued if everybody above 18 is vaccinated, does it matters if vaccination reduces infection spread at all?

I wonder what lifespan the vaccine has in offering protection and whether protection and reduction in infection spread decay at the same rate.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

I think you may have missed one part of the equation - the probability of getting infected once vaccinated.

Assume after two jabs the vaccine is 80% (+/-) effective. The risk of someone vaccinated passing on the infection is ~60%.

Therefore the overall risk of someone vaccinated being able to transmit the virus is 20% x 60% = 12%. Well below the R rate of even the more virulent strains.

As approx 70% of the UK adult population already have covid antibodies, overall we are now at a point where herd immunity will kick in and limit R to below 1.

I know this is slightly simplistic as it assumes the population is homegenous - in younger largely unvaccinated age groups R could increase beyond 1. Whether this really matters is questionable as they are far less impacted by the virus anyway.


----------



## D_W

The nonsense trying to figure out per individual case rates completely ignores the real data pools like washington state where you can view the cohort data for both different cohorts. Despite the vaccinated cohort being much more vulnerable, in two months where there were 185 covid deaths in the state, 2 were from the vaccinated cohort. 

Thousands of hospitalizations and 10 from the vaccinated cohort

44000 covid cases and 100 positive cases from the vaccinated cohort. The vaccinated cohort was 17% of the total population, so you can adjust those to be on a per capita basis if you want. The idea that the transmission rate is half is some sort of poor study. 

If you distilled the general population to similar size cohorts, you'd expect about 8800 cases in gen-pop vs. the 100 from the vaccinated cohort. 

If the transmission rate was only halved or even quartered for vaccinated populations, you wouldn't get anything close to that.


----------



## sometimewoodworker

RobinBHM said:


> I wonder what lifespan the vaccine has in offering protection and whether protection and reduction in infection spread decay at the same rate.


That data is not yet available to be collected.

The reason is that trial 4 (this involves all vaccinated individuals) has not been in place long enough to allow any firm conclusions, and yes they are being intensely studied.

The only indication there is is the immune response that SARS & MERS have generated. This immunity is at 17 years (that when they appeared) and going up each year.

This of course is only an indication and certainly not anything that can be relied on.

Influenza immunity is also long lasting but because influenza has a large number of different possible “H” & “N” combinations, each one of them different from others, this means that immunity to 1 version doesn’t do much for another.

fortunately covid19, so far, is not producing changes that are evading the current vaccine effectiveness. So the current vaccine protection may drop from 95% to 80% but even at that level it is still way better than the flue vaccination that is usually around 50% effective.


----------



## rwillett

Blackswanwood said:


> I agree Chris - a few pages back there was comment that it was good that the thread had avoided the nastiness of the previous threads.



That was my comment. I also pointed out that blocking some people improved the quality of the thread. 

I cannot improve on some of the highly knowledgeable people on here, this is 100% not my area of expertise, which is why I do not normally comment, however I can follow many of the arguments both for and against some of the actions of the govt and NHS. 

I found that blocking some people meant that whenever their blocked comment appeared I simply ignore their comment and the reply. This meant I never went down their rabbit hole. The blocked comment was a nice and easy to see 'red flag'. 

Some people love throwing out posts which appear on the surface to have a ring of truth but really don't have much to support them. It takes a lot of effort from people to unpick their arguments. Simply ignoring them is easier. Whilst I may miss the 1 in 20 posts that add value, I also miss the 19 in 20 stuff that misses the mark. 

I have no issues with arguments backed up with real facts. I also understand that we still do not know everything about covid-19 so people can't always be certain. Some people seem to latch onto areas where no one is clear to try and drive a wedge into the argument. I tend to skim their responses as their names are familiar.

I appreciate that some people are genuinely knowledgeable and try to fight rumours, half truths and garbage with real arguments backed up by facts. Please keep doing this. 

Rob


----------



## Robbo60

In the end 


Jonm said:


> You make a valid point and it is a case of looking at what has happened here and around the world when we get to a better situation regarding Covid. The government will talk about vaccine rollout and try to make us forget what happened before.
> 
> Personally I want to know what “Exercise Cygnus, a 2016 exercise to test the UK’s preparedness for a flu pandemic“ told the government and what action they took. This report has been suppressed but it may now be published.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pandemic preparedness: Government must release 2016 report, says information commissioner
> 
> 
> The Information Commissioner’s Office has ordered the government to release an unpublished report on Exercise Cygnus, a 2016 exercise to test the UK’s preparedness for a flu pandemic. Six months ago the NHS doctor Moosa Qureshi submitted a request under freedom of information legislation to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bmj.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that countries who have dealt with mers and SARS did better than us so what lessons did we learn from them at the start of the pandemic.
> 
> Yes it is easy to be wise after the event but the government has vast resources and advice to call upon. It is a case of whether they took the threat seriously, looked at what other countries were doing, obtained and listened to the available advice and made informed decisions. Or did follow their instincts until they were forced to change by the number of deaths and serious Illness.
> 
> In the end it is what people believe at the next election, whether it is relevant then and what the alternatives are.


In the end it doesn't matter what rules/guidance/laws they bring in if certain sections of the population don't take any notice. e.g. Students returning last Autumn, Liverpool supporters having street parties when they won the PL! (probably a bit of jealousy there as my team will never win it)


----------



## Jonm

[


Terry - Somerset said:


> I think you may have missed one part of the equation - the probability of getting infected once vaccinated.
> 
> Assume after two jabs the vaccine is 80% (+/-) effective. The risk of someone vaccinated passing on the infection is ~60%.
> 
> Therefore the overall risk of someone vaccinated being able to transmit the virus is 20% x 60% = 12%. Well below the R rate of even the more virulent strains.
> 
> As approx 70% of the UK adult population already have covid antibodies, overall we are now at a point where herd immunity will kick in and limit R to below 1.
> 
> I know this is slightly simplistic as it assumes the population is homegenous - in younger largely unvaccinated age groups R could increase beyond 1. Whether this really matters is questionable as they are far less impacted by the virus anyway.


If you look at my linked posts I made that point, considering the situation after one dose.
_“So putting that together, one dose of the vaccine reduces catching Covid and showing symptoms, by 62% and reduces passing it on to an unvaccinated household member by a further 43%. So the vaccine reduces onward transmission to an unvaccinated household member by nearly 80% overall (that is my conclusion).”_


----------



## Selwyn

Blackswanwood said:


> Thanks for your explanation but I am afraid I do not follow your logic.
> 
> You said that there was selective reporting and have quoted the death rate per 1000 which by all accounts Is increasing.
> 
> I have inserted the data on daily deaths below. My understanding which is based on speaking with people I work with in India is that the reported numbers are significantly understated.
> 
> View attachment 109692
> 
> 
> If you have alternative data I would be very interested if you could share it.



Its now filtering through to the BBC that the Indian Covid cases are slowing. So it is potentially safe for you to now entertain the idea that it might be slowing that the BBC has told you this. I said yesterday it appeared to be the case from the data I was looking at - its also an eminently predictable virus anyway and has been since April 2020, not least because it has so many similarities to other virus and other coronavirus'.

There is an addendum that number of tests may be slowing as well so that will be skewing the results and it is potentially true. Its a bit like in the UK when they do surge testing or mass testing of cities - you are bound to find some increases or decreases accordingly depending on testing levels.

But the pattern is pretty likely to be that the virus has reached its surge phase and will now retreat over the next 6 weeks. Mass media will forget in a couple of weeks and then move elsewhere - I expect it will be the focus on a new potential "deadly" variant again....

But fundamentally all you can do is look after yourself properly. Keep healthy, get outdoors, wash your hands, see your friends and move on with your lives and spend your money in places that gives income for younger people. Don't be expecting the govt to manage a virus.

Almost everyone in the UK has now been vaccinated who is vulnerable.


----------



## Selwyn

Robbo60 said:


> In the end
> 
> In the end it doesn't matter what rules/guidance/laws they bring in if certain sections of the population don't take any notice. e.g. Students returning last Autumn, Liverpool supporters having street parties when they won the PL! (probably a bit of jealousy there as my team will never win it)



It was a popular narrative that students etc were all being irresponsible but I don't think there was many if any death from last sept-dec for any university students from covid? 

The biggest issue for covid spread (constantly deflected) were once you go into hospital you were vulnerable as the R rate was so high - but we cannot pretend any more that this is a disease that kills all sorts indiscrimenately - it doesn't. It overwhelmingly affects the old and vulnerable (apparently this group are impossible to identify!)


----------



## Keith Cocker

Rorschach said:


> Assuming 10 million vulnerable people that's £25k each to help shield them.


That seems money well spent to me.


----------



## Rorschach

Keith Cocker said:


> That seems money well spent to me.



Except that we didn't do that, we stuffed up the lives of millions in the long term instead and when the old and vulnerable people we "saved" (150k still dead apparently so we didn't do that well) are long gone, those of us left will live harder, shorter and more miserable lives.


----------



## sometimewoodworker

Selwyn said:


> The biggest issue for covid spread (constantly deflected) were once you go into hospital you were vulnerable


The numbers of people catching Covid in hospitals while not zero is a tiny percentage of the people becoming infected. 


Selwyn said:


> but we cannot pretend any more that this is a disease that kills all sorts indiscrimenately - it doesn't.


Your information is badly wrong it does kill and injure all sorts. and ignores the significant problems of people who have been infected suffering long term bad effects.


----------



## Rorschach

sometimewoodworker said:


> The numbers of people catching Covid in hospitals while not zero is a tiny percentage of the people becoming infected.



It could be as many as 2/3rds of covid infections were actually caught in hospitals! Of course numbers vary but it is clear it is not a tiny % as you claim.


----------



## sometimewoodworker

RobinBHM said:


> I wonder what lifespan the vaccine has in offering protection


Current data is 8 months. The only reason that it is 8 months is that that is when the first vaccinations took place. Ask again next month and the answer could be 8 months but is more likely to be 9 months.

in more simple terms the length of protection is going up 1 day every day and shows no signs of reduction in protection.


----------



## Selwyn

sometimewoodworker said:


> The numbers of people catching Covid in hospitals while not zero is a tiny percentage of the people becoming infected.



"infected" doesn't really mean a lot until people are properly ill. Its madness to pretend everyone who had a positive covid test was ill because they weren't


----------



## Peterm1000

Selwyn said:


> It was a popular narrative that students etc were all being irresponsible but I don't think there was many if any death from last sept-dec for any university students from covid?
> 
> The biggest issue for covid spread (constantly deflected) were once you go into hospital you were vulnerable as the R rate was so high - but we cannot pretend any more that this is a disease that kills all sorts indiscrimenately - it doesn't. It overwhelmingly affects the old and vulnerable (apparently this group are impossible to identify!)



I think the comment about students misses the point. Most students are 18-20 year olds who spend time at university and also travel home to see their families. Those families will often contain older relatives and parents in their 50s who can be vulnerable. The concern was not that students would get ill themselves, it was that they would be great transportation mechanisms to more vulnerable parts of the community. This is the same for asymptomatic cases. The case of Mary Mallon (Typhoid Mary) is an interesting illustration of what happens when an asymptomatic person does not take precautions.

It is true that the worst effects are for the oldest and sickest parts of society (death). However, 1 in 20 people who get covid will still have symptoms 8 weeks later. I don't think this is a disease anyone should want to seek out.


----------



## Jonm

Selwyn said:


> Its now filtering through to the BBC that the Indian Covid cases are slowing. So it is potentially safe for you to now entertain the idea that it might be slowing that the BBC has told you this. I said yesterday it appeared to be the case from the data I was looking at - its also an eminently predictable virus anyway and has been since April 2020, not least because it has so many similarities to other virus and other coronavirus'.
> 
> There is an addendum that number of tests may be slowing as well so that will be skewing the results and it is potentially true. Its a bit like in the UK when they do surge testing or mass testing of cities - you are bound to find some increases or decreases accordingly depending on testing levels.
> 
> But the pattern is pretty likely to be that the virus has reached its surge phase and will now retreat over the next 6 weeks. Mass media will forget in a couple of weeks and then move elsewhere - I expect it will be the focus on a new potential "deadly" variant again....
> 
> But fundamentally all you can do is look after yourself properly. Keep healthy, get outdoors, wash your hands, see your friends and move on with your lives and spend your money in places that gives income for younger people. Don't be expecting the govt to manage a virus.
> 
> Almost everyone in the UK has now been vaccinated who is vulnerable.


Do you have a link to the bbc article that demonstrates “Its now filtering through to the BBC that the Indian Covid cases are slowing”


----------



## Selwyn

Peterm1000 said:


> I think the comment about students misses the point. Most students are 18-20 year olds who spend time at university and also travel home to see their families. Those families will often contain older relatives and parents in their 50s who can be vulnerable. The concern was not that students would get ill themselves, it was that they would be great transportation mechanisms to more vulnerable parts of the community. This is the same for asymptomatic cases. The case of Mary Mallon (Typhoid Mary) is an interesting illustration of what happens when an asymptomatic person does not take precautions.
> 
> It is true that the worst effects are for the oldest and sickest parts of society (death). However, 1 in 20 people who get covid will still have symptoms 8 weeks later. I don't think this is a disease anyone should want to seek out.



I get what you are saying however the whole message that asymptomatic carrying was a key vector is still wildly overdone. Pandemics are never driven by asymptomatics.

No one is seeking the virus out. Also you can't really avoid it anyway. It was already everywhere and endemic last March. Why do people keep pretending they can avoid these minute particles?


----------



## Selwyn

Jonm said:


> Do you have a link to the bbc article that demonstrates “Its now filtering through to the BBC that the Indian Covid cases are slowing”



Was on the front page this morning. As I've said before lets see how it evolves in the next 10 days. I'm pretty certain it will level off or decline. Its what virus' do. Media will seek another country then


----------



## Jonm

Robbo60 said:


> Liverpool supporters having street parties when they won the PL! (probably a bit of jealousy there as my team will never win it)


How considerate of your team not to put temptation in your way.


----------



## Peterm1000

Selwyn said:


> I get what you are saying however the whole message that asymptomatic carrying was a key vector is still wildly overdone. Pandemics are never driven by asymptomatics.



I don't know your medical research background, but the BMJ disagrees with you.

Almost all Covid tests are not live virus tests. In other words, when you get a PCR or lateral flow test, it is looking for evidence of the virus whether or not you have an active infection. Medics can calculate the percentage of people being tested who have no symptoms. They can estimate the percentage of people who are asymptomatic who are actually carrying the virus (asymptomatic people typically don't get tests so it is just an estimate). The number of PCR type tests carried out in the UK in the last 12 months is around 150 million. To say confidently how many people were actually infected would require far, far more tests. There aren't tests for "infectiousness" and what makes someone more or less likely to infect someone is not well understood.

So what that means is that no one knows the extent to which Covid is carried asymptomatically or the extent to which asymptomatic carriers spread a virus.


----------



## TominDales

Rorschach said:


> Any insight as to why they want it?


My sons aged 16 to 22 are also keen to have the jab. There are a number of factors at play.
1. A number of their friends and school friends have been very ill with Covid. While most have recovered some haven't, one aged 24 still has not regained taste or smell after 5 months. Another was off work for 6 months with chronic stomach ache, he could not play footie etc with his mates, chronic diarrhea, at one point thought he may be permanently disabled, but now back to work but still quite incapacitated - he is the natural lead of the footie side, so its been shocking to see him so ill. Another's father died of it aged 59, they had stayed at this friends house a lot, so he was close to them. Their cousin still has stomach pain nearly 12 months after getting covid. This has made the virus very real in a way that flu hasn't been an issue.
2. They picked up out concerns, as relatively elderly parents - my wife was seriously ill last winter with a covid like bug. Also one shares a house with a diabetic and they have been ultra careful to protect him.
3. They see it as a passport back to normality. At their age friendship groups are important to them.
4. Two are still at school and have to take the lateral flow test twice a week - that makes it quite real.
Of all the reasons, the seeing their friends get ill is probably the dominant one, we live in a small community and this has been bigger than the usual run of tragic happenings (ie about one student a year gets a terminal/ debilitating illness in normal years).


----------



## Spectric

This whole debate on vacines could be rendered pointless if the blundering Borris opens up foreign travel too quick, the cases in India are out of control, twenty million and rising with an unknown death toll and it is only time before this virus mutates so lets leave it outside of the UK and wait because holidays are just not important in the grand scheme of things. These travel corridors do not just stop at the other end, people then travel further afield and take part in a mass mixing process before returning back along the so called travel corridor, so EVERYONE returning to the UK should be forced to quarantine for the ten days in the government hotels and then they could go wherever they like and no threat on return.

Borris is rather over confident, he is not showing the torries as an honest and open party and thinks the voters will accept their corrupt style of governing, spending more on wallpaper than a lot of his voters actually earn, that is not leading by example.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Pandemics are never driven by asymptomatics



If people aren't symptomatic until they are very ill, then they are most likely to be only a vector when they are at home in bed or in hospital.

Please could explain further how pandemics are driven by symptomatic people, because it does not seem terribly logical.


----------



## Peterm1000

Spectric said:


> This whole debate on vacines could be rendered pointless if the blundering Borris opens up foreign travel too quick, the cases in India are out of control, twenty million and rising with an unknown death toll and it is only time before this virus mutates so lets leave it outside of the UK and wait because holidays are just not important in the grand scheme of things. These travel corridors do not just stop at the other end, people then travel further afield and take part in a mass mixing process before returning back along the so called travel corridor, so EVERYONE returning to the UK should be forced to quarantine for the ten days in the government hotels and then they could go wherever they like and no threat on return.
> 
> Borris is rather over confident, he is not showing the torries as an honest and open party and thinks the voters will accept their corrupt style of governing, spending more on wallpaper than a lot of his voters actually earn, that is not leading by example.



I sympathise with this viewpoint. It's undoubtedly safer if no one travels - domestic or international. But people are travelling already - 10,000 a day in and out of the UK. It's probably less risky for me (fully vaccinated) to travel to my house in Spain (zero active Covid cases in that region of Spain - home to several million people) than it is for me to travel to see you in Cumbria. I think we have to balance civil liberties against risk.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> If people aren't symptomatic until they are very ill, then they are most likely to be only a vector when they are at home in bed or in hospital.
> 
> Please could explain further how pandemics are driven by symptomatic people, because it does not seem terribly logical.



You don't have to be terribly ill to be symptomatic, most people with Covid have very mild symptoms.


----------



## RobinBHM

TominDales said:


> A number of their friends and school friends have been very ill with Covid. While most have recovered some haven't, one aged 24 still has not regained taste or smell after 5 months. Another was off work for 6 months with chronic stomach ache, he could not play footie etc with his mates, chronic diarrhea, at one point thought he may be permanently disabled, but now back to work but still quite incapacitated


That is very interesting.

My niece works as a radiographer in the NHS, back in Jan she spent her entire time doing CT scans on Covid patients....and she said hospitalised people were of all ages from 20 upwards. 30s 40s and up. Sure the younger ones spent only a few days in hospital, but virtually all have suffered long Covid.

My niece has 2 colleagues that had Covid, one now has heart problems and is now only working part time, the other severe lung issues....and has had to stop work


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Was on the front page this morning. As I've said before lets see how it evolves in the next 10 days. I'm pretty certain it will level off or decline. Its what virus' do. Media will seek another country then


You have unfortunately taken it out of context.

"The government says cases are "slowing down", but testing numbers have also dipped, meaning the true caseload could be far higher"








India Covid: Opposition calls for full national lockdown


The prime minister is resisting a nationwide lockdown due to the potential economic impact.



www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> You don't have to be terribly ill to be symptomatic



Ah ok, so there have been millions of people that have had very mild symptoms and not considered they have Covid....so haven't isolated and have infected others.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> nd endemic last March



Scientists seem to think not.

In Feb 2021
"In a February survey of more than 100 immunologists, infectious-disease researchers and virologists, almost 90% said that SARS-Cov-2, the virus that causes Covid, will become endemic"


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Ah ok, so there have been millions of people that have had very mild symptoms and not considered they have Covid....so haven't isolated and have infected others.



Sounds about right, though my suspicion is that many didn't have a choice in their non-isolation and they were told masks work so I wouldn't be surprised if mask wearing actually helped the spread as people thought they were protected.


----------



## southendwoodworker

@Rorschach


Selwyn said:


> Lockdown isn't based on data or evidence. We've not even done a cost benefit on it!



I know one family that lost 5 people to covid.

I know of someone who didn't think covid was a big deal when they had it, broke lockdown, snuck around to her dad's for Christmas's. Merry Christmas, he died 2 weeks later.

I know a family of 4. Mum, dad, son and daughter. Son fit young and strong. Everyone but the daughter died within the same week.

My wife and I manage a number of people. 4 of which were young strong and healthy, and have long covid. They have to crawl up stairs. One was too weak to turn their head and drink water from a straw. One has a wrecked heart. Another almost died a half dozen times.

I wonder what cost benefit analysis they'd prefer?

The people I know that haven't experienced bad covid first hand trivialise the impact, forget they are lucky, and generally treat their wallet as higher importance than another's life.

It's easy to call for cost benefit analysis if youre not having having to pay the debt, from an armchair, with super power of hindsight.

The easiest way not to catch a disease is to not be near people with it. Lockdown ensures that. What more benefit than being alive is there?


----------



## Rorschach

@southendwoodworker I am sorry to hear of the troubles you have experienced but I can assure you your experience is far from common, indeed I would say it's almost fantastically exceptional.


----------



## TominDales

Rorschach said:


> Conflicts of interest among the UK government’s covid-19 advisers
> 
> 
> Little is known about the interests of the doctors, scientists, and academics on whose advice the UK government relies to manage the pandemic. Attempts to discover more are frequently thwarted, finds Paul D Thacker As the number of UK deaths caused by covid-19 reached 50 000 in early November...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bmj.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rishi Sunak refuses to say if he will profit from Moderna Covid vaccine
> 
> 
> Chancellor’s hedge fund invested heavily in Moderna, which had 94.5% trial success
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of chattering about politicians in various countries and their links to shares in vaccines companies. It looks iffy at the very least.
> 
> As I say, treatments would appear to be being ignored in favour of vaccines. I know that prevention is better than cure as the saying goes, but when the disease is not very dangerous, a cure doesn't make money as hardly anyone needs it. Prevention in the form of a vaccine can be much profitable as you can give it to everyone, regardless of need.


I think there is a general misconception between drug treatments and vaccine use particularity for antiviral treatment.

Unlike antibacterial tablets, anti viral drugs are usually only partially effective, and have to be taken early on to have any effect. Which in the case of Covid would mean relying on early diagnostic tests, as symptoms tend to emerge late in this disease. The only true cure for Covid is monoclonal antibody treatment, and these cost ca $100,000 a time.

Vaccine treatments are very cost effective on a per person basis, which is why governments globally use them so extensively, even in the poorest countries. The AZ vaccine is about £5 a shot. Pfizer is one of the more costly at ca £25. In drugs companies usually don't make a profit from epidemic vaccines, its high risk R&D business and its use is likely to be for a short duration. Covid being an exception in being very widespread and long lasting and even with Covid, only a handful of drug companies will make money - notably Pfizer. In the Sars, Ebola epidemics the drug makers lost money - its usually part of their corporate social responsibility to respond to epidemics.
Cheap medicines offered as a prophylactic will cost more than a vaccine over the patients lifetime - antimalarials for instance, a vaccine would vastly reduce the drug and medical cost. The (as yet) unproved drug ivermectin would cost £60 per year as a prophylactic and its one of the cheapest. The other consideration is drug safety when taking drugs on this vast scale. Vaccines registration demands very high levels of safety and efficacy as they are taken by otherwise healthy people. The is not the case with drug treatments. Most anti-viral drugs have side effects, some quite severe and are far more of a hazard than a vaccine. Another issue is treatment usually means hospitalisation or medical supervision, which add to the cost - although not visibly in the UK.
The other huge benefit of vaccination is that it instills a herd immunity in a population which protects those who cannot or will not take a vaccine. Whereas drug treatment can only supress infection - malaria being an example.
Your statement that 'when a disease is not very dangerous, a cure doesn't make money as hardly anyone needs it' is not borne out by the reality of the drugs industry - an industry I've been involved with for 30years. Money is made from chronic long term 'non-dangerous' diseases in which case the patient suffers and so wants curing, but doesn't die so hangs around taking the drug. Just look at the market for cough and cold remedies, and the side effects of obesity epidemic such as diabetes and hypertension . On the contrary, drugs companies find epidemics hard to make money from, as they are dangerous enough to require a response but as mentioned before they usually don't last long enough to get a return on investment. Most drug companies approach epidemics as a 'good citizen' thing to do and occasionally get lucky and make money.

Looking through the two articles, Guardian and BMJ, the journalists are doing their job in questioning peoples motivation, but in both cases I think these are rather thin allegations. Guardian: the sad fact is that maga-rich people like Sunak will make money on any development as they have investments in most major business sectors. However in this case, its clear that the governments decision was to spread bet on vaccine supply and Moderna's was one of the smallest contracts (until the vaccines efficacy was proven), and it still a small order, relative to others, and in line with other countries ordering pattern. Also they are not even sure if he still has shares in Moderna since he left his city job in 2013. So, OK investigative journalism, but no smoking gun. 
The BMJ seems similarly unconcerning, its a fact that sage is populated by volunteer professionals as are its numerous subcommittees, so they all have full time jobs in their respective professions (mainly academics), and so potentially conflicted, in fact that's true of most very senior people in all walks of life as they tend to be called upon to be advisors . They key thing (and this article is pushing for it) is to know who they are, so that its a transparent process. Its hard to see people manipulating Sage to their personal advantage. It has 87 members all of whom are there because they can hold their arguments and point of view to tough scrutiny. Sage is the peak of a body of sub committees, Spy-I and B, Modeling, social care, minorities, NHS and hospital sub-committees. Its distilling input from several hundred people. In my view it kind of polices itself from its very diversity. There maybe a 'professional mindset bias' but from what I've seen they seem to be influenced by the data as it has unfolded.


----------



## Jameshow

Rorschach said:


> @southendwoodworker I am sorry to hear of the troubles you have experienced but I can assure you your experience is far from common, indeed I would say it's almost fantastically exceptional.



I don't know Southend woodworker from Adam but I have heard many simalar cases. 

Cheers James


----------



## Rorschach

Jameshow said:


> I don't know Southend woodworker from Adam but I have heard many simalar cases.
> 
> Cheers James



Then why aren't the BBC all over it? They are gagging for stories like this.


----------



## TominDales

Trainee neophyte said:


> . India currently has the same number of deaths per 100,000 as Greece. We are coming out of lockdown and getting ready for tourists - no dead littering the streets and overflowing hospitals here, but the number of deaths as a percentage of population is the same. How does that work?


Overflowing hospital is explained by the HC underspend in India. 
Greece has 8 times as many beds per 1000 people compared to India. Greece has 4.3 beds per 1000 vs India 0.5

I agree with you its the colossal size of India that makes its figures hard to grasp, its 20 times population of UK and 140 times that of Greece!
The real worry about India is if the virus spreads to the rural communities where there are almost no hospitals. Generally Covid spreads where there is a mobile population and especially with commuter towns, so its Maharastra state which with Mubai is the most affluent and state and the biggest population in flux. As long as people dont move about it should settle down, the worry is if people travel back to the rural villages and it become endemic before the vaccine is rolled out.


----------



## D_W

Rorschach said:


> Then why aren't the BBC all over it? They are gagging for stories like this.



uh, they were? I remember tons of stories like this:








Coronavirus Ravages 7 Members of a Single Family, Killing 4 (Published 2020)


The matriarch of the large New Jersey family died Wednesday night without ever knowing that her two oldest children had died before her.




www.nytimes.com


----------



## TominDales

Rorschach said:


> Then why aren't the BBC all over it? They are gagging for stories like this.


Your question is quite profound as it points to an essential paradox of this pandemic (maybe all pandemics are similar). The pandemic is not at all uniform, its in reality a series of very local epidemics.
You can be in one region and not hear of a case and just down the road its pandemonium. In our case rural North Yorkshire has hardly had any cases locally, yet there are streets in Bradford decimated by it. The cases we know of, are all of friends/relative who either live in conurbations or in one case commuted to a NHS trust in London from Yorkshire. Some of the island really show this clearly, Barra and islands of Scotland, no cases for months and then suddenly they are overrun with it. Isle of Man had no cases from May to January and then 100 a day in February. Before vaccination broke this pattern, the outlook was zero cases in a town until it arrives.. it grows exponentially until people react/isolate and then it peters out. and the cycle repeats itself in another location or comes back for a second visit.

The paradox is that for most people they either see very little or a lot. You don't get an average smeared across the world. its also why the pandemic has been more deadly than might have been the case. Its creeps up on unsuspecting locations and then pounces exponentially. Only in states with draconian government action have they successfully dealt with this adversary.


----------



## Jonm

RobinBHM said:


> That is very interesting.
> 
> My niece works as a radiographer in the NHS, back in Jan she spent her entire time doing CT scans on Covid patients....and she said hospitalised people were of all ages from 20 upwards. 30s 40s and up. Sure the younger ones spent only a few days in hospital, but virtually all have suffered long Covid.
> 
> My niece has 2 colleagues that had Covid, one now has heart problems and is now only working part time, the other severe lung issues....and has had to stop work


Tomindale and robin, Thankyou for posting this information, it is useful Information and helpful. I would appreciate anyone else's comments on the effect of COVID on younger people. For me the decision to take the vaccine was easy, because of my age. Younger family members, when offered the vaccine may ask me for my thoughts. My only fairly direct experience of covid is a relative who died and a friend of a friend whose father died, both in the older vulnerable age group.


----------



## D_W

complications on younger folks who aren't obese or otherwise sick are fairly rare, but myocarditis, etc, is observed here, even in professional athletes. In some cases, they have to refrain from playing at least for a while. 

Severe cases can weaken heart function and leave otherwise fit and healthy people short of breath (without having to have associated lung issues).


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Then why aren't the BBC all over it? They are gagging for stories like this.


"the media hasn't covered it"

A common cry by conspiracists


----------



## RobinBHM

Jonm said:


> Tomindale and robin, Thankyou for posting this information, it is useful Information and helpful. I would appreciate anyone else's comments on the effect of COVID on younger people. For me the decision to take the vaccine was easy, because of my age. Younger family members, when offered the vaccine may ask me for my thoughts. My only fairly direct experience of covid is a relative who died and a friend of a friend whose father died, both in the older vulnerable age group.



My wife knows a family that caught Covid. There were 2 sisters in their 40s and one aged 42 died. She was a policewoman with no comorbidity. 

I listen to LBC radio, their political correspondent caught Covid in March last year. He got so ill at home his girlfriend called the ambulance. He was in hospital for a week. He was recently saying that for months after he had fatigue and needed a few hours rest each day. He said his stamina level is significantly reduced and couldn't play something like 5 a side footy for more than 5 minutes before being cream krackered.

There are now around 1 million people with long Covid, I do wish people would stop trying to claim "it's just a mild illness for the vast majority."


----------



## RobinBHM

Data from the Zoe app says 1 in 20 people suffer long Covid.

1 in 50 for more than 12 weeks

"The latest analysis of data from thousands of users of the COVID Symptom Study app from ZOE, published as a preprint, shows that one in 20 people are likely to suffer from COVID-19 symptoms lasting more than 8 weeks"









One in 20 people likely to suffer from ‘Long COVID’, but who are they?


Our latest study shows that one in 20 people will suffer symptoms for more than 8 weeks and reveals who is most at risk of developing ‘long COVID’.




covid.joinzoe.com


----------



## Peterm1000

RobinBHM said:


> My wife knows a family that caught Covid. There were 2 sisters in their 40s and one aged 42 died. She was a policewoman with no comorbidity.
> 
> I listen to LBC radio, their political correspondent caught Covid in March last year. He got so ill at home his girlfriend called the ambulance. He was in hospital for a week. He was recently saying that for months after he had fatigue and needed a few hours rest each day. He said his stamina level is significantly reduced and couldn't play something like 5 a side footy for more than 5 minutes before being cream krackered.
> 
> There are now around 1 million people with long Covid, I do wish people would stop trying to claim "it's just a mild illness for the vast majority."



If I could play 5 a side for 5 minutes without being cream krackered, I would be delighted!!!  

The last few posts of this thread have a familiar narrative that has parallels to the guards on saws debate... Those that have not lost their fingers and don't know anyone who has lost fingers think it's a myth and they will be saved by careful practices. Those that know someone who lost fingers or have lost a finger themselves can see the damage that has done and use guards. The problem with that approach when it comes to Covid is that the "no guard" people are risking other people's fingers as well as their own.


----------



## Jonm

RobinBHM said:


> It seems to me we have multiple factors that will lead to a return to a (new) normal
> 
> 1. Almost all vulnerable cohorts are now vaccinated.
> 2. Those vaccinated have a much reduced chance of being hospitalised
> 3 those vaccinated are 43% less likely to spread infection
> 4 the remaining cohorts are in age groups far less likely to be very ill.
> 
> I suppose it could be argued if everybody above 18 is vaccinated, does it matters if vaccination reduces infection spread at all?
> 
> I wonder what lifespan the vaccine has in offering protection and whether protection and reduction in infection spread decay at the same rate.


All valid points.
If you look at my linked posts I think the reduction in transmission is more like 80% after one dose of the vaccine.

Currently 34 million have been vaccinated, that still leaves 32 million unvaccinated for the virus to circulate in (including children) plus say 6 million of the vaccinated (based on my 80% figure). So currently plenty of people for the virus to get going again but hopefully not causing too much permanent or serious damage. This perhaps explains the governments staged opening up and does give time for everyone over 18 to be offered the vaccine.

13% of Londoners over 50 have refused the vaccine, so there may be issues there which could be interesting.

Overall I am optimistic, I think the worst is behind us, and we are on our way to something like normality, except perhaps foreign holidays. May be some bumps on the way, like those vulnerable people who have refused the vaccine.

Here is a recent bbc article giving the opinion of the guy who‘s modelling led to the first nationwide restrictions








Another Covid lockdown unlikely, says scientist


The UK is "likely to be on a steady course now out of this pandemic", Prof Neil Ferguson says.



www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> You have unfortunately taken it out of context.
> 
> "The government says cases are "slowing down", but testing numbers have also dipped, meaning the true caseload could be far higher"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> India Covid: Opposition calls for full national lockdown
> 
> 
> The prime minister is resisting a nationwide lockdown due to the potential economic impact.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.co.uk



If you read my comments after you will see that I took it very much in context

Look at Our World in Data and look at the data from India now. Curves slowing, testing massively ramped up so naturally more covid on the pcr. 

I'm correct about it. You need to look beyond the narrative you are fed and see the data yourself.


----------



## Selwyn

southendwoodworker said:


> @Rorschach
> 
> 
> I know one family that lost 5 people to covid.
> 
> I know of someone who didn't think covid was a big deal when they had it, broke lockdown, snuck around to her dad's for Christmas's. Merry Christmas, he died 2 weeks later.
> 
> I know a family of 4. Mum, dad, son and daughter. Son fit young and strong. Everyone but the daughter died within the same week.
> 
> My wife and I manage a number of people. 4 of which were young strong and healthy, and have long covid. They have to crawl up stairs. One was too weak to turn their head and drink water from a straw. One has a wrecked heart. Another almost died a half dozen times.
> 
> I wonder what cost benefit analysis they'd prefer?
> 
> The people I know that haven't experienced bad covid first hand trivialise the impact, forget they are lucky, and generally treat their wallet as higher importance than another's life.
> 
> It's easy to call for cost benefit analysis if youre not having having to pay the debt, from an armchair, with super power of hindsight.
> 
> The easiest way not to catch a disease is to not be near people with it. Lockdown ensures that. What more benefit than being alive is there?



So you cherry pick one family in a vanishingly rare scenario and then extrapolating that to say that other people must only value money over lives? There is evidence out there if you care to look at it that virus' constantly ebb and flow and we should manage with that expectation.

Anyway the person who "broke lockdown" for xmas seems a strange story. Firstly as xmas day people were allowed to visit each other and secondly it seems extremely unlikely people died of covid 2 weeks after infection - all the data suggests the spread is longer than that.

You do realise the poorest in society will bear the brunt of this? Its not the cosseted pensioners, its not the zoom workers. Do you value the higher cancer rates and those deaths at home under covid deaths?


----------



## Selwyn

Jameshow said:


> I don't know Southend woodworker from Adam but I have heard many simalar cases.
> 
> Cheers James



How many have been like this?









Four members of same family have died from Covid since meeting in Christmas bubble


Tracy Latham says prime minister has ‘blood on his hands’ for allowing meet-ups after her partner of 12 years, his elderly parents and his uncle all die with disease




www.independent.co.uk





Sounds like some of you may know the same family. By far and away most of the Covid deaths are for very old, very infirm and vulnerable people with an average age of 83.


----------



## Selwyn

D_W said:


> uh, they were? I remember tons of stories like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coronavirus Ravages 7 Members of a Single Family, Killing 4 (Published 2020)
> 
> 
> The matriarch of the large New Jersey family died Wednesday night without ever knowing that her two oldest children had died before her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com



Tons? A few in the very early days when no one took any precautions at all. Certainly not tons.


----------



## Rorschach

Jonm said:


> Here is a recent bbc article giving the opinion of the guy who‘s modelling led to the first nationwide restrictions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Covid lockdown unlikely, says scientist
> 
> 
> The UK is "likely to be on a steady course now out of this pandemic", Prof Neil Ferguson says.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.co.uk



Eh gads I can't think of anything more terrifying that Neil Ferguson telling me everything is going to be ok! Now we really are stuffed!


----------



## Selwyn

TominDales said:


> Your question is quite profound as it points to an essential paradox of this pandemic (maybe all pandemics are similar). The pandemic is not at all uniform, its in reality a series of very local epidemics.
> You can be in one region and not hear of a case and just down the road its pandemonium. In our case rural North Yorkshire has hardly had any cases locally, yet there are streets in Bradford decimated by it. The cases we know of, are all of friends/relative who either live in conurbations or in one case commuted to a NHS trust in London from Yorkshire. Some of the island really show this clearly, Barra and islands of Scotland, no cases for months and then suddenly they are overrun with it. Isle of Man had no cases from May to January and then 100 a day in February. Before vaccination broke this pattern, the outlook was zero cases in a town until it arrives.. it grows exponentially until people react/isolate and then it peters out. and the cycle repeats itself in another location or comes back for a second visit.
> 
> The paradox is that for most people they either see very little or a lot. You don't get an average smeared across the world. its also why the pandemic has been more deadly than might have been the case. Its creeps up on unsuspecting locations and then pounces exponentially. Only in states with draconian government action have they successfully dealt with this adversary.



This is absolutely not the case. There are plenty of USA states and countries that told people to carry on as normal. Even our lockdowns weren't a genuine prevention of mixing they just a collection of daft rules strangling business. 

Why have we not seen spikes in genuine illness in Schools since they went back?
Why have we not seen spikes in supermarket workers who are on the front line?


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> My wife knows a family that caught Covid. There were 2 sisters in their 40s and one aged 42 died. She was a policewoman with no comorbidity.
> 
> I listen to LBC radio, their political correspondent caught Covid in March last year. He got so ill at home his girlfriend called the ambulance. He was in hospital for a week. He was recently saying that for months after he had fatigue and needed a few hours rest each day. He said his stamina level is significantly reduced and couldn't play something like 5 a side footy for more than 5 minutes before being cream krackered.
> 
> There are now around 1 million people with long Covid, I do wish people would stop trying to claim "it's just a mild illness for the vast majority."



For the vast majority it won't even be an illness. Their immune system will have fought it off without them knowing.


----------



## Selwyn

Peterm1000 said:


> If I could play 5 a side for 5 minutes without being cream krackered, I would be delighted!!!
> 
> The last few posts of this thread have a familiar narrative that has parallels to the guards on saws debate... Those that have not lost their fingers and don't know anyone who has lost fingers think it's a myth and they will be saved by careful practices. Those that know someone who lost fingers or have lost a finger themselves can see the damage that has done and use guards. The problem with that approach when it comes to Covid is that the "no guard" people are risking other people's fingers as well as their own.



What about the sector who argue table saws present a risk to society and therefore must all be dismantled and chucked away? 

No one is saying Covid is a myth.


----------



## southendwoodworker

Selwyn said:


> So you cherry pick one family in a vanishingly rare scenario and then extrapolating that to say that other people must only value money over lives? There is evidence out there if you care to look at it that virus' constantly ebb and flow and we should manage with that expectation.



Some of the evidence you have presented is of scientifically questionable quality. It is very easy to form an opinion and read news and "facts" that support our confirmation bias, both I and you have both shown that. I presented what I have seen; and you from what you have read. What I am suggesting is that perhaps, through luck, you might have not seen the the true impact of covid.



Selwyn said:


> Anyway the person who "broke lockdown" for xmas seems a strange story. Firstly as xmas day people were allowed to visit each other and secondly it seems extremely unlikely people died of covid 2 weeks after infection - all the data suggests the spread is longer than that.



I was meaning during the christmas period rather than specifically christmas day.

"2 weeks" ok, right, I'll talk to my mate and ask him: "specifically and in detail, how long from when your cousin infected your uncle till he died, because selwyn from a wood working forum needs to know, because he doesn't really believe in covid".

I'm not going to do that, thats messed up. You either believe people in their life experiences or don't.




Selwyn said:


> You do realise the poorest in society will bear the brunt of this? Its not the cosseted pensioners, its not the zoom workers. Do you value the higher cancer rates and those deaths at home under covid deaths?



Rich or poor, in the UK, everyone is suffering from lack of cancer treatments because theres a pandemic killing people. If youre rich, it doesnt mean you get treatment before someone poor...

Deaths at home and untreated cancer are a sad side effect of a health system under extreme stress whilst it refocusses its attention on something that is killing people quicker and is spreading. The health systems not big enough to handle both at the same time, they had to focus on the big emergency thats taking people out today, and hope that once the fires out they can then turn their attention back to the slower killers, of less people. It's a poo decision, and I wish neither had to be made. But dude, you put out the fire first


----------



## southendwoodworker

Rorschach said:


> @southendwoodworker I am sorry to hear of the troubles you have experienced but I can assure you your experience is far from common, indeed I would say it's almost fantastically exceptional.



yeah it's not been nice, no one in my immediate circle have died. i've been lucky. its when you reach out a bit further you get to see some of the reall sorrow thats happened




Rorschach said:


> Then why aren't the BBC all over it? They are gagging for stories like this.



There is a lot of these stories about the place, but people don't often want to talk about it. 

news around covid is also a bit delayed, it takes time for some for it to reach the papers, if ever. Not because its being suppressed by media or government, but because there is so much going on and by the time it has surfaced it might be a month after anyone cares or that it would make a difference.

I and my partner work in "covid related matters".


----------



## Selwyn

southendwoodworker said:


> Some of the evidence you have presented is of scientifically questionable quality. It is very easy to form an opinion and read news and "facts" that support our confirmation bias, both I and you have both shown that. I presented what I have seen; and you from what you have read. What I am suggesting is that perhaps, through luck, you might have not seen the the true impact of covid.
> 
> 
> 
> I was meaning during the christmas period rather than specifically christmas day.
> 
> "2 weeks" ok, right, I'll talk to my mate and ask him: "specifically and in detail, how long from when your cousin infected your uncle till he died, because selwyn from a wood working forum needs to know, because he doesn't really believe in covid".
> 
> I'm not going to do that, thats messed up. You either believe people in their life experiences or don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich or poor, in the UK, everyone is suffering from lack of cancer treatments because theres a pandemic killing people. If youre rich, it doesnt mean you get treatment before someone poor...
> 
> Deaths at home and untreated cancer are a sad side effect of a health system under extreme stress whilst it refocusses its attention on something that is killing people quicker and is spreading. The health systems not big enough to handle both at the same time, they had to focus on the big emergency thats taking people out today, and hope that once the fires out they can then turn their attention back to the slower killers, of less people. It's a poo decision, and I wish neither had to be made. But dude, you put out the fire first



My point was that you claimed that someone died because someone else "broke the rules" on Xmas day. The reality is that person sadly died not because anyone broke the rules but because a nasty virus infected them and they were unlucky. The covid virus is so all ubiqutous and everywhere that the very idea that track and tracing a virus does anything is laughable. 

There is not a pandemic killing people in the UK now. There was last last March but even that was exacerbated by bad decisions early on. 

Go to our world in data look at world covid deaths vs world covid cases. Look at the curves, look at the data. Look at how predictable the viral curves are. Mankind is so arrogant in the face of natural phenomena sometimes.


----------



## sometimewoodworker

TominDales said:


> Overflowing hospital is explained by the HC underspend in India.


While the HC spending has had an effect it has little to do with what is currently happening in India.
The thought in India was that after the first wave no more needed to be done so went back to life as normal, dismantling the emergency facilities and relying on vaccination.
So they were incredibly badly prepared for the mutation of the virus making it much more transmissible, meaning vast numbers need hospitals that rapidly became overwhelming full with resources exhausted, meaning that many people who could have been treated are now dying.
More funding could have allowed for resources to be stockpiled allowing for more time before the hospitals had to close for admissions, better planning could have done the same. Neither happened.


----------



## southendwoodworker

Selwyn said:


> My point was that you claimed that someone died because someone else "broke the rules" on Xmas day. The reality is that person sadly died not because anyone broke the rules but because a nasty virus infected them and they were unlucky. The covid virus is so all ubiqutous and everywhere that the very idea that track and tracing a virus does anything is laughable.



I never said christmas day. I clarified in the previous post that i meant christmas period. You are grasping on to the least significant part of the message being presented to sustain your argument.

You are using the word "claim" to make what I said hold less value. Lets put this into perspective, we are on a wood working forum, here to chat about that with other interested people. We take peoples posts at face value for what is said. If you need qualifications and evidence of experience, and a cv, and such to gain confidence in what people are posting here about covid, perhaps this might not be the right place for you to discuss it. Perhaps a medical forum. Believe me or not, I don't care. I'm just chilling and had a few minutes to spare to type a response. I'm not making money from sharing my experience, I'm not selling anything, I don't have anything to gain, I don't even get internet points from it. 

I understand where you are coming from, but they wouldn't have caught the virus if the daughter hadn't given it to them. We're quibbling of logical semantics here, sure the virus did the act of killing, but they gave it to the father. They were the only visitor to the father.

Lets look at it a different way:
You know someone is vulnerable to peanut allergies and could die from it. If you knew there was peanut in the food you gave to someone, who is to blame?
1. The peanut purely because it chose to exist?
2. The person for having the cheek of being allergic to peanuts?
3. Or the person who gave the food to the victim knowing it could take them out?

Your logical semantic juggling here is saying your answer is 1. I am saying 3.




Selwyn said:


> There is not a pandemic killing people in the UK now. There was last last March but even that was exacerbated by bad decisions early on.



Understood, and you are right, we've now currently gotten a grip on it, and the initial decisions made on limited data made effective response hard. Im neither agreeing or disagreeing to the governments decisions there.



Selwyn said:


> Go to our world in data look at world covid deaths vs world covid cases. Look at the curves, look at the data. Look at how predictable the viral curves are. Mankind is so arrogant in the face of natural phenomena sometimes.





Selwyn said:


> so all ubiqutous and everywhere that the very idea that track and tracing a virus does anything is laughable.



It has been proven multiple times to be effective. what you talking about?

South Korea, covid
New Zealand, Covid
Australia, Covid
Vietnam, covid
Japan, covid
Taiwan, covid
Ebola 2014 and 2016
and the WHO changed is methodology around smallpox, pivoting from doing a "vaccinate all" to "when someones infected, do track and trace and then vaccinate those contacts; then once under control vaccinate all"


----------



## Jonm

sometimewoodworker said:


> While the HC spending has had an effect it has little to do with what is currently happening in India.
> The thought in India was that after the first wave no more needed to be done so went back to life as normal, dismantling the emergency facilities and relying on vaccination.
> So they were incredibly badly prepared for the mutation of the virus making it much more transmissible, meaning vast numbers need hospitals that rapidly became overwhelming full with resources exhausted, meaning that many people who could have been treated are now dying.
> More funding could have allowed for resources to be stockpiled allowing for more time before the hospitals had to close for admissions, better planning could have done the same. Neither happened.


We were caught out by the UK/Kent variant being more transmissible, hence the third lockdown.


----------



## Selwyn

southendwoodworker said:


> yeah it's not been nice, no one in my immediate circle have died. i've been lucky. its when you reach out a bit further you get to see some of the reall sorrow thats happened
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of these stories about the place, but people don't often want to talk about it.
> 
> news around covid is also a bit delayed, it takes time for some for it to reach the papers, if ever. Not because its being suppressed by media or government, but because there is so much going on and by the time it has surfaced it might be a month after anyone cares or that it would make a difference.
> 
> I and my partner work in "covid related matters".





southendwoodworker said:


> I never said christmas day. I clarified in the previous post that i meant christmas period. You are grasping on to the least significant part of the message being presented to sustain your argument.
> 
> You are using the word "claim" to make what I said hold less value. Lets put this into perspective, we are on a wood working forum, here to chat about that with other interested people. We take peoples posts at face value for what is said. If you need qualifications and evidence of experience, and a cv, and such to gain confidence in what people are posting here about covid, perhaps this might not be the right place for you to discuss it. Perhaps a medical forum. Believe me or not, I don't care. I'm just chilling and had a few minutes to spare to type a response. I'm not making money from sharing my experience, I'm not selling anything, I don't have anything to gain, I don't even get internet points from it.
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but they wouldn't have caught the virus if the daughter hadn't given it to them. We're quibbling of logical semantics here, sure the virus did the act of killing, but they gave it to the father. They were the only visitor to the father.
> 
> Lets look at it a different way:
> You know someone is vulnerable to peanut allergies and could die from it. If you knew there was peanut in the food you gave to someone, who is to blame?
> 1. The peanut purely because it chose to exist?
> 2. The person for having the cheek of being allergic to peanuts?
> 3. Or the person who gave the food to the victim knowing it could take them out?
> 
> Your logical semantic juggling here is saying your answer is 1. I am saying 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Understood, and you are right, we've now currently gotten a grip on it, and the initial decisions made on limited data made effective response hard. Im neither agreeing or disagreeing to the governments decisions there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has been proven multiple times to be effective. what you talking about?
> 
> South Korea, covid
> New Zealand, Covid
> Australia, Covid
> Vietnam, covid
> Japan, covid
> Taiwan, covid
> Ebola 2014 and 2016
> and the WHO changed is methodology around smallpox, pivoting from doing a "vaccinate all" to "when someones infected, do track and trace and then vaccinate those contacts; then once under control vaccinate all"



NZ and Oz did not have enough people with the disease to sustain it. It is so crucial to the story.
Taiwan, Japan, South Korea had all had SAR and MERS. You need to remember who this disease kills - overwhelmingly the old and the obese. Its really wierd that everyone is trapped in this era of covid still not being explainable









Lockdowns are No Substitute for Focused Protection


"Good public health policy must reflect this interwoven relationship between pathogen, pathology, and social and economic equality, not merely impose the blunt and devastating 'nonpharmaceutical interventions' indiscriminately on the whole of the population." ~ AIER Contributing Authors




www.aier.org


----------



## Selwyn

Jonm said:


> We were caught out by the UK/Kent variant being more transmissible, hence the third lockdown.



They can't even isolate covid let alone a variant. These variants are not significantly different either


----------



## southendwoodworker

Selwyn said:


> NZ and Oz did not have enough people with the disease to sustain it. It is so crucial to the story.
> Taiwan, Japan, South Korea had all had SAR and MERS. You need to remember who this disease kills - overwhelmingly the old and the obese. Its really wierd that everyone is trapped in this era of covid still not being explainable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockdowns are No Substitute for Focused Protection
> 
> 
> "Good public health policy must reflect this interwoven relationship between pathogen, pathology, and social and economic equality, not merely impose the blunt and devastating 'nonpharmaceutical interventions' indiscriminately on the whole of the population." ~ AIER Contributing Authors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aier.org



What about ebola 2014 and ebola 2016, and smallpox eradication?

You said it was laughable, i pointed out, quickly and with low effort, a few solid examples where it has been effective. smallpox eradication is one of the greatest achievements in human history, is not a small thing to conveniently disregard in the whole narrative that "track and trace is laughable"

You might want to consider the link you posted, they aren't particularly credible when scrutinised.









American Institute for Economic Research


RIGHT-CENTER BIAS These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words




mediabiasfactcheck.com





They are a center right based "thing" with also positions that sweatshops are good and climate change isn't real.

From the wiki pedia page, with citations. American Institute for Economic Research - Wikipedia

*Policy positions[edit]*
AIER statements and publications portray the risks of climate change as minor and manageable,[8] with titles such as "What Greta Thunberg Forgets About Climate Change", "The Real Reason Nobody Takes Environmental Activists Seriously" and "Brazilians Should Keep Slashing Their Rainforest".[9][10][11]

The institution has also funded research on the comparative benefits that sweatshops supplying multinationals bring to the people working in them.[12][13]

*COVID-19[edit]*
AIER issued a statement in October 2020 called the "Great Barrington Declaration" that argued for a herd immunity strategy to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.[14] It was roundly condemned by many public health experts.[14][15] Anthony Fauci, the infectious disease expert appointed by the White House, called the declaration "total nonsense" and unscientific.[14] Tyler Cowen, a libertarian economist at George Mason University, wrote that while he sympathizes with a libertarian approach to deal with the pandemic, the declaration was dangerous and misguided.[16] The declaration was also criticized by the Niskanen Center,[17] a formerly libertarian think tank[18] that now calls itself moderate.[19]

AIER paid for ads on Facebook promoting its articles against government social distancing measures and mask mandates.[20]

In October 2020, Twitter removed a tweet by White House coronavirus adviser Scott Atlas linking to an AIER article that argued against the effectiveness of masks.[21]


----------



## Rorschach

southendwoodworker said:


> What about ebola 2014 and ebola 2016, and smallpox eradication?



Smallpox was a truly terrible disease that killed and maimed many more than Covid ever could. Eradication also took a concerted effort for decades, possibly even centuries depending on your outlook, and at huge cost as the vaccination programme killed a lot of people.

Ebola, well ebola is too deadly for it's own good. It kills pretty quickly, isn't terribly infectious comparatively and burns itself out with minimal intervention once identified.


----------



## southendwoodworker

Rorschach said:


> Smallpox was a truly terrible disease that killed and maimed many more than Covid ever could. Eradication also took a concerted effort for decades, possibly even centuries depending on your outlook, and at huge cost as the vaccination programme killed a lot of people.
> 
> Ebola, well ebola is too deadly for it's own good. It kills pretty quickly, isn't terribly infectious comparatively and burns itself out with minimal intervention once identified.



The small pox strategy was two pronged, the vaccination and herd immunity method was delivering slow results. The WHO changed the strategy to surveilance and containment. aka track and that is what sped up its erradication





__





WHO Smallpox Eradication Programme






choo.fis.utoronto.ca





Ebola, you are somewhat right in that it essentially killed to quick, however, there was epidemics, which could have grown further, without track and trace implemented. it wasn't just a couple unfortunate people, it was 10,000 or something. thats still alot of sadness, everyones life is precious


----------



## Selwyn

southendwoodworker said:


> The small pox strategy was two pronged, the vaccination and herd immunity method was delivering slow results. The WHO changed the strategy to surveilance and containment. aka track and that is what sped up its erradication
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHO Smallpox Eradication Programme
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> choo.fis.utoronto.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ebola, you are somewhat right in that it essentially killed to quick, however, there was epidemics, which could have grown further, without track and trace implemented. it wasn't just a couple unfortunate people, it was 10,000 or something. thats still alot of sadness, everyones life is precious



You do realise how ebola is spread don't you? Totally different to coronavirus particles


----------



## Jonm

Selwyn said:


> They can't even isolate covid let alone a variant. These variants are not significantly different either


My understanding is that the uk variant was 70% more transmissible, hence spread far more rapidly. The “significance“ of that is subjective.

Not sure what “They can't even isolate covid let alone a variant” means. Are you saying that variants cannot be identified. Perhaps you would like to explain what you mean by “isolate” and the significance of not being able to do it.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

A few thoughts as there seem to be too many polarised views:

I know no-one who has died from Covid and only a few who have been infected. This does not prove Covid is not a problem.
1 person in ~500 is reported to have died with Covid. I probably know no more than a couple of hundred people reasonably well - it is no surprise I know no-one who has actually died. 
I am told that the dominant route for infection is in households. It is no surprise that if one individual is infected, others in the same household will be.
India demand for healthcare significantly exceeds capacity - chaotic and thoroughly unpleasant. It matters not that statistically they have fewer deaths or cases per m than Greece or the UK etc.
Averages are only useful if applied in context - they otherwise distort reactions and responses. The media seem to be complicit (deliberately or otherwise) in distortion through selective reporting 
Asserting the problem in India is past a peak based on a few days data is nonsense. It may simply be human behaviours changing in response to increased infections, or limited data quality. 
As I belong to a retired, financially fairly secure, detached house, county town demographic the pandemic has been frustrating rather than problematic. But I accept my experience is not typical and many have been personally impacted by loss, health, financial and other issues.


----------



## D_W

Peterm1000 said:


> If I could play 5 a side for 5 minutes without being cream krackered, I would be delighted!!!
> 
> The last few posts of this thread have a familiar narrative that has parallels to the guards on saws debate... Those that have not lost their fingers and don't know anyone who has lost fingers think it's a myth and they will be saved by careful practices. Those that know someone who lost fingers or have lost a finger themselves can see the damage that has done and use guards. The problem with that approach when it comes to Covid is that the "no guard" people are risking other people's fingers as well as their own.



Who misplaced the covid pushsticks?


----------



## TominDales

Selwyn said:


> This is absolutely not the case. There are plenty of USA states and countries that told people to carry on as normal. Even our lockdowns weren't a genuine prevention of mixing they just a collection of daft rules strangling business.
> 
> Why have we not seen spikes in genuine illness in Schools since they went back?
> Why have we not seen spikes in supermarket workers who are on the front line?


Hi Selwyn,

I didn't make a comment on lockdown policies in the USA, rather I think Rocherch's is question probes an underlying feature of the pandemic, that its not really a homogenous spread but in reality a series of very localised epidemics. 
The data seems to fit this pattern, weather lockdowns have been applied or not. For this reason we all experience very different pandemics. Some of us, are fortunate to be largely untouched by it, while others have been devastated. this pattern of disease spread makes adopting a national policy harder. Although surveys find that most people support the governments approach in the UK.

The only real exception is the 'very draconian' steps made in some Asian countries where superfast track and trace literally stops infection in its tracks, I'm referring to China, Taiwan, S Korea and Singapore as examples of this very intrusive but effective lockdown. Australia and New Zealand has a similar if less draconian approach. However I don't consider these countries as good comparators for the UK/Europe/US as our economies are social structures are quite different. We have a lot more work based travel and service based economies. and we don't lock up noncompliant citizens.

My observation about Covid being a series of local, mini epidemics is based on local UK data, and ,I think it fits this pattern. Infections are very local, ie you either get just one or two isolated cases or you get a localised epidemic. If I take the schools round us, most have very little infection, the odd case that gets clamped down on, however a few schools got overrun and had to close temporarily. In March on schools opening, Bradford reported that there were 40 schools with just one infection and 27 had to close a whole bubble year due to in-class transmission. 
What also seems to be emerging, is the vaccination programmes is having a meaningful impact. Infection rates are falling at the moment in-spite of us unlocking, that was not the case in January when schools first went back after Christmas.

I suspect this pattern is pretty representative of Europe and North America as we have similar social and economic models.
From what I've read about the US, most early cases were centred on cities, with little early infection in rural settings, however I've read about rural arears that seemed to follow this pattern of nasty local spikes of infection that suddenly caught the community 'unaware's so to speak.

My parents live is the small unitary county of Rutland. This had very low infection rates and was in the lower tier of lockdown for most of last year. It then went to the highest rate in the country during February. I asked my parents what had changed and in fact very little had. There were two outbreaks, one in the local prison and one in the village of Ketton that stemmed from a large party. These two very local incidents were responsible for 98% of the outbreak, the rest of the county, its two small towns were pretty much unaffected.

Not seen spikes on supermarkets.
Not sure what the explanation is, I suspect its the way the virous transmits through airborne droplets (aerosols). Transmission seems to be highest in family homes and in hospitality venues, such as, pubs, in taxis, and also cold-chain-packing such as meat processors. 
From what I can tell, the large open spaces in supermarkets, limited crowds due to the queuing/traffic light systems and the shields for staff seem to be effective. One thing that seems to be emerging, is this virus does not easily transmit from surfaces such as packaging. This is different to colds and flue where particles on surfaces are believed to be part of the transmission of those viruses.

Not sure if I've really answered your question. The real point is we don't observe the pandemic as a homogeneous transmission - say as an economic recession or a drought or flood. This is a set of very local issues affecting isolated families. The case of my sons best friend's dad dying. The whole family got covid, some really badly others less so. That has been our experience all along, most people I know have not had it, but a few families have had it and there overall experience was bad, the young, ok on the whole, but their parents not so, and a few have long covid - I think the figure of 1 in 20 feels right from my personal experience of family and friends.
Best wishes Tom


----------



## Selwyn

Jonm said:


> My understanding is that the uk variant was 70% more transmissible, hence spread far more rapidly. The significance of that is subjective.
> 
> Not sure what “They can't even isolate covid let alone a variant” means. Are you saying that variants cannot be identified. Perhaps you would like to explain what you mean by “isolate” and the significance of not being able to do it.



I doubt any of these variants are any more or less transmissible than any others. They are fundamentally the same thing and they are all constantly changing anyway.


----------



## Selwyn

TominDales said:


> Not seen spikes on supermarkets.
> Not sure what the explanation is, I suspect its the way the virous transmits through airborne droplets (aerosols). Transmission seems to be highest in family homes and in hospitality venues, such as, pubs, in taxis, and also cold-chain-packing such as meat processors.
> From what I can tell, the large open spaces in supermarkets, limited crowds due to the queuing/traffic light systems and the shields for staff seem to be effective. One thing that seems to be emerging, is this virus does not easily transmit from surfaces such as packaging. This is different to colds and flue where particles on surfaces are believed to be part of the transmission of those viruses.
> 
> 
> Best wishes Tom



I'm not sure there have been any transmission incidents of super spreading from pubs or hospitality venues since March 2020? I'm not even sure taxi drivers were particularly high for covid infections?

It could be that all these corner shops and supermarkets are incredibly scrupulous and are able to "clean" away these viral microparticles but it seems unlikely they would achieve that level of affect. If you can smell a fart in a supermarket then you will definitely be able to ingest viral particles through the masks. 

Maybe these shops were able to acheive the impossible yet a clothes shop wasn't? Seems unlikely...


----------



## Rorschach

southendwoodworker said:


> Ebola, you are somewhat right in that it essentially killed to quick, however, there was epidemics, which could have grown further, without track and trace implemented. it wasn't just a couple unfortunate people, it was 10,000 or something. thats still alot of sadness, everyones life is precious



Yes unfortunate but bear in mind where Ebola outbreaks have taken place though. Had they happened in a rich western country like the USA or UK it would likely have been single digit deaths.


----------



## D_W

Selwyn said:


> I'm not sure there have been any transmission incidents of super spreading from pubs or hospitality venues since March 2020? I'm not even sure taxi drivers were particularly high for covid infections?
> 
> It could be that all these corner shops and supermarkets are incredibly scrupulous and are able to "clean" away these viral microparticles but it seems unlikely they would achieve that level of affect. If you can smell a fart in a supermarket then you will definitely be able to ingest viral particles through the masks.
> 
> Maybe these shops were able to achieve the impossible yet a clothes shop wasn't? Seems unlikely...



I don't know what the data shows, but gather that it was pretty easy to see in shutdowns here which types of locations corresponded with spikes. Two things did (aside from workplace):
* bars, restaurants, places where people congregate face to face indoors in dense groups and long durations
* family events - thanksgiving and Christmas caused explosions here, as did typical funerals and churches (who fought legal requirements)

supermarkets and large stores have so much air volume that the number of cases and severity of places like that never really made a bubble. That was important to observe.

as far as cleaning locations - let the air out. From early on (I sound like a record going around with this), it was clear that little to no transmission was occurring based on touch.

hopefully your farts don't come out in droplets! (i'm guessing they stay up in the air a little better and can be thinned out but you still smell them).

can't speak for clothing shops - I doubt too much transmission happened shopping because nobody was in anyone else's face and most locations are commercial with fast air changeover.


----------



## Rorschach

Can covid be spread by farts? It is present in faeces of some people and is linked to diarrhoea. Has this been studied? Wouldn't it be a laugh if it turned out we should have been wearing masks on our buttocks instead of our faces!


----------



## TominDales

Selwyn said:


> I'm not sure there have been any transmission incidents of super spreading from pubs or hospitality venues since March 2020? I'm not even sure taxi drivers were particularly high for covid infections?
> 
> It could be that all these corner shops and supermarkets are incredibly scrupulous and are able to "clean" away these viral microparticles but it seems unlikely they would achieve that level of affect. If you can smell a fart in a supermarket then you will definitely be able to ingest viral particles through the masks.
> 
> Maybe these shops were able to acheive the impossible yet a clothes shop wasn't? Seems unlikely...


HI again,
I was basing my comment about hospitality on an ONS report back in January, I'll see if I can find it. found that cirtain professoins associated with hospitality had the highest incidents, eg, cold chain processors, Chefs, pub/restaurant workers taxi drivers, (bus drivers much less affected about .7 of taxi drivers) and security guards (the latter catagoriy coves so much not sure it was that meanifusl ie bouncers in clubs and offices.

There is a distiction between corner shops and supermarkets. Corner shops in London and towns with covid were impacted by COVID supermarkes seemed unharmed.

I cant really comment on why some shops were shut and others not. I presume the government was minimising people contact so restricting essential to food shops. I could see that cloths shops could involved people in confined spaces, but suspect they just happened to fall the wrong side of a line.
If you are asking my opinion on the virtues of a lockdown - and this is a subjective personal view. Its something always been a last resort in the UK, to do as a last resort when you have lost control of an epidemic or have an unknown disease (such as the Salisbury in 2016 before they found the source of the poisonings.). Generally speaking the UK has adopted track and trace isolate since Dr Snow cholera paper back in 1854. It used to be quite brutal before wide spread vaccination with isolation hospitals for TB and the like. My wife was ordered out of a TB area as a child in a quite ferocious encounter with a public heath official in the mid 1960s. These days most public heath is chasing down the odd case of measles and the occasional polio and TB outbreak in very local communities - or Salisbury for instance. Lockdown on this scale has not been since for decades in the Uk and has always been viewed as a sign of failure of the normal track trace isolate that has been going in the UK for 170 years or more.
The UK has lectured the world on how to do track trace isolate, for the best part of 200 years, we send out PH folk to the WHO etc and fly them into outbreaks of ebola etc. So I cant see the UK abandoning something it has lectured the world on for nearly 200 years.

Edit today at 17.45 Found the ONS report:

Coronavirus (COVID-19) related deaths by occupation, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics the table is bottom of point 3. Its an expansion of what they classify as 'elementary professions' I can't really comment on its validity as its not a huge amount of data, but ONS has a good reputation for drawing out good statistical comparisons.

The accompanying datasets provide data on a wide range of occupations. Other than those already mentioned, the 10 occupations with the highest rates of death involving COVID-19 were:


restaurant and catering establishment managers and proprietors (119.3 deaths per 100,000 males; 26 deaths)
metal working and machine operatives (106.1 deaths per 100,000 males; 40 deaths)
food, drink and tobacco process operatives (103.7 deaths per 100,000 males; 52 deaths)
chefs (103.1 deaths per 100,000 males; 82 deaths)
taxi and cab drivers and chauffeurs (101.4 deaths per 100,000 males; 209 deaths)
nursing auxiliaries and assistants (87.2 deaths per 100,000 males; 45 deaths)
elementary construction occupations (82.1 deaths per 100,000 males; 70 deaths)
nurses (79.1 deaths per 100,000 males; 47 deaths)
local government administrative occupations (72.1 deaths per 100,000 males; 23 deaths)
bus and coach drivers (70.3 deaths per 100,000 males; 83 deaths)
I'm sure the high rates in hospitality is what has driven the current lockdown/ unlock process


----------



## Peterm1000

Rorschach said:


> Can covid be spread by farts? It is present in faeces of some people and is linked to diarrhoea. Has this been studied? Wouldn't it be a laugh if it turned out we should have been wearing masks on our buttocks instead of our faces!


I hope you are covering your buttocks when you go out already!


----------



## Rorschach

Peterm1000 said:


> I hope you are covering your buttocks when you go out already!



I cover my face under protest but I'll be dammed if I ever cover my buttocks!


----------



## D_W

Rorschach said:


> Can covid be spread by farts?



I doubt it. There was some concern about the issue of toilets creating a mist when they flush, but I've heard little about that since early on.


----------



## Jonm

Selwyn said:


> I doubt any of these variants are any more or less transmissible than any others. They are fundamentally the same thing and they are all constantly changing anyway.


What about your Statement “They can't even isolate covid let alone a variant” which I do not understand. Are you saying that variants cannot be identified. Perhaps you would like to explain what you mean by “isolate” and the significance of not being able to do it.


----------



## D_W

The variants change slowly. Minor changes have less of a significance in severity and more of a significance in how viable they are in terms of reproduction (not an expert, and not going to look for the details , but recall the discussions centering around the spikes). 

From the outset, they mentioned that coronaviruses change, but they don't change that quickly.


----------



## Peterm1000

Interesting article that is a) not from a British standpoint (El Pais is one of the Spanish major newspapers) and b) talks about the trade off between risks for younger people being asked to take the vaccine









Covid-19 vaccines: What are the risks and benefits for each age group?


EL PAÍS compares the likelihood of developing a blood clot from the Janssen and AstraZeneca injections with the probability of suffering a serious case of the disease, according to each demographic




english.elpais.com


----------



## Ozi

RobinBHM said:


> No they advocated protecting the vulnerable....but Rorschach and any other pro herd immunity / GBD believer has yet to say how this could be done (it can't)


Brazil had a go - that went well didn't it. To quote Jair Bolsonaro With 1000 deaths a day "it's only the sniffles" with 3000 deaths a day "do stop moaning" nice chap


----------



## Spectric

How ironic, our leaders push ahead with the G7 summit, no they do not use technology such as video conferencing but want face to face and the traffic light system does not apply to VIP's as they are to important and the Indians end up in quarantine as they are positive for Covid, surely our government new the risk otherwise they would not have put India into the Red category. This is our real threat now, not Covid itself as we seem to have this under reasonable control but opening ourselves up to invasion from outside.


----------



## Rorschach

Ozi said:


> Brazil had a go - that went well didn't it. To quote Jair Bolsonaro With 1000 deaths a day "it's only the sniffles" with 3000 deaths a day "do stop moaning" nice chap



Comparatively Brazil is doing the same as we are/were so doesn't look so bad (at the moment).


----------



## Jonm

Spectric said:


> How ironic, our leaders push ahead with the G7 summit, no they do not use technology such as video conferencing but want face to face and the traffic light system does not apply to VIP's as they are to important and the Indians end up in quarantine as they are positive for Covid, surely our government new the risk otherwise they would not have put India into the Red category. This is our real threat now, not Covid itself as we seem to have this under reasonable control but opening ourselves up to invasion from outside.


Would you include us going on holiday abroad and then returning as “invasion from outside”


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> If you read my comments after you will see that I took it very much in context
> 
> Look at Our World in Data and look at the data from India now. Curves slowing, testing massively ramped up so naturally more covid on the pcr.
> 
> I'm correct about it. You need to look beyond the narrative you are fed and see the data yourself.


That is demonstrably incorrect, you said "The BBC said Indias cases are slowing"

You dishonestly avoided including the part where the BBC said "cases are slowing because they are testing less"

So very much not in context.
And No you are not correct about it


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Jonm said:


> What about your Statement “They can't even isolate covid let alone a variant” which I do not understand.


In the outer reaches of the internet there is an idea that the actual coronavirus genome in question has not, and can not, be separated and specifically identified. The idea has quite a lot of traction. A few examples and/or indignant fact-checking rebuttals:









Posts falsely claim COVID-19 virus has not yet been isolated


CLAIM: Scientists have not isolated the COVID-19 virus, so a vaccine is not possible. AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The virus was first isolated by Chinese authorities on Jan...




apnews.com












'Proof' the virus behind COVID-19 doesn't exist fails basic biology test - Australian Associated Press


A widely shared video claims the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been isolated in a lab.




www.aap.com.au












Covid 19 - a disease which still hasn't been proven to exist


Covid 19 - a disease which has still not proven to exist At the time of writing, I am still concerned about the number of individuals who still believe that a virus called Covid 19 exists. ...



quintessentiallylynne.weebly.com





You can get yourself removed from most social media for putting this idea forward - if it's true, it's being heavily redacted, and if it's nonsense, it's being heavily redacted. Either way, it's considered bad form to mention it.


RobinBHM said:


> That is demonstrably incorrect, you said "The BBC said Indias cases are slowing"
> 
> You dishonestly avoided including the part where the BBC said "cases are slowing because they are testing less"


Correlation is not causation. Reduction in cases is fact. Reason for reduction in cases is hypothesis, speculation, theorising, unless you have data to back it up. I'm not saying that less testing isn't the reason for fewer cases, but there could be other reasons, such as, for example, fewer cases?

It's a million to one chance, but it just might happen.


----------



## TominDales

Rorschach said:


> Comparatively Brazil is doing the same as we are/were so doesn't look so bad (at the moment).


um we aren't a great example, tallest midget in the midget parade comes to mind. Recently our speedy vaccine role out and effective recovery from the 3rd wave (or 2.5th wave), we are looking better/saving some face, but overall we have had one of the highest mortality rates globally. Brazils rate will probably overtake ours over the summer but, as the country that lectured the world on the virtues of public health track, trace and isolate, we have a lot of egg-on-face in my view.


----------



## Jonm

Trainee neophyte said:


> In the outer reaches of the internet there is an idea that the actual coronavirus genome in question has not, and can not, be separated and specifically identified. The idea has quite a lot of traction. A few examples and/or indignant fact-checking rebuttals:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posts falsely claim COVID-19 virus has not yet been isolated
> 
> 
> CLAIM: Scientists have not isolated the COVID-19 virus, so a vaccine is not possible. AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The virus was first isolated by Chinese authorities on Jan...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Proof' the virus behind COVID-19 doesn't exist fails basic biology test - Australian Associated Press
> 
> 
> A widely shared video claims the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been isolated in a lab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aap.com.au
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Covid 19 - a disease which still hasn't been proven to exist
> 
> 
> Covid 19 - a disease which has still not proven to exist At the time of writing, I am still concerned about the number of individuals who still believe that a virus called Covid 19 exists. ...
> 
> 
> 
> quintessentiallylynne.weebly.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can get yourself removed from most social media for putting this idea forward - if it's true, it's being heavily redacted, and if it's nonsense, it's being heavily redacted. Either way, it's considered bad form to mention it.
> 
> Correlation is not causation. Reduction in cases is fact. Reason for reduction in cases is hypothesis, speculation, theorising, unless you have data to back it up. I'm not saying that less testing isn't the reason for fewer cases, but there could be other reasons, such as, for example, fewer cases?
> 
> It's a million to one chance, but it just might happen.


Thank you for the info. Hopefully Selwyn will give his alternative viewpoint.


----------



## D_W

RobinBHM said:


> That is demonstrably incorrect, you said "The BBC said Indias cases are slowing"
> 
> You dishonestly avoided including the part where the BBC said "cases are slowing because they are testing less"
> 
> So very much not in context.
> And No you are not correct about it



Are they testing less because the positive rate is less or because there are fewer cases to test? Generally, lower positive case totals come along with lack of cases or lack of severity .

We heard the same thing here "oh, they're just testing less!!", but the positive rate was half by then even after reduced testing.


----------



## Rorschach

TominDales said:


> um we aren't a great example, tallest midget in the midget parade comes to mind. Recently our speedy vaccine role out and effective recovery from the 3rd wave (or 2.5th wave), we are looking better/saving some face, but overall we have had one of the highest mortality rates globally. Brazils rate will probably overtake ours over the summer but, as the country that lectured the world on the virtues of public health track, trace and isolate, we have a lot of egg-on-face in my view.



May I remind you we had one of the strictest lockdowns in the world, so are you saying lockdown didn't work?


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> Correlation is not causation. Reduction in cases is fact. Reason for reduction in cases is hypothesis, speculation, theorising, unless you have data to back it up. I'm not saying that less testing isn't the reason for fewer cases, but there could be other reasons, such as, for example, fewer cases



I suppose there could be a million to one chance Selywn might be correct and India is over the peak  

Yesterday experts said "peak yet to come"



5 days ago experts said peak in 20'days

*India to reach 'peak' of 2nd Covid wave in 20 days from now, says SBI Research*

Other experts suggest June:

*India’s deadly second wave of Covid-19 might not peak before June*








India’s deadly second wave of Covid-19 might not peak before June


The prediction is based on an analysis of 12 countries including the US, Brazil, and the UK which faced a strong resurgence of Covid-19.




qz.com


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> May I remind you we had one of the strictest lockdowns in the world



The UK has never had a full lockdown at all.

And certainly nowhere as severe as most European countries.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> The UK has never had a full lockdown at all.
> 
> And certainly nowhere as severe as most European countries.



Yawn!


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> so are you saying lockdown didn't work



UKs lockdowns started too late every time.
Borders never shut
Test and trace was a failure
Insufficient testing capacity
Lack of PPE


----------



## Blackswanwood

Apologies if this has been pointed to before. 









Free to read: Lockdowns compared: tracking governments’ coronavirus responses


From business closures to movement restrictions, how countries’ policies around the world are changing




ig.ft.com





It’s interesting to see how the lockdowns played through over time on the map.


----------



## Blackswanwood

D_W said:


> Are they testing less because the positive rate is less or because there are fewer cases to test? Generally, lower positive case totals come along with lack of cases or lack of severity .



In a nutshell tests are down because they are in a mess. The current data coming out of India is flawed.

That’s based on talking to people I work with who are in India. 

There is another expert on here who may be along soon to point out that based on his secret data India has peaked though ....


----------



## RobinBHM

Blackswanwood said:


> In a nutshell tests are down because they are in a mess


^^^
This


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> That is demonstrably incorrect, you said "The BBC said Indias cases are slowing"
> 
> You dishonestly avoided including the part where the BBC said "cases are slowing because they are testing less"
> 
> So very much not in context.
> And No you are not correct about it



Er no, I specificlly wrote "as an addendum testing is slowing too". But there is a good reason why that is not the whole story - mainly because more testing tends to dig out more cases.


----------



## Selwyn

Blackswanwood said:


> In a nutshell tests are down because they are in a mess. The current data coming out of India is flawed.
> 
> That’s based on talking to people I work with who are in India.
> 
> There is another expert on here who may be along soon to point out that based on his secret data India has peaked though ....



Covid is following its familiar pattern. The early growth of the virus is explosive and then it slows rapidly. Its no secret data - positive tests are slowing rapidly now. You have swallowed the continuous exponential growth theory unless there is lockdown - its been disproved so many times now


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> UKs lockdowns started too late every time.
> Borders never shut
> Test and trace was a failure
> Insufficient testing capacity
> Lack of PPE



Ah right, so we didn't do it properly enough?

Cause of the biggest spike was emptying the hosptials of the elderly into care homes.


----------



## Rorschach

Selwyn said:


> Ah right, so we didn't do it properly enough?


 
The familiar cry of the lockdown fanatic, "harder, longer, sooner".


----------



## Selwyn

Rorschach said:


> The familiar cry of the lockdown fanatic, "harder, longer, sooner".



Its just crazy. Every answer is lockdown but they don't seem to be looking at the evidence that lockdowns do more harm than good. I could accept the first lockdown for a little while as we didn't know what we were dealing with but its just gone way ott.

The levels of fear that have been created is just mindboggling. Covid numbers will rise again this autumn and we will have more of this lockdown demands again.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Its just crazy. Every answer is lockdown but they don't seem to be looking at the evidence that lockdowns do more harm than good. I could accept the first lockdown for a little while as we didn't know what we were dealing with but its just gone way ott.


The third word in this post of yours is the only rational explanation for the rest

I do worry about you Selwyn, I really do 

I wish you well


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> The third word in this post of yours is the only rational explanation for the rest
> 
> I do worry about you Selwyn, I really do
> 
> I wish you well



Don't leave your bedroom again Robin. Its just too risky.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Selwyn said:


> Covid is following its familiar pattern. The early growth of the virus is explosive and then it slows rapidly. Its no secret data - positive tests are slowing rapidly now. You have swallowed the continuous exponential growth theory unless there is lockdown - its been disproved so many times now


I can assure you I haven’t swallowed anything. 

In my opinion there is a correlation between lockdowns and curbing the impact of the virus. Without them we would have seen higher peaks with surges lasting over a longer period. 

I also recognise though that they are a blunt tool and there is a difficult judgement call as to where the side effects outweigh the benefits. That is made all the more difficult as it involves making decisions with incomplete data that ultimately are a matter of life and death which in my belief goes beyond just the economic impacts.

Anyway thanks for sharing your insight. We’re obviously lucky to have an optimistic expert on virology and statistics amongst us


----------



## TominDales

Rorschach said:


> May I remind you we had one of the strictest lockdowns in the world, so are you saying lockdown didn't work?


They did eventually work. You have again highlighted a glaring issue with UK policy. 

I'm no expert on this, but from what I've seen every lockdown was implemented late in the day, weeks after Sage recommended it. The maths dictates that the sooner a lockdown begins the sooner exponential growth is interrupted and lockdown ends much quicker and is for a much short total duration. You pay a bit upfront but reap a dividend later.
Its hard to compare different countries as circumstances are different, but over a range of like countries, Ireland, Spain, France Germany, Denmark, Norway all did lockdowns 1 and 2 quicker than the Uk and theirs ran for much less time than ours. These countries had less infections to get under control, so got back to normal quicker than us.
Italy a bit of an exception in wave one. It did quite a quick lockdown (but the virus was raging earlier there - it caught us in Europe by surprise) , however, they locked down only part of the country so ended up with a double headed locked own. To say we are about as competent as Italy and Brazil is hardly praise.
The UKs statistics, apart from the vaccine role out, are not good 187 deaths per hundred thousand. We are amongst the worlds worst and for a developed country, that lectures the world on pandemic measures, has some of the best Pharma companies and many of the best medical schools in the world that is pretty miserable.

The sad thing about the UK was the government delayed the first lockdown by only about two weeks, but had to extend it for several weeks beyond what our European neighbors needed to. Same with the November lockdown (the bodies pile high debate). In the case of January lockdown, it was bit different, we were hit by a new variant that took us by surprise, in that case people spotted it quite quickly and the government did respond. Most people felt they should have cancelled Christmas, but the last person to do that (Oliver Cromwell) didn't survive the outcome - or his dynasty didn't. The result was 0-3 win to the virus for each wave. What is particularly galling is that in each case we endured a much longer closure of our economy than most other similar countries and still have the deaths, a real double whammy.


----------



## D_W

Blackswanwood said:


> In a nutshell tests are down because they are in a mess. The current data coming out of India is flawed.
> 
> That’s based on talking to people I work with who are in India.
> 
> There is another expert on here who may be along soon to point out that based on his secret data India has peaked though ....



Sorry, I thought we were talking about UK tests being down in number.


----------



## Mark Hancock

I've followed this thread with interest along with those other ones that have since been locked and/or removed to another place.
The one thing that's baffled me is why anyone hasn’t tapped into this wealth of knowledge and expertise that has been posted here such as the scientific community, the UK Government or WHO….? Maybe it because the majority of comments in the discussion come from those who appear to have a viewpoint/ agenda they wish to promote rather than being open to considering other points of view. Very few events in history have been resolved without consideration of the views of all parties involved. Just a thought.


----------



## sometimewoodworker

Trainee neophyte said:


> Correlation is not causation. *Reduction in cases is fact*. Reason for reduction in cases is hypothesis, speculation, theorising, unless you have data to back it up. I'm not saying that less testing isn't the reason for fewer cases, but there could be other reasons, such as, for example, fewer cases?


You have most of your information correct but the above has a glaring error, I have highlighted it, that is unprovable.
it should read *reduction of reported number of cases is a fact*, miss wording (I assume that it’s mis wording not misunderstanding) reduces the impact of your post as it brings everything into question.


----------



## southendwoodworker

Rorschach said:


> Can covid be spread by farts? It is present in faeces of some people and is linked to diarrhoea. Has this been studied? Wouldn't it be a laugh if it turned out we should have been wearing masks on our buttocks instead of our faces!



I don't know about covid, but I have an odd and interesting thing that was discovered concerning mers or sars. In Taiwan some people in a high rise apartment block caught it, and officials locked down the building. People were locked in their apartments for however long and they couldn't mingle or even see their neighbours. What was surprising and interesting was that some people on a particular floor started catching it. They eventually discovered that there was an empty apartment on that floor and the water in the toilets had evaporated. Infected people from higher up in the building were flushing, and atomised particles that included the virus, were escaping the plumbing system, causing people on the same floor as the empty apartment to catch it.

On a light hearted note, I've been working from home since it all started. I needed a more comfortable chair than my wooden dining table chairs. I asked my work for a chair because my butt was getting really sore. On a video call they wanted to see what was sore. This meant I had to face the camera at my butt, point at it multiple times and say "oww, ouch and owwie" ** . They said they couldn't buy me a chair because of some silly accounting reason. OK, so I asked if I could borrow one from the office, they said no because "we are concerned about viral particles being in the chair once it gets returned to the office". So I asked: "do you mean you are worried about covid fart particles from a chair cushion infecting people?" - their reply: "yes, instead we will buy you a £100 (covid fart) cushion that you can keep". big eye roll.

** disappointingly I didnt get any tips for my on camera butt dance


----------



## Dave Moore

Jonm said:


> All valid points.
> If you look at my linked posts I think the reduction in transmission is more like 80% after one dose of the vaccine.
> 
> Currently 34 million have been vaccinated, that still leaves 32 million unvaccinated for the virus to circulate in (including children) plus say 6 million of the vaccinated (based on my 80% figure). So currently plenty of people for the virus to get going again but hopefully not causing too much permanent or serious damage. This perhaps explains the governments staged opening up and does give time for everyone over 18 to be offered the vaccine.
> 
> 13% of Londoners over 50 have refused the vaccine, so there may be issues there which could be interesting.
> 
> Overall I am optimistic, I think the worst is behind us, and we are on our way to something like normality, except perhaps foreign holidays. May be some bumps on the way, like those vulnerable people who have refused the vaccine.
> 
> Here is a recent bbc article giving the opinion of the guy who‘s modelling led to the first nationwide restrictions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Covid lockdown unlikely, says scientist
> 
> 
> The UK is "likely to be on a steady course now out of this pandemic", Prof Neil Ferguson says.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.co.uk


This is the guy who has been incorrect in all his modelling for years so why are we listening to him?


----------



## RobinBHM

Dave Moore said:


> This is the guy who has been incorrect in all his modelling for years so why are we listening to him?


April 2020 Ferguson said: "we could see 100,000 deaths by end of year"

In March 2020 Furgeson said: "herd immunity approach could see hundreds of thousands dead"


----------



## RobinBHM

Mark Hancock said:


> I've followed this thread with interest along with those other ones that have since been locked and/or removed to another place.
> The one thing that's baffled me is why anyone hasn’t tapped into this wealth of knowledge and expertise that has been posted here such as the scientific community, the UK Government or WHO….? Maybe it because the majority of comments in the discussion come from those who appear to have a viewpoint/ agenda they wish to promote rather than being open to considering other points of view. Very few events in history have been resolved without consideration of the views of all parties involved. Just a thought.



It is rather odd that the govt get advice from some 80 odd leading scientists, yet there are a few on here that KNOW lockdowns don't work.

How could the govt get it so wrong?


----------



## Jonm

Dave Moore said:


> This is the guy who has been incorrect in all his modelling for years so why are we listening to him?


I have done some traffic modelling in the past and it is incredibly difficult to predict the future. As for modelling the spread of an emerging disease I would not know where to start. At the beginning of this pandemic the predictions gave a range of deaths from 20k to something much higher like 140k. The comment that sticks in my mind was “20,000 deaths would be a good outcome”.

I can remember saying that I thought it would be no more than 20k deaths, a bit like a bad flue year. I thought the media were just scaremongering. Well I got that wrong.

With regard to Professor Ferguson would you be able to point me in the direction of the articles where he has been “incorrect in all his modelling for years”. I would like to form my own opinion of his credibility. I find that some of the media reporting of what scientists say can be sensationalist and incorrect/misleading.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> How could the govt get it so wrong?



So the government always gets things right?


----------



## Rorschach

Jonm said:


> I can remember saying that I thought it would be no more than 20k deaths, a bit like a bad flue year. I thought the media were just scaremongering. Well I got that wrong.



I guess it will depend on what we classify as a death and if Covid actually caused death of someone who would have lived for many more years or did it bring forward the death of someone who had say less than 2 years to live in poor health in a care home.

We won't really be able to work this out for a couple of years but as an example. We are told we have 150k excess deaths over the Covid period (assuming it's over). If over the next 2 years we actually see 50k less deaths per year then did Covid really kill 150k people or did it accelerate the deaths of 100k people and kill 50k? Of course this will be very difficult to work out properly because the NPI's used will cause/have caused excess deaths in areas such as cancer, heart disease etc.


----------



## Selwyn

Blackswanwood said:


> I can assure you I haven’t swallowed anything.
> 
> In my opinion there is a correlation between lockdowns and curbing the impact of the virus. Without them we would have seen higher peaks with surges lasting over a longer period.



Except that it is not proven at all. Plenty of other countries haven't locked down. In fact lockdown may even make things worse by keeping people more confined.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> It is rather odd that the govt get advice from some 80 odd leading scientists, yet there are a few on here that KNOW lockdowns don't work.
> 
> How could the govt get it so wrong?



We don't have a Parliament convening to debate it, we ostracise other very well qualified epidimiologists and propagandise one monolithic view of "The Science". So lets put it another way - we are letting 80 people on SAGE decided the future of the country and they are not all qualified to speak on covid


----------



## Chris152

Jonm said:


> With regard to Professor Ferguson would you be able to point me in the direction of the articles where he has been “incorrect in all his modelling for years”.


It's the kind of throw away, 'I'm so intimate with this research I can confidently say this kind of thing' remark that you encounter among the anti-lockdown/ anti-vax/ covid denier clever clogs on the wider net. The best one I encountered was a discussion on a BMJ article in which another clever clogs announced with great authority that the editor in chief of the BMJ changed his mind on covid more often than he changed his underpants. Ha, I don't just know my onions, I'm so clever can even laugh at these people. I was happy to point out that the editor in chief is a woman, the clever clog went quiet.


----------



## Chris152

Rorschach said:


> I guess it will depend on what we classify as a death


Do you have an alternative view on that, too?


----------



## Jonm

RobinBHM said:


> It is rather odd that the govt get advice from some 80 odd leading scientists, yet there are a few on here that KNOW lockdowns don't work.
> 
> How could the govt get it so wrong?


Sweden did not go in to lockdown at the beginning of this pandemic. Much lower density of population than us. Much smaller cities than us. Stockholm is spread out over a load of islands. Death rate is lower than us but much larger than similar countries like Norway which did go in to lockdown. Not sure whether restriction were tightened later.

I would expect those on here who are saying that lockdowns are unnecessary would be talking about Sweden, but it does not get a mention.

Please note- I am not giving an opinion here, just asking a question.


----------



## Selwyn

Rorschach said:


> I guess it will depend on what we classify as a death and if Covid actually caused death of someone who would have lived for many more years or did it bring forward the death of someone who had say less than 2 years to live in poor health in a care home.






Jonm said:


> Sweden did not go in to lockdown at the beginning of this pandemic. Much lower density of population than us. Much smaller cities than us. Stockholm is spread out over a load of islands. Death rate is lower than us but much larger than similar countries like Norway which did go in to lockdown. Not sure whether restriction were tightened later.
> 
> I would expect those on here who are saying that lockdowns are unnecessary would be talking about Sweden, but it does not get a mention.
> 
> Please note- I am not giving an opinion here, just asking a question.



Look at Florida, South Dakota, Texas etc. 

Why are Norway and Sweden similar?


----------



## Rorschach

Chris152 said:


> Do you have an alternative view on that, too?



Absolutely, it's very important we clarify what is/isn't a covid death. Just look at what happened last year when the government had to change the reporting and a huge number of deaths dropped off the charts. If for example someone is dying with terminal cancer and has maybe weeks to live, but then catches Covid, is that really a covid death? While technically it fits the category, in the past we would have still classed them as a cancer death even though it isn't usually the cancer that actually ends their life, it's a secondary infection. 
A family member died of dementia, but it wasn't the dementia that "killed" them, it was a combination of pneumonia and infected bed sores because the dementia made them bed bound and eventually their heart gave up from the stress and the doctors didn't resuscitate him. So what killed him? If he had a positive covid death within 28 days it would have been a covid death. Do you see my point?


----------



## Selwyn

Rorschach said:


> Absolutely, it's very important we clarify what is/isn't a covid death. Just look at what happened last year when the government had to change the reporting and a huge number of deaths dropped off the charts. If for example someone is dying with terminal cancer and has maybe weeks to live, but then catches Covid, is that really a covid death? While technically it fits the category, in the past we would have still classed them as a cancer death even though it isn't usually the cancer that actually ends their life, it's a secondary infection.
> A family member died of dementia, but it wasn't the dementia that "killed" them, it was a combination of pneumonia and infected bed sores because the dementia made them bed bound and eventually their heart gave up from the stress and the doctors didn't resuscitate him. So what killed him? If he had a positive covid death within 28 days it would have been a covid death. Do you see my point?



And the point is we have never recorded deaths like that before either!


----------



## Trainee neophyte

RobinBHM said:


> It is rather odd that the govt get advice from some 80 odd leading scientists, yet there are a few on here that KNOW lockdowns don't work.
> 
> How could the govt get it so wrong?


Here are some more alternative facts to keep the pot boiling. Please note that I don't necessarily subscribe to the following, but I do allow for the possibility that the science may not be settled, and that things may not be as clear and incontrovertible as you inevitably insist. 









So Far 27 Studies Prove Lockdowns Have Little to No Effect | Principia Scientific Intl.


Studies since March 2020 have documented and assessed the impacts of mass quarantining of healthy populations, a policy never attempted before in modern medicine. A precept in medicine is first do no harm, but lockdowns are proven to do much harm for little or no good. Below we cite 27 published...




principia-scientific.com


----------



## Jonm

Rorschach said:


> Absolutely, it's very important we clarify what is/isn't a covid death. Just look at what happened last year when the government had to change the reporting and a huge number of deaths dropped off the charts. If for example someone is dying with terminal cancer and has maybe weeks to live, but then catches Covid, is that really a covid death? While technically it fits the category, in the past we would have still classed them as a cancer death even though it isn't usually the cancer that actually ends their life, it's a secondary infection.
> A family member died of dementia, but it wasn't the dementia that "killed" them, it was a combination of pneumonia and infected bed sores because the dementia made them bed bound and eventually their heart gave up from the stress and the doctors didn't resuscitate him. So what killed him? If he had a positive covid death within 28 days it would have been a covid death. Do you see my point?


The previous definition was anyone who died after a positive COVID test. Fine at the start of the pandemic but as time went on it was ridiculous, it meant that someone who had a positive test and died 5 years later would classify as a COVID death. The definition is now “deaths that occurred within 28 days of a positive lab-confirmed COVID test“. At least it is consistent, quick and easy to apply, rather than waiting for coroners reports and interpreting them. Perhaps in time researchers will trawl through all the coroners reports, look at excess deaths etc and come with a better understanding of what has happened. Of course, just because someone has tested positive in the last 28 days for COVID it does not mean that is what killed them.

So far COVID case numbers in the community, number of hospitalisations, and COVID deaths (as currently defined) have followed a pattern. The vaccine should break that pattern so we will see if the vaccines work. 

You and others can argue till the cows come home about the number of deaths due directly to COVID and indirectly, what would have happened if the nhs had been overwhelmed etc but I think we have to wait until the research has been done and peer reviewed.


----------



## Peterm1000

Rorschach said:


> Absolutely, it's very important we clarify what is/isn't a covid death. Just look at what happened last year when the government had to change the reporting and a huge number of deaths dropped off the charts. If for example someone is dying with terminal cancer and has maybe weeks to live, but then catches Covid, is that really a covid death? While technically it fits the category, in the past we would have still classed them as a cancer death even though it isn't usually the cancer that actually ends their life, it's a secondary infection.
> A family member died of dementia, but it wasn't the dementia that "killed" them, it was a combination of pneumonia and infected bed sores because the dementia made them bed bound and eventually their heart gave up from the stress and the doctors didn't resuscitate him. So what killed him? If he had a positive covid death within 28 days it would have been a covid death. Do you see my point?



I think it's important to have a consistent method of categorising covid deaths, but I'm not sure it's important that the current method has flaws. You are saying that some "Covid" deaths are not really deaths caused by Covid. Imagine an extreme example. I get a positive Covid test. The next day I am in the garden and a bolt of lightning kills me - classification = Covid death. Or another - I have Covid. On my way to the test, I cough and trip over a paving slab falling into the path of an oncoming bus. Covid caused my accident, but classification = road traffic accident. Or another, I have Covid. I struggle through 28 days of illness after the test and die on the 29th day. Classification = pneumonia. Providing the classification is consistently applied, I'm not sure any of this matters. You still ended up with 3 dead people.

The significance of the lockdown is that it is supposed to slow the spread of the disease to the point where people in the NHS can cope with the number of cases coming in. When there aren't beds available, people die in the streets for all kinds of reasons. I have friends who are doctors in other countries. One told me a very sad story of a 20 year old who had a motorbike accident. There were no emergency beds available at the hospital so he died of an injury that would have been easily survivable. When you reduce the number of contact points, the spread of any disease is reduced.

I don't think anyone's arguing that locking up healthy people didn't come with a load of other negative impacts.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Rorschach said:


> Absolutely, it's very important we clarify what is/isn't a covid death. Just look at what happened last year when the government had to change the reporting and a huge number of deaths dropped off the charts. If for example someone is dying with terminal cancer and has maybe weeks to live, but then catches Covid, is that really a covid death? While technically it fits the category, in the past we would have still classed them as a cancer death even though it isn't usually the cancer that actually ends their life, it's a secondary infection.
> A family member died of dementia, but it wasn't the dementia that "killed" them, it was a combination of pneumonia and infected bed sores because the dementia made them bed bound and eventually their heart gave up from the stress and the doctors didn't resuscitate him. So what killed him? If he had a positive covid death within 28 days it would have been a covid death. Do you see my point?


I agree with your general point - the actions taken need to lead to the best outcome overall. It then gets difficult to put into practice and balance all the factors which is perhaps where we have different views on how to balance things ... which is okay as this is a woodworking forum and neither of us are in the cabinet


----------



## Rorschach

@Peterm1000 I think the classification is important if you are using that as a justification for lockdown. Same goes for age of those dying. It's an unpopular opinion I know and will probably get me complained about, but if your average age of death from covid is 83 rather than say 23, you need to act differently I am afraid. Saying that "every death is a tragedy" while it may be popular with voters it is not a rational way to decide government policy and causes those negative consequences for the healthy that you mentioned. I agree no-one seems to be arguing that lockdown hasn't had negative consequences (though some seem to be very close to it) but they certainly don't seem to realise just how negative those consequences are, maybe that's just because they are not thinking about it, maybe it's selfish because if you are a pensioner the negative consequences of lockdown are minimal.


----------



## Rorschach

Blackswanwood said:


> I agree with your general point - the actions taken need to lead to the best outcome overall. It then gets difficult to put into practice and balance all the factors which is perhaps where we have different views on how to balance things ... which is okay as this is a woodworking forum and neither of us are in the cabinet



It is indeed a very difficult area and there is no perfect balance. My argument is simply that we made the balance tip the wrong way, others are arguing the same, expect they think it tipped a different way.


----------



## ey_tony

Rorschach said:


> @Peterm1000 if you are a pensioner the negative consequences of lockdown are minimal.



Really?


----------



## Peterm1000

Rorschach said:


> @Peterm1000 I think the classification is important if you are using that as a justification for lockdown. Same goes for age of those dying. It's an unpopular opinion I know and will probably get me complained about, but if your average age of death from covid is 83 rather than say 23, you need to act differently I am afraid. Saying that "every death is a tragedy" while it may be popular with voters it is not a rational way to decide government policy and causes those negative consequences for the healthy that you mentioned. I agree no-one seems to be arguing that lockdown hasn't had negative consequences (though some seem to be very close to it) but they certainly don't seem to realise just how negative those consequences are, maybe that's just because they are not thinking about it, maybe it's selfish because if you are a pensioner the negative consequences of lockdown are minimal.


The every life is equal approach is a feature of our current method of government. I was locked down in an area of the country that had next to zero Covid cases when we could have taken a tiered approach. However, it was deemed "unfair" that I should be let out and others should be locked up and we needed to behave according to the average rather than the individual situation. The reality there I think is that the UK does not have the policing resources necessary for the more regional types of lockdown in place in other countries. Personally, I would have preferred a more regionalised lockdown that was much tougher, but also much shorter than the one we had.

The lockdown had terrible consequences on many pensioners. My stepfather started lockdown a very active 80 year old who could easily walk 15 miles. Now, he has spent a year largely locked in his house without visitors and without any of the activities he used to enjoy. Many pensioners have seen friends die and have not been allowed to say one last goodbye at their funerals. I don't think you should minimise the impact of lockdown on them. It might not have been financial, but it has been very difficult for other reasons.


----------



## Rorschach

Peterm1000 said:


> The lockdown had terrible consequences on many pensioners. My stepfather started lockdown a very active 80 year old who could easily walk 15 miles. Now, he has spent a year largely locked in his house without visitors and without any of the activities he used to enjoy. Many pensioners have seen friends die and have not been allowed to say one last goodbye at their funerals. I don't think you should minimise the impact of lockdown on them. It might not have been financial, but it has been very difficult for other reasons.



You don't think young people suffered in the same way as your stepfather? It's difficult for everyone in their own way but at least pensioners are financially secure and won't suffer in the long term.


----------



## Rorschach

ey_tony said:


> Really?



Yep. Feel free to disagree and point out where I might be wrong.


----------



## ey_tony

Rorschach said:


> Yep. Feel free to disagree and point out where I might be wrong.



'Might be'?....hmmmm!


----------



## Rorschach

ey_tony said:


> 'Might be'?....hmmmm!



Yeah, that's not actually putting forward your opinion or anything.


----------



## Jonm

Selwyn said:


> And the point is we have never recorded deaths like that before either!


I think that coroners are recording deaths where Covid is a factor in the same way as any other death.

In a fast moving pandemic there has to be a way of counting deaths which is consistent, quick and easy to apply so that trends can be established very quickly. Waiting for coroners reports and interpreting them would be far too slow. 

The current definition for this purpose is “deaths that occurred within 28 days of a positive lab-confirmed COVID test”. This is clearly stated when the government reports the numbers and is prominent in bbc reports of the numbers.

No method is perfect so can you suggest a better way of reporting deaths related to Covid which is consistent, quick and easy to apply so that trends can be established very quickly?


----------



## D_W

In the US, those deaths are reported similarly to the way they were before, unless something has changed. That is, there's no one standard form across the US and what happens is in some states, there's one line for cause of death, and in others, there are two or three (for example "FAT" with CHF and morbid obesity and CHF maybe listed, but heart failure may be the only item listed elsewhere and the bigness is a lost detail).

Mortality data is tracked by cause, though, and it's very easy to look at the causes in the top 12 and note that none of the non-covid items were really down in 2020, meaning that the excess deaths attributable to covid are very unlikely to be scabbed from other causes and be misqualified. 

Excess deaths were about 100k higher than covid deaths last year to my understanding. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the covid deaths weren't reported as nursing homes, etc, had an incentive to underreport them to avoid bad publicity. This has reared itself in criticism of governors more than once.


----------



## Rorschach

Jonm said:


> No method is perfect so can you suggest a better way of reporting deaths related to Covid which is consistent, quick and easy to apply so that trends can be established very quickly?



Since we were told lockdowns were to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed, which was a lie but anyway. How about deaths excess to the 5 year average for each week. That would then not only encompass Covid deaths but any increase in general mortality.


----------



## D_W

Rorschach said:


> Since we were told lockdowns were to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed, which was a lie but anyway. How about deaths excess to the 5 year average for each week. That would then not only encompass Covid deaths but any increase in general mortality.



mortality rates generally improve about 1% per year over time. Not consistently across ages, but in the aggregate. On top of that, the population age changes, so the applicable rates change. It's not quite as simple as just looking at the average deaths per capita or the 5 year average at each age as that would overstate mortality expectations. The data from last year would still blow it out of the water, though. 

The CDC posts excess mortality in the style you're mentioning, but with proper age and improvement adjustment (i'd guess- not totally sure). That kind of thing leads people to respond that "oh, they're just doctoring the expected number, then", which ignores the fact that the aggregate number of deaths itself is up enormously despite population not changing much. 





__





Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19


Figures present excess deaths associated with COVID-19 at the national and state levels.




www.cdc.gov





Note that we look low now, but there may be reporting lag in may. 2018 must've been a bad flu season or something.


----------



## Selwyn

Peterm1000 said:


> The every life is equal approach is a feature of our current method of government. I was locked down in an area of the country that had next to zero Covid cases when we could have taken a tiered approach. However, it was deemed "unfair" that I should be let out and others should be locked up and we needed to behave according to the average rather than the individual situation. The reality there I think is that the UK does not have the policing resources necessary for the more regional types of lockdown in place in other countries. Personally, I would have preferred a more regionalised lockdown that was much tougher, but also much shorter than the one we had.
> 
> The lockdown had terrible consequences on many pensioners. My stepfather started lockdown a very active 80 year old who could easily walk 15 miles. Now, he has spent a year largely locked in his house without visitors and without any of the activities he used to enjoy. Many pensioners have seen friends die and have not been allowed to say one last goodbye at their funerals. I don't think you should minimise the impact of lockdown on them. It might not have been financial, but it has been very difficult for other reasons.



This is exactly why there should not have been a lockdown. People were and are quite capable of arranging their own lifestyles according to risk we don't need government to tell us we are only allowed out for 30 minutes of every day


----------



## Selwyn

Jonm said:


> I think that coroners are recording deaths where Covid is a factor in the same way as any other death.
> 
> In a fast moving pandemic there has to be a way of counting deaths which is consistent, quick and easy to apply so that trends can be established very quickly. Waiting for coroners reports and interpreting them would be far too slow.
> 
> The current definition for this purpose is “deaths that occurred within 28 days of a positive lab-confirmed COVID test”. This is clearly stated when the government reports the numbers and is prominent in bbc reports of the numbers.
> 
> No method is perfect so can you suggest a better way of reporting deaths related to Covid which is consistent, quick and easy to apply so that trends can be established very quickly?



Ok fine, we can go with that but we also need to redouble the efforts to confirm to people that it is not just covid killing people. There was nowhere near enough iteration of that. Covid was not the only game in town.

I don't recall a rolling news conference for all the other deaths of the day? Old people die of multiples of things


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Do you see my point


No.

The data is available if you we're interested in facts rather than conspiracy theories.



Deaths due to Covid 119,000

Deaths recorded within 28 days of a positive test 133,000





__





The number of deaths recorded within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test who died solely from COVID-19 - Office for National Statistics






www.ons.gov.uk





And by week




__





Deaths solely from COVID-19 rather than deaths within 28-days of a positive test - Office for National Statistics






www.ons.gov.uk


----------



## Peterm1000

Rorschach said:


> You don't think young people suffered in the same way as your stepfather? It's difficult for everyone in their own way but at least pensioners are financially secure and won't suffer in the long term.


I didn't say that they didn't. I have relatives at both ends of the spectrum and both suffered. My elderly parents suffered by losing their entire social lives and (unlike me) could not fill the gap with work. My teenage children suffered also by losing their entire social lives but also having their GCSEs & A Levels cancelled (remember being 16? I wouldn't have been able to think of anything worse than being locked up with my parents!). The only group that I don't think suffered particularly are those who have comfortable homes and could work from home. For many of them, the new lockdown existence is arguably better than what existed before.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> This is exactly why there should not have been a lockdown. People were and are quite capable of arranging their own lifestyles according to risk we don't need government to tell us we are only allowed out for 30 minutes of every day


That's shows a lack of understanding of the need for collective effort that is required during a pandemic.

You are trying to make the case "keeping a kitchen tidy in a student house"
What is "everybodies responsibility" becomes "nobodies responsibility"


Heres a question for you:

what do you think would happen if the govt said to pub landlords "We will leave it up to whether you want to open or not"


----------



## Peterm1000

Selwyn said:


> This is exactly why there should not have been a lockdown. People were and are quite capable of arranging their own lifestyles according to risk we don't need government to tell us we are only allowed out for 30 minutes of every day


But without the lockdown, you are not just arranging your day according to risk. You are arranging my daughter's day and others too (unless you feel nurses shouldn't be there to care for you when you take that risk and contract Covid). Because in many cases you don't know whether you are infected or not, you have no idea if you are out there infected a load of other people.

I am all for people taking risks with their own safety. I am less keen on people taking risks with other people's safety.


----------



## Peterm1000

Selwyn said:


> Ok fine, we can go with that but we also need to redouble the efforts to confirm to people that it is not just covid killing people. There was nowhere near enough iteration of that. Covid was not the only game in town.
> 
> I don't recall a rolling news conference for all the other deaths of the day? Old people die of multiples of things


It pains me to agree with you, but you do have a point on this. The numbers do sound shocking, but there are 60 million Brits alive right now and every year nearly a million of them die to be replaced by nearly a million new citizens. In the UK, 450 people die a day of heart disease and about the same die of cancer. Each of those deaths is just as much a family tragedy as a Covid death and arguably worse because for some, that will have followed months or years of treatment, pain and reduced lifestyles.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Ok fine, we can go with that but we also need to redouble the efforts to confirm to people that it is not just covid killing people. There was nowhere near enough iteration of that. Covid was not the only game in town.
> 
> I don't recall a rolling news conference for all the other deaths of the day? Old people die of multiples of things



I am sure we all aware old people die of multiple of things.....the absence of reporting that doesn't mean anything.

I really am unsure what point you are trying to make.

By the way the "media didn't report it" is a classic claim of conspiracists.....I'm not sure want to be tugging at that thread


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> That's shows a lack of understanding of the need for collective effort that is required during a pandemic.
> 
> You are trying to make the case "keeping a kitchen tidy in a student house"
> What is "everybodies responsibility" becomes "nobodies responsibility"
> 
> 
> Heres a question for you:
> 
> what do you think would happen if the govt said to pub landlords "We will leave it up to whether you want to open or not"



You are saying the government can organise peoples lives better than people can organise their own lives which on one level sounds paternalistic but on the other is total overreach. Governments do not organise better than people. 

The pubs has guidance, they still have guidance, everyone knows the circumstances and the risk. Should it be up to the pub if they open? 100% yes.


----------



## Selwyn

Peterm1000 said:


> It pains me to agree with you, but you do have a point on this. The numbers do sound shocking, but there are 60 million Brits alive right now and every year nearly a million of them die to be replaced by nearly a million new citizens. In the UK, 450 people die a day of heart disease and about the same die of cancer. Each of those deaths is just as much a family tragedy as a Covid death and arguably worse because for some, that will have followed months or years of treatment, pain and reduced lifestyles.



Why does it pain you to agree with me?


----------



## Selwyn

Peterm1000 said:


> I am all for people taking risks with their own safety. I am less keen on people taking risks with other people's safety.



Then I suggest you never drive a car. Furthermore what about the risks we have taken with lockdown on all other deaths and livelihoods? Did we look at it? No.

The first lockdown had an element of excusability even if it lacked real thought. The second and third did not. No way.

The exponential growth fantasists are demonstrably that - fantasists. Name a country where the covid growth has been constant and exponential - nowhere


----------



## Jonm

[


Rorschach said:


> You don't think young people suffered in the same way as your stepfather? It's difficult for everyone in their own way but at least pensioners are financially secure and won't suffer in the long term.



You stated “maybe it's selfish because if you are a pensioner the negative consequences of lockdown are minimal“

Peterterm 1000 replied to this statement telling you about the adverse effect on his stepfather

Your response could easily have been, “I was a bit hasty, of course elderly people have suffered”. Instead you reply “You don't think young people suffered .......” Petertherm 1000 never said young people had not suffered, he was pointing out an elderly person who has suffered.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> You are saying the government can organise peoples lives better than people can organise their own lives which on one level sounds paternalistic but on the other is total overreach.
> 
> The pubs has guidance, they still have guidance, everyone knows the circumstances and the risk. Should it be up to the pub if they open? 100% yes


Unfortunately you haven't understood the point I made.
Nor reality.

minimising infection spread requires collective effort.
Collective effort only, I repeat only, works if it rules based.

Unfortunately those like you and Rorschach cannot get accept the government sets pandemic rules for collective benefit. You both have a narrow view that it's an affront to your liberty and you can't see deeper than that.

Because of that you both argue till your blue in the face using endless misleading and dishonest claims in your pursuit of your belief of "freedom". I have to say, it really is a bit tiresome.


Me personally, as much as I dislike govt putting all these restrictions in place....I understand that ultimately the govt lockdown restrictions actually in all our interests. It's a shame you can't see that.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Then I suggest you never drive a car


Strawman.



Selwyn said:


> Furthermore what about the risks we have taken with lockdown on all other deaths and livelihoods? Did we look at it? No


Ah....you think there was a simplistic choice between lockdown and economy.
Or a simplistic choice between NHS managing Covid in hospitals or other healthcare.

If there had been no lockdown and we had allowed herd immunity.....the economy would've been more badly damaged.

In fact had the lockdown been harder and faster, the economy would have recovered faster.


I hate to say it but you seem to be stuck on the same narrative.

It would really be better if this thread wasn't diverted by repeating all the same old arguments......seriously the facts, evidence and data are all out there....please please go and read some, there's a number of leading quality scientific sources you can look at, including nature.com, CDC, JAMA, etc.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> If there had been no lockdown and we had allowed herd immunity.....the economy would've been more badly damaged.
> 
> In fact had the lockdown been harder and faster, the economy would have recovered faster.



You have no evidence for either of those statements, they just suit your agenda.


----------



## selectortone

Rorschach said:


> You don't think young people suffered in the same way as your stepfather? It's difficult for everyone in their own way but at least pensioners are financially secure and won't suffer in the long term.


Classic Rorshach trolling. Sorry, fishies not biting today.


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> Classic Rorshach trolling. Sorry, fishies not biting today.



Am I wrong? Has your pension gone down?


----------



## Jonm

Selwyn said:


> Ok fine, we can go with that but we also need to redouble the efforts to confirm to people that it is not just covid killing people. There was nowhere near enough iteration of that. Covid was not the only game in town.
> 
> I don't recall a rolling news conference for all the other deaths of the day? Old people die of multiples of things


I agree that many people think of “deaths that occurred within 28 days of a positive lab-confirmed COVID test” as being the same as “died from Covid” which clearly it is not.

Actually putting the number of deaths in to context by referring to the comparable number of total deaths would be good.


----------



## Jonm

Peterm1000 said:


> It pains me to agree with you, but you do have a point on this. The numbers do sound shocking, but there are 60 million Brits alive right now and every year nearly a million of them die to be replaced by nearly a million new citizens. In the UK, 450 people die a day of heart disease and about the same die of cancer. Each of those deaths is just as much a family tragedy as a Covid death and arguably worse because for some, that will have followed months or years of treatment, pain and reduced lifestyles.


I am pleased, my comment to Selwyn has resulted in agreement on something between peterterm1000 and Selwyn.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> You have no evidence for either of those statements, they just suit your agenda.



Yes I do

Here it is:

Based on epidemic trajectories of 25 highly developed countries and 10 US states in the (mobility reduction)–(reproduction number) plane we showed that delay in imposition of nation-wide quarantine elevates the number of infections and deaths, surge of which inevitably has to be suppressed by stringent and sustained lockdown. As a consequence, cumulative mobility reduction and population-normalized cumulative number of COVID-19-associated deaths are significantly correlated and this correlation increases with time. Overall, we demonstrated that, as long as epidemic suppression is the aim, the trade-off between the death toll and economic loss is illusory: high death toll correlates with deep and long-lasting lockdown causing a severe economic downturn









Pareto-based evaluation of national responses to COVID-19 pandemic shows that saving lives and protecting economy are non-trade-off objectives - Scientific Reports


Countries worldwide have adopted various strategies to minimize the socio-economic impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Stringency of imposed measures universally reflects the standpoint from which protecting public health and avoiding damage to economy are seen as contradictory objectives...




www.nature.com


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Unfortunately you haven't understood the point I made.
> Nor reality.
> 
> minimising infection spread requires collective effort.
> Collective effort only, I repeat only, works if it rules based.
> 
> Unfortunately those like you and Rorschach cannot get accept the government sets pandemic rules for collective benefit. You both have a narrow view that it's an affront to your liberty and you can't see deeper than that.
> 
> Because of that you both argue till your blue in the face using endless misleading and dishonest claims in your pursuit of your belief of "freedom". I have to say, it really is a bit tiresome.
> 
> 
> Me personally, as much as I dislike govt putting all these restrictions in place....I understand that ultimately the govt lockdown restrictions actually in all our interests. It's a shame you can't see that.



A govt can argue anything is in our interest if you frame it in a certain way. Especially if they keep repeating the message constantly. Many communist countries did this very successfully. 

Collective effort is not only successful if rules based at all - that is coercion. Things work best when everyone has a self interest in making things work. The idea that covid spreads because people "can't behave" is total propaganda.

One day it will sink in with you but you have a narrow view and the answer to everything for you is deeper, harder, faster lockdown. Its incredibly short sighted of you


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> A govt can argue anything is in our interest if you frame it in a certain way.


strawman
where did I say the government argued that?



Selwyn said:


> Many communist countries did this very successfully.


irrelevant



Selwyn said:


> Collective effort is not only successful if rules based at all - that is coercion.


no it isnt

motor cyclists have to wear helmets -coercion?



Selwyn said:


> The idea that covid spreads because people "can't behave" is total propaganda


strawman.

I never suggested that people cant behave.



Selwyn said:


> One day it will sink in with you but you have a narrow view and the answer to everything for you is deeper, harder, faster lockdown


I read and follow trusted authoritative scientific sites

and another strawman, I never said "the answer to everything is deeper harder faster lockdown

what I said is the evidence says faster and harder lockdowns have a lower economic impact.

"









Pareto-based evaluation of national responses to COVID-19 pandemic shows that saving lives and protecting economy are non-trade-off objectives - Scientific Reports


Countries worldwide have adopted various strategies to minimize the socio-economic impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Stringency of imposed measures universally reflects the standpoint from which protecting public health and avoiding damage to economy are seen as contradictory objectives...




www.nature.com







Selwyn said:


> Its incredibly short sighted of you


Instead of ad hominems please could you actually provide a counter argument -it is of much greater use to a debate

perhaps you might give a response to the quote above, the one that says: 

" Based on epidemic trajectories of 25 highly developed countries and 10 US states in the (mobility reduction)–(reproduction number) plane we showed that delay in imposition of nation-wide quarantine elevates the number of infections and deaths, surge of which inevitably has to be suppressed by stringent and sustained lockdown. As a consequence, cumulative mobility reduction and population-normalized cumulative number of COVID-19-associated deaths are significantly correlated and this correlation increases with time. Overall, we demonstrated that, as long as epidemic suppression is the aim, the trade-off between the death toll and economic loss is illusory: high death toll correlates with deep and long-lasting lockdown causing a severe economic downturn"

note this:* "we showed that delay in imposition of nation-wide quarantine elevates the number of infections and deaths, surge of which inevitably has to be suppressed by stringent and sustained lockdown."*

that is a quote from a trusted source that directly contradicts your narrative.

please can you provide some evidence that backs your claim the opposite is true.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> You have no evidence for either of those statements, they just suit your agenda.


I provided the evidence....I guess you didnt like it?


----------



## Rorschach




----------



## Selwyn

We had a pandemic response plan in the UK and what did we do? Chuck it out and go for Chinese style lockdown. 

Even if lockdowns did decrease covid deaths they still wouldn't be worth it - why? Because they increase other deaths as well as we now know. I have a little sympathy for the first lockdown but not the latter ones - pure filthy propaganda on them. 

Let us never ever again let Govts use lockdown and tanking peoples livelihoods.


----------



## Selwyn

p.s. the positive rate for India has now plateaued.

And no lockdown. Remarkable eh? Who'd have thunk? Virus' curve all the time, all the bloody time.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> View attachment 109916


meaningless

that method assures that the average is overwhelmingly included in both groups.

single factor analysis -pretty worthless really


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> p.s. the positive rate for India has now plateaued.


please could you avoid presenting opinion as fact

I heard a senior scientist from India public health saying this afternoon it had not peaked.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> We had a pandemic response plan in the UK and what did we do? Chuck it out and go for Chinese style lockdown.
> 
> Even if lockdowns did decrease covid deaths they still wouldn't be worth it - why? Because they increase other deaths as well as we now know. I have a little sympathy for the first lockdown but not the latter ones - pure filthy propaganda on them.
> 
> Let us never ever again let Govts use lockdown and tanking peoples livelihoods.


I am sorry but that is opinion and not backed up by facts, evidence or data -just because you keep saying it to yourself doesn't make it true

I presented you with evidence from a trusted source -do you have any actual evidence that counters it? -I am always interested in a meaningful discussion with data from trusted sources


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> please could you avoid presenting opinion as fact
> 
> I heard a senior scientist from India public health saying this afternoon it had not peaked.



Lets revisit my comment in a few days. I'm pretty sure the data I'm seeing is saying its plateauing.

 - you won't like this Robin. Info from the ZOE app. Infections dropping before lockdown as I said ages ago. I'm sure those two Professors won't have been as thorough as you....


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> View attachment 109916


Do you have a link for this?

I can only find it on twitter


----------



## Jonm

Rorschach said:


> View attachment 109916


I did a quick check of this against total hospitalisations on world of data. Peak date and numbers tie up reasonably. 128k hospitalisations in jan 2021 is 39 per 100k. (Note 1/6/21 is 6 jan 2021). Not sure of the accuracy of the graph Rorschach posted or of it’s relevance, but a quick check shows no glaring errors.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> I'm pretty sure


Opinion



Selwyn said:


> data I'm seeing


Which you seem reluctant to share


----------



## Peterm1000

Selwyn said:


> We had a pandemic response plan in the UK and what did we do? Chuck it out and go for Chinese style lockdown.



In China they locked people in their houses and let one person per household leave every 2 hours to buy food. Thay was in 2020. Then last month rather than lock a city down, they tested all 9 million inhabitants over the course of 5 days.

In other words, nothing like what happened in the UK in any of our lock downs.


----------



## Peterm1000

Selwyn said:


> Then I suggest you never drive a car. Furthermore what about the risks we have taken with lockdown on all other deaths and livelihoods? Did we look at it? No.
> 
> The first lockdown had an element of excusability even if it lacked real thought. The second and third did not. No way.
> 
> The exponential growth fantasists are demonstrably that - fantasists. Name a country where the covid growth has been constant and exponential - nowhere



It's not at all comparable to driving a car. Firstly, when driving a car you would be aware if you injured or killed someone. If you have covid without symptoms you can be infecting people with no knowledge at all. Secondly, the relative risk of injuring someone while driving a car must be considerably lower than walking around infected with covid.


----------



## D_W

RobinBHM said:


> Do you have a link for this?
> 
> I can only find it on twitter




if it's right, it reinforces my initial hassling of everyone that wearing an incapable mask and washing your hands all the time is pointless. Wash your hands after the restroom or after you pick your nose, or after you pick your nose in the restroom, and if you're going to be in a room, brush off the comments from people that N95 masks should be used only by health care workers.

If we could take all of the senseless covid hand washing and allocated it to the people who leave the restroom without washing their hands, then I'd be a happy man (OK, that's not true - I'm permanently wired to be unhappy, but I'll be less unhappy!!).


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> - you won't like this Robin. Info from the ZOE app. Infections dropping before lockdown as I said ages ago. I'm sure those two Professors won't have been as thorough as you.


This isn't new stuff, the arguments that infections were dropping before lockdown is questionable and as Tim Spector said, it's not by any means black and white.

I know you said it ages ago....and Inalso did a breakdown to show the dates don't really prove that's the case.

Once again it's you selectively picking bits to suit your misguided and wrong narrative.


Did you notice at no point in that interview did either of the professors say lockdowns were not necessary?......I wonder why you failed to mention that in your post.


----------



## Rorschach

It's like hitting your head against a brick wall, the evidence that rates were falling before lockdown are right there with two (non nut job) scientists. Yet still the fanatics will not accept that truth that the lockdown wasn't needed. Some of us knew this months ago, I wonder if it's just that they can't accept they were wrong?


----------



## Adam W.

Blimey!

This is a bit like a Brexit thread, I'll leave you all to it.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Opinion
> 
> 
> Which you seem reluctant to share



Not at all - the data is on our worldindata amongst other places


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> This isn't new stuff, the arguments that infections were dropping before lockdown is questionable and as Tim Spector said, it's not by any means black and white.
> 
> I know you said it ages ago....and Inalso did a breakdown to show the dates don't really prove that's the case.
> 
> Once again it's you selectively picking bits to suit your misguided and wrong narrative.
> 
> 
> Did you notice at no point in that interview did either of the professors say lockdowns were not necessary?......I wonder why you failed to mention that in your post.



No its not new but I would think Professor Tim Spector knows more than you. Were they asked if lockdowns were not necessary? No. So they didn't answer a question they weren't asked! You are creating a circular argument for yourself.

They put it clear as day that lockdowns 2 and 3 were not necessary, no effective and the data was very clear by then.


----------



## Selwyn

Rorschach said:


> It's like hitting your head against a brick wall, the evidence that rates were falling before lockdown are right there with two (non nut job) scientists. Yet still the fanatics will not accept that truth that the lockdown wasn't needed. Some of us knew this months ago, I wonder if it's just that they can't accept they were wrong?



You cannot change a fanatic. There is only one narrative with them. 

When the BBC publishes some stuff the penny might drop.


----------



## southendwoodworker

Rorschach said:


> Since we were told lockdowns were to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed, which was a lie but anyway. ..



This is outright wrong. 

My partner works in the NHS, through her I saw what happened first hand. You are simply covid denying now because you didn't see it first hand, and don't trust media or scientists.


----------



## Selwyn

Peterm1000 said:


> It's not at all comparable to driving a car. Firstly, when driving a car you would be aware if you injured or killed someone. If you have covid without symptoms you can be infecting people with no knowledge at all. Secondly, the relative risk of injuring someone while driving a car must be considerably lower than walking around infected with covid.



Its comparable with the principle of risk. Everywhere there are risks. Risk mitigation is good. Govts locking down economic lifeblood is not risk mitigation as the deaths elsewhere are worse. 

Especially as it was clear within 2 weeks that Covid wasn't the black death or ebola. We have not changed from this narrative yet.


----------



## Rorschach

southendwoodworker said:


> This is outright wrong.
> 
> My partner works in the NHS, through her I saw what happened first hand. You are simply covid denying now because you didn't see it first hand, and don't trust media or scientists.



I am not denying Covid, I said that the lockdown was to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed which was a lie because as soon as the pressure on the hospitals dropped the lockdown should have stopped, it didn't, so they lied. We are still under restrictions now, the NHS is not in danger of being overwhelmed, it was a lie.


----------



## Selwyn

southendwoodworker said:


> This is outright wrong.
> 
> My partner works in the NHS, through her I saw what happened first hand. You are simply covid denying now because you didn't see it first hand, and don't trust media or scientists.



Some hospitals did get very very busy for sure, and they did lack PPE and probably in the very early days were caught out. I think to claim the whole NHS was overwhelmed would be incorrect though.

There was a lot of PPE hoarding going on too.

I don't deny Covid either. Its a nasty disease. Nightingales were dismantled pretty quickly after weren't they? Birminghams treated no one person and costs £66 million.


----------



## Chris152

I think it's important to use the word 'narrative' as frequently as possible, it's a sure sign you've thought things through. And I'm disappointed in the infrequency with which 'msm' is appearing at the moment, can we see more of that, please? Tia.


----------



## Rorschach

Chris152 said:


> I think it's important to use the word 'narrative' as frequently as possible, it's a sure sign you've thought things through. And I'm disappointed in the infrequency with which 'msm' is appearing at the moment, can we see more of that, please? Tia.



I think they changed the name to Skype now.


----------



## ey_tony

If people could be trusted to actually act responsibly then there would be little or no reason for there to be full lock-downs. Lockdowns are a result of failure by society to behave responsibly.
Unfortunately Boris expected the British public to do the right thing before the first lockdown....how mistaken he was! Anyone who watched his Covid update put out on 16th March 2020 could have been under no illusion what was needed for everyone to stay safe and avoid full lockdown but sadly many just ignored the advice. Unfortunately everyone suffers because of the selfish.
I recognised the issue early and I was already shielding by the end of February 2020. I didn't need government intervention in order to get me to act responsibly.

I'm retired and having survived the SARS virus while out in Hong Kong when it was in full swing back in the early 2000s, a virus which left me with seriously damaged lungs and COPD, I wasn't going to let this virus get me so I've spent a virtual year shielding myself from the ravages of the virus and the behaviour of the irresponsible.
Just because someone is retired, that doesn't or shouldn't devalue their lives. Sadly I see too many people believing that the lives of the young are more important than those of maturity. From my perspective, ALL lives are important both young and old and those who believe that the lives of the older people should be sacrificed for the sake of the rest, makes you wonder what our society has actually degenerated into.

In retrospect I could have safely left my home and interacted with society albeit in a somewhat restricted manner if only others had adopted a similar approach to safety and hygiene as myself and those around me but unfortunately many people as we have seen are just too stupid and selfish to do that.
It's humans who are the transporter of the virus. Without humans transporting and transmitting the virus then the chances of being infected are actually pretty slim. All it needs is common sense, discipline and good hygiene. Hardly rocket science and we could have avoided most of the issues brought on by lockdowns.

Sadly I suspect that the amelioration/reduction in numbers currently affected by the virus will be short lived as restrictions are relaxed. Many people just don't get it. They think it's all over but the truth is we're going to have to possibly live with this for some time to come and returning back to full normality, whatever that is, is just not going to happen any time soon.


----------



## Rorschach

Thank you @ey_tony for proving me right so perfectly!


----------



## rafezetter

Selwyn said:


> Except that it is not proven at all. Plenty of other countries haven't locked down. In fact lockdown may even make things worse by keeping people more confined.




Right - because India has been the very model of low numbers of cases due to thier "no lockdown" approach. I cannot for the life of me understand how adults allowed to walk the streets unsupervised can argue that limiting human interaction has little to no effect on spreading a pathogen.... it beggers belief and makes me seriously question thier sanity. Now, shall we talk about how the flu season was an almost complete non event this last winter? I wonder what factor was in play to reduce it.....

I personally put all those people into the same box labelled "flat earthers & antivaxxers", stupid people best ignored and avoided at all costs.

Just as an FYI - India has now reached 400,000 cases per day, and that's just an estimate, which just shows how "no lockdown" is really working for them.

The more I read this sort of "head in the sand" BS, the more I start to wonder who is the real "enemy" to our way of life - is it China and Russia, or are they already here, spouting this utter, and very dangerous, nonsense.


----------



## rafezetter

Rorschach said:


> Thank you @ey_tony for proving me right so perfectly!




Actually he didn't, but you take that win you're not entitled to anyway, never stopped you before.

You've always said "we don't need lockdowns (coz I'm losing money and a few dead old people is OK)"

What ey_tony means is "we shouldn't have to have lockdowns, but people are stupid and can't be trusted to be selfless, so we need lockdowns to reduce the stupid, ignorant and selfish people from spreading the virus as much as we can, but we know there will STILL be stupid ignorant and selfish people breaching the rules and thinking they know better based on nothing more factual than the information they pulled from their @RSE, and complaining about losing money and not GAF that other people are dying as a result".

Two very different things rorshach, but I can see how you might think they are the same, because facts and "what's actually happening" was never your forte, going by your posts of the last 18 months.

(I also predict he will add a "haha" to this post just like pretty much all the others that don't agree with him)

edit oh and one more thing - ey_tony YOU would have been one of those "old people" that rorshach would have happily sacrified for "no lockdown" (I can dig out his post from a year ago as proof if you wish). Ironicially interesting how he is now claiming he supports what you are saying.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

A few things which I regard as factually reasonable assumptions:

covid exists, affects mainly the elderly and vulnerable
it is spread through human interaction
uncontrolled it will initially increase exponentially
insulating the elderly and vulnerable from the rest of the community is not feasible
Exponential spread reduces as herd immunity increases. In the UK the probability of R >1 is now low overall, although individual communities may still be vulnerable.

The reluctance of UK government to impose lockdown was obvious - when lockdown was implemented it was late.

Thus it is difficult to separate the impact of lockdown on virus spread from the change in behaviours as a result of reported virus spread and fatalities.

This does not mean lockdown was unnecessary - it is a way of enforcing necessary behaviours upon all of the community.


----------



## Rorschach

rafezetter said:


> Actually he didn't, but you take that win you're not entitled to anyway, never stopped you before.
> 
> You've always said "we don't need lockdowns (coz I'm losing money and a few dead old people is OK)"
> 
> What ey_tony means is "we shouldn't have to have lockdowns, but people are stupid and can't be trusted to be selfless, so we need lockdowns to reduce the stupid, ignorant and selfish people from spreading the virus as much as we can, but we know there will STILL be stupid ignorant and selfish people breaching the rules and thinking they know better based on nothing more factual than the information they pulled from their @RSE, and complaining about losing money and not GAF that other people are dying as a result".
> 
> Two very different things rorshach, but I can see how you might think they are the same, because facts and "what's actually happening" was never your forte, going by your posts of the last 18 months.
> 
> (I also predict he will add a "haha" to this post just like pretty much all the others that don't agree with him)
> 
> edit oh and one more thing - ey_tony YOU would have been one of those "old people" that rorshach would have happily sacrified for "no lockdown" (I can dig out his post from a year ago as proof if you wish). Ironicially interesting how he is now claiming he supports what you are saying.



It's spelled Rorschach


----------



## Selwyn

ey_tony said:


> If people could be trusted to actually act responsibly then there would be little or no reason for there to be full lock-downs. Lockdowns are a result of failure by society to behave responsibly.
> Unfortunately Boris expected the British public to do the right thing before the first lockdown....how mistaken he was! Anyone who watched his Covid update put out on 16th March 2020 could have been under no illusion what was needed for everyone to stay safe and avoid full lockdown but sadly many just ignored the advice. Unfortunately everyone suffers because of the selfish.
> I recognised the issue early and I was already shielding by the end of February 2020. I didn't need government intervention in order to get me to act responsibly.
> 
> I'm retired and having survived the SARS virus while out in Hong Kong when it was in full swing back in the early 2000s, a virus which left me with seriously damaged lungs and COPD, I wasn't going to let this virus get me so I've spent a virtual year shielding myself from the ravages of the virus and the behaviour of the irresponsible.
> Just because someone is retired, that doesn't or shouldn't devalue their lives. Sadly I see too many people believing that the lives of the young are more important than those of maturity. From my perspective, ALL lives are important both young and old and those who believe that the lives of the older people should be sacrificed for the sake of the rest, makes you wonder what our society has actually degenerated into.
> 
> In retrospect I could have safely left my home and interacted with society albeit in a somewhat restricted manner if only others had adopted a similar approach to safety and hygiene as myself and those around me but unfortunately many people as we have seen are just too stupid and selfish to do that.
> It's humans who are the transporter of the virus. Without humans transporting and transmitting the virus then the chances of being infected are actually pretty slim. All it needs is common sense, discipline and good hygiene. Hardly rocket science and we could have avoided most of the issues brought on by lockdowns.
> 
> Sadly I suspect that the amelioration/reduction in numbers currently affected by the virus will be short lived as restrictions are relaxed. Many people just don't get it. They think it's all over but the truth is we're going to have to possibly live with this for some time to come and returning back to full normality, whatever that is, is just not going to happen any time soon.



You are writing from a position of extreme comfort. I don't think you have any idea of the number of people out there who have to keep things going in order for you to be able to spend a year shielding. Strangling our economy hits the poor hardest and they have lost the most, them and the young.


----------



## Selwyn

rafezetter said:


> Right - because India has been the very model of low numbers of cases due to thier "no lockdown" approach. I cannot for the life of me understand how adults allowed to walk the streets unsupervised can argue that limiting human interaction has little to no effect on spreading a pathogen.... it beggers belief and makes me seriously question thier sanity. Now, shall we talk about how the flu season was an almost complete non event this last winter? I wonder what factor was in play to reduce it.....
> 
> I personally put all those people into the same box labelled "flat earthers & antivaxxers", stupid people best ignored and avoided at all costs.
> 
> Just as an FYI - India has now reached 400,000 cases per day, and that's just an estimate, which just shows how "no lockdown" is really working for them.
> 
> The more I read this sort of "head in the sand" BS, the more I start to wonder who is the real "enemy" to our way of life - is it China and Russia, or are they already here, spouting this utter, and very dangerous, nonsense.



I think all countries and latitudes have viral seasons. Almost certainly covid deaths displaced flu deaths ie a large amount of those deaths recorded as covid deaths would previously have been flu deaths in the very old, same with pneumonia. When you are old you don't just have one virus - you have loads of different ones. 

You may want to believe a hard lockdown would have saved India from covid and I understand the appeal of that because it ought to make sense, however like the UK lockdowns there are a host of reasons why it doesn't. There will be some things India should have done better but its unlikely lockdown and furlough would have worked - most of the population wouldn't even have bank accounts let alone government aid. You may not like the fact that you have been decieved, but deceived you have been.


----------



## Selwyn

rafezetter said:


> Actually he didn't, but you take that win you're not entitled to anyway, never stopped you before.
> 
> You've always said "we don't need lockdowns (coz I'm losing money and a few dead old people is OK)"
> 
> What ey_tony means is "we shouldn't have to have lockdowns, but people are stupid and can't be trusted to be selfless, so we need lockdowns to reduce the stupid, ignorant and selfish people from spreading the virus as much as we can, but we know there will STILL be stupid ignorant and selfish people breaching the rules and thinking they know better based on nothing more factual than the information they pulled from their @RSE, and complaining about losing money and not GAF that other people are dying as a result".
> 
> Two very different things rorshach, but I can see how you might think they are the same, because facts and "what's actually happening" was never your forte, going by your posts of the last 18 months.
> 
> (I also predict he will add a "haha" to this post just like pretty much all the others that don't agree with him)
> 
> edit oh and one more thing - ey_tony YOU would have been one of those "old people" that rorshach would have happily sacrified for "no lockdown" (I can dig out his post from a year ago as proof if you wish). Ironicially interesting how he is now claiming he supports what you are saying.



I'd have thought Rorsach would have advised Tony that given that he is potentially vulnerable and seemed to have a steady pension then he should have voluntarily done his own lockdown as it was not such a hardship for him?


----------



## Selwyn

Terry - Somerset said:


> A few things which I regard as factually reasonable assumptions:
> 
> covid exists, affects mainly the elderly and vulnerable
> it is spread through human interaction
> uncontrolled it will initially increase exponentially
> insulating the elderly and vulnerable from the rest of the community is not feasible
> Exponential spread reduces as herd immunity increases. In the UK the probability of R >1 is now low overall, although individual communities may still be vulnerable.
> 
> The reluctance of UK government to impose lockdown was obvious - when lockdown was implemented it was late.
> 
> Thus it is difficult to separate the impact of lockdown on virus spread from the change in behaviours as a result of reported virus spread and fatalities.
> 
> This does not mean lockdown was unnecessary - it is a way of enforcing necessary behaviours upon all of the community.



It increases exponentially from a low base yes, but nearly all viral curves show it levels off quite quickly too. This is pretty well researched stuff ie nothing new.

Insulating the elderly is eminent feasible. They do it anyway lots of the time. 

The evidence from places that didn't lockdown are demonstrating that lockdown wasn't necessary.


----------



## Rorschach

Selwyn said:


> I'd have thought Rorsach would have advised Tony that given that he is potentially vulnerable and seemed to have a steady pension then he should have voluntarily done his own lockdown as it was not such a hardship for him?



You will notice that is what Tony did, he took responsibility for his own welfare and protected himself, he didn't need the government to tell him what to do he made his own choices about what was safe and what wasn't. I called for that from the beginning but people like him think only they can be trusted to do the right thing, no-one else can.


----------



## ey_tony

Rorschach said:


> You will notice that is what Tony did, he took responsibility for his own welfare and protected himself, he didn't need the government to tell him what to do he made his own choices about what was safe and what wasn't. I called for that from the beginning but people like him think only they can be trusted to do the right thing, no-one else can.



I'm from a poor background. I've worked for myself since I left school at 15 with no parents, no money and no siblings for support so taking responsibility for my own personal welfare and doing the right thing has been second nature throughout my entire life. Shielding certainly wasn't a difficult choice for me...it was the sensible and socially responsible thing to do.

I've cost no one anything! I've not needed any subsidies or help unlike the many, many millions who needed government financial intervention. Had those who ignored rules and guidelines behaved responsibly, the spread of the virus could have been controlled and the impact mitigated but it's rendering down to blaming the at risk people for something that they were unable to control. The people to blame are those who ignored their social responsibilities.

I've left my home only a handful of times in almost 15 months, not seeing my children, grandchildren and friends. 15 months without leaving one's home isn't exactly being lucky or fortunate.
I've not acted socially irresponsibly and have not endangered anyone by spreading the virus as hundreds of thousands of others have. done so I don't know what all the fuss is about!

The 2.5 million at-risk people such as myself who were shielding during the past year weren't the ones spreading the virus. They weren't breaking social distancing or socialising rules. Millions of people acted socially responsibly but so too did millions who didn't behave responsibly so it's little wonder that there had to be lockdowns.

I don't say all others can't be trusted but a good many simply can't be trusted to act responsibly in order to protect others and that includes people in authority as well as ordinary people.


----------



## Rorschach

Once again @ey_tony you prove my point absolutely perfectly.


----------



## Peterm1000

Selwyn said:


> I think all countries and latitudes have viral seasons. Almost certainly covid deaths displaced flu deaths ie a large amount of those deaths recorded as covid deaths would previously have been flu deaths in the very old, same with pneumonia. When you are old you don't just have one virus - you have loads of different ones.
> 
> You may want to believe a hard lockdown would have saved India from covid and I understand the appeal of that because it ought to make sense, however like the UK lockdowns there are a host of reasons why it doesn't. There will be some things India should have done better but its unlikely lockdown and furlough would have worked - most of the population wouldn't even have bank accounts let alone government aid. You may not like the fact that you have been decieved, but deceived you have been.



You know India's moved on since the time of the Jungle book and the Raj, right? Your comments about India are total nonsense. 80% of Indians above the age of 15 have a bank account. India does provide free healthcare to the whole population but it is very badly funded and is not nearly a match of our own NHS. Almost all Indians now have access to sanitation, but its effectiveness is far lower than the UK.

When the initial wave of Covid hit in 2020, India did go into a very firm lockdown and despite no vaccines, there were very few Covid related deaths. Therefore - a hard lockdown in India did reduce Covid related deaths. However, the lockdown had brutal economic consequences and India has not implemented a lockdown this time around (I believe).

Here is a picture of Indians from just a day or two ago taking the sensible approach to social distancing that you say comes from the government allowing people to make their own decisions about how to act.


----------



## Peterm1000

Rorschach said:


> You will notice that is what Tony did, he took responsibility for his own welfare and protected himself, he didn't need the government to tell him what to do he made his own choices about what was safe and what wasn't. I called for that from the beginning but people like him think only they can be trusted to do the right thing, no-one else can.


Some pictures of a few people taking responsibility for their own welfare, protecting themselves and being trusted to do the right thing. I think some of these people might find a tape measure useful as I would suggest those distances might be a little under 2 metres.


----------



## Selwyn

Masks do nothing mate. Its rather sweet you think they do


----------



## Terry - Somerset

> Insulating the elderly is eminent feasible. They do it anyway lots of the time.



The elderly rely substantially upon the younger for care and support - not all and not all of the time. 

Events in care homes earlier in the pandemic demonstrate clearly how a single incoming infection from (probably) visiting relatives or care staff can spread. Complete separation of the elderly would only be achieved through denial of all external contact.

You may think this acceptable - you are entitled to an opinion. The alternative of denying the young work, income and a social life is an equal and opposite extreme and equally unattractive in my view.

So we end up with compromise policies which the intolerant or those with more extreme views (you??) find difficult to accept.


----------



## D_W

one of my least favorite saying is "agree to disagree", which people usually say when they're figured out that they're wrong. 

So, disagree to agree. 

And don't get covid (a variation that a drug user neighbor in college used to say "don't smoke crack". He's now a TV personality at a local station near me - I certainly will not name him. Super intelligent guy - liked the green stuff and dabbled in others while folks like me who worry about everything wouldn't even be in the same building with any of it).


----------



## Peterm1000

Selwyn said:


> Masks do nothing mate. Its rather sweet you think they do


Did you get that from the same source as the person who told you that Indians don't have bank accounts? I think you should call Rudyard Kipling and tell him he's feeding you fiction packaged up as truth.

Both the WHO and BMJ are firmly of the belief that masks help reduce the spread of the virus by reducing the amount of water droplets (which contain the virus) that spread outwards when you breath. That concept should be easy for a woodworker to understand because it's the same concept as dust filtration.


----------



## Rorschach

Peterm1000 said:


> Some pictures of a few people taking responsibility for their own welfare, protecting themselves and being trusted to do the right thing. I think some of these people might find a tape measure useful as I would suggest those distances might be a little under 2 metres.



I'm curious, do you think these people are travelling for a laugh or because it might be important or even essential for them to do so? I am afraid like Tony you are also somewhat proving my point.


----------



## Chris152

This thread has now become completely absurd. Two people are promoting perspectives very much at odds with what the leading virologists and epidemiologists throughout the world are saying, without themselves being leaders in those fields (unless I'm much mistaken). Others are pointlessly trying to argue with them (assuming the object is to change their understanding). Fine, if it were of no consequence, but as many can see, this is a serious disease that's being bickered about (whatever anyone thinks) and misinformation/ ignorance/ whatever can cost lives. It's not an abstract problem.
I think it's time to stop the nonsense and close the thread - or at least stop participating. I regret starting it, tho I'm grateful for the helpful replies at the start.


----------



## Jonm

Chris152 said:


> This thread has now become completely absurd. Two people are promoting perspectives very much at odds with what the leading virologists and epidemiologists throughout the world are saying, without themselves being leaders in those fields (unless I'm much mistaken). Others are pointlessly trying to argue with them (assuming the object is to change their understanding). Fine, if it were of no consequence, but as many can see, this is a serious disease that's being bickered about (whatever anyone thinks) and misinformation/ ignorance/ whatever can cost lives. It's not an abstract problem.
> I think it's time to stop the nonsense and close the thread - or at least stop participating. I regret starting it, tho I'm grateful for the helpful replies at the start.


I would not regret starting it, there has been a lot of useful stuff which I have found helpful. Unfortunately recently there have been discussions from entrenched positions and an unwillingness to listen carefully to the opposing view, it has become a slanging match. There are big changes happening on 17 May which will be interesting and worth discussing. In the meantime it would be best for everyone to disengage.


----------



## Rorschach

Jonm said:


> discussions from entrenched positions and an unwillingness to listen carefully to the opposing view



There certainly have!

I wouldn't say it has been a slanging match though, have there been any personal insults or name calling? I thought it was all rather civil even if we were disagreeing.

It might be worth shifting into the number 2 forum though.


----------



## Selwyn

Terry - Somerset said:


> The elderly rely substantially upon the younger for care and support - not all and not all of the time.
> 
> Events in care homes earlier in the pandemic demonstrate clearly how a single incoming infection from (probably) visiting relatives or care staff can spread. Complete separation of the elderly would only be achieved through denial of all external contact.
> 
> You may think this acceptable - you are entitled to an opinion. The alternative of denying the young work, income and a social life is an equal and opposite extreme and equally unattractive in my view.
> 
> So we end up with compromise policies which the intolerant or those with more extreme views (you??) find difficult to accept.




No it wasn't from a single member of staff. Loads of the care home deaths came from kicking people who were ill out of hospital into care homes when they should have stayed in hospital. That caused the massive spike - it was extreme policies like kicking people who needed hospital out of them that did loads of damage - thats why the spike was so high and so quick


----------



## Selwyn

Chris152 said:


> This thread has now become completely absurd. Two people are promoting perspectives very much at odds with what the leading virologists and epidemiologists throughout the world are saying, without themselves being leaders in those fields (unless I'm much mistaken). Others are pointlessly trying to argue with them (assuming the object is to change their understanding). Fine, if it were of no consequence, but as many can see, this is a serious disease that's being bickered about (whatever anyone thinks) and misinformation/ ignorance/ whatever can cost lives. It's not an abstract problem.
> I think it's time to stop the nonsense and close the thread - or at least stop participating. I regret starting it, tho I'm grateful for the helpful replies at the start.



Leading virologists and epidemiolgists?

Come off it

John Ioanddis, Sunetra Gupta? They are being silenced!

Who are our virologists on sage?


----------



## Peterm1000

Rorschach said:


> I'm curious, do you think these people are travelling for a laugh or because it might be important or even essential for them to do so? I am afraid like Tony you are also somewhat proving my point.


The point I think you were making is that people would socially distance without government intervention - which these pictures clearly disprove. The reality is that without the government making rules about essential vs non-essential work large swathes of typically lower paid employees would have been forced by their employers to travel and work in the way shown by the pictures. The only reason I am not on the tube with these people every day is because the government said non-essential workers were not allowed to travel to go to work.


----------



## Peterm1000

Chris152 said:


> This thread has now become completely absurd. Two people are promoting perspectives very much at odds with what the leading virologists and epidemiologists throughout the world are saying, without themselves being leaders in those fields (unless I'm much mistaken). Others are pointlessly trying to argue with them (assuming the object is to change their understanding). Fine, if it were of no consequence, but as many can see, this is a serious disease that's being bickered about (whatever anyone thinks) and misinformation/ ignorance/ whatever can cost lives. It's not an abstract problem.
> I think it's time to stop the nonsense and close the thread - or at least stop participating. I regret starting it, tho I'm grateful for the helpful replies at the start.


To be fair, you created a thread about one of the most controversial and political topics of recent times and didnt put it in the controversial topic forum


----------



## Jake

Selwyn said:


> John Ioanddis, Sunetra Gupta? They are being silenced!



They aren't, they are still making lots of noise, but most people think they have made idiots of themselves in the process. It's more like there's an uneasy embarrassed silence from everyone else.


----------



## Rorschach

Peterm1000 said:


> The point I think you were making is that people would socially distance without government intervention - which these pictures clearly disprove. The reality is that without the government making rules about essential vs non-essential work large swathes of typically lower paid employees would have been forced by their employers to travel and work in the way shown by the pictures. The only reason I am not on the tube with these people every day is because the government said non-essential workers were not allowed to travel to go to work.



That would be all well and good except for the fact that the government did mandate social distancing and those people are still on the tube, so the pictures prove my point, not yours. Also the government said nothing of the sort about essential workers, if you couldn't work from home you could travel, essential or not. Furloughed people were in industries where they literally couldn't work.


----------



## Selwyn

Peterm1000 said:


> The point I think you were making is that people would socially distance without government intervention - which these pictures clearly disprove. The reality is that without the government making rules about essential vs non-essential work large swathes of typically lower paid employees would have been forced by their employers to travel and work in the way shown by the pictures. The only reason I am not on the tube with these people every day is because the government said non-essential workers were not allowed to travel to go to work.



The data from Tim Spectors zoe app is starting to show that in all lockdowns the peaks started to fall before the lockdowns. This is human nature/ common sense. You don't need a state imposed lockdown to do this. People adapt to risk and percieved risk. 

This has always been the case and will always be the case. 

It is solidified by evidence from countries that didn't lock down. It may be counter-intuitive but likely made things worse.


----------



## Spectric

You can argue over data and statistics all day long but hard evidence cannot be denied, this pandemic has been the root cause of too many deaths and so many were avoidable had our leaders acted on common sense and not waited for the data.


----------



## Spectric

Terry - Somerset said:


> The elderly rely substantially upon the younger for care and support - not all and not all of the time.


We were all young once upon a time, but when young you do not see the years flying past so much.


----------



## rafezetter

Selwyn said:


> You are writing from a position of extreme comfort. I don't think you have any idea of the number of people out there who have to keep things going in order for you to be able to spend a year shielding. Strangling our economy hits the poor hardest and they have lost the most, them and the young.



Actually no Selwyn, and I'm annoyed that you presume to know my circumstances. At the beginning of last year I had a somewhat comfortable amount in savings, enough to keep me going in the event of injury or prolonged sickness as I am self employed; by the end of the year that amount had dwindled to just ONE MONTH, including getting 2x £1200 in SEISS, and it was only the easing of the lockdown just before Xmas to work, plus another SEISS, that saw me through the second lockdown.

My finances were such, that had the first lockdown not eased when it did, and had then gone into the second, that I would then have been in a situation of having almost no money to feed myself, AND be getting in arrears with my rent, utility bills etc etc.

I wouldn't call that "extreme comfort" at all, because I sure as rubbish didn't FEEL comfortable about it AT ALL, infact more than a few "OH rubbish" and "wtf can I do about this" difficult nights.

However, as I said multiple time in my posts about the lockdown, I WOULD STILL have chosen to go into arrears than advocate lifting it in favor of "letting old people die".

You know what _I_ would call "extreme comfort"? Living in your own home, without the threat of eviction for unpaid rent - and if you beleive that no-one got evicted during the lockdown for unpaid rent then you are naive in the extreme, the landlords just didn't go through the courts to do it - possibly, probably having a pension or other income in your case Selwyn, or being furloughed on 80% of salary for all those people who were employed, and for those who were made unemployed, the benefits system.

I'd wind your neck in and stick to stuff you actually have facts for, you're starting to sound like our favorite forum troll.

LOL "masks do nothing?" tell that to every NHS worker, or Dental worker, or those working in the food production facilities, or basically anywhere else where coughing can occur and needs to be contained.

Masks don't protect you from them - THEY PROTECT THEM FROM YOU.[redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted].

If you think I'm talking BS, go to any supermarket now, take your mask off and start coughing loudly, I'll bet you'll clear an aisle in less than 5 seconds, or be told to put your mask on, or be told by a fellow shopper to GTFO.


----------



## rafezetter

Spectric said:


> You can argue over data and statistics all day long but hard evidence cannot be denied, this pandemic has been the root cause of too many deaths and so many were avoidable had our leaders acted on common sense and not waited for the data.




remove "leaders" and change for "stupid thoughtless moronic selfish people" - Why so many people keep pointing at "our leaders" when the real problem was "the people". The lockdown happened because of "the people" (being bloody stupid).


----------



## Selwyn

rafezetter said:


> Actually no Selwyn, and I'm annoyed that you presume to know my circumstances. At the beginning of last year I had a somewhat comfortable amount in savings, enough to keep me going in the event of injury or prolonged sickness as I am self employed; by the end of the year that amount had dwindled to just ONE MONTH, including getting 2x £1200 in SEISS, and it was only the easing of the lockdown just before Xmas to work, plus another SEISS, that saw me through the second lockdown.
> 
> My finances were such, that had the first lockdown not eased when it did, and had then gone into the second, that I would then have been in a situation of having almost no money to feed myself, AND be getting in arrears with my rent, utility bills etc etc.
> 
> I wouldn't call that "extreme comfort" at all, because I sure as rubbish didn't FEEL comfortable about it AT ALL, infact more than a few "OH rubbish" and "wtf can I do about this" difficult nights.
> 
> However, as I said multiple time in my posts about the lockdown, I WOULD STILL have chosen to go into arrears than advocate lifting it in favor of "letting old people die".
> 
> You know what _I_ would call "extreme comfort"? Living in your own home, without the threat of eviction for unpaid rent - and if you beleive that no-one got evicted during the lockdown for unpaid rent then you are naive in the extreme, the landlords just didn't go through the courts to do it - possibly, probably having a pension or other income in your case Selwyn, or being furloughed on 80% of salary for all those people who were employed, and for those who were made unemployed, the benefits system.
> 
> I'd wind your neck in and stick to stuff you actually have facts for, you're starting to sound like our favorite forum troll.
> 
> LOL "masks do nothing?" tell that to every NHS worker, or Dental worker, or those working in the food production facilities, or basically anywhere else where coughing can occur and needs to be contained.
> 
> Masks don't protect you from them - THEY PROTECT THEM FROM YOU.[redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted].
> 
> If you think I'm talking BS, go to any supermarket now, take your mask off and start coughing loudly, I'll bet you'll clear an aisle in less than 5 seconds, or be told to put your mask on, or be told by a fellow shopper to GTFO.



Why are you quoting from a post that wasn't referring to you?

Masks don't protect you - the virus is not spread by coughing alone. The reason for dentists and nhs workers wearing masks is to capture spit not to prevent minute viral particle emissions - because they don't do that!

You have been scared and propagandized into thinking a mask in a shop "protects" you. It doesn't


----------



## Selwyn

rafezetter said:


> remove "leaders" and change for "stupid thoughtless moronic selfish people" - Why so many people keep pointing at "our leaders" when the real problem was "the people". The lockdown happened because of "the people" (being bloody stupid).



People were just living their lives as they'd always done. That isn't stupid. Its normal life


----------



## Rorschach

@rafezetter if you were entitled to SEISS at 80% of your income, why were you not able to survive on this and had to eat into your savings? Does your income not normally cover your outgoings? Did you have extra expenses while not working? 
I would have been able to survive quite well on my SEISS payments but I was able to (legally) do some work as well so that topped it up to a reasonable wage for the year.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Sunetra Gupta



You this Gupta:
*Tory billionaire bankrolled ‘herd immunity’ scientist who advised PM against lockdown*


----------



## Dave Moore

Selwyn said:


> You cannot change a fanatic. There is only one narrative with them.
> 
> When the BBC publishes some stuff the penny might drop.


BBC! Lol. What a joke, only broadcast the narrative that suits them, all one sided as Brexit proved.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Why are you quoting from a post that wasn't referring to you?
> 
> Masks don't protect you - the virus is not spread by coughing alone. The reason for dentists and nhs workers wearing masks is to capture spit not to prevent minute viral particle emissions - because they don't do that!
> 
> You have been scared and propagandized into thinking a mask in a shop "protects" you. It doesn't



Selwyn you keep saying everybody is scared....I hate to say this, but you seem to be awfully scared of absorbing facts and evidence.

What is it you are scared of?

By the way, we all know masks don't protect the wearer. 

Their purpose is to reduce the viral load the mask wearer spreads. I am surprised you haven't read this anywhere. 

Would you like me to help by posting some evidence about how mask wearing helps...it seems you are struggling to find it.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> John Ioanddis


Maybe he has shut up after his completely wrong predictions and flawed research.


----------



## Doug71

Rorschach said:


> @rafezetter if you were entitled to SEISS at 80% of your income, why were you not able to survive on this and had to eat into your savings? Does your income not normally cover your outgoings? Did you have extra expenses while not working?
> I would have been able to survive quite well on my SEISS payments but I was able to (legally) do some work as well so that topped it up to a reasonable wage for the year.



The SEISS is based on 80% of your profit, it doesn't take in to account what your business costs to run. I still had to pay my workshop rent, all the different types of insurance, standing charges etc for my business despite not working, these are not normally paid out of your profit, your profit is what is left at the end after you have paid all of these.


----------



## Rorschach

Doug71 said:


> The SEISS is based on 80% of your profit, it doesn't take in to account what your business costs to run. I still had to pay my workshop rent, all the different types of insurance, standing charges etc for my business despite not working, these are not normally paid out of your profit, your profit is what is left at the end after you have paid all of these.



Nope the SEISS was based on 80% of your net income, so your take home pay basically. So he should have been able to cover 80% of his normal income.


----------



## Peterm1000

Rorschach said:


> That would be all well and good except for the fact that the government did mandate social distancing and those people are still on the tube, so the pictures prove my point, not yours. Also the government said nothing of the sort about essential workers, if you couldn't work from home you could travel, essential or not. Furloughed people were in industries where they literally couldn't work.



If you say so!  I don't see it myself!


----------



## Peterm1000

Selwyn said:


> Why are you quoting from a post that wasn't referring to you?
> 
> Masks don't protect you - the virus is not spread by coughing alone. The reason for dentists and nhs workers wearing masks is to capture spit not to prevent minute viral particle emissions - because they don't do that!
> 
> You have been scared and propagandized into thinking a mask in a shop "protects" you. It doesn't



Selwyn, you are arguing from a parallel universe. Current NHS training (I know - my daughter just completed it 3 months ago and I helped her revise the materials) is that masks are worn by healthcare works to catch some of the water droplets they exhale as those may contain viral particles. A basic surgical mask captures some of the microscopic particles but to capture all, you need a better filter. This is identical to the concept of dust filtration in woodwork. Even basic hoovers capture some of the smallest dust particles.

I don't see anyone scared by this. I just see you saying things that virtually everyone in the scientific community disagrees with.


----------



## Jonm

Peterm1000 said:


> To be fair, you created a thread about one of the most controversial and political topics of recent times and didnt put it in the controversial topic forum


The original question was not controversial and the thread remained on track talking for a good while about vaccines. It is the later posts which talk about India and lockdowns where it has gone haywire.


----------



## RobinBHM

Jonm said:


> The original question was not controversial and the thread remained on track talking for a good while about vaccines. It is the later posts which talk about India and lockdowns where it has gone haywire.



In regards to the thread title: "one jab efficiency" I am really pleased the UKs rollout has had a massive effect on infection rates.

I am also pleased Europe is now rolling out vaccines at a faster rate....Germany looks to be just a month behind the UK now, and France and Spain not far behind that.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Maybe he has shut up after his completely wrong predictions and flawed research.



He was right!


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> He was right!


He wasn't right, the study he did was proven wrong.

You desperately want to believe it.....that's something different.


----------



## Peterm1000

Jonm said:


> The original question was not controversial and the thread remained on track talking for a good while about vaccines. It is the later posts which talk about India and lockdowns where it has gone haywire.


There is a small body of very vocal anti-vaccers anti lockdown people out there. I would think any thread around response to Covid is likely to appeal to them. I think this is what the "controversial" forum was created for. I don't see anything wrong with the discussion up to now and if people are bothered by it, the mods should just move it to the controversial forum.


----------



## TRITON

I think the only way to deal with the anti vaxxers is to point at them and laugh. Would be nice if you could get a crowd of people to join in. Humiliation and ridicule are our weapons in this.


----------



## Jonm

Peterm1000 said:


> I don't see anything wrong with the discussion up to now and if people are bothered by it, the mods should just move it to the controversial forum.


I think you are correct. I have found much of this thread very interesting. I cannot recall much If any, which is anti vaccine. Rorschach elsewhere has said that if he was a bit overweight he would take the vaccine. 

Questioning lockdown and particularly its implementation is very valid. A lot of the restrictions did nothing to stop COVID but a lot to damage mental health, wellbeing and some enjoyment in life, like vilifying a couple on national news for taking their dog for a walk, with the police drone showing how responsible and safe they were being by maintaining a social distance of over 100 metres.

I think it is the circular arguments which get boring.


----------



## RobinBHM

Jonm said:


> Questioning lockdown and particularly its implementation is very valid. A lot of the restrictions did nothing to stop COVID but a lot to damage mental health, wellbeing and some enjoyment in life, like vilifying a couple on national news for taking their dog for a walk, with the police drone showing how responsible and safe they were being by maintaining a social distance of over 100 metres



I agree, there have been lockdown mistakes, the police misinterpreting the rules, poor or wrong choice of intervention and perhaps the blunt instrument of national lockdown where some regions had almost no Covid.

but there are some who have a view that lockdowns are against their libertarian view and will use any misleading argument to fit that.


----------



## Spectric

rafezetter said:


> The lockdown happened because of "the people" (being bloody stupid).


Yes I totaly agree, there were an awful lot of people with that attitude of it won't happen to me or it's only like flu and so it spread and started to head in the out of control direction hence lockdown. But go right back and had our leaders the inteligence and will power to put the people first and not place so much emphasis on finance and possibily upsetting their rich sponsors then this virus may not have entered in huge amounts to start with and we would not have needed a lockdown.


----------



## Selwyn

[/QUOTE]


RobinBHM said:


> He wasn't right, the study he did was proven wrong.
> 
> You desperately want to believe it.....that's something different.



What study?


----------



## Selwyn

TRITON said:


> I think the only way to deal with the anti vaxxers is to point at them and laugh. Would be nice if you could get a crowd of people to join in. Humiliation and ridicule are our weapons in this.



I'm not anti vax. The vulnerable should take it.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> I agree, there have been lockdown mistakes, the police misinterpreting the rules, poor or wrong choice of intervention and perhaps the blunt instrument of national lockdown where some regions had almost no Covid.
> 
> but there are some who have a view that lockdowns are against their libertarian view and will use any misleading argument to fit that.



Or rather comparison of epidemic curves in places with strict lockdowns and those with less stringent measures shows no significant differences in COVID-19 indicators.


----------



## Selwyn

Peterm1000 said:


> Selwyn, you are arguing from a parallel universe. Current NHS training (I know - my daughter just completed it 3 months ago and I helped her revise the materials) is that masks are worn by healthcare works to catch some of the water droplets they exhale as those may contain viral particles. A basic surgical mask captures some of the microscopic particles but to capture all, you need a better filter. This is identical to the concept of dust filtration in woodwork. Even basic hoovers capture some of the smallest dust particles.
> 
> I don't see anyone scared by this. I just see you saying things that virtually everyone in the scientific community disagrees with.



The most important argument against the compulsory use of masks is simply the lack of evidence that anyone without symptoms walking around the community will be a contagious person. It is very unlikely that an asymptomatic person is infectious. This argument becomes even stronger when we take the potential adverse effects of masks into consideration. These include symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, shortness of breath and other problems including psychological impact, acne, respiratory infections and dental problems.

You have been scared to death and it is not healthy. The scientific community does not all agree with you


----------



## brocher

Selwyn said:


> The most important argument against the compulsory use of masks is simply the lack of evidence that anyone without symptoms walking around the community will be a contagious person. It is very unlikely that an asymptomatic person is infectious. This argument becomes even stronger when we take the potential adverse effects of masks into consideration. These include symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, shortness of breath and other problems including psychological impact, acne, respiratory infections and dental problems.
> 
> You have been scared to death and it is not healthy. The scientific community does not all agree with you




I think its about time that this thread was closed!


----------



## Rorschach

brocher said:


> I think its about time that this thread was closed!



Why? What is it with people and wanting things shut down?


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> I'm not anti vax. The vulnerable should take it.


You are more anti fact


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Or rather comparison of epidemic curves in places with strict lockdowns and those with less stringent measures shows no significant differences in COVID-19 indicators.


Untrue.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> It is very unlikely that an asymptomatic person is infectious


Only 59%.
I think you may need to reassess your words "very unlikely"  

May I politely ask you why you post stuff that is demonstrably untrue? 
There are plenty of high quality scientific sources online....I am curious as to why you don't research your posts a bit better.



"59% of all transmission came from asymptomatic transmission, comprising 35% from presymptomatic individuals and 24% from individuals who never develop symptoms"








SARS-CoV-2 Transmission From People Without COVID-19 Symptoms


This decision analytical model assesses the proportion of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmissions in the community that likely occur from persons without symptoms.




jamanetwork.com


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Untrue.



True


----------



## Spectric

You will be discussing this till the cows come home because statistics can be interpreted in several ways to support an argument and data is only as good as the method and means used to obtain it and then the interpretation, plus you may have the issue of who do you trust. So no one is really right or wrong and in light of this your own self preservation should kick in, assume worst case until the facts prove otherwise and the best way to guarantee survival is to not catch it. We do know that the virus cannot fly or chase you down the road, it is not a predator and relies on people to give it a free ride to the next victim so it really depends on yourself, how much risk are you willing to accept knowing if old then it may kill or if young long term impairment it's your call. There is sufficient evidence to suggest the vacines do reduce this risk against current uk strains but there is concern over others and it also helps reduce the transmission so that has to be good but don't think this is all over, it only takes a few unseen embers to re-ignite a forrest fire.


----------



## Jake

RobinBHM said:


> May I politely ask you why you post stuff that is demonstrably untrue?



Combination of arrogance, wishful thinking, lack of rigour in assessing arguments and evidence, and primarily listening to and believing gobshites.


----------



## Jonm

Spectric said:


> it only takes a few unseen embers to re-ignite a forrest fire.


It also needs the Forrest to be dry. The part of the forrest where I live is saturated with nearly 100% take up of the vaccine in the over fifties and now the under forties are being vaccinated. Other areas of the country are drier, particularly London.

Of course we have to be on the lookout for variants but we can hopefully soon get back to some form of normality.


----------



## Rorschach

Jonm said:


> It also needs the Forrest to be dry. The part of the forrest where I live is saturated with nearly 100% take up of the vaccine in the over fifties and now the under forties are being vaccinated. Other areas of the country are drier, particularly London.
> 
> Of course we have to be on the lookout for variants but we can hopefully soon get back to some form of normality.



Good analogy. Remember as well there were areas that despite 2 waves, lessened restrictions, and huge numbers of tourists, never really succumbed to Covid. Devon/Cornwall being an excellent example of this. Elderly population and a lot of fairly poor people but still Covid never got a proper foothold here and what little it did get soon vanished again and a lot of that was without vaccination.


----------



## Peterm1000

Jonm said:


> I think it is the circular arguments which get boring.



Agreed. But that's a reason to keep on moving past this thread if you feel that way rather than wanting it to be shut down. I think you can ignore individual threads - at the very least by not clicking on them!


----------



## hairy

Personally I find this thread interesting. As long as people do, and it is polite, I'm not sure why closing it is a good idea?

Ivor Cummins has some good presentations, one of his latest is just highlighting a MSM news item


Or this one which is long but for instance compares North and South Dakota, or Florida with California, and just how small the issue seemed to be in Israel even before they started vaccinating.


----------



## selectortone

Rorschach said:


> Covid never got a proper foothold here and what little it did get soon vanished again and a lot of that was without vaccination.


...and of course lockdown had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> ...and of course lockdown had nothing to do with it.



Nope, cases peaked before lockdown was introduced. Lockdown probably accelerated the decline a bit but it wasn't the cause, we know that now (well I knew that before but you didn't believe me). Covered well in this video, no nutjobs here 

**


----------



## Selwyn

selectortone said:


> ...and of course lockdown had nothing to do with it.



And lockdown has increased other deaths and will continue too. All predicated on some very dodgy modelling...

The whole thing has been a total exaggeration. Yes it is a nasty virus but no it doesn't spread inexorably. The nosocomial infections in care homes and hospitals are a massive part of the picture yet ignored. Its utter madness


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Nope, cases peaked before lockdown was introduced



Wrong.
Look at the detail, the nuance.....especially the dates.

March 23rd lockdown....whilst the national lockdown started then, Johnson said on 16th all non essential travel must stop and pubs and restaurant shut before the 23rd
Also many care homes and hospitals closed to the public around 7 to 10 days before the 23rd

Once you factor in the detail, then you can see NPIs had a real effect on flattening the curve.

Also NPIs helped drive down the tail of the curve and it helped reduce long Covid numbers.


Lockdown 2......officially introduced on 31st Oct, but NPIs started much earlier from 14th of September.

Lockdown 3....officially started on 6th Jan, yet tier 4 restrictions started on 21st Dec (not much diff bet tier 4 and full lockdown)


As usual your arguments are built on lockdowns being a single binary event...they are not.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> And lockdown has increased other deaths and will continue too



Of course what you ignore is that having no lockdown measures wouldn't have prevented those deaths.

During January many hospitals in the South East and London had to take over operating theatres and children's wards for Covid patients. Hospital staff were struggling to cope.

Yet you think no lockdown magically would've meant hospitals to be fully open for non Covid treatments.


----------



## Rorschach

And he's off! lol

I'll call Professor Specter now, let him know some bloke on a forum said he's wrong, I'm sure he'll be glad to know


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Of course what you ignore is that having no lockdown measures wouldn't have prevented those deaths.
> 
> During January many hospitals in the South East and London had to take over operating theatres and children's wards for Covid patients. Hospital staff were struggling to cope.
> 
> Yet you think no lockdown magically would've meant hospitals to be fully open for non Covid treatments.



That isn't the case. We've already established covid was in decline before lockdown. And even then we threw out historical pandemic plans in a moment of panic.

Countries that didn't lockdown didn't get anything like the deaths modelled by our lockdown advisores. We did not have much in the way of excess deaths in January


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> We've already established covid was in decline before lockdown


Wrong
Please try to avoid stating opinion as fact.

See my post in response to Rorschach, who posted the same erroneous claim.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Countries that didn't lockdown didn't get anything like the deaths modelled by our lockdown advisores


I guess India is a good example


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Wrong



Much clever people than you disagree, I think I'll listen to them rather than an unknown on a woodworking forum


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Much clever people than you disagree, I think I'll listen to them rather than an unknown on a woodworking forum


If Tim Spector and Tim Wood are so awfully clever how come they didn't spot the obvious fact NPIs started before official lockdown?


I will continue to listen to the evidence published in authoritative sources like nature.com
You will continue to hunt down opinions on YouTube.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> If Tim Spector and Tim Wood are so awfully clever how come they didn't spot the obvious fact NPIs started before official lockdown?
> 
> 
> I will continue to listen to the evidence published in authoritative sources like nature.com
> You will continue to hunt down opinions on YouTube.



Yes yes of course. Had a message from Professor Spector, he is terribly sorry he got it wrong and will send out an immediate press announcement telling the country to no longer listen to him and instead get all their medical, moral and economic advice from.....*checks notes* "Some bloke called Robin on a woodworking forum"


----------



## Rorschach

Wait though @RobinBHM "if" you are right and NPI's started before lockdown, are you accepting then that we didn't need a full lockdown, the measures people were already taking were actually enough to lower the infections without mandated countrywide closures? And that the public didn't need the government to force a lockdown/NPI measures, it turns out their own personal risk assessments were already enough to curb activities enough to bring down infection. So we didn't need lockdown at all, we had it under control before the government mandated it? No, you couldn't possibly be suggesting that.......... could you?


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> are you accepting then that we didn't need a full lockdown


No

The NPIs that form a lockdown also speed the decline of the tail and reduce numbers of long Covid sufferers.

And it's hard to actually prove decline started before lockdown started.

And you don't know what would've happened to the peak if no full lockdown hadn't happened, it could've risen higher.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Yes yes of course. Had a message from Professor Spector, he is terribly sorry he got it wrong and will send out an immediate press announcement telling the country to no longer listen to him and instead get all their medical, moral and economic advice from.....*checks notes* "Some bloke called Robin on a woodworking forum"



Why did neither of them note that official lockdown date wasn't the start of NPIs

If you had a counter argument, you would provide it.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

There should always be space for a diversity of opinion even amongst eminent scientists when it comes to complex issues. 

Some issues may never be capable of explicit conclusions - eg: how many non-covid deaths did lockdown cause. Excess deaths are a statistical average. Collection and recording of data may be flawed. Linking non-covid deaths to delays in diagnosis and treatment is imprecise.

However the vast bulk of scientists would probably support the general proposition that:

the virus is spread through human interaction
lockdown enforces (mostly) appropriate behaviours rather than leaving it to individual discretion
without lockdown interaction would be greater with greater virus spread
Contrived and/or incorrect analysis of the data to support an alternative conclusion appears a minority view amongst scientists, and seems intuitively unsupportable.

Those putting forward sincere alternative views should of course be treated with respect. But in the absence of clear and complete evidence generally supported by the bulk of the scientific community there seems little point in reponding further.


----------



## RobinBHM

Terry - Somerset said:


> There should always be space for a diversity of opinion even amongst eminent scientists when it comes to complex issues.
> 
> Some issues may never be capable of explicit conclusions - eg: how many non-covid deaths did lockdown cause. Excess deaths are a statistical average. Collection and recording of data may be flawed. Linking non-covid deaths to delays in diagnosis and treatment is imprecise.
> 
> However the vast bulk of scientists would probably support the general proposition that:
> 
> the virus is spread through human interaction
> lockdown enforces (mostly) appropriate behaviours rather than leaving it to individual discretion
> without lockdown interaction would be greater with greater virus spread
> Contrived and/or incorrect analysis of the data to support an alternative conclusion appears a minority view amongst scientists, and seems intuitively unsupportable.
> 
> Those putting forward sincere alternative views should of course be treated with respect. But in the absence of clear and complete evidence generally supported by the bulk of the scientific community there seems little point in reponding further.


Very well put.

I would add, there is a lot to learn about lockdowns and how hospitals were turned into Covid treatment centres.

I think that the blunt instrument of national lockdown left regions with very little community infection having to follow draconian rules.

My frustration is with those that only want a simplistic binary debate on lockdown. Especially those that do it dishonestly because lockdowns are contrary to their libertarian principles ( at least in their mind) and their confirmation bias is so strong they can't accept facts and evidence


----------



## Rorschach

You are right, it does go against my principles, but that doesn't mean I am wrong.

Do you know what annoys me most though, the government had a plan that didn't involve restrictions on peoples lives and they themselves allowed for 750k deaths. Given that we are nowhere near that number of deaths, why didn't we follow the plan?


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> If Tim Spector and Tim Wood are so awfully clever how come they didn't spot the obvious fact NPIs started before official lockdown?
> 
> 
> I will continue to listen to the evidence published in authoritative sources like nature.com
> You will continue to hunt down opinions on YouTube.



They did spot that.


----------



## Selwyn

Terry - Somerset said:


> T
> 
> the virus is spread through human interaction
> lockdown enforces (mostly) appropriate behaviours rather than leaving it to individual discretion
> without lockdown interaction would be greater with greater virus spread
> Contrived and/or incorrect analysis of the data to support an alternative conclusion appears a minority view amongst scientists, and seems intuitively unsupportable.
> 
> Those putting forward sincere alternative views should of course be treated with respect. But in the absence of clear and complete evidence generally supported by the bulk of the scientific community there seems little point in reponding further.



The evidence that without lockdown interaction there would be a greater virus speed is moot. In appears the viral load reached its peak before lockdown was enacted.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> I guess India is a good example



The virus is curling over in India now as predicted. Without a beloved lockdown which will displace millions of Indians. If they did a lockdown a week or so ago then lockdown fanatics will have claimed lockdown did it. Thankfully they didn't and demonstrably it highlights the pro's of lockdown are not worth the cons

TB claims 1000 lives a day in India and they have reduced BCG jabs over the past year so there is a world of tears to come there. That will be 70k extra deaths.

Predicted 15% increase in child mortality in India as a result of lockdown. That's about 154k a year

You have to keep these economies going to enable people to have a better future. Covid is not going to kill everyone - we established its mortality rate early on and it basically between 0.05-0.3% depending on the country and the vulnerability of older people is well established.

Its nasty but its not worth shutting down the economy for.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Very well put.
> 
> I would add, there is a lot to learn about lockdowns and how hospitals were turned into Covid treatment centres.
> 
> I think that the blunt instrument of national lockdown left regions with very little community infection having to follow draconian rules.
> 
> My frustration is with those that only want a simplistic binary debate on lockdown. Especially those that do it dishonestly because lockdowns are contrary to their libertarian principles ( at least in their mind) and their confirmation bias is so strong they can't accept facts and evidence



Our well researched historic pandemic plans were chucked out in favour of lockdowns based on pictures from Bergamo and China. We shouldn't have done it because we did not consider the harm lockdowns have done, and given that the virus was curling over before these lockdowns (albeit with a huge amount of social interaction beforehand) they didn't achieve much.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

> Our well researched historic pandemic plans were chucked out in favour of lockdowns based on pictures from Bergamo and China.



I can only assume this is tongue in cheek - otherwise laughable:

completely inadequate stocks of PPE
utterly hopeless testing capacity
track and trace fit for an outbreak of STD, not a highly transmitable virus
Operation Cygnus - pandemic preparedness exercise in 2016. Report finally published 4 years later. No lessons learned.


----------



## Selwyn

Terry - Somerset said:


> I can only assume this is tongue in cheek - otherwise laughable:
> 
> completely inadequate stocks of PPE
> utterly hopeless testing capacity
> track and trace fit for an outbreak of STD, not a highly transmitable virus
> Operation Cygnus - pandemic preparedness exercise in 2016. Report finally published 4 years later. No lessons learned.



The whole world was looking for the right type of PPE at one point. There was a lot of distribution issues too. 
Same for testing. PCR tests are still a controverisal way of testing for illness.
Track and trace was pretty poor, but then again the virus had petered out by then anyway. Working Track and trace wouldn't have achieved a lot anyway.


----------



## Rorschach

Terry - Somerset said:


> I can only assume this is tongue in cheek - otherwise laughable:
> 
> completely inadequate stocks of PPE
> utterly hopeless testing capacity
> track and trace fit for an outbreak of STD, not a highly transmitable virus
> Operation Cygnus - pandemic preparedness exercise in 2016. Report finally published 4 years later. No lessons learned.



Stocks of PPE is irrelevant, you cannot stockpile good for a "maybe" event especially when you don't know what kind of PPE is needed.
Testing capacity, again irrelevant because you are dealing with an unknown. Most diseases can be identified via symptoms so testing isn't required.
Track and Trace, waste of time when dealing with an airborne virus. As you perfectly point out, perfect for an STD and if Covid was transmitted like an STD the T&T system would have worked, T&T cannot work with an airborne virus though.


----------



## southendwoodworker

Rorschach said:


> You are right, it does go against my principles, but that doesn't mean I am wrong.
> 
> Do you know what annoys me most though, the government had a plan that didn't involve restrictions on peoples lives and they themselves allowed for 750k deaths. Given that we are nowhere near that number of deaths, why didn't we follow the plan?



You are talking about "plan" being a certainty and there being some weird conspiracy behind them not choosing it. One of "plan"'s definitions is "proposal" and one other "to decide upon". 

750k deaths is a ghastly number, what number of people in your life are you willing to lose, or risk losing? Even cruel politicians thought that was an unacceptable number. Please quantify the number of deaths you think are acceptable.

I am really confused about the message you are trying to convey, the ultimate goal was to reduce deaths, but your arguments throughout this forum seem to suggest that you are upset about lockdowns impacted your life and that you are happy for a higher death rate of people you don't know?

The likelihood of me dying is slim, but the likelihood of someone close to me is high because I know, care, and love, more than 100 people which inturn feel the same about me. The odds were that 1 or two may pass. If I didn't have that many friends or family, lets just say it's just me and my uncle selwyn, sure thing, the chance of either of us dying would be really slim.




Rorschach said:


> ...
> Given that we are nowhere near that number of deaths, why didn't we follow the plan?



The answer to this is: We didn't reach that number because of whatever actions government did stopped deaths rising that high. The actions they did reduced that horrific number down. The actions were lockdowns, it encouraged safe behaviours which reduced transmission. You've just argued for lockdowns dude.


----------



## southendwoodworker

Rorschach said:


> Stocks of PPE is irrelevant, you cannot stockpile good for a "maybe" event especially when you don't know what kind of PPE is needed.



- do you have bandages at home? Incase you cut something...
- do you use soap at home? That prevents you from getting sick...



Rorschach said:


> Testing capacity, again irrelevant because you are dealing with an unknown. Most diseases can be identified via symptoms so testing isn't required.



- not when the symptoms look like other diseases
- it was not clear for a long time exactly what symptoms looked like. They had a good idea, but not a precise idea. Testing, even with its flaws, was high precision.




Rorschach said:


> Track and Trace, waste of time when dealing with an airborne virus. As you perfectly point out, perfect for an STD and if Covid was transmitted like an STD the T&T system would have worked, T&T cannot work with an airborne virus though.



- this is an opinion and not a fact, world experts on this topic disagree with you. Hence why most of the world has done the opposite of what you are saying


----------



## Rorschach

southendwoodworker said:


> Please quantify the number of deaths you think are acceptable.



What do you think is acceptable? If you are going to ask me I assume you have a number in your mind too?


----------



## D_W

RobinBHM said:


> Only 59%.
> I think you may need to reassess your words "very unlikely"
> 
> May I politely ask you why you post stuff that is demonstrably untrue?
> There are plenty of high quality scientific sources online....I am curious as to why you don't research your posts a bit better.
> 
> 
> 
> "59% of all transmission came from asymptomatic transmission, comprising 35% from presymptomatic individuals and 24% from individuals who never develop symptoms"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SARS-CoV-2 Transmission From People Without COVID-19 Symptoms
> 
> 
> This decision analytical model assesses the proportion of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmissions in the community that likely occur from persons without symptoms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jamanetwork.com



Looks suspect to me. 20% of household transmission is asymptomatic but 59% overall?


----------



## southendwoodworker

Rorschach said:


> What do you think is acceptable? If you are going to ask me I assume you have a number in your mind too?



You seemed upset that the government didn't go forward with the 750k death rate ""plan"". Your post read like your acceptable number was higher.

Mine is of course zero. Unobtainable, but aspirational. Some countries have come close to it.

Given your pattern of selective and partial replies, have you considered the bulk of the rest of my latest two posts? It could be interesting to hear your perspective.


----------



## Rorschach

southendwoodworker said:


> You seemed upset that the government didn't go forward with the 750k death rate ""plan"". Your post read like your acceptable number was higher.
> 
> Mine is of course zero. Unobtainable, but aspirational. Some countries have come close to it.
> 
> Given your pattern of selective and partial replies, have you considered the bulk of the rest of my latest two posts? It could be interesting to hear your perspective.



Well if zero is your goal we have nothing to discuss on that matter really.

I didn't want to see 750k, but the fact that the government deemed this a reasonable figure with little to no restriction on day to day activity just puts things into perspective.

As to your other points, there is so much there crammed into each post it's difficult to address properly.


----------



## sometimewoodworker

southendwoodworker said:


> -
> 
> 
> “_Track and Trace, waste of time when dealing with an airborne virus. As you perfectly point out, perfect for an STD and if Covid was transmitted like an STD the T&T system would have worked, T&T cannot work with an airborne virus though._”
> 
> - this is an opinion and not a fact, world experts on this topic disagree with you. Hence why most of the world has done the opposite of what you are saying




@southendwoodworker I completely agree, for how it should have worked do take a look at a country that has a similar population to the U.K. but has always had an effective Track and Trace system. For the first year total deaths were under 70 total infections under 10,000
Yes there were local lockdowns (triggered by the TT system) yes mask wearing was much better than in the U.K. yes there is, and has been, virtually universal temperature checking in all big shops, transportation etc. 

No the situation is nowhere near as good today with wave 3 managing to get infections up as high as 2,000 per day and the total number of deaths getting near to 450. But then vaccination is almost nonexistent in the general population. 
Will it be controlled? I see no reason why not. Could things have been done better? Absolutely


----------



## Rorschach

sometimewoodworker said:


> @southendwoodworker I completely agree, for how it should have worked do take a look at a country that has a similar population to the U.K. but has always had an effective Track and Trace system. For the first year total deaths were under 70 total infections under 10,000
> Yes there were local lockdowns (triggered by the TT system) yes mask wearing was much better than in the U.K. yes there is, and has been, virtually universal temperature checking in all big shops, transportation etc.
> 
> No the situation is nowhere near as good today with wave 3 managing to get infections up as high as 2,000 per day and the total number of deaths getting near to 450. But then vaccination is almost nonexistent in the general population.
> Will it be controlled? I see no reason why not. Could things have been done better? Absolutely



If you are referring to Thailand you are talking about a country that likely had lots of natural immunity and experience due to it's previous experience of SARS and started from a much lower baseline of infections. Temperature checking at shops etc? Total waste of time as has already been shown.


----------



## D_W

What is the level of chinese tourism to thailand? I'm not trying to trigger anyone, but NY and northern italy both got blasted in early waves, likely due to the level of covid that was there before it was known, and then compounded by slow action (heavily regulated societies with a lot of freedom and politicians afraid of infringing on it tend to lead to this).


----------



## Terry - Somerset

If you bother to look you will find that both Public Health England and NHS England have explicit responsibilities for putting in place contingency plans, test and trace, maintaining effective laboratories etc etc. 

The Civil Contingncies Act 2004 was a key driver as it sought to impose a clear set of roles and responsibilities on those organisations with a role to play in preparing for and responding to emergencies. 

Having stocks of PPE, testing capability, track and trace etc is a fundamental part of the contingency plan. Inadequate preparation evidences unambiguous failure.


----------



## sometimewoodworker

D_W said:


> What is the level of chinese tourism to thailand?


It’s very high as parts of the north almost border with China Yunnan is only about 140km away, there were quite a few charter flights each week. Not at all uncommon to find over 10 Chinese tour coaches at popular sights any day of the week. 

The first identified infection was in January but it was probably circulating earlier, as it was in Italy. 

I theorise that there may be a higher level of vitamin D , this would make infection less serious though the high levels of diabetes will not help


----------



## D_W

you could very well be right about sun exposure and lower levels of infection. I'd bet the asymptomatic cases are higher and figure that the scare information about more than half of the cases being spready by asymptomatic individuals or presymptomatic are overstated as tracking and tracing PCR positive cases of asymptomatic individuals never really yields that much in terms of future positive cases.


----------



## Selwyn

Terry - Somerset said:


> If you bother to look you will find that both Public Health England and NHS England have explicit responsibilities for putting in place contingency plans, test and trace, maintaining effective laboratories etc etc.
> 
> The Civil Contingncies Act 2004 was a key driver as it sought to impose a clear set of roles and responsibilities on those organisations with a role to play in preparing for and responding to emergencies.
> 
> Having stocks of PPE, testing capability, track and trace etc is a fundamental part of the contingency plan. Inadequate preparation evidences unambiguous failure.



They had stocks of PPE but a lot of PPE was getting hoarded by different health authorities. And then the media hysteria got worse. We did have a shortage of course - it depends how you want to view things - should we always have an excess of supplies on a limited budget or divert the budget to other measures? There was probably a lot of waste in ppe early on too.

Track and trace by phone etc was never going to work, never did and to be honest probably would have made no difference after the first wave as the virus was then endemic.

Effective labs would be good but the sheer number of people having tests with no symptomns (even though explicitly told not to have a test if not ill etc) just when totally ott. This virus is so obviously now seasonal the whole thing is laughable


----------



## Rorschach

Selwyn said:


> the sheer number of people having tests with no symptomns (even though explicitly told not to have a test if not ill etc) just when totally ott.



Just look at the test positivity rates, ignoring the March 2020 part when we were only doing highly targeted testing of those in hospitals really you can see that once mass testing started the vast majority of it was a waste of time. What on earth are you meant to do when you have a disease that can only be identified by a test? Madness really and a shocking waste of money.


----------



## Rorschach

And to give an idea of just how much of a waste of money it is, this is how many tests were being performed.


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> Looks suspect to me. 20% of household transmission is asymptomatic but 59% overall?


I cant see how you arrive at that -household transmission is not mentioned in that article.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> The evidence that without lockdown interaction there would be a greater virus speed is moot. In appears the viral load reached its peak before lockdown was enacted.


the viral load did not reach its peak before lockdown was enacted.....please stop stating opinions as fact.

official "lockdown" dates are not when Non pharmaceutical interventions commenced.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> They did spot that.


it was noted, but they still dishonestly used the official start date of full lockdown for their claim.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Most diseases can be identified via symptoms so testing isn't required.


59% of covid transmission is by asymptomatic or pre symptomatic people

so you are spouting hogwash, as usual 

why do you lie to yourself so much?


----------



## RobinBHM

southendwoodworker said:


> I am really confused about the message you are trying to convey, the ultimate goal was to reduce deaths, but your arguments throughout this forum seem to suggest that you are upset about lockdowns impacted your life and that you are happy for a higher death rate of people you don't know?



Rorschach main argument is that there was a choice between letting old people die and protecting the economy....which is completely false.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> 59% of covid transmission is by asymptomatic or pre symptomatic people
> 
> so you are spouting hogwash, as usual
> 
> why do you lie to yourself so much?



I didn't mention covid in that quote.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Rorschach main argument is that there was a choice between letting old people die and protecting the economy....which is completely false.



Yawn, again. Don't you ever get tired of coming out with the same old nonsense?


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> I didn't mention covid in that quote.


I know, you omitted it deliberately.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> I know, you omitted it deliberately.



You're just getting silly now.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Yawn, again. Don't you ever get tired of coming out with the same old nonsense?



I am terribly sorry, but the data supports what I said, whereas yours contradicts it.

If you can provide solid evidence to back up your repeated opinion (that you state as fact) I am happy to read it.



"In the words of Martin Wolf, the chart shows how “countries have followed two strategies: suppression, or trading off deaths against the economy. By and large, the former group has done better in both respects. Meanwhile, countries that have sacrificed lives have tended to end up with high mortality and economic costs"








Covid-19: Is there a trade-off between economic damage and loss of life?


One of the key political issues during the Covid-19 pandemic has been the extent to which health outcomes should be balanced against the economic costs associated with lockdowns and other virus sup…




blogs.lse.ac.uk


----------



## Rorschach

I can't do anything about the fact that you don't like the data I provide so you're just going to have to live with it. I have tried in good faith but if you refuse to accept it then there is nothing more I can do.


----------



## southendwoodworker

Rorschach said:


> Well if zero is your goal we have nothing to discuss on that matter really.
> 
> I didn't want to see 750k, but the fact that the government deemed this a reasonable figure with little to no restriction on day to day activity just puts things into perspective.
> 
> As to your other points, there is so much there crammed into each post it's difficult to address properly.



We have nothing to discuss because you are arguing that a certain level of death is acceptable for you, probably because they aren't people you care about.

Stepping back, how do you think that comes across?

When we look up at the sky and see the moon, we only ever see one side, it doesn't rotate. Yet we still know the other side of the moon does still exist. Just because I haven't seen it with my bare eyes, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This same thing is playing out with covid, some communities had very little infection rates, meaning some people haven't first hand seen the tragedy thats happening in other parts.




Rorschach said:


> I didn't want to see 750k, but the fact that the government deemed this a reasonable figure with little to no restriction on day to day activity just puts things into perspective.



The government didn't, you are misunderstanding how modelling works and misinterpreting what "plan" means.

The government had to explore/model options to see what was best from multiple angles. The definition of "best" being defined by a set criteria (primarily deaths, immediate financial cost, long term financial cost, sociological, and opportunity cost), with some obvious weighting applied to the deaths criteria.

They would have modelled ("planned"), like all non-binary-result studies, at LEAST three things:

1. the worse case scenario for life (they do nothing and let virus run wild)
2. the middle ground (they implement some things, try and get a balance between death, sociological and economic costs)
3. the best case scenario for life (tight lockdown, prevent spread, mitigate death)

For option 2, they actually explored many different variations.

It is like the famous triple constraint model, except in this situation there is more than 3 constraints, which makes is far far more complex.

You make it sound that just because they modelled/planned it, that they would have actually actioned it. That is far from the case, what modelling/planning does is it helps you compare all the options. It is about discovering the relative benefits between the options.

What I am saying is that just because a plan existed, it certainly doesn't mean it was on the table, which means using it as a thrust in your argument is not solid logic.



Rorschach said:


> As to your other points, there is so much there crammed into each post it's difficult to address properly.



Fair enough. I responded in kind to your posts, but condensed it down.


----------



## sometimewoodworker

D_W said:


> you could very well be right about sun exposure and lower levels of infection. I'd bet the asymptomatic cases are higher and figure that the scare information about more than half of the cases being spready by asymptomatic individuals or presymptomatic are overstated as tracking and tracing PCR positive cases of asymptomatic individuals never really yields that much in terms of future positive cases.


Since in the first year we only had 6,840 reported infections and 60 deaths in a population of 70 million general testing was never used. So even assuming 9 times more asymptotic infections (probably many fewer) it’s still a tiny number compared to the U.K. Also since infections outside quarantine stopped totally until mid January 2021 any testing outside quarantine was superfluous.

relevant to nothing May 12 (Reuters) - Thailand reported on Wednesday a new daily record of 34 coronavirus deaths. This is shocking to us but for the U.K. it would not be news at all 

regrettably your ideas about pre-symptomatic individuals not spreading infection much is wrong and it is a significant factor in the fast spread of the current variation.

If asymptotically infected individuals pass on the disease as much is more debatable. They probably have a lower viral load so being less contagious would make sense.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> I can't do anything about the fact that you don't like the data I provide so you're just going to have to live with it. I have tried in good faith but if you refuse to accept it then there is nothing more I can do.


The majority of your posts are opinion stated as fact.

The links you do include are either not from authoritative sources, or they are only youtube opinions, or they don't back up your argument.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> I have tried in good faith


You are having a laugh, right?


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> The majority of your posts are opinion stated as fact.
> 
> The links you do include are either not from authoritative sources, or they are only youtube opinions, or they don't back up your argument.



Wicker man!


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> media hysteria got worse


You love to include the "media hysteria" or "fear mongering"

Emotive terms which can't be proven one way or another.....


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> the viral load did not reach its peak before lockdown was enacted.....please stop stating opinions as fact.
> 
> official "lockdown" dates are not when Non pharmaceutical interventions commenced.



You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> it was noted, but they still dishonestly used the official start date of full lockdown for their claim.



That is not dishonest at all. 

It shows that other interventions were perfectly possible, enactable and effective once people became aware of the viral increase. Lockdown was just over the top, totally.

The idea that even now you can't hug anyone is totally daft. The virus has gone for this season.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Rorschach main argument is that there was a choice between letting old people die and protecting the economy....which is completely false.



His argument is much more than that but it will be wasted on you.


----------



## Selwyn

southendwoodworker said:


> We have nothing to discuss because you are arguing that a certain level of death is acceptable for you, probably because they aren't people you care about.
> 
> Stepping back, how do you think that comes across?
> 
> When we look up at the sky and see the moon, we only ever see one side, it doesn't rotate. Yet we still know the other side of the moon does still exist. Just because I haven't seen it with my bare eyes, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This same thing is playing out with covid, some communities had very little infection rates, meaning some people haven't first hand seen the tragedy thats happening in other parts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government didn't, you are misunderstanding how modelling works and misinterpreting what "plan" means.
> 
> The government had to explore/model options to see what was best from multiple angles. The definition of "best" being defined by a set criteria (primarily deaths, immediate financial cost, long term financial cost, sociological, and opportunity cost), with some obvious weighting applied to the deaths criteria.
> 
> They would have modelled ("planned"), like all non-binary-result studies, at LEAST three things:
> 
> 1. the worse case scenario for life (they do nothing and let virus run wild)
> 2. the middle ground (they implement some things, try and get a balance between death, sociological and economic costs)
> 3. the best case scenario for life (tight lockdown, prevent spread, mitigate death)
> 
> For option 2, they actually explored many different variations.
> 
> It is like the famous triple constraint model, except in this situation there is more than 3 constraints, which makes is far far more complex.
> 
> You make it sound that just because they modelled/planned it, that they would have actually actioned it. That is far from the case, what modelling/planning does is it helps you compare all the options. It is about discovering the relative benefits between the options.
> 
> What I am saying is that just because a plan existed, it certainly doesn't mean it was on the table, which means using it as a thrust in your argument is not solid logic.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. I responded in kind to your posts, but condensed it down.



We make calculations every day on what is an acceptable level of death.

By the way the virus doesn't run wild. It ebbs and flows. Remember the virus was ebbing down before the first lockdown according to a lot of the evidence - eg Tim Spector, I doubt he wants to lie. Even then the virus was in hotspots rather than everywhere - in Wales a lot of the deaths were in a few confined hosptials - they almost certainly had nosocomial issues there, combined with people with poor existing health.


----------



## Rorschach

southendwoodworker said:


> We have nothing to discuss because you are arguing that a certain level of death is acceptable for you, probably because they aren't people you care about.



No I am arguing that a judgement call has to made on the costs of keeping someone alive vs the damage doing so will cause to other people. It would be wonderful if we could spend an infinite amount of money to keep everyone alive as long as possible, I genuinely wish that was the case, but we have to live in the real world and in the real world we let people die because the cost of keeping them alive is too great for society to bear. I am watching someone die a slow and painful death from cancer because of lockdown so don't tell me people I care about aren't dying.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Guys, take a chill pill - it's now an argument about what is being argued about?


----------



## hairy

southendwoodworker said:


> The likelihood of me dying is slim,


Are you a vampire?


----------



## hairy

One thing that did strike me about an "expert" on YT (quotes because one man's expert is anothers useful silly person) Is how the NHS was always close to collapse.
In the first instance that's why we had a couple of weeks lockdown.
Then the temporary hospitals were put up, but the NHS was still almost collapsing despite the urgent and desperate need for more o2 provision now met.
Still on the brink of collapse even while those facilities were quietly being dismantled. Not, hooray, we've kept on top of things so well that the NHS can now cope, but still about to go Code Black country wide.
Still the case now despie so many fewer "cases".
If the NHS was running at nearly full capacity like it should do from an efficiency point of view no one would be as worried about being as careful. If it had collapsed the same would be true, nothing I could do would bring the NHS back from the void had it gone there..
14 months of almost collapsing becomes a little less believable. New narrative coming your way soon!


----------



## Rorschach

hairy said:


> One thing that did strike me about an "expert" on YT (quotes because one man's expert is anothers useful silly person) Is how the NHS was always close to collapse.
> In the first instance that's why we had a couple of weeks lockdown.
> Then the temporary hospitals were put up, but the NHS was still almost collapsing despite the urgent and desperate need for more o2 provision now met.
> Still on the brink of collapse even while those facilities were quietly being dismantled. Not, hooray, we've kept on top of things so well that the NHS can now cope, but still about to go Code Black country wide.
> Still the case now despie so many fewer "cases".
> If the NHS was running at nearly full capacity like it should do from an efficiency point of view no one would be as worried about being as careful. If it had collapsed the same would be true, nothing I could do would bring the NHS back from the void had it gone there..
> 14 months of almost collapsing becomes a little less believable. New narrative coming your way soon!



It's a dangerous narrative to be pushing for all sorts of reasons. It was also rather silly to because while I am sure there were occasions where some hospitals were getting very close to being full, that was by no means a long term thing nor was it nationwide. For those who live/work in the bad hospitals they get a very skewed view of the NHS and the situation in the country and the opposite for those who were working in hospitals like ours which were empty for most of the last year. It's another reason why nationwide restrictions were so silly when the situation was clearly not the same across the country, at the very least any lockdown should have been regional.


----------



## Selwyn

hairy said:


> One thing that did strike me about an "expert" on YT (quotes because one man's expert is anothers useful silly person) Is how the NHS was always close to collapse.
> In the first instance that's why we had a couple of weeks lockdown.
> Then the temporary hospitals were put up, but the NHS was still almost collapsing despite the urgent and desperate need for more o2 provision now met.
> Still on the brink of collapse even while those facilities were quietly being dismantled. Not, hooray, we've kept on top of things so well that the NHS can now cope, but still about to go Code Black country wide.
> Still the case now despie so many fewer "cases".
> If the NHS was running at nearly full capacity like it should do from an efficiency point of view no one would be as worried about being as careful. If it had collapsed the same would be true, nothing I could do would bring the NHS back from the void had it gone there..
> 14 months of almost collapsing becomes a little less believable. New narrative coming your way soon!




There's no such thing as "collapse" anyway.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> His argument is much more than that but it will be wasted on you.


Rorschach is wrong so his argument is wasted on everybody including himself.
Same as you.

Both of you constantly state opinions as fact and when I've presented proof of them being wrong you ignore the evidence.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Both of you constantly state opinions as fact and when I've presented proof of them being wrong you ignore the evidence.



We have both provided evidence for our statements that happens to contradict yours, the fact that you choose not to accept it isn't our problem.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Rorschach is wrong so his argument is wasted on everybody including himself.
> Same as you.
> 
> Both of you constantly state opinions as fact and when I've presented proof of them being wrong you ignore the evidence.



Strawman.

You must desist from ad hominem attacks on people. You haven't presented proof of anything. You have just been advocating lockdowns but ignoring the very real side effects of them which will emerge as far worse


----------



## Rorschach

So India looking like it might have peaked, seems @Selwyn was right.

Not quite sure why deaths are following cases so closely, usually a 3 week or so lag here, anyone know why that is?


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Strawman.
> 
> You must desist from ad hominem attacks on people. You haven't presented proof of anything. You have just been advocating lockdowns but ignoring the very real side effects of them which will emerge as far worse



I hesitate to mention it, but my post contained neither ad hominem nor strawman.

And yes I have presented proof.

Here's one example on non pharmaceutical interventions: The effect of interventions on COVID-19

I have not ignored effects of lockdowns....what you fail to understand is those issues would not have been mitigated by no lockdown. The effects are a result of the pandemic, there never was a choice.

There have been mistakes in the interventions, it's likely effects of those have made things worse.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> I hesitate to mention it, but my post contained neither ad hominem nor strawman.
> 
> And yes I have presented proof.
> 
> Here's one example on non pharmaceutical interventions: The effect of interventions on COVID-19
> 
> I have not ignored effects of lockdowns....what you fail to understand is those issues would not have been mitigated by no lockdown. The effects are a result of the pandemic, there never was a choice.
> 
> There have been mistakes in the interventions, it's likely effects of those have made things worse.



Opinion stated as facts. Source not credible. Wicker man and ad homonyms.

Hey this is easy! No wonder you do it all the time


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> So India looking like it might have peaked, seems @Selwyn was right


Well he wasn't right a week ago, when he started saying it had peaked.

We've already established Indias testing numbers have gone down, so a graph doesn't mean much.
A % positive cases would be more useful.

The death graph finishes at a high point...do we know that's the peak?


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Opinion stated as facts. Source not credible. Wicker man and ad homonyms.
> 
> Hey this is easy! No wonder you do it all the time


I am sorry, I don't understand what point you are attempting to make as my post you quoted includes evidence from a quality, credible source.....which proves NPIs do work.

If you have a valid counter argument, by all means provide one.....I am always open to learn.


----------



## RobinBHM

RobinBHM said:


> I am sorry, I don't understand what point you are attempting to make as my post you quoted includes evidence from a quality, credible source.....which proves NPIs do work.
> 
> If you have a valid counter argument, by all means provide one.....I am always open to learn.


Rorschach, every time you are presented with evidence, you avoid answering.

Now why would that be?


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Rorschach, every time you are presented with evidence, you avoid answering.
> 
> Now why would that be?



 You just don't get it do you?


----------



## hbland66

This discussion string contains dangerous misinformation and pseudoscience and potentially harmful information if followed. I must insist and politely request that the Administration team remove it.


----------



## Rorschach

hbland66 said:


> This discussion string contains dangerous misinformation and pseudoscience and potentially harmful information if followed. I must insist and politely request that the Administration team remove it.



What dangerous misinformation and who made you the person who decides what is or isn't true?


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Well he wasn't right a week ago, when he started saying it had peaked.
> 
> We've already established Indias testing numbers have gone down, so a graph doesn't mean much.
> A % positive cases would be more useful.
> 
> The death graph finishes at a high point...do we know that's the peak?



I was pretty much bang on. I could see it from the graphs and data, it was obvious. We will see a slower decline and - miraculously - it will end up looking similar to all the other viral curves. If I was one day out on the peak it doesn't really matter - the virus does not increase exponentially as people kept falling for - its bursts out at speed, then slows rapidly, like all respiratory virus'. This is what covid has been doing all over the world over and over again. 

The deaths will probably not decline super quickly in India but stay more static for a bit. Contextually it doesn't appear India's covid wave is too bad compared to the scare stories. I don't here the hysteria for the TB or diareheoa deaths every day.

Remember in the UK we had to massively increase testing and scare the not ill into taking tests incl. mass testing of students to manufacture an increase in positive cases last winter. Covid will probably be back in the winter as it is an endemic diease now and in all probability the double vaccinated old and vulnerable will succumb die and some of these will be covid positive pcr deaths. We can pretend thats the story of why they die but it will just be innaccurate.


----------



## Selwyn

hbland66 said:


> This discussion string contains dangerous misinformation and pseudoscience and potentially harmful information if followed. I must insist and politely request that the Administration team remove it.



I politely suggest you are being a silly billy.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> I am sorry, I don't understand what point you are attempting to make as my post you quoted includes evidence from a quality, credible source.....which proves NPIs do work.
> 
> If you have a valid counter argument, by all means provide one.....I am always open to learn.



I would agree that NPI have a role. We do agree there.

In fact some npi like providing assistance to the vulnerable, special measures in some environments would have done a huge amount. Stopping people sitting on park benches, monitoring how many people meet in small gatherings, shutting schools etc were henious and not necessary. 

We seem to agree that NPI reduce the peak and that lockdown's were ott because the peak had passed when brought in. You will see you've been played eventually


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> I was pretty much bang on. I could see it from the graphs and data, it was obvious. We will see a slower decline and - miraculously - it will end up looking similar to all the other viral curves. If I was one day out on the peak it doesn't really matter - the virus does not increase exponentially as people kept falling for - its bursts out at speed, then slows rapidly, like all respiratory virus'. This is what covid has been doing all over the world over and over again.
> 
> The deaths will probably not decline super quickly in India but stay more static for a bit. Contextually it doesn't appear India's covid wave is too bad compared to the scare stories. I don't here the hysteria for the TB or diareheoa deaths every day.
> 
> Remember in the UK we had to massively increase testing and scare the not ill into taking tests incl. mass testing of students to manufacture an increase in positive cases last winter. Covid will probably be back in the winter as it is an endemic diease now and in all probability the double vaccinated old and vulnerable will succumb die and some of these will be covid positive pcr deaths. We can pretend thats the story of why they die but it will just be innaccurate.


Cognitive dissonance.


----------



## RobinBHM

hbland66 said:


> This discussion string contains dangerous misinformation and pseudoscience and potentially harmful information if followed. I must insist and politely request that the Administration team remove it.


Luckily the UK is well ahead with its vaccine programme so the dangerous misinformation spewing from Selywn and Rorschach is only academic now. In any case, nobody seems to be fooling for it.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Luckily the UK is well ahead with its vaccine programme so the dangerous misinformation spewing from Selywn and Rorschach is only academic now. In any case, nobody seems to be fooling for it.



Are you suggesting that either Selwyn or myself are anti-vaxxers?


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Are you suggesting that either Selwyn or myself are anti-vaxxers?


Just Anti-facts


----------



## Blackswanwood

Rorschach said:


> So India looking like it might have peaked, seems @Selwyn was right.
> 
> Not quite sure why deaths are following cases so closely, usually a 3 week or so lag here, anyone know why that is?



I don’t but I do believe that the numbers coming out of India are being understated and there is massive variability in the availability of everything COVID related. It’s also incorrect to say India has not locked down as several large cities and states have. Mumbai for instance locked down early and is in a better position now than say Kolkata (please let’s not reopen theories on whether lockdowns work - I’m not expressing an opinion just saying what the current position is). In Bangalore a lockdown has also been applied and Police are enforcing it with roadblocks.

I am responsible for some substantial bpo sites in India and am getting daily briefings from people on the ground. It’s grim.

The availability of testing is sporadic and there is a heightened Level of scepticism and fatalism that is leading to some not bothering with it. It is widely accepted that the number of deaths is being understated.

My view is that an armchair analysis is not going to yield robust conclusions.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

I wholly agree with Blackswan wood.

Indian cases and deaths are grossly under-reported - by a factor between 3 and 10. Figures based on a swift google and sites generally regarded as fairly objective - eg: Economist and BBC. 

Reasons are manifold - political reluctance to admit how bad it is, lack of testing, large rural populations remote from medical facilities, poverty etc. 

Basing any analysis of lockdown effectiveness on reported figures so fundamentally flawed is of zero value.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Just Anti-facts



One could level the same accusation against you.


----------



## Chris152

I see they're thinking of bringing forward second jabs for those in areas with rapidly increasing cases of the Indian variant, and discussing regional measures again. It's clearly got the boffs in white coats worried. About 500 to 1300 in a week (and that data's a week or two out of date), just as everyone thinks things are heading back to normal. Can't help but feel we've seen this before.








Indian variant: Second jabs could be brought forward to tackle rise


Local restrictions have also not been ruled out in areas worst affected by the Indian variant.



www.bbc.co.uk





ps Not remotely interested in hearing how it's not a serious disease, npis don't work, doesn't matter coz it's already peaked, i think i'm young and ok, i don't want the vaccine, failings of 'msm' etc


----------



## Rorschach

@Blackswanwood and @Terry - Somerset you could be right, I don't know. I am basing it on official figures and not supposition and anecdotal evidence. All countries are massaging their figures to come degree I am sure, even the UK but we can only comment on what we are told.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> One could level the same accusation against you.



Of course you can level that accusation my way, but it won't get you far as my posts are backed up with links to verified sources. 

It is rather amusing that you refute posts of mine that include links.....but you fail to state where or why.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Of course you can level that accusation my way, but it won't get you far as my posts are backed up with links to verified sources.
> 
> It is rather amusing that you refute posts of mine that include links.....but you fail to state where or why.



It's like talking to a brick wall with you. I have provided sources, you don't like them, not my problem.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Rorschach said:


> @Blackswanwood and @Terry - Somerset you could be right, I don't know. I am basing it on official figures and not supposition and anecdotal evidence. All countries are massaging their figures to come degree I am sure, even the UK but we can only comment on what we are told.


I'm genuinely surprised that you see it as the UK massaging their figures - what points you to that? I'd agree the data is imperfect particularly around cause of death. Just interested - not looking for an argument!


----------



## John Brown

Rorschach said:


> Opinion stated as facts. Source not credible. Wicker man and ad homonyms.
> 
> Hey this is easy! No wonder you do it all the time


Interestingly, hominem and homonym are not the same thing. Almost homophones, but not quite.


----------



## Rorschach

Blackswanwood said:


> I'm genuinely surprised that you see it as the UK massaging their figures - what points you to that? I'd agree the data is imperfect particularly around cause of death. Just interested - not looking for an argument!



Well it's the cause of death really. I am not saying the UK government is under or over reporting the raw figures for deaths (all causes) but I think they are being a bit dodgy with their figures on cause of death and especially with the modelling figures they use/used in their briefings. 
I think it is very disingenuous to say X countries figures are misleading but the UK is perfect, all governments have an agenda and are not beyond lying to the populous.

A simple of example of this for the UK is that we are constantly given the 127k deaths figure saying they died "in the past year", this is indeed true (near enough a year anyway) but without the context that it covers two winter respiratory seasons. This 127k figure is then compared against a yearly mortality of approx 600k, but again, that 600k isn't spread out evenly over a year so if you took a year that had two winter respiratory virus seasons added together it would be much higher than 600k. So while the figures they tell us are more or less correct, they are being massaged and used in a way that is misleading in order to generate maximum fear and impact.


----------



## Rorschach

John Brown said:


> Interestingly, hominem and homonym are not the same thing. Almost homophones, but not quite.



Wooooooosshhh!


----------



## John Brown

Rorschach said:


> Wooooooosshhh!


Is that the noise of the aircraft flying overhead in the opening sequence of Whicker's World?


----------



## Rorschach

John Brown said:


> Is that the noise of the aircraft flying overhead in the opening sequence of Whicker's World?



I'm not old enough to have seen that reference


----------



## hairy

Early last year it was openly reported that the UK was essentially going looking for cases to get as good a handle of how much Covid there was here. Germany had a more reserved manner of reporting and so were showing fewer cases, and so were seen in the MSM as doing a "better" job of being in control. Belgium openly stated they will measure and count every single case they can get their hands on since that info can only help in the control, and said they don't care how bad it looks. 
If you look on the UK Govt site they say the two different departments measue deaths in different ways, so there isn't consistancy even within our Govt. Maybe not massaging, but what a Covid death is varies both here and worldwide.
ONS " Death certification as involving COVID-19 does not depend on a positive test. "
PHE "....all deaths where a positive test for COVID-19 has been confirmed"
from The different uses of figures on deaths related to COVID-19 published by DHSC and the ONS - Office for National Statistics


----------



## Rorschach

I wonder if this view will ever get mainstream acceptance?









Lockdown was a choice | Tom Moran | The Critic Magazine


Chemotherapy is not always the most appropriate course of action for cancer patients. Put simply, the side effects of chemotherapy, which can have an extremely detrimental effect on the patient’s…




thecritic.co.uk


----------



## TominDales

Chris152 said:


> I see they're thinking of bringing forward second jabs for those in areas with rapidly increasing cases of the Indian variant, and discussing regional measures again. It's clearly got the boffs in white coats worried. About 500 to 1300 in a week (and that data's a week or two out of date), just as everyone thinks things are heading back to normal. Can't help but feel we've seen this before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indian variant: Second jabs could be brought forward to tackle rise
> 
> 
> Local restrictions have also not been ruled out in areas worst affected by the Indian variant.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.co.uk


It will be vital to see how much the UK has learnt this past year and can put into practice with this flare-up. We know that new variants will appear, almost certainly they will be imported from an area with high incidents of covid such as India, so this is to be expected. We have all the tools to supress this flare-up.
1. We have huge Track and Trace capacity, so infections should be able to be isolated locally.
2. We know how to isolate and if necessary lock down locally whilst still opening up the rest of the country
3. We have huge vaccine capacity (ca 500,000 per day) so could choose to ring-vaccinate locally in Bolton all adults and teenagers at the expense of slightly slowing down the national role-out.

This may mean adapting current practice, especially for point 3 - it would necessitate a tweaking the current vaccine roll-out nationally by age to make an exception in Bolton. I would fill me with confidence if our PH can quickly contain this outbreak, whilst continuing to relax restrictions on a national basis. 

My understanding is the vaccines, while are not as effective against the Indian variant as against the Kent variants, do reduce both incidence and severity of infection, so should be able to snuff out this outbreak.


----------



## Rorschach

@TominDales 

1. Yes we do, but T&T is almost useless against an airborne virus because it spreads without close physical contact.
2. No we don't, we have never carried out effective local lockdowns, we knew we couldn't and that's why the government never tried.
3. Vaccination takes at least 3 weeks to have an effect, by that time any spike has long since had a chance to escape the "ring" and if vaccination doesn't totally stop transmission it would be pointless anyway. Better to keep with vaccinated the vulnerable. It doesn't matter if the entire country is infected as long as it isn't making anyone seriously ill.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Rorschach said:


> Well it's the cause of death really. I am not saying the UK government is under or over reporting the raw figures for deaths (all causes) but I think they are being a bit dodgy with their figures on cause of death and especially with the modelling figures they use/used in their briefings.
> I think it is very disingenuous to say X countries figures are misleading but the UK is perfect, all governments have an agenda and are not beyond lying to the populous.
> 
> A simple of example of this for the UK is that we are constantly given the 127k deaths figure saying they died "in the past year", this is indeed true (near enough a year anyway) but without the context that it covers two winter respiratory seasons. This 127k figure is then compared against a yearly mortality of approx 600k, but again, that 600k isn't spread out evenly over a year so if you took a year that had two winter respiratory virus seasons added together it would be much higher than 600k. So while the figures they tell us are more or less correct, they are being massaged and used in a way that is misleading in order to generate maximum fear and impact.



I agree on the messaging/spin but in fairness to ONS all the data says what it is for those who can be bothered to look - that’s probably a minority and compounds the misunderstanding.

Cheers


----------



## TominDales

Rorschach said:


> @TominDales
> 
> 1. Yes we do, but T&T is almost useless against an airborne virus because it spreads without close physical contact.
> 2. No we don't, we have never carried out effective local lockdowns, we knew we couldn't and that's why the government never tried.
> 3. Vaccination takes at least 3 weeks to have an effect, by that time any spike has long since had a chance to escape the "ring" and if vaccination doesn't totally stop transmission it would be pointless anyway. Better to keep with vaccinated the vulnerable. It doesn't matter if the entire country is infected as long as it isn't making anyone seriously ill.


I tend to agree with you as we seem ineffective at managing the spread of infection in the UK. (edited to clarity in the am...)

The point I want to make is:
We now have a good argument for an effective local lockdown.
If you vaccinated the entire population of Bolton and Darwin combined population ca 170,000, it could be done in a day. and then locked down vigorously for 3 weeks you could snuff out this variant. I suspect people could stomach a lockdown if they could see and end to it. And 170,000 jabs would not impinge much on the daily rate of ca 600k at the moment. 
I think people would tolerate very local and short duration lockdowns if it enabled the country to get back to normality. The problem we now have, is we are used to the UK being slow to respond, allowing a bigger problem and then it last for months. So politically we have probably missed this boat, but short lockdowns combined with an effective vaccine - which is relatively plentiful is a powerful place to be.


----------



## Jake

Rorschach said:


> 1. Yes we do, but T&T is almost useless against an airborne virus because it spreads without close physical contact.



There are many countries which have falsified that idea by having an effective TTI system. The uselessness is in the implementation. Ours was/is - thank Dido etc.


----------



## Chris152

TominDales said:


> It will be vital to see how much the UK has learnt this past year and can put into practice with this flare-up. We know that new variants will appear, almost certainly they will be imported from an area with high incidents of covid such as India, so this is to be expected. We have all the tools to supress this flare-up.
> 1. We have huge Track and Trace capacity, so infections should be able to be isolated locally.
> 2. We know how to isolate and if necessary lock down locally whilst still opening up the rest of the country
> 3. We have huge vaccine capacity (ca 500,000 per day) so could choose to ring-vaccinate locally in Bolton all adults and teenagers at the expense of slightly slowing down the national role-out.
> 
> This may mean adapting current practice, especially for point 3 - it would necessitate a tweaking the current vaccine roll-out nationally by age to make an exception in Bolton. I would fill me with confidence if our PH can quickly contain this outbreak, whilst continuing to relax restrictions on a national basis.
> 
> My understanding is the vaccines, while are not as effective against the Indian variant as against the Kent variants, do reduce both incidence and severity of infection, so should be able to snuff out this outbreak.


Thanks for the reply, Tom. As you say, we have lots of things in place; we now need the right decisions to use them made at the right times. Yesterday's press conference spoke of 'living with the virus' and individuals making their own decisions - fine in the abstract, but it seems they've become euphemisms for avoiding decisions at govt level. You don't need to be an epidemiologist to imagine what happens next without the kind of actions you describe, nor a political or economic theorist to figure out why.
Here's today's Sky News:
'Easing lockdown measures in England on Monday could cause "a substantial resurgence" in hospital admissions that is similar to previous peaks or larger, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has warned.
Minutes of a meeting on Thursday suggest there is a "realistic possibility" that the Indian variant of *COVID-19* is 50% more transmissible than the one that emerged in Kent late last year.'








COVID-19: England a day away from major lockdown easing despite calls for delay


Boris Johnson says the Indian variant may delay the fourth stage of easing lockdown in June but Monday's relaxation will go ahead.




news.sky.com




As I said earlier, it does feel a bit like we've been here a few times before, watching things happen in slow motion.


----------



## Rorschach

Jake said:


> There are many countries which have falsified that idea by having an effective TTI system. The uselessness is in the implementation. Ours was/is - thank Dido etc.



No countries have an effective T&T system for Covid, what they have was a start from an incredibly low base and probably high levels of natural immunity.


----------



## Rorschach

Chris152 said:


> Thanks for the reply, Tom. As you say, we have lots of things in place; we now need the right decisions to use them made at the right times. Yesterday's press conference spoke of 'living with the virus' and individuals making their own decisions - fine in the abstract, but it seems they've become euphemisms for avoiding decisions at govt level. You don't need to be an epidemiologist to imagine what happens next without the kind of actions you describe, nor a political or economic theorist to figure out why.
> Here's today's Sky News:
> 'Easing lockdown measures in England on Monday could cause "a substantial resurgence" in hospital admissions that is similar to previous peaks or larger, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has warned.
> Minutes of a meeting on Thursday suggest there is a "realistic possibility" that the Indian variant of *COVID-19* is 50% more transmissible than the one that emerged in Kent late last year.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> COVID-19: England a day away from major lockdown easing despite calls for delay
> 
> 
> Boris Johnson says the Indian variant may delay the fourth stage of easing lockdown in June but Monday's relaxation will go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.sky.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said earlier, I does feel a bit like we've been here a few times before, watching things happen in slow motion.



Who cares how transmissible it is? The only thing that matters is if it causes hospitals to be overwhelmed.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> A simple of example of this for the UK is that we are constantly given the 127k deaths figure saying they died "in the past year", this is indeed true (near enough a year anyway) but without the context that it covers two winter respiratory seasons. This 127k figure is then compared against a yearly mortality of approx 600k, but again, that 600k isn't spread out evenly over a year so if you took a year that had two winter respiratory virus seasons added together it would be much higher than 600k. So while the figures they tell us are more or less correct, they are being massaged and used in a way that is misleading in order to generate maximum fear and impact



I think you've forgotten UK flu season is Dec to Feb - excess winter deaths are also in that period.
Coronavirus pandemic only started March 2020.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> only thing that matters is if it causes hospitals to be overwhelmed


Which is why every country imposed NPIs to avoid that.

The NHS was basically overwhelmed - it let patients in care homes to die there, or it discharged patients with Covid.
Quite a few hospitals in SE had to take over other wards to cope
NHS staff have been at breaking point.

So yes the NHS pretty much was overwhelmed.


----------



## sometimewoodworker

Chris152 said:


> Minutes of a meeting on Thursday suggest there is a "realistic possibility" that the Indian variant of *COVID-19* is 50% more transmissible than the one that emerged in Kent late last year.'


That sounds rather like a typical understatement. The transmissibility is probably more than that but the data is not available yet AFIK.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> I think you've forgotten UK flu season is Dec to Feb - excess winter deaths are also in that period.
> Coronavirus pandemic only started March 2020.



Covid isn't flu


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Covid isn't flu


Thank you for admitting you are wrong.

"In the past year" does not cover two winter respiratory seasons.

Back to the drawing board for you......again 





Rorschach said:


> A simple of example of this for the UK is that we are constantly given the 127k deaths figure saying they died "in the past year", this is indeed true (near enough a year anyway) but without the context that it covers two winter respiratory seasons


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Thank you for admitting you are wrong.
> 
> "In the past year" does not cover two winter respiratory seasons.
> 
> Back to the drawing board for you......again



Oh dear, still at it. It's funny that some people call me a troll, when the one doing the trolling is you. Oh well, just getting silly trying to engage with you, there are none so blind as those that refuse to see and you definitely refuse to see. Have a good day.


----------



## Jonm

Chris152 said:


> 'Easing lockdown measures in England on Monday could cause "a substantial resurgence" in hospital admissions that is similar to previous peaks or larger, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has warned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> COVID-19: England a day away from major lockdown easing despite calls for delay
> 
> 
> Boris Johnson says the Indian variant may delay the fourth stage of easing lockdown in June but Monday's relaxation will go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.sky.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said earlier, it does feel a bit like we've been here a few times before, watching things happen in slow motion.


The Sky article, at the beginning in *bold*, says

*Easing lockdown measures in England on Monday could cause "a substantial resurgence" in hospital admissions that is similar to previous peaks or larger, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has warned.*

Here is a link to a Sage article Dated 14 May 2021




__





Six point plan for dealing with the b.1.617.2 variant | Independent SAGE







www.independentsage.org





It says in the second paragraph “Accordingly, the SAGE modelling group (SPI-M), ........................ proceeding with the roadmap could result in a new wave of infections considerably worse than was seen in January.

It puts forward a six point plan and the last paragraph says “_It is incumbent that we act now rather than wait and see if things get worse. The lessons from 2020 have shown that delaying action could increase hospitalisations, overwhelm the NHS and may also cost lives_.”

I cannot see where it says anything like the statement in bold above. It actually says “_there is still likely to be protection from severe disease. Therefore, in areas experiencing outbreaks of the new variant, surge vaccination should immediately be extended to all age-groups (within the approved age-ranges for the vaccines)_“

The point is that lessons from 2020 when there was no vaccine are not necessarily valid in uk in 2021 when we have a vaccine.

Perhaps there are other SAGE “minutes of meeting” but what I have posted looks like their official position.


----------



## Chris152

Jonm said:


> The Sky article, at the beginning in *bold*, says
> 
> *Easing lockdown measures in England on Monday could cause "a substantial resurgence" in hospital admissions that is similar to previous peaks or larger, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has warned.*
> 
> Here is a link to a Sage article Dated 14 May 2021
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Six point plan for dealing with the b.1.617.2 variant | Independent SAGE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.independentsage.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says in the second paragraph “Accordingly, the SAGE modelling group (SPI-M), ........................ proceeding with the roadmap could result in a new wave of infections considerably worse than was seen in January.
> 
> It puts forward a six point plan and the last paragraph says “_It is incumbent that we act now rather than wait and see if things get worse. The lessons from 2020 have shown that delaying action could increase hospitalisations, overwhelm the NHS and may also cost lives_.”
> 
> I cannot see where it says anything like the statement in bold above. It actually says “_there is still likely to be protection from severe disease. Therefore, in areas experiencing outbreaks of the new variant, surge vaccination should immediately be extended to all age-groups (within the approved age-ranges for the vaccines)_“
> 
> The point is that lessons from 2020 when there was no vaccine are not necessarily valid in uk in 2021 when we have a vaccine.
> 
> Perhaps there are other SAGE “minutes of meeting” but what I have posted looks like their official position.


Isn't that an Independent Sage article, and the para you refer to is a summary of one part of the SAGE account?


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Oh dear, still at it. It's funny that some people call me a troll, when the one doing the trolling is you. Oh well, just getting silly trying to engage with you, there are none so blind as those that refuse to see and you definitely refuse to see. Have a good day.


I would politely suggest that if you don't want flaws in your argument pointed out, perhaps avoid posting them.
Honest debating is most straightforward, if you believe I am wrong, you simply need to point where and why. 

I noted that the Covid pandemic only spans one winter respiratory period not two as you've claimed.....if I am wrong, that's fine just explain why.


----------



## Jonm

Chris152 said:


> Isn't that an Independent Sage article, and the para you refer to is a summary of one part of the SAGE account?


You are correct. I have been trying to find what the official government SAGE is saying, and it appears to be more like the Sky news article but the logic escapes me. It is widely reported that the vaccine after two doses reduces hospitalisations by 80-90% and deaths by 90%. What the predictions do not say is how many of the hospitalisations/deaths are people who have refused the vaccine.


----------



## TominDales

Chris152 said:


> Thanks for the reply, Tom. As you say, we have lots of things in place; we now need the right decisions to use them made at the right times. Yesterday's press conference spoke of 'living with the virus' and individuals making their own decisions - fine in the abstract, but it seems they've become euphemisms for avoiding decisions at govt level. You don't need to be an epidemiologist to imagine what happens next without the kind of actions you describe, nor a political or economic theorist to figure out why.
> Here's today's Sky News:
> 'Easing lockdown measures in England on Monday could cause "a substantial resurgence" in hospital admissions that is similar to previous peaks or larger, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has warned.
> Minutes of a meeting on Thursday suggest there is a "realistic possibility" that the Indian variant of *COVID-19* is 50% more transmissible than the one that emerged in Kent late last year.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> COVID-19: England a day away from major lockdown easing despite calls for delay
> 
> 
> Boris Johnson says the Indian variant may delay the fourth stage of easing lockdown in June but Monday's relaxation will go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.sky.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said earlier, it does feel a bit like we've been here a few times before, watching things happen in slow motion.


After a year of learning how other countries manage this virus, even UK regional responses and with the huge bio industrial infrastructure of vaccines, TTI, etc, we should see a first rate response. Personally I'd feel more confident is concrete decisions were being taken now. My great worry is that we will bumble into a third national crisis/lockdown. Eventually the mass vaccination programme will protect us, but for the next 3 months or so we need to keep the virus under control.


----------



## TominDales

Jonm said:


> You are correct. I have been trying to find what the official government SAGE is saying, and it appears to be more like the Sky news article but the logic escapes me. It is widely reported that the vaccine after two doses reduces hospitalisations by 80-90% and deaths by 90%. What the predictions do not say is how many of the hospitalisations/deaths are people who have refused the vaccine.


I must say i'm a bit confused. We have an effective vaccine (even against the Indian variant), most of the elderly and very vulnerable have been vaccinated. So why such concern about overwhelming the NHS and worry that it could be more severe than January? I can rationalise/synthesis the points with a few assumptions: 
a) there are still a number of vulnerable, although not highly vulnerable, but nevertheless vulnerable people in the 16+ to 38 age group, COPD, asthma etc
b) 5% who haven't taken up the vaccine in the vaccinated groups
c) the vaccines are only 92% effective, and less for the first jab and its less effective against the Indian variant (data is emerging in this area)
d) you add/multiply these first three risk factors together with the fact the virus's R0 is 1.5 times that of Kent (1.7time that of Wuhan) giving a 2.5 times infectivity vs Wuhan.
e) transmission is very high in the young, could so long covid and other complications in that age group be the concern?.
f) the virus is circulating in the south Asian community in Bolton and Darwen etc, there may be less vaccine update in that community
.
So is the concern about local NHS being overwhelmed or is it the whole country as in January? or is it long covid, seem to be still a few too many unknowns.

Personally I'd prefer to see a very vigorous PH response to this variant virus, take extreme TTI measures for 3 weeks or so, and ring vaccination on each outbreak, to hold this variant at bay until all adults have had the offer of a vaccine. Short sharp local responses. Its only about 3to 4 months before all adults will be vaccinated, by which time the population (and the NHS) should be safe.
My worry is that the government will muddle along into another national lock-down mid summer. My colleagues in the NHS are exhausted and looking forward to the summer to re-charge ready for the usual winter rush.


----------



## RobinBHM

TominDales said:


> After a year of learning how other countries manage this virus, even UK regional responses and with the huge bio industrial infrastructure of vaccines, TTI, etc, we should see a first rate response. Personally I'd feel more confident is concrete decisions were being taken now. My great worry is that we will bumble into a third national crisis/lockdown. Eventually the mass vaccination programme will protect us, but for the next 3 months or so we need to keep the virus under control.


my understanding is there are insufficient people vaccinated to prevent a 3rd wave currently and a highly transmissible variant could see hospital admissions going back up.

We desperately need to keep to the roadmap if at all possible, because we are getting to the point where we will see wholesale loss of pubs, cafes, restaurants etc.

I think you said earlier we have the testing capacity to do targeted local interventions -that sounds sensible, although Im not sure its practical in terms of messaging


----------



## Rorschach

Jonm said:


> The Sky article, at the beginning in *bold*, says
> 
> *Easing lockdown measures in England on Monday could cause "a substantial resurgence" in hospital admissions that is similar to previous peaks or larger, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has warned.*
> 
> Here is a link to a Sage article Dated 14 May 2021
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Six point plan for dealing with the b.1.617.2 variant | Independent SAGE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.independentsage.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says in the second paragraph “Accordingly, the SAGE modelling group (SPI-M), ........................ proceeding with the roadmap could result in a new wave of infections considerably worse than was seen in January.
> 
> It puts forward a six point plan and the last paragraph says “_It is incumbent that we act now rather than wait and see if things get worse. The lessons from 2020 have shown that delaying action could increase hospitalisations, overwhelm the NHS and may also cost lives_.”
> 
> I cannot see where it says anything like the statement in bold above. It actually says “_there is still likely to be protection from severe disease. Therefore, in areas experiencing outbreaks of the new variant, surge vaccination should immediately be extended to all age-groups (within the approved age-ranges for the vaccines)_“
> 
> The point is that lessons from 2020 when there was no vaccine are not necessarily valid in uk in 2021 when we have a vaccine.
> 
> Perhaps there are other SAGE “minutes of meeting” but what I have posted looks like their official position.



SAGE are rapidly feeling their power slip away as people wake up to their agenda.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> I would politely suggest that if you don't want flaws in your argument pointed out, perhaps avoid posting them.
> Honest debating is most straightforward, if you believe I am wrong, you simply need to point where and why.
> 
> I noted that the Covid pandemic only spans one winter respiratory period not two as you've claimed.....if I am wrong, that's fine just explain why.



It's a waste of time pointing out where you are wrong because you just scream wicker man and then say you were right anyway. Pointless even engaging really, but then you know that, it's why you do it.
If you can't see that covid spanned two winter seasons then there really is no hope.


----------



## brocher

TominDales said:


> I must say i'm a bit confused. We have an effective vaccine (even against the Indian variant), most of the elderly and very vulnerable have been vaccinated. So why such concern about overwhelming the NHS and worry that it could be more severe than January? I can rationalise/synthesis the points with a few assumptions:
> a) there are still a number of vulnerable, although not highly vulnerable, but nevertheless vulnerable people in the 16+ to 38 age group, COPD, asthma etc
> b) 5% who haven't taken up the vaccine in the vaccinated groups
> c) the vaccines are only 92% effective, and less for the first jab and its less effective against the Indian variant (data is emerging in this area)
> d) you add/multiply these first three risk factors together with the fact the virus's R0 is 1.5 times that of Kent (1.7time that of Wuhan) giving a 2.5 times infectivity vs Wuhan.
> e) transmission is very high in the young, could so long covid and other complications in that age group be the concern?.
> f) the virus is circulating in the south Asian community in Bolton and Darwen etc, there may be less vaccine update in that community
> .
> So is the concern about local NHS being overwhelmed or is it the whole country as in January? or is it long covid, seem to be still a few too many unknowns.
> 
> Personally I'd prefer to see a very vigorous PH response to this variant virus, take extreme TTI measures for 3 weeks or so, and ring vaccination on each outbreak, to hold this variant at bay until all adults have had the offer of a vaccine. Short sharp local responses. Its only about 3to 4 months before all adults will be vaccinated, by which time the population (and the NHS) should be safe.
> My worry is that the government will muddle along into another national lock-down mid summer. My colleagues in the NHS are exhausted and looking forward to the summer to re-charge ready for the usual winter rush.



I agree with you on the need for local urgent responses. Local DPH's should be empowered to do so, without waiting for Hancock to give his yes. Do we have too much centralisation?


----------



## TominDales

brocher said:


> I agree with you on the need for local urgent responses. Local DPH's should be empowered to do so, without waiting for Hancock to give his yes. Do we have too much centralisation?


yes, I think we do, its too centralised in my view. I'd prefer a very local response, that way you can take your local population with you. Even county wide responses are too wide. It should be at a street level. Just isolate where the infection is. Its what they do in Singapore and Taiwan very effectively. It always was the best solution. But with good vaccines, its actually a really easy thing do do. You can afford to pay those told to self isolate a decent stay off-work payment to keep everyone on side. It would need proper enforcement, so people aren't tempted to break it and nip into a next door neighborhood to party etc. It would need proper payments, food deliveries etc. If it was super local then it would also be shorter as the virus would peter out quickly in very local populations, One of the big issues with large lockdowns is they are only partially effective as key workers etc have to continue to work, so infection rates are slow to come down.

I'm sure this could be communicated to us in a sensible way. The challenge, is that we the public, have lockdown fatigue, I sense that JB has little appetitive for a vigorous response and senses national resistance. So different approach would be needed to get the public on side. It could be explained by empathising ring vaccination, very targeted lockdowns and short duration eg a max of 3 weeks.


----------



## Rorschach

How are you going to enforce a local lockdown? We can't even enforce a national lockdown (thank goodness).


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> If you can't see that covid spanned two winter seasons then there really is no hope


Interesting  

here are the facts:

1. There are 80% more lung disease admissions in the winter months of December, January and February then there are in the warmer spring months of March, April and May.

2. first Covid wave in UK was March till May with peak hospital admissions and deaths around 2nd week April.

perhaps you would like to provide your interpretation, as I am sure you are right...........


----------



## Jonm

TominDales said:


> I must say i'm a bit confused. We have an effective vaccine (even against the Indian variant), most of the elderly and very vulnerable have been vaccinated. So why such concern about overwhelming the NHS and worry that it could be more severe than January? I can rationalise/synthesis the points with a few assumptions:
> a) there are still a number of vulnerable, although not highly vulnerable, but nevertheless vulnerable people in the 16+ to 38 age group, COPD, asthma etc
> b) 5% who haven't taken up the vaccine in the vaccinated groups
> c) the vaccines are only 92% effective, and less for the first jab and its less effective against the Indian variant (data is emerging in this area)
> d) you add/multiply these first three risk factors together with the fact the virus's R0 is 1.5 times that of Kent (1.7time that of Wuhan) giving a 2.5 times infectivity vs Wuhan.
> e) transmission is very high in the young, could so long covid and other complications in that age group be the concern?.
> f) the virus is circulating in the south Asian community in Bolton and Darwen etc, there may be less vaccine update in that community
> .
> So is the concern about local NHS being overwhelmed or is it the whole country as in January? or is it long covid, seem to be still a few too many unknowns.
> 
> Personally I'd prefer to see a very vigorous PH response to this variant virus, take extreme TTI measures for 3 weeks or so, and ring vaccination on each outbreak, to hold this variant at bay until all adults have had the offer of a vaccine. Short sharp local responses. Its only about 3to 4 months before all adults will be vaccinated, by which time the population (and the NHS) should be safe.
> My worry is that the government will muddle along into another national lock-down mid summer. My colleagues in the NHS are exhausted and looking forward to the summer to re-charge ready for the usual winter rush.


Here are the minutes of the Sage meeting of 13 May

https://assets.publishing.service.g...e/986564/S1236_Eighty-nineth_SAGE_meeting.pdf

Here is the warwick university modelling report which may be behind sage’s comments. Looks at lots of scenarios, I have had a quick look through it but cannot justify the time to actually understand what it is saying.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...p_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf

On an earlier post I worked out that one dose of the vaccine reduced transmission by 80% so higher for two doses. Sage seems to be saying that increased transmission alone could result in the nhs being overwhelmed.

Similar to yourself, I am currently not understanding what the logic is.


----------



## sometimewoodworker

TominDales said:


> Personally I'd prefer to see a very vigorous PH response to this variant virus, take extreme TTI measures for 3 weeks or so, and ring vaccination on each outbreak, to hold this variant at bay until all adults have had the offer of a vaccine. Short sharp local responses.


Your abbreviations are rather confusing. 

While vaccination of everyone in the vicinity of an outbreak certainly can’t do any harm, for at least 6 weeks, even at the shortest vaccination interval, it’s not going to provide very much protection. 

If you are going by the standard 3 months between shots you at are much longer than 6 weeks 

Do you think that a 6 week strict lockdown is going to fly? 

3 weeks would only work if you can isolate all infected people and get them into strict quarantine & I am wary of thinking that that will function.


----------



## TominDales

sometimewoodworker said:


> Your abbreviations are rather confusing.
> 
> While vaccination of everyone in the vicinity of an outbreak certainly can’t do any harm, for at least 6 weeks, even at the shortest vaccination interval, it’s not going to provide very much protection.
> 
> If you are going by the standard 3 months between shots you at are much longer than 6 weeks
> 
> Do you think that a 6 week strict lockdown is going to fly?
> 
> 3 weeks would only work if you can isolate all infected people and get them into strict quarantine & I am wary of thinking that that will function.


Apologies for the abbreviations, I was coping an earlier post. Track, Trace and Isolate.

My reasoning is this. I sense that BJ is very wary of quick interventions, he likes to wait until he feels he has the populous on his side, ie when the NHS is creaking before he acts. In my view this is a flawed policy as it allows the infection to get out of control and we suffer an extended lockdown over months and we suffer the deaths and disease. So I'm proposing the very opposite to this, the shortest possible lockdown. Ie lock down very very locally in a dynamic way ie hit just the places where the variant is being recorded - his wack-a-mole analogy. Surge test and area and lockdown all the streets in the areas with where new variant covid is detected and give everyone a 1st vaccine dose. Lockdown for 3 weeks immunity to builds in the group and then immediately unlock. The combination of a lockdown and ring vaccination should snuff out the outbreak., or at least bring R down to low levels. If it flares up again in a nearby place, repeat the 3 week treatment. Do this while continuing to role out the national vaccine.
I wasn't thinking of waiting 3 months for the booster, just a sharp intervention to really get the R rate down and so confine the outbreaks to localities, what I think we must do is stop this spreading to a national problem. 

To some extent I'm thinking ahead, getting good practice established as preparation for the possible onset of a dangerous new variant, say one that escapes the current vaccines. If that were to occur we can quite quickly introduce a new booster vaccine, but it will be in small volumes to start with. We therefore need measures to slow or suppress a new variant from escaping into the whole population while stocks of the booster were built up.

.


----------



## Rorschach

Once again, how do you intend to enforce this?


----------



## sometimewoodworker

TominDales said:


> Surge test and area and lockdown all the streets in the areas with where new variant covid is detected and give everyone a 1st vaccine dose. Lockdown for 3 weeks immunity to builds in the group and then immediately unlock.


Do you think it would work? Personally I rather doubt it unless you also accompany it with reasonably frequent universal mandatory testing and state quarantine of all infected people.


----------



## TRITON

Seems to me this needs to be a world effort or we're going to be getting worse and worse mutations springing up..
It appears that when the virus is rife amongst a population, it has more of an ability to mutate into something stronger, more virulent or with a greater degree of resistance to vaccines.

So currently, India with its large population and lack of resources and lack of vaccine resources the virus has mutated to the point that it is now a danger to other mostly western countries, that have a high degree of inoculations.
Is this the fault of the Indian government or the fault of the western countries who seem intent on hoarding the available vaccine for themselves.


----------



## Chris152

TominDales said:


> Apologies for the abbreviations, I was coping an earlier post. Track, Trace and Isolate.
> 
> My reasoning is this. I sense that BJ is very wary of quick interventions, he likes to wait until he feels he has the populous on his side, ie when the NHS is creaking before he acts. In my view this is a flawed policy as it allows the infection to get out of control and we suffer an extended lockdown over months and we suffer the deaths and disease. So I'm proposing the very opposite to this, the shortest possible lockdown. Ie lock down very very locally in a dynamic way ie hit just the places where the variant is being recorded - his wack-a-mole analogy. Surge test and area and lockdown all the streets in the areas with where new variant covid is detected and give everyone a 1st vaccine dose. Lockdown for 3 weeks immunity to builds in the group and then immediately unlock. The combination of a lockdown and ring vaccination should snuff out the outbreak., or at least bring R down to low levels. If it flares up again in a nearby place, repeat the 3 week treatment. Do this while continuing to role out the national vaccine.
> I wasn't thinking of waiting 3 months for the booster, just a sharp intervention to really get the R rate down and so confine the outbreaks to localities, what I think we must do is stop this spreading to a national problem.
> 
> To some extent I'm thinking ahead, getting good practice established as preparation for the possible onset of a dangerous new variant, say one that escapes the current vaccines. If that were to occur we can quite quickly introduce a new booster vaccine, but it will be in small volumes to start with. We therefore need measures to slow or suppress a new variant from escaping into the whole population while stocks of the booster were built up.
> 
> .


Makes sense to me, assuming there's adequate compensation for lost earnings etc. (as I think you indicated in an earlier post). The cost of that would be tiny compared to potential cost of a vaccine-evading variant running through the country, assuming measures are taken early. Our govt seems averse to taking early action, which has cost us dearly (health and money). 

Triton - from what I've seen a key contributor to the spread in India was their government's failure to impose restrictions and instead, allowing political and religious gatherings/ festivals (rather than being starved of vaccines - tho clearly more vaccines would have been a good thing); as for wealthy countries getting a disproportionate % of the vaccines, I'd imagine if they were spread equitably around the world, nowhere would have it anything like under control?


----------



## RobinBHM

I guess the govt announcement is about "messaging" to encourage people to be continue with social distancing.

The 21st June roadmap date was always speculative and the govt has always said it will be based on the data.


My guess is social distancing will continue for a fair bit longer.


----------



## doctor Bob

I reckon we are not out of it, hospitals are gearing up for forth wave amoungst the young, only word on the "street" so could be BS.


----------



## Rorschach

doctor Bob said:


> I reckon we are not out of it, hospitals are gearing up for forth wave amoungst the young, only word on the "street" so could be BS.



Considering nowhere in the world has seen any kind of significant problems among the young this does sound like BS.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

There are many difficult to quantify variables associated with these projections that almost any outcome can be modelled. I quote:

*We predict that Step 3 only can lead to a third wave with 9100 (CI 2430-26,400) hospital admissions and 1160 (CI 240-3870) deaths; Step 3 and 4 combined (generating a higher transmission after 21st June) are projected to generate a larger third wave with 34,900 (CI 10,100-96,400) hospital admissions and 7250 (CI 1450-24,300) deaths.*

In context 

actual figures for covid thus far - aggregate deaths are 127,000 and hospitalisations 465,000
averagely 20,000 deaths a year associated with flu, and 10,000 deaths a week from other causes. 

There is a risk in opening up as planned on 17th May - a balance of the damage caused by continued lockdown vs a difficult to quantify number of hospitalisations and deaths. Continuing the roadmap as planned and reviewing step 4 over the next month seems very sensible.


----------



## Petehpkns

Rorschach said:


> No countries have an effective T&T system for Covid, what they have was a start from an incredibly low base and probably high levels of natural immunity.


Singapore has an effective track and trace system, I lived there for ten years including the period of SARs in 2003. The response to that was staggering and allowed the agility in responding to COVID. Of note is the lack of credible data on herd immunity - SARS v COVID……


----------



## Rorschach

Petehpkns said:


> Singapore has an effective track and trace system, I lived there for ten years including the period of SARs in 2003. The response to that was staggering and allowed the agility in responding to COVID. Of note is the lack of credible data on herd immunity - SARS v COVID……



It's easier to do T&T when your peak infection rate was 1k a day and only for a few days. I am certain there is some kind of herd immunity going on though, every country that had some exposure to SARS has done much better in terms of SARS2, coincidence? I think not.


----------



## Jonm

TRITON said:


> Seems to me this needs to be a world effort or we're going to be getting worse and worse mutations springing up..
> It appears that when the virus is rife amongst a population, it has more of an ability to mutate into something stronger, more virulent or with a greater degree of resistance to vaccines.
> 
> So currently, India with its large population and lack of resources and lack of vaccine resources the virus has mutated to the point that it is now a danger to other mostly western countries, that have a high degree of inoculations.
> Is this the fault of the Indian government or the fault of the western countries who seem intent on hoarding the available vaccine for themselves.


You are correct about a world effort being required to combat Covid. 

India, 5th largest economy in the world, larger than us. Space programme, looking to land a rover on the moon and build a space station. Have nuclear weapons and and own great chunks of uk like Jaguar Land Rover. They are hardly a third world country being exploited by the wicked west. They also have the largest vaccine manufacturer in the world, Serum Institute and we have given them the information to produce AZ vaccine, they even sent some to us until they realised they needed it themselves. So we have given them the ability to help themselves in terms of vaccine.


----------



## Rorschach

Jonm said:


> You are correct about a world effort being required to combat Covid.
> 
> India, 5th largest economy in the world, larger than us. Space programme, looking to land a rover on the moon and build a space station. Have nuclear weapons and and own great chunks of uk like Jaguar Land Rover. They are hardly a third world country being exploited by the wicked west. They also have the largest vaccine manufacturer in the world, Serum Institute and we have given them the information to produce AZ vaccine, they even sent some to us until they realised they needed it themselves. So we have given them the ability to help themselves in terms of vaccine.



Facts like that don't fit the MSM narrative though. They like to purport that either India is too poor to take charge of the Covid situation or too stupid when the reality is that they have a different outlook on life and how to run their country. It will be very embarrassing for the west if India manages to do a reasonable job of dealing with covid without severe impacts on it's economy or liberty of it's citizens, therefore the media demonises them and creates hysteria. I have friends in India, they are less worried about covid and more worried about government corruption, an ongoing theme in Modi's government (dictatorship to some).


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> They like to purport that either India is too poor to take charge of the Covid situation



Certainly their healthcare system is far too poor to cope.

India is a poor country, similar GDP to UK with 20x the population.


----------



## RobinBHM

I've just seen a post on another DIY forum, somebody has posted he has been very ill with Covid, he lives in Formby Liverpool, a region with the Indian variant. His wife has also caught it, she had the jab 8 weeks ago, but it's still making her ill.

the vaccination programme means any future wave will be very different, but we aren't out of the woods just yet.


----------



## Jake

Petehpkns said:


> Singapore has an effective track and trace system, I lived there for ten years including the period of SARs in 2003. The response to that was staggering and allowed the agility in responding to COVID. Of note is the lack of credible data on herd immunity - SARS v COVID……



There are quite a few Asian countries which had impressive track and trace due to experience from SARS. Vietnam and South Korea spring to mind. 

Outside that, it was pretty key to Germany's response too.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Total covid deaths in Germany are 86,000. Since end June 2020, after the first wave, deaths are 77,000.

Similar figures for UK are 128,000 and 88,000.

Germany had the good sense (or luck) to lock down about a week earlier than UK in the first wave. Since then they have done only a little better than the UK.

The above is quite superficial - there are almost certainly differences in data collection and testing methodologies which means figures are not easily comparable. 

The success of some countries in managing the pandemic could provide some sound lessons, but German covid performance is good(ish), not impressive. Their contact track and trace app (for instance) has only about 25% uptake. 

We should avoid perpetuating that which is now not true!


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Certainly their healthcare system is far too poor to cope.
> 
> India is a poor country, similar GDP to UK with 20x the population.



GDP is not always the best indicator of wealth for a country especially large ones. India is a rich country, richer than the UK, but with a big wealth divide and it chooses not to spend much on healthcare. That's their choice and not one for us to make a moral judgement on.


----------



## Jonm

Terry - Somerset said:


> Total covid deaths in Germany are 86,000. Since end June 2020, after the first wave, deaths are 77,000.
> 
> Similar figures for UK are 128,000 and 88,000.
> 
> Germany had the good sense (or luck) to lock down about a week earlier than UK in the first wave. Since then they have done only a little better than the UK.
> 
> The above is quite superficial - there are almost certainly differences in data collection and testing methodologies which means figures are not easily comparable.
> 
> The success of some countries in managing the pandemic could provide some sound lessons, but German covid performance is good(ish), not impressive. Their contact track and trace app (for instance) has only about 25% uptake.
> 
> We should avoid perpetuating that which is now not true!


You have not taken account of the difference in population.
Germany 84.01 million, UK 68.13 million

Using your figures,
Total covid deaths in Germany are currently 1023 per million. Since end June 2020, after the first wave, deaths are 916 per million.

Similar figures for UK are 1879 per million and 1291 per million.

In June 2020 death rate in Germany was 107 per million, UK 587 per million. Uk‘s death rate was therefore 450% greater than Germany‘s in June 2020.

Overall Covid death rate in uk is currently 84% greater than Germany and that is still a significant difference.

Of course there are many other factors, the way deaths are measured being one of them. Other factors include different variants, effect on economy, how much money has been borrowed, mental health, children’s education, health service dealing with non Covid cases, uk being an island etc.

I would say that we have a lot to learn from the way Germany handled the first wave, the way they tested and isolated skiers returning from Italy, for example. The fact that in the second wave our death rate was “only” 41% greater than Germany does negate how well the did in the first wave compared to comparable countries in Europe.


----------



## Rorschach

Well this was an interesting graph on twitter. Masks, social distancing and T&T working well? Or could it all be nonsense? Bear in mind this is one of the most socially responsible and advanced countries in the whole world!


----------



## Petehpkns

Jake said:


> There are quite a few Asian countries which had impressive track and trace due to experience from SARS. Vietnam and South Korea spring to mind.
> 
> Outside that, it was pretty key to Germany's response too.


For South Korea it was similar to Singapore I believe. Have visited a few times, mainly Seoul, from the folk I still have contact they simply don’t understand the ‘western’ response early in the pandemic. Vietnam I’ve visited just for leisure, just wary of their stats but that be cynical……


----------



## Petehpkns

Rorschach said:


> It's easier to do T&T when your peak infection rate was 1k a day and only for a few days. I am certain there is some kind of herd immunity going on though, every country that had some exposure to SARS has done much better in terms of SARS2, coincidence? I think not.


Sure on the 1K, just shows how effective a speedy lockdown is.
if you have any data on SARS v SARS2 link would be great, thanks…..


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> GDP is not always the best indicator of wealth for a country especially large ones. India is a rich country, richer than the UK, but with a big wealth divide and it chooses not to spend much on healthcare. That's their choice and not one for us to make a moral judgement on.


GDP is certainly an indicator when GDP per capita is 1/20th of UK

India is a country that has 42% of workers are in agriculture....that means India is still to a significant amount in a pre industrial stage of its development. UK last employed that % in 1700s


----------



## Jonm

Rorschach said:


> Well this was an interesting graph on twitter. Masks, social distancing and T&T working well? Or could it all be nonsense? Bear in mind this is one of the most socially responsible and advanced countries in the whole world!
> 
> View attachment 110682


Well that graph shows peaks and troughs just like most of the rest of the world. No-one has claimed that mask wearing stops the spread. It does not show what would have happened without masks.

The maximum value shown on the graph for daily new cases is about 6000 in a population of 126 million. The corresponding figure for uk is is about 59000 new daily cases in a population of 68 million. 

In Japan the total Number of cases is 5400 per million. The corresponding figure for uk is 65300 cases per million.

There are no doubt many reasons why Covid infection rates in Japan are 1/12 or 1/20 of ours depending on what you are measuring. Could some of the reasons be masks, social distancing and T&T working well, bearing in mind that this is one of the most socially responsible and advanced countries in the whole world!


----------



## Rorschach

Jonm said:


> Well that graph shows peaks and troughs just like most of the rest of the world. No-one has claimed that mask wearing stops the spread. It does not show what would have happened without masks.



I am sorry but that is exactly what people are claiming.


----------



## Selwyn

I see the scariant was doing the rounds over the weekend.

Indian Variant on Friday was going to come and do us over, then its been rowed back on vigourously but not enough to threaten the population that if they "don't behave" opening up of lockdown will be delayed.

Its such a manipulative load of old rubbish. A nasty virus is making its way through India and now it is easing off again like virus' do. Don't fall for it people.

And when the lockdown is finished we will see a rise in more colds etc because we have stop / started people mixing


----------



## Jonm

RobinBHM said:


> GDP is certainly an indicator when GDP per capita is 1/20th of UK
> 
> India is a country that has 42% of workers are in agriculture....that means India is still to a significant amount in a pre industrial stage of its development. UK last employed that % in 1700s


There is certainly a lot of poverty in India but it is an advanced nation, as I posted earlier.
Here is a sky news article dated 30 April which totally surprised me, I knew that India had exported vaccine to us but I had not realised the extent of its vaccine production and huge quantities it has exported. The article has a lot of charts and seems slow to download.









COVID-19: India's vaccine export ban could send shockwaves worldwide. Should the UK step in to help?


A temporary pause in exports by India has left many countries scrambling to meet their own needs for the fight against COVID-19.




news.sky.com





A few statements from the article.
_“One in five doses being jabbed around the world is made in India.”
“About 30% of doses that are exported to other countries are produced in India”
“when it comes to inoculating its own people against coronavirus,the South Asian nation has barely covered a tenth of its population“_

Here is a chart from the Sky article






Looking at this it would appear that the Indian government has not placed early vaccine orders with its own vaccine industry.

I understand that the agreement with AZ is that the Serum Institute of India can produce AZ doses for low- and middle-income countries, including India itself.

The graph as it relates to eu members is misleading, I think that much of the “export” is to the EU which is ordering centrally. I cannot believe that France which manufactures Pfizer is “exporting” all of it.


----------



## selectortone

Overheard in Lidl this morning (and no, I promise I am not making this up) : antivaxxers are now advising each other that they need to wear masks in public to avoid catching stuff off people who have been vaccinated. What a world


----------



## Jonm

selectortone said:


> Overheard in Lidl this morning (and no, I promise I am not making this up) : antivaxxers are now advising each other that they need to wear masks in public to avoid catching stuff off people who have been vaccinated. What a world


I think that the good thing about this site in general and this post in particular, is that whilst there is disagreement, it is generally not offensive and we do not have any antivaccers or people spouting the type of nonsense as you have heard.

Unless they have some very fancy masks, they do not realise that masks are intended to reduce the risk of the wearer spreading the virus, not from catching anything. Anyway a good outcome, they are wearing masks.


----------



## D_W

Petehpkns said:


> For South Korea it was similar to Singapore I believe. Have visited a few times, mainly Seoul, from the folk I still have contact they simply don’t understand the ‘western’ response early in the pandemic. Vietnam I’ve visited just for leisure, just wary of their stats but that be cynical……



I spent an evening at an awards dinner with a fellow from South Korea. As he described it to me, his life is kind of scripted. A couple of nights of the week, he works late (mandatory) in the office. At least two of the other nights (I believe that makes all five), he's required to go to the bar with his work group (as in, his boss takes the team).

He had two young kids, and I asked how he sees the kids, and he said something more or less like "I don't, but I get to buy all of the stuff that they need" and he described sort of a conformist society all the way down to (in his class level, I guess) the social requirement to buy a baby buggy that was $900 US equivalent. There were a lot of things like that. 

It sounds like a rough place to live for the successful - constant pressure. It's not hard for me to believe that they would act as a group when required. 

I know only of his class/group which is professionals at a level similar to attorneys, so that kind of adherence and work life may not be the case for blue collar employees (literally can't work blue collar employees that many hours or they will physically break down, but there are plenty of law firms here in the US who can prove that at least some folks will work all of their waking hours 7 days a week. )


----------



## D_W

RobinBHM said:


> GDP is certainly an indicator when GDP per capita is 1/20th of UK
> 
> India is a country that has 42% of workers are in agriculture....that means India is still to a significant amount in a pre industrial stage of its development. UK last employed that % in 1700s



PPP is probably the best starting indicator, but doesn't do a great job of capturing societies that are rural and disorganized where basic economic activity occurs off the record. When a society has low enough wealth that the government doesn't get involved in tracking all of it, that probably sends its own message, though. 

An English friend here who tried to avoid going to india as long as possible (worked for a terminal equipment company - like shipping and port equipment) finally ended up on assignment in some remote area there and suggested that we should send our depressed populations there for a week and they'd come back to the united states feeling like life is pretty good.


----------



## Selwyn

Indian cases of Covid peaked on May 6th and now are slowly declining. 

Guess who was bang on? I'll give you a clue - it wasn't Robin in his bedroom.

No lockdown there either

Amazing eh? Who would have thought that virus' behave as virus' always have done?


----------



## Jonm

Selwyn said:


> Indian cases of Covid peaked on May 6th and now are slowly declining.
> 
> Guess who was bang on? I'll give you a clue - it wasn't Robin in his bedroom.
> 
> No lockdown there either
> 
> Amazing eh? Who would have thought that virus' behave as virus' always have done?


And what point are you trying to make? Of course viruses peak at some point, if for no other reason than they run out of people to infect. Surely what is relevant is the level that infections peak at and then what happens, do they plateau or fall off a cliff.
I do hope you are correct, they have peaked and the rate falls off a cliff.

Here is a bbc article








India Covid: How bad is the second wave?


There are signs infections have slowed in some regions - but is India past the worst?



www.bbc.co.uk





here is an extract which shows testing numbers have gone down in the States which are recording a reduction in cases.






Further on down it says

“_Gautam Menon, a mathematical modeller and professor of physics and biology, at Ashoka University, near Delhi, says: "Test positivity rates are still quite high, over 20% countrywide. 
"So I would certainly think there is no reason yet to believe that India is past its second wave._"

I am not sure what the adverse comment about Robin is for, I cannot recall him saying that viruses infection rates do not peak at some point.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Some other indicators of Indian wealth other than GDP:

car ownership 30 per 100 - UK is 488
less than 50% of the population has access to safely managed drinking water
1 doctor for every 1457 people. UK is 1 for 360
TV ownership 65% of households - UK ~99%. (arguable whether this is a benefit for the UK)
India may choose to spend part of its GDP on space, weapons etc. There are wealthy individuals in India, but the lot of the average indian compared to those in western Europe is pretty dire.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> I am sorry but that is exactly what people are claiming.


Please provide the evidence that "people are claiming masks stop spread"

You won't because there isn't any....you made it up


----------



## Selwyn

Jonm said:


> Unless they have some very fancy masks, they do not realise that masks are intended to reduce the risk of the wearer spreading the virus, not from catching anything. Anyway a good outcome, they are wearing masks.



Except they don't really do this either. 



Jonm said:


> And what point are you trying to make? Of course viruses peak at some point, if for no other reason than they run out of people to infect. Surely what is relevant is the level that infections peak at and then what happens, do they plateau or fall off a cliff.
> I do hope you are correct, they have peaked and the rate falls off a cliff.
> 
> Here is a bbc article
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> India Covid: How bad is the second wave?
> 
> 
> There are signs infections have slowed in some regions - but is India past the worst?
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here is an extract which shows testing numbers have gone down in the States which are recording a reduction in cases.
> 
> View attachment 110738
> 
> 
> Further on down it says
> 
> “_Gautam Menon, a mathematical modeller and professor of physics and biology, at Ashoka University, near Delhi, says: "Test positivity rates are still quite high, over 20% countrywide.
> "So I would certainly think there is no reason yet to believe that India is past its second wave._"
> 
> I am not sure what the adverse comment about Robin is for, I cannot recall him saying that viruses infection rates do not peak at some point.



They won't fall off a cliff. They will slowly decline. Viral curves are well documented. Covid 19 is no different to other coronavirus'.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Please provide the evidence that "people are claiming masks stop spread"
> 
> You won't because there isn't any....you made it up



So if there isn't any evidence that masks are stopping spread and you say there is any evidence. What do you think they are for?

(my own view is to force compliance and foster the idea there is a deadly virus about to kill everyone)


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Indian cases of Covid peaked on May 6th and now are slowly declining


I am terribly sorry Selwyn, but you are wrong.

From Indian Express.com 2 days ago:

"All indications from the coronavirus numbers in India in the last two weeks suggest that the second wave of infections may already have reached a peak, or will peak in the next few days. The end of the second wave may still be a long distance away, though"

From Reuters 5 days ago
"Experts still cannot say for sure when numbers will peak and concern is growing about the transmissibility of the variant that is driving infections in India and spreading worldwide."

From the Wire, 1 day ago
"'Peak Reached But Plateauing at High Level"


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> I am terribly sorry Selwyn, but you are wrong.
> 
> From Indian Express.com 2 days ago:
> 
> "All indications from the coronavirus numbers in India in the last two weeks suggest that the second wave of infections may already have reached a peak, or will peak in the next few days. The end of the second wave may still be a long distance away, though"
> 
> From Reuters 5 days ago
> "Experts still cannot say for sure when numbers will peak and concern is growing about the transmissibility of the variant that is driving infections in India and spreading worldwide."
> 
> From the Wire, 1 day ago
> "'Peak Reached But Plateauing at High Level"



I'm awfully sorry Robin but you are wrong









Second wave slowing down? India's Covid-19 situation in 5 charts | India News - Times of India


India News: NEW DELHI: The Covid-19 crisis in India is far from over as the country continues to maintain a 7-day daily average of close to 3.




timesofindia.indiatimes.com


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Except they don't really do this either


In your opinion.

The science says masks are effective.

"The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic"








Face masks: what the data say


The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic, and yet the debate trundles on. How much evidence is enough?




www.nature.com


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> I'm awfully sorry Robin but you are wrong


Selwyn you have dishonestly stated as fact that India reached its peak on the 6th May.

You cannot state it as fact because numerous news agencies and scientists are giving different views.

You are welcome to say "in my opinion......"


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> They won't fall off a cliff. They will slowly decline. Viral curves are well documented. Covid 19 is no different to other coronavirus


and non pharmaceutical interventions help flatten the curve and hasten the decline, as well as reduce the numbers of long Covid sufferers.

I'm pleased you agree lockdowns are effective.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> In your opinion.
> 
> The science says masks are effective.
> 
> "The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face masks: what the data say
> 
> 
> The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic, and yet the debate trundles on. How much evidence is enough?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nature.com



This link is 8 months old. I don't rate it at all. 

This is the quality of the article " Confidence in masks grew in June with news about two hair stylists in Missouri who tested positive for COVID-19". 

Its ridiculous. That is not "the science"


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Indian Variant on Friday was going to come and do us over


Nobody has said that.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> and non pharmaceutical interventions help flatten the curve and hasten the decline, as well as reduce the numbers of long Covid sufferers.
> 
> I'm pleased you agree lockdowns are effective.



I don't think Lockdowns are effective. The other point is the corollary damage of them too. We had pandemic plans and we ignored them to follow Chinese style telly.

Some NPI's help for sure but they don't need to massively intrusive. The simple message that old people needed to be a lot more careful would have been very helpful for a start.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Selwyn you have dishonestly stated as fact that India reached its peak on the 6th May.



It says that date in the article however you don't like it

Yes there are numerous views and you are entitled to put yours and I do mine.


----------



## Blackswanwood

I hope that the current wave has peaked in India but while it will never be proven either way I believe the numbers they are reporting are made up. 

This article explains the issue. It also confirms that lockdowns have been enforced.









India Is Counting Thousands Of Daily COVID Deaths. How Many Is It Missing?


Scientists, funeral directors and survivors say the real numbers of infections and deaths in India may be many times more than the reported figures.




www.npr.org





I saw in a news briefing that I get through work today that the University of Washington have been looking at what the possible real number of deaths from COVID are. It’s summarised here.









Covid-19: Study claims real global deaths are twice official figures


Global deaths from covid-19 are not 3.27 million, as official figures suggest, but 6.93 million up to 3 May, a new analysis based on changes in overall mortality claims.1 The virus is claiming about 33 000 lives a day around the world, more than twice reported figures, according to the study by...




www.bmj.com





It’s no skin off my nose if people feel differently to my view or those in the articles posted ... and I’m not hiding in a bedroom Selwyn


----------



## Selwyn

Blackswanwood said:


> I hope that the current wave has peaked in India but while it will never be proven either way I believe the numbers they are reporting are made up.
> 
> This article explains the issue. It also confirms that lockdowns have been enforced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> India Is Counting Thousands Of Daily COVID Deaths. How Many Is It Missing?
> 
> 
> Scientists, funeral directors and survivors say the real numbers of infections and deaths in India may be many times more than the reported figures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw in a news briefing that I get through work today that the University of Washington have been looking at what the possible real number of deaths from COVID are. It’s summarised here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Covid-19: Study claims real global deaths are twice official figures
> 
> 
> Global deaths from covid-19 are not 3.27 million, as official figures suggest, but 6.93 million up to 3 May, a new analysis based on changes in overall mortality claims.1 The virus is claiming about 33 000 lives a day around the world, more than twice reported figures, according to the study by...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bmj.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s no skin off my nose if people feel differently to my view or those in the articles posted ... and I’m not hiding in a bedroom Selwyn



We can all agree its a nasty virus.

We ought to be able to agree it is particularly nasty for over 65's. It is nastier again the older you get, the more comorbidities you have etc. None of this is new.

As I've said before there are 1000 deaths a day with TB in India.

But even if there is an undercount of deaths (and I can well believe it is possible in India) we certainly also know that basing each pcr positive as a covid death when there can also be a myriad of reasons why people aged 80 odd die is just lacking perspective. We have never recorded deaths like this before as John Lee said

Like in the UK we know the average age of a covid death is higher than the average age of death anyway!!

We do have countries where we do have good data - Japan, America, Sweden, UK etc where we can trust the patterns of data to give us evidence of the virus' potentcy.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> This link is 8 months old. I don't rate it at all.
> 
> This is the quality of the article " Confidence in masks grew in June with news about two hair stylists in Missouri who tested positive for COVID-19".
> 
> Its ridiculous. That is not "the science"


The article is not built on "two hair stylists" that is just a tiny part of the article.....please stop being dishonest.
And it's a quality article from a respected source.


Here is another article:
"Compelling data now demonstrate that community mask wearing is an effective nonpharmacologic intervention to reduce the spread of this infection, especially as source control to prevent spread from infected persons, but also as protection to reduce wearers’ exposure to infection"

















Effectiveness of Mask Wearing to Control Community Spread of SARS-CoV-2


This JAMA Insights CDC review summarizes accumulating evidence that mask wearing reduces spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection and that universal mandatory mask wearing policies reduce infections and deaths and emphasizes face masks are one component of pandemic control measures, including physical...




jamanetwork.com





And from the Centre for Disease Control:
"Experimental and epidemiological data support community masking to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2"









Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)


CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.




www.cdc.gov






I have quoted from respected, quality sources that masks are effective, so please retract all posts where you claim they are not, as they are misleading and unhelpful.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> The article is not built on "two hair stylists" that is just a tiny part of the article.....please stop being dishonest.
> And it's a quality article from a respected source.
> 
> 
> Here is another article:
> "Compelling data now demonstrate that community mask wearing is an effective nonpharmacologic intervention to reduce the spread of this infection, especially as source control to prevent spread from infected persons, but also as protection to reduce wearers’ exposure to infection"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Effectiveness of Mask Wearing to Control Community Spread of SARS-CoV-2
> 
> 
> This JAMA Insights CDC review summarizes accumulating evidence that mask wearing reduces spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection and that universal mandatory mask wearing policies reduce infections and deaths and emphasizes face masks are one component of pandemic control measures, including physical...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jamanetwork.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And from the Centre for Disease Control:
> "Experimental and epidemiological data support community masking to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
> 
> 
> CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cdc.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have quoted from respected, quality sources that masks are effective, so please retract all posts where you claim they are not, as they are misleading and unhelpful.



However all the places where they are not wearing masks appear to demonstrate no real difference...

All this "evidence" of masks reducing infection hasn't seemed to make any odds to the rise in UK covid cases after masks came in. Covid will have another seasonal triggering later on in the year masks or no masks.

Masks are essentially a fig leaf, the report is also from October 2020 when we have had plenty of time to see seasonal covid triggers rise and fall with the use of useless masks. Its all about politics not science or a virus


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Please provide the evidence that "people are claiming masks stop spread"
> 
> You won't because there isn't any....you made it up



Then why are we wearing them?


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> entitled to put yours and I do mine


We finally got there, thank you for admitting your are posting your opinion not facts.

You are entitled to post your view, you are not entitled make posts where you state opinions as facts.....it is simply misleading and dishonest


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> However all the places where they are not wearing masks appear to demonstrate no real difference


I have already posted the data that says masks are effective.

The words "appear to make no difference" are meaningless.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> All this "evidence" of masks reducing infection hasn't seemed to make any odds to the rise in UK covid cases after masks came in


Evidence says otherwise









Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)


CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.




www.cdc.gov


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> the report is also from October 2020


Wrong

The report I posted covers a range of periods.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> we certainly also know that basing each pcr positive as a covid death when there can also be a myriad of reasons why people aged 80 odd die is just lacking perspective


The reason for the 28 days after a positive test is well documented and explained here numerous times.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> f reasons why people aged 80 odd die


It is not just people "80 odd"

In Jan people of all ages were hospitalised
We now have a million people with long Covid.


----------



## AlanY

I wear a mask when shopping because I got fed up with snarky remarks from members of the public who clearly did not have two brain cells to rub together (you know the sort: those that whine about people not wearing a mask whilst theirs is down around their chin, or removed so they could smoke a cigarette: all those lovely smoke particles, each a potential carrier of Death, being released into a public area by somebody called 'Shane' whose pregnant girlfriend is loudly protesting that wearing a facemask makes it 'hard to eat yer f***ing chips!'). 
At least, that is how my mask wearing started. As time passed, it became clear that some people were genuinely frightened at the thought of catching Covid and it was to not add to their concerns that I consistently wore my mask when shopping. I do not believe that masks make an iota of difference (just my opinion and I do not care about the evidence one way or the other: I do not trust scientists any more than I trust politicians). That being said, my lovely wife is a very handy seamstress (not in the Terry Pratchett sense, I should add) and she decided to buy in a load of material and make facemasks to sell from a little kiosk at the front of our drive, with every penny being donated to Cancer Research UK. I was ordered to make the kiosk. Since September 2020, she has donated very close to £1000 so I say 'YAYY!' to facemasks.


----------



## TRITON

Odd Surgeons wear a mask when carrying out an operation isnt it ?. Given some here are following an illogical line that they do nothing.
There are probably many factors at work, and do we/studies know for sure that anyone didnt touch their face, or readjust their mask or something along those lines, or even picked up the virus on their hands and later managed to become infected that way. I think it too poor an argument to rely on anyone saying the mask alone is or is not to blame when an individual becomes infected.

I expect somewhere down the line some will need an operation of some sort, a relacement knew or hip. Would those claiming that masks do nothing, insist their surgeon not wear a mask during that operation ?.


----------



## AlanY

TRITON said:


> Odd Surgeons wear a mask when carrying out an operation isnt it ?...


Not really. True surgical masks are generally made from non-woven fabric and have an absorbent layer on the inside. These are a far cry from the woven fabric (albeit two layer) masks I was thinking of and which are very commonly seen in use in public areas. Also, surgeons only use surgical masks once and they are binned. No real way to enforce such a hygiene regime on the general public who, even if they were to use a first rate surgical mask, would contaminate the mask / themselves / anything they then touch a little bit more every time they remove the mask to eat a chip or smoke a cigarette (or whenever). I much prefer to use the wash hands / use sanitiser /stay the hell away from strangers approach although, as I said above, I am happy to wear a mask in shops to keep folk happy.


----------



## Mark Hancock

AlanY said:


> stay the hell away from strangers approach although, as I said above, I am happy to wear a mask in shops to keep folk happy.


Why are you staying away from approaching strangers?
Why wear a mask to make others happy?


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> We ought to be able to agree it is particularly nasty for over 65's. It is nastier again the older you get, the more comorbidities you have etc. None of this is new


It is also nasty for people in their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s

Look at the people in India
Look at hospitalisation here in Jan.

Long Covid now affects a million people.


----------



## Rorschach

TRITON said:


> Odd Surgeons wear a mask when carrying out an operation isnt it ?. Given some here are following an illogical line that they do nothing.
> There are probably many factors at work, and do we/studies know for sure that anyone didnt touch their face, or readjust their mask or something along those lines, or even picked up the virus on their hands and later managed to become infected that way. I think it too poor an argument to rely on anyone saying the mask alone is or is not to blame when an individual becomes infected.
> 
> I expect somewhere down the line some will need an operation of some sort, a relacement knew or hip. Would those claiming that masks do nothing, insist their surgeon not wear a mask during that operation ?.


Actually not all surgeons wear them and their efficacy is disputed in the field. All surgeons though will acknowledge they are nothing to do viral transmission.


----------



## Chris152

Don't feed it folks, starve it of oxygen.


----------



## Selwyn

If masks are effective then surely no need to social distance?


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Selwyn you have dishonestly stated as fact that India reached its peak on the 6th May.
> 
> You cannot state it as fact because numerous news agencies and scientists are giving different views.
> 
> You are welcome to say "in my opinion......"




Dr Giridhara R Babu, professor of epidemiology at the Public Health Foudnation of India, says the country has passed the peak of the current wave of infection, but official case numbers might not be accurate.

India is still recording around 260,000 new cases a day - down from above 400,000 10 days ago.

Dr Babu tells BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Although the peak is in the past, we might have missed some infections because of poor testing."

He says scientists had been expecting between 500,000 and 700,000 cases a day during the peak.



So apparently this makes me dishonest?


----------



## Selwyn

TRITON said:


> Odd Surgeons wear a mask when carrying out an operation isnt it ?. Given some here are following an illogical line that they do nothing.
> There are probably many factors at work, and do we/studies know for sure that anyone didnt touch their face, or readjust their mask or something along those lines, or even picked up the virus on their hands and later managed to become infected that way. I think it too poor an argument to rely on anyone saying the mask alone is or is not to blame when an individual becomes infected.
> 
> I expect somewhere down the line some will need an operation of some sort, a relacement knew or hip. Would those claiming that masks do nothing, insist their surgeon not wear a mask during that operation ?.



I wouldn't expect a surgeon who is healthy to need to wear a mask, no. If he had a virus he would be ill and probably not doing the operation.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

Selwyn said:


> I wouldn't expect a surgeon who is healthy to need to wear a mask, no. If he had a virus he would be ill and probably not doing the operation.


Let's not forget that surgeons are human beings and as such are fallible. Many doctors used to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol to excess - some still do.

I think that the risk to the HCP goes up significantly if there is an AGP (aerosol-generating-procedure). If I thought that I might liberate any kind of body fluids from my patient/victim - in aerosol form or otherwise - I'd want my mask (and - every bit as important - glasses) on!

This is an interesting article, from an ostensibly reputable source:









Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery


The use of surgical facemasks is ubiquitous in surgical practice. Facemasks have long been thought to confer protection to the patient from wound infection and contamination from the operating surgeon and other members of the surgical staff. More recently, ...




www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## D_W

Selwyn said:


> If masks are effective then surely no need to social distance?



This is sort of like saying that seat belts don't improve safety if you have a good bumper, because one negates the need for the other.


----------



## TominDales

Chris152 said:


> I see they're thinking of bringing forward second jabs for those in areas with rapidly increasing cases of the Indian variant, and discussing regional measures again. It's clearly got the boffs in white coats worried. About 500 to 1300 in a week (and that data's a week or two out of date), just as everyone thinks things are heading back to normal. Can't help but feel we've seen this before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indian variant: Second jabs could be brought forward to tackle rise
> 
> 
> Local restrictions have also not been ruled out in areas worst affected by the Indian variant.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ps Not remotely interested in hearing how it's not a serious disease, npis don't work, doesn't matter coz it's already peaked, i think i'm young and ok, i don't want the vaccine, failings of 'msm' etc


Here is a good article from BBC explaining the dilemma facing Sage last week and why it gave such confusing messages such as the 'worse than January flare up' etc, and then recommended we continue to open up.
There is such uncertainty that a whole range of outcomes is possible, but its also quite likely that R is overestimated due to the number of people arriving with the Indian strain of covid. The enclosed graph highlights a world of difference between a variant that is 20% more transmissible and one that is 50% more.
Sage view is continue to monitor developments. The view is if transmission really is a lot higher, we will find out quickly.









Indian variant: Why is UK taking a risk with the variant?


Uncertainty over emerging data meant an "agonising" call had to be made on lifting restrictions.



www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Rorschach

Woody2Shoes said:


> Let's not forget that surgeons are human beings and as such are fallible. Many doctors used to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol to excess - some still do.
> 
> I think that the risk to the HCP goes up significantly if there is an AGP (aerosol-generating-procedure). If I thought that I might liberate any kind of body fluids from my patient/victim - in aerosol form or otherwise - I'd want my mask (and - every bit as important - glasses) on!
> 
> This is an interesting article, from an ostensibly reputable source:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery
> 
> 
> The use of surgical facemasks is ubiquitous in surgical practice. Facemasks have long been thought to confer protection to the patient from wound infection and contamination from the operating surgeon and other members of the surgical staff. More recently, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov



Yes wearing masks for surgery is a very interesting topic and not as clear cut as you might think. Sadly it has been hijacked somewhat to suit the covid agenda.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> All surgeons though will acknowledge they are nothing to do viral transmission.


Which has nothing to do with mask wearing in connection to Covid.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> If masks are effective then surely no need to social distance?


All these excuses you come up with....just because you are embarrassed to wear a mask 

Mask wearing is effective, the evidence proves it. Come on man up and admit you are wrong.....we are all getting bored of your endless hogwash.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Which has nothing to do with mask wearing in connection to Covid.



So first you say masks are not to stop spread, now you say they are not to stop viral transmission. Have you become an anti masker? So good to have you on the team!


----------



## Selwyn

[/QUOTE]

All these excuses you come up with....just because you are embarrassed to wear a mask 

Mask wearing is effective, the evidence proves it. Come on man up and admit you are wrong.....we are all getting bored of your endless hogwash.
[/QUOTE]


I don't think this is the place for ad hominem attacks.

Come on if masks work, why social distance? There was a boxing event in Texas the other week, 72k people no masks. People like you are being played in this country. I expect you believe the Indian variant and now think it "risky" to go on holiday abroad


----------



## Jonm

Selwyn said:


> I don't think this is the place for ad hominem attacks.
> 
> Come on if masks work, why social distance? There was a boxing event in Texas the other week, 72k people no masks. People like you are being played in this country. I expect you believe the Indian variant and now think it "risky" to go on holiday abroad


The main purpose of face masks as worn by the general public, indoors is to reduce the number and distance that respiratory droplets spread in the air from an infected person. Difficult to set up a randomised trial to prove this. Countries who seemed to have controlled the virus well generally have this as one of their policies. An exception to this is island nations who shut their borders before the virus got to them.

The type of masks worn by the general public will not stop transmission, the idea is that it reduces it. Hence the social distancing as well.

It is a low cost low risk intervention so the proof of effectiveness Is low. Most people have accepted it.

I do not understand why it is so controversial to you.


----------



## Selwyn

Jonm said:


> The main purpose of face masks as worn by the general public, indoors is to reduce the number and distance that respiratory droplets spread in the air from an infected person. Difficult to set up a randomised trial to prove this. Countries who seemed to have controlled the virus well generally have this as one of their policies. An exception to this is island nations who shut their borders before the virus got to them.
> 
> The type of masks worn by the general public will not stop transmission, the idea is that it reduces it. Hence the social distancing as well.
> 
> It is a low cost low risk intervention so the proof of effectiveness Is low. Most people have accepted it.
> 
> I do not understand why it is so controversial to you.



Its an "idea" but it doesn't work.

The reason it is controversial to me is because it allows a continuing narrative that covid is waiting in the wings ready to explode at any time and it encourages people to see fear or potential danger in every interaction they have and this is not the case.

Masks continue to perpetuate the myth that anyone is vulnerable to covid when overwhelmingly they are not, and that that somehow we are better protected with masks and we are not. They should be voluntary for those who need the security blanket not a state controlled thing.


----------



## Jonm

Selwyn said:


> They should be voluntary for those who need the security blanket


The point is that the main purpose of wearing a mask is to stop people with coronavirus passing it on. People wearing masks believe they are protecting others and expect others to do the same for them. They perceive someone near them, indoors without a mask as dangerous to them. Making it ”voluntary” would not do this. There are many instances where it is illegal to do things which are of no danger to you but are to others around you.

There is plenty of evidence that masks work in reducing the spread in indoor situations and the government have accepted that, despite some initial reluctance, actually at first they got confused with masks to protect the wearer. You and others may disagree but setting up a meaningful real life trial is extremely difficult and I doubt you would believe it anyway.


----------



## Selwyn

Jonm said:


> The point is that the main purpose of wearing a mask is to stop people with coronavirus passing it on. People wearing masks believe they are protecting others and expect others to do the same for them. They perceive someone near them, indoors without a mask as dangerous to them. Making it ”voluntary” would not do this. There are many instances where it is illegal to do things which are of no danger to you but are to others around you.
> 
> There is plenty of evidence that masks work in reducing the spread in indoor situations and the government have accepted that, despite some initial reluctance, actually at first they got confused with masks to protect the wearer. You and others may disagree but setting up a meaningful real life trial is extremely difficult and I doubt you would believe it anyway.



Well given the experience of countries / regions not wearing masks showing no difference in infection and seeing the places wearing masks sometimes showing an increase in virus then no I wouldn't believe it. 

Its more about state control and keeping the fear factor going than actual mask. Do the majority of people put a fresh clean mask on each time they use it? No. Loads of people have it round their chin. Its ridiculous. Man on NERVTAG advising Sage said this the other day.

The only thing that probably has made a difference is people working from home


----------



## Chris152

Fellas, you may as well go on god.com (I expect it exists) and argue with a couple of religious fundamentalists that their god doesn't exist.
Most of us have enough humility to respect the opinions of the world's leading scientists on what to do and what not to do in the midst of a pandemic. Some don't. The more you argue with the latter, the more opportunity you give them to spread the ideas they've scraped together on the internet that contradict leading scientific consensus, without themselves understanding that there are always contrary views amid the scientific (and other academic) communities, nor understanding how to judge between them. Like a dripping tap, they'll keep going, trying to _appear_ to win an argument, possibly even change behaviours. The consequences of which could be very serious.
I haven't got a clue about the virology or epidemiology, but I have good enough judgement to decide who to trust. Tbh, I don't know why the mods haven't shut this thread down given the 'contrary' and potentially dangerous information and views a couple of people are trying to promote.


----------



## selectortone

^Yep


----------



## Jonm

Chris152 said:


> Fellas, you may as well go on god.com (I expect it exists) and argue with a couple of religious fundamentalists that their god doesn't exist.
> Most of us have enough humility to respect the opinions of the world's leading scientists on what to do and what not to do in the midst of a pandemic. Some don't. The more you argue with the latter, the more opportunity you give them to spread the ideas they've scraped together on the internet that contradict leading scientific consensus, without themselves understanding that there are always contrary views amid the scientific (and other academic) communities, nor understanding how to judge between them. Like a dripping tap, they'll keep going, trying to _appear_ to win an argument, possibly even change behaviours. The consequences of which could be very serious.
> I haven't got a clue about the virology or epidemiology, but I have good enough judgement to decide who to trust. Tbh, I don't know why the mods haven't shut this thread down given the 'contrary' and potentially dangerous information and views a couple of people are trying to promote.


We are approaching a critical time, with lockdown easing and the indian variant on the increase. It is likely that there will be lots of confusing data to try and understand. This discussion actually helps and I have learnt a lot, so I hope it does not get closed down.

The discussion about India cases peaking and mask wearing has got tedious. As for “dangerous information” I think all such views have been challenged, I doubt anyone has actually changed their behaviour for the worse.


----------



## Selwyn

Chris152 said:


> Fellas, you may as well go on god.com (I expect it exists) and argue with a couple of religious fundamentalists that their god doesn't exist.
> Most of us have enough humility to respect the opinions of the world's leading scientists on what to do and what not to do in the midst of a pandemic. Some don't. The more you argue with the latter, the more opportunity you give them to spread the ideas they've scraped together on the internet that contradict leading scientific consensus, without themselves understanding that there are always contrary views amid the scientific (and other academic) communities, nor understanding how to judge between them. Like a dripping tap, they'll keep going, trying to _appear_ to win an argument, possibly even change behaviours. The consequences of which could be very serious.
> I haven't got a clue about the virology or epidemiology, but I have good enough judgement to decide who to trust. Tbh, I don't know why the mods haven't shut this thread down given the 'contrary' and potentially dangerous information and views a couple of people are trying to promote.



Actually all we are saying is that Covid is nasty disease but it is not so virulent to the extent that it needs shutting down the economy, schools and putting the country in £372 billion of extra debt. If you think that is marvellous then thats fine.

Vaccinating all these healthy children is the next thing "experts" are doing..

There isn't a scientific consensus either..


----------



## Chris152

Jonm said:


> The discussion about India cases peaking and mask wearing has got tedious.


It's become too utterly ridiculous and toe-curlingly childish to look at. And it's dominated the thread, making it impossible to have a proper discussion.

Selwyn - in normal English usage, the plural of virus is 'viruses'. No apostrophe. Surprised you didn't pick that up while doing your post-doc.


----------



## Selwyn

Chris152 said:


> It's become too utterly ridiculous and toe-curlingly childish to look at. And it's dominated the thread, making it impossible to have a proper discussion.
> 
> Selwyn - in normal English usage, the plural of virus is 'viruses'. No apostrophe. Surprised you didn't pick that up while doing your post-doc.



Why are you being childish? What does it matter about an apostrophe.

My point about masks is that in a lot of places they don't use them and have no difference in viral curves, the evidence for them is not strong. In fact its extremely weak. And India is just amply demonstrating how a virus spreads and recedes. In terms of deaths its barely a flicker in the scheme of daily Indian deaths. The variant is only being pushed in this country because in hotspots where Asians live in the UK they aren't getting injected


----------



## RobinBHM

Chris152 said:


> Fellas, you may as well go on god.com (I expect it exists) and argue with a couple of religious fundamentalists that their god doesn't exist.
> Most of us have enough humility to respect the opinions of the world's leading scientists on what to do and what not to do in the midst of a pandemic. Some don't. The more you argue with the latter, the more opportunity you give them to spread the ideas they've scraped together on the internet that contradict leading scientific consensus, without themselves understanding that there are always contrary views amid the scientific (and other academic) communities, nor understanding how to judge between them. Like a dripping tap, they'll keep going, trying to _appear_ to win an argument, possibly even change behaviours. The consequences of which could be very serious.
> I haven't got a clue about the virology or epidemiology, but I have good enough judgement to decide who to trust. Tbh, I don't know why the mods haven't shut this thread down given the 'contrary' and potentially dangerous information and views a couple of people are trying to promote.



A fairer solution would be if this thread was allowed to continue without Selwyn and Rorschach spoiling for everyone else.

I am very happy with robust debate, different views are how we broaden our understanding. However the wilful posting of endless misinformation and endless logical fallacies makes it impossible to have any form of sensible debate.

This has become a perfect example of how misinformation can easily be posted faster than it can be debunked.....so the facts and evidence never catch up. It's like playing whack a mole.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> A fairer solution would be if this thread was allowed to continue without Selwyn and Rorschach spoiling for everyone else.
> 
> I am very happy with robust debate, different views are how we broaden our understanding. However the wilful posting of endless misinformation and endless logical fallacies makes it impossible to have any form of sensible debate.
> 
> This has become a perfect example of how misinformation can easily be posted faster than it can be debunked.....so the facts and evidence never catch up. It's like playing whack a mole.



I wondered how long you would hold out before falling back on the classic tactics of those who know they are wrong.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> A fairer solution would be if this thread was allowed to continue without Selwyn and Rorschach spoiling for everyone else.
> 
> I am very happy with robust debate, different views are how we broaden our understanding. However the wilful posting of endless misinformation and endless logical fallacies makes it impossible to have any form of sensible debate.
> 
> This has become a perfect example of how misinformation can easily be posted faster than it can be debunked.....so the facts and evidence never catch up. It's like playing whack a mole.



Come off it. Tim Spector? John Lee? Endless misinformation? 

There are loads of counter arguments to the UK covid narrative but they just don't suit you because you have invested heavily in the idea that everyone is at risk. They're not. Schools have been open a couple of months and it is becoming clearer by the day they should never have been shut.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

How about a change of covid topic. 

The government has had a lot of criticism for its reluctance to put India on the "red list". It is being touted as the reason why "Step 4" return to normality may not happen as planned. 

The link below is to a report in the Guardian 5 days ago showing that 21 countries have sequenced the Indian variants including 486 in the US and 85 in Australia (held in high regard for effective border control) , 156 in Singapore and 29 in Japan.

Guardian - India variant

Whilst the Guardian often demonstrates a clear political bias, it tends to be fairly reliable in its factual content.

Questions

do these figures demonstrate that trying to control borders is ultimately futile
is criticism of the government justified or simple political point scoring
UK has the highest number of cases outside India. Is this simply the result UK capacity enabling more cases to be sequenced.


----------



## sometimewoodworker

Terry - Somerset said:


> Questions
> 
> do these figures demonstrate that trying to control borders is ultimately futile
> is criticism of the government justified or simple political point scoring
> UK has the highest number of cases outside India. Is this simply the result UK capacity enabling more cases to be sequenced.


Answers
1) no the figures show that if you live in a country with a ineffective government that acts late you have a huge chance of death or infection look at Thailand and Australia for how border control works to control propagation. 
2) more than justified
3) sequencing has no effect on cases it just tells you what you have


----------



## rwillett

I have found that blocking some members completely changes this thread (for the better) and filters out most of the noise leaving most of the signal intact.

Once I did that, I learnt an awful lot about stuff I have had zero interest in before, but is now rather important but also I gained a greater respect for a number of people who clearly knew their stuff and could back it up with evidence.

As an ex AP in a very large large IT consultancy, I believe I can waffle with the very best, indeed being able to stand up on my hind legs and talk to a client on any IT subject for an hour with zero preparation and, more importantly, zero knowledge of the subject and no evidence to back it up, is a job requirement. So I feel I am eminently qualified to recognise other wafflers. There are a number on here.

I can also recognise my bete noire, those people knowledgeable, prepared, able to back up their arguments with facts and evidence, who can pull together a number of distinct and non associated issues into a coherent and logical conclusion in the face of silly person jabberings. I read these people's words with respect and consider them carefully. I don't necessarily agree with everything they say, but through their efforts to backup what they say with facts, they have absolutely earned the right to be listened to.

I will continue to read this thread with interest, knowing I have quietened the jabbering monkeys and hopefully I will continue to learn. I suspect most people can work out which is which.

Best wishes.

Rob


----------



## Jonm

sometimewoodworker said:


> 3) sequencing has no effect on cases it just tells you what you have


I think you have misunderstood the question. Looking at the article, India has sequenced 1876 cases of the Indian variant, UK has sequenced 1587 cases, so clearly the numbers you sequence has an influence on the numbers of indian variant you find. UK leads the world in the total number of coronavirus cases it sequences, it is one thing we have got right.

To actually answer the question needs looking at the percentage of sequencing in the countries listed and whether they are actively looking for the indian variant and have stepped up sequencing in hot spots.


----------



## Jonm

Jonm said:


> I think you have misunderstood the question. Looking at the article, India has sequenced 1876 cases of the Indian variant, UK has sequenced 1587 cases, so clearly the numbers you sequence has an influence on the numbers of indian variant you find. UK leads the world in the numbers sequenced.
> 
> To actually answer the question needs looking at the percentage of sequencing in the countries listed and whether they are actively looking for the indian variant and have stepped up sequencing in hot spots.


Trying to find number of genome sequencing by country is difficult. I found this article








Genomic sequencing effort for SARS-CoV-2 by country during the pandemic


Since the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), tremendous efforts have been made to sequence the viral genome fr…




www.sciencedirect.com




It contains a bar chart of Countries and number of sequences, it is out of date, 6 Sept 2020. Also be careful of the scale on the left hand side, it is not linear. Chart reproduced below.

There are lots of references to the GISAID database. Need to register to access it, it is aimed at scientists in the field so probably incomprehensible to me without spending a lot of time on it.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

The question is about how effective border controls really are when the variant has been detected so widely in countries (Oz being the obvious example) previously lauded for effective border control to inhibit infection.

As has been said before - absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. Therefore even those showing low (or zero) cases may be understating the real problem.

Is there any point to the red/amber/green travel list and the cost and bureaucracy surrounding implementation. If international transmission cannot be stopped, the only issue is whether the existing vaccines are effective and rolled with sufficient speed.

I have no doubt that the UK has been slow to respond to outbreaks with sufficient vigour. Whether that is due to differences in culture, behaviours, political regime, enforcement is another debate.


----------



## Selwyn

Terry - Somerset said:


> The question is about how effective border controls really are when the variant has been detected so widely in countries (Oz being the obvious example) previously lauded for effective border control to inhibit infection.
> 
> As has been said before - absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. Therefore even those showing low (or zero) cases may be understating the real problem.
> 
> Is there any point to the red/amber/green travel list and the cost and bureaucracy surrounding implementation. If international transmission cannot be stopped, the only issue is whether the existing vaccines are effective and rolled with sufficient speed.
> 
> I have no doubt that the UK has been slow to respond to outbreaks with sufficient vigour. Whether that is due to differences in culture, behaviours, political regime, enforcement is another debate.



Terry - the existing vaccines are effective against Covid 19. This has already been demonstrated - not least because these "variants" which seem to come through thick and fast - kent ,south african, brazilian etc are so similar to each other. They don't evolve much at all. 

The whole Indian variant thing in the UK is pushed because of a. the suspicion that pockets of asians are reluctant to take the vaccine and b. the vaccine take up in the Uk is not as high as is suggested. I actually have no idea why we are even thinking of vaccinating under 40's unless they request it. We actually need the virus to circulate in the young and healthy it is better in the longer term

Remember the most vulnerable were vaccinated long ago so really its all about keeping the narrative going now.

Australia will eventually get some Covid 19. Its absolutely inevitable.


----------



## Selwyn

selectortone said:


> Non-sequitur. Being led by a bunch of profligate asses doesn't make covid any less deadly.
> 
> Bites lip.....



We have known since March 2020 the profiles of who its most likely to affect badly. And in March 2020 Covid was everywhere yet the pretence is that everyone is vulnerable. They are not


----------



## gregmcateer

Selwyn said:


> I actually have no idea why we are even thinking of vaccinating under 40's unless they request it. We actually need the virus to circulate in the young and healthy it is better in the longer term



Genuine question, not attempt to argue with either side: 
do we NEED the virus to circulate amongst the young? Doesn't vaccination achieve immunity for them as, or more effectively, but without X (insert percentage here), getting ill, or have I missed the point?


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> We have known since March 2020 the profiles of who its most likely to affect badly. And in March 2020 Covid was everywhere yet the pretence is that everyone is vulnerable. They are not



For somebody so opinionated, you certainly have huge gaps in your Covid knowledge.

Oh by the way, there is no "pretence that everyone is vulnerable"......you certainly love a strawman logical fallacy


----------



## hairy

I have become quite a fan of Ivor Cummins. Some of his YT presentations put some big question marks over what is happening now, as do some of his knowledgable even esteemed but it seems not so mainstream guests.


----------



## hairy

Surely your immune system is what gives you immunity? If it's not performing well due to underlying conditions then it may need a boost via a vaccine.


----------



## Rorschach

Ironic that myself and others are just promoting what was the standard procedure and advice just over a year ago but thanks to propaganda we are now called dangerous by those we see as dangerous.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Ironic that myself and others are just promoting what was the standard procedure and advice just over a year ago but thanks to propaganda we are now called dangerous by those we see as dangerous.



You claim "Covid is no worse than flu" that wasn't the advice a year ago.
You claim lockdowns don't work, that also wasn't the advice a year ago
You claim herd immunity is the solution, that also wasnt the advice a year ago

It's true mask wearing wasn't recommended a year ago, but the data wasn't available, now it is, you refuse to accept it.

I'm not entirely sure what is you are promoting that was standard advice a year ago.........


----------



## RobinBHM

gregmcateer said:


> Genuine question, not attempt to argue with either side:
> do we NEED the virus to circulate amongst the young? Doesn't vaccination achieve immunity for them as, or more effectively, but without X (insert percentage here), getting ill, or have I missed the point?


The vaccine gives much higher antibodies than natural immunity and has more resistance to variants.

The best way to get back to having no restrictions is to vaccinate everybody over 18.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> You claim "Covid is no worse than flu" that wasn't the advice a year ago.
> You claim lockdowns don't work, that also wasn't the advice a year ago
> You claim herd immunity is the solution, that also wasnt the advice a year ago
> 
> It's true mask wearing wasn't recommended a year ago, but the data wasn't available, now it is, you refuse to accept it.
> 
> I'm not entirely sure what is you are promoting that was standard advice a year ago.........



Covid is a little bit worse than flu. But it is not worse than flu for those who don't get affected by covid which are an awful lot of people. Its not statistically far off a very bad flu. But again we have recorded a lot of covid deaths with comorbidities and tested the hell out of people in a way we wouldn't with influenza.
Lockdowns still don't work and whats more they fail to take into the account of the collateral damage which is significant. Massive actually. You've never given that a second thought.
Herd Immmunity is inevitable although the vaccine will help those with weakned immune systems to not get killed by covid.
Masks don't work because on a practical level they just don't. Frequently dirty, reused, not fitting, round chins etc. They do nothing on a practical level and this is evidenced by real world data of mask vs non mask places

There was no need to try and reinvent covid into what it is not


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> The vaccine gives much higher antibodies than natural immunity and has more resistance to variants.
> 
> The best way to get back to having no restrictions is to vaccinate everybody over 18.



This is not proven. It assists those with less well functioning immune systems but for those who's immune system is working well it is total overkill. It may even be counterproductive long term. Why aged 18? Why stop there? Do you have any idea how many virus' a new born baby is exposed to within the first few weeks of its life?


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> The vaccine gives much higher antibodies than natural immunity and has more resistance to variants.
> 
> The best way to get back to having no restrictions is to vaccinate everybody over 18.



Actually natural infection is more effective than vaccination for immunity.


----------



## alanpo68

Rorschach said:


> Actually natural infection is more effective than vaccination for immunity.



The slight issue that you seem to have missed is that natural infection has killed millions of people.


----------



## Rorschach

alanpo68 said:


> The slight issue that you seem to have missed is that natural infection has killed millions of people.



Well assuming you survive of course, which over 99% do.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Actually natural infection is more effective than vaccination for immunity.


How sure are you?

*Immune Response From mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Is More Robust Than Natural Infection*








Immune Response From mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Is More Robust Than Natural Infection


Antibody levels induced by mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are much higher than those induced by natural infection and confer cross-reactivity that could be effective against new variants, a new study from the University of California, Irvine, found.



www.contagionlive.com






Vaccines are capable of stimulating a better immune response than the natural infection





Immunity and COVID-19: What do we know so far? | British Society for Immunology


A summary of what we do and don't know about immunity to SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19.




www.immunology.org





*Four studies all show superior protection against variants from vaccines*








Dr. Fauci explains why COVID-19 vaccines work much better than natural immunity to protect you from the coronavirus


Fauci points to several new studies which show COVID-19 vaccines boost protection from concerning variants among people who've had prior infections.




www.businessinsider.com


----------



## Jonm

RobinBHM said:


> You claim "Covid is no worse than flu" that wasn't the advice a year ago.
> You claim lockdowns don't work, that also wasn't the advice a year ago
> You claim herd immunity is the solution, that also wasnt the advice a year ago
> 
> It's true mask wearing wasn't recommended a year ago, but the data wasn't available, now it is, you refuse to accept it.
> 
> I'm not entirely sure what is you are promoting that was standard advice a year ago.........


To be fair to Rorschach he did say a little over a year ago. I had a look at what the government was advising and when, prior to lockdown.

26 feb 2020
Statement on Coronavirus
_Matt Hancock MP, continued:
"We have a clear four part plan to respond to the outbreak of this disease: contain, delay, research and mitigate. We're taking all necessary measures to minimise the risk to the public._

BBC news 9 March 2020
Coronavirus: UK to remain in 'containment' phase of response
_However, measures to delay the virus' spread with "social distancing" will not be introduced yet, ministers said_.

16 March 2020








Prime Minister's statement on coronavirus (COVID-19): 16 March 2020


Prime Minister Boris Johnson made a statement on coronavirus.




www.gov.uk




Advice to stop non essential travel, work from home if possible, avoid pubs, clubs etc.

20:March 2020, lockdown.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Well assuming you survive of course, which over 99% do.


One million people may have something to say about that......

*Long Covid: More than a million affected in February, survey suggests*









Long Covid: More than a million affected in February, survey suggests


Official statistics suggest one in five people experience ongoing symptoms five weeks after infection.



www.bbc.co.uk








*Over 75% of People Hospitalized With COVID-19 Had Symptoms 6 Month Later*








76% of People Hospitalized for COVID-19 Have Symptoms Months Later


New research has found that 76 percent of people who had been hospitalized for COVID-19 experienced at least one lingering symptom 6 months after recovering. Long-term symptoms affect people of all ages and have occurred in people with mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19.




www.healthline.com







In the early days of the pandemic, there was a perception that for the majority of people COVID-19 was a short, relatively mild illness lasting less than a fortnight, with most research focused on the much smaller proportion of patients falling seriously or fatally ill.

However, in recent months we’ve seen increasing attention paid to people with ‘long COVID’, whose symptoms were not serious enough to land them in hospital yet have persisted for many weeks or months. 








One in 20 people likely to suffer from ‘Long COVID’, but who are they?


Our latest study shows that one in 20 people will suffer symptoms for more than 8 weeks and reveals who is most at risk of developing ‘long COVID’.




covid.joinzoe.com


----------



## RobinBHM

Jonm said:


> I had a look at what the government was advising and when, prior to lockdown


That advice didn't age well.....

Professor Spector, who works in genetic epidemiology research, said:"Two weeks after the Cheltenham Festival and the Liverpool game against Atletico Madrid, we saw the number of people reporting COVID symptoms in the COVID Symptom Study app from those particular areas increase and both areas became key hotspots in the UK.

"This suggests that both events were, in part, a cause for the spread of COVID-19 in those areas."








Coronavirus: Cheltenham Festival and Liverpool v Atletico Madrid 'led to spike' in COVID-19 deaths


The government had repeatedly dismissed the need to cancel mass gatherings in the days leading up to the events.




news.sky.com






Thank goodness the government and its scientific advisors got with the programme not longer after.


----------



## Ozi

Rorschach said:


> Well it's the cause of death really. I am not saying the UK government is under or over reporting the raw figures for deaths (all causes) but I think they are being a bit dodgy with their figures on cause of death and especially with the modelling figures they use/used in their briefings.
> I think it is very disingenuous to say X countries figures are misleading but the UK is perfect, all governments have an agenda and are not beyond lying to the populous.
> 
> A simple of example of this for the UK is that we are constantly given the 127k deaths figure saying they died "in the past year", this is indeed true (near enough a year anyway) but without the context that it covers two winter respiratory seasons. This 127k figure is then compared against a yearly mortality of approx 600k, but again, that 600k isn't spread out evenly over a year so if you took a year that had two winter respiratory virus seasons added together it would be much higher than 600k. So while the figures they tell us are more or less correct, they are being massaged and used in a way that is misleading in order to generate maximum fear and impact.


Not looking for a fight here. The figures are never absolute, I tend to believe that in this country we get reasonably accurate figures but that they are often spun to a political agenda. The reported figures for the last flu season are really interesting, almost zero deaths in hospital with flu as the only cause is unheard of. We can argue about the accuracy but it's a certainty that flu deaths were down dramatically. The why is what matters, some who would have died were already dead, some were isolating so never caught it, some like me had the flu jab for the first time ever, a massive increase in vaccination so we didn't die of it or spread it. It's proof that for flu at least lock down and vaccination worked. Interestingly and I'm not trying to extrapolate one case into nationally significant figures my friend caught covid early on and spent 28 days in intensive care, very lucky to be alive yet tested negative at the time for the disease but later at discharge positive for the antibodies. If Chris had died he would not have counted in the national total. As I said the figures can never be precise.


----------



## RobinBHM

Jonm said:


> To be fair to Rorschach he did say a little over a year ago. I had a look at what the government was advising and when, prior to lockdown



Looking back at those announcements....seems a lifetime ago.

Goodness me what a year its been.

I can remember watching the news around new year 2020 talking about Wuhan....I just watched it, like you do - idly thinking it was another of those Asian viruses, nothing to do with me.

Even when the first case was announced in UK, it never occurred to me what was to come.


----------



## RobinBHM

Ozi said:


> The figures are never absolute


Pretty much all of the scientific data surrounding Covid pandemic is not precise, nor can it be. 

Science is often not black and white, we can only draw conclusions by looking at many sources and seeing where the bulk of the evidence lies.

Politics and govt messaging muddies the water a great deal. Govts have tended to emphasise the negative to encourage the public to, stick to the rules.


----------



## John Brown

Selwyn said:


> Terry - the existing vaccines are effective against Covid 19. This has already been demonstrated - not least because these "variants" which seem to come through thick and fast - kent ,south african, brazilian etc are so similar to each other. They don't evolve much at all.
> 
> The whole Indian variant thing in the UK is pushed because of a. the suspicion that pockets of asians are reluctant to take the vaccine and b. the vaccine take up in the Uk is not as high as is suggested. I actually have no idea why we are even thinking of vaccinating under 40's unless they request it. We actually need the virus to circulate in the young and healthy it is better in the longer term
> 
> Remember the most vulnerable were vaccinated long ago so really its all about keeping the narrative going now.
> 
> Australia will eventually get some Covid 19. Its absolutely inevitable.


Sorry, I genuinely don't understand why we need the virus to circulate in the young and healthy. Doesn't a larger pool make for more chance of new variants evolving?


----------



## Jake

John Brown said:


> Sorry, I genuinely don't understand why we need the virus to circulate in the young and healthy. Doesn't a larger pool make for more chance of new variants evolving?



It is utter nonsense as usual. Immunity is immunity (post efficacy issues as pointed out by Robin), and more virus circulating is as you say just added immune pressure.


----------



## Jonm

Ozi said:


> Not looking for a fight here. The figures are never absolute, I tend to believe that in this country we get reasonably accurate figures but that they are often spun to a political agenda. The reported figures for the last flu season are really interesting, almost zero deaths in hospital with flu as the only cause is unheard of. We can argue about the accuracy but it's a certainty that flu deaths were down dramatically. The why is what matters, some who would have died were already dead, some were isolating so never caught it, some like me had the flu jab for the first time ever, a massive increase in vaccination so we didn't die of it or spread it. It's proof that for flu at least lock down and vaccination worked. Interestingly and I'm not trying to extrapolate one case into nationally significant figures my friend caught covid early on and spent 28 days in intensive care, very lucky to be alive yet tested negative at the time for the disease but later at discharge positive for the antibodies. If Chris had died he would not have counted in the national total. As I said the figures can never be precise.


I think we do have to be careful of how we interpret the figures. 

In a fast moving pandemic there has to be a way of counting deaths which is consistent, quick and easy to apply so that trends can be established very quickly. Waiting for coroners reports and interpreting them would be far too slow.

The current definition for this purpose is “deaths that occurred within 28 days of a positive lab-confirmed COVID test”. This is clearly stated when the government reports the numbers and is prominent in bbc reports of the numbers.

Clearly with this simplified measuring tool, there is a big difference between deaths due directly to Covid and those where it had no impact whatsoever, and a lot of grey areas in between. As we come out of lockdown (with a high level of vaccination), coronavirus cases will rise, and inevitably “Deaths that occurred within 28 days of a positive lab-confirmed COVID test” will increase. At that point the actual cause of death becomes important. We do not want to re-impose restrictions because of a measuring method.

It is possible that with a very high number of vaccinated, elderly people who are, say 85% protected from catching Covid that numbers of vaccinated people will exceed unvaccinated people for “deaths that occurred within 28 days of a positive lab-confirmed COVID test”. The anti vaxxers will have fun with that.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Jonm said:


> In a fast moving pandemic there has to be a way of counting deaths which is consistent, quick and easy to apply so that trends can be established very quickly. Waiting for coroners reports and interpreting them would be far too slow.



I think this is spot on. The published numbers all have a clear label if people can be bothered to look. Unfortunately the label doesn't fit in a soundbite which creates confusion and opportunity for people to include their slightly amended version to support their unsubstantiated theory as fact. Good job no one comes on here and engages in that sort of behaviour 

Robin mentioned the passage of time which prompted me to look back on my phone at the memes I got a year ago...


----------



## hairy

RobinBHM said:


> That advice didn't age well.....
> 
> Professor Spector, who works in genetic epidemiology research, said:"Two weeks after the Cheltenham Festival and the Liverpool game against Atletico Madrid, we saw the number of people reporting COVID symptoms in the COVID Symptom Study app from those particular areas increase and both areas became key hotspots in the UK.
> 
> "This suggests that both events were, in part, a cause for the spread of COVID-19 in those areas."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coronavirus: Cheltenham Festival and Liverpool v Atletico Madrid 'led to spike' in COVID-19 deaths
> 
> 
> The government had repeatedly dismissed the need to cancel mass gatherings in the days leading up to the events.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.sky.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness the government and its scientific advisors got with the programme not longer after.



UK news article today says "Just 15 people among the 58,000 who took part in government run trials for re-opening large events tested positive for Covid" "The trials included the FA Cup final and a semi final at Wembley, the Brit awards at the O2 arena in London and DJ sets at the Circus nightclub in Liverpool."
I would guess at events like that not many would have been vaccinated being mostly under 50? The pictures show young clubbers mask free and rammed together having a great time


----------



## hairy

Snipped


Jonm said:


> I think we do have to be careful of how we interpret the figures.
> 
> The current definition for this purpose is “deaths that occurred within 28 days of a positive lab-confirmed COVID test”. This is clearly stated when the government reports the numbers and is prominent in bbc reports of the numbers.


As I said in post 834 here;
ONS " Death certification as involving COVID-19 does not depend on a positive test. "
PHE "....all deaths where a positive test for COVID-19 has been confirmed"


----------



## Selwyn

John Brown said:


> Sorry, I genuinely don't understand why we need the virus to circulate in the young and healthy. Doesn't a larger pool make for more chance of new variants evolving?





RobinBHM said:


> That advice didn't age well.....
> 
> Professor Spector, who works in genetic epidemiology research, said:"Two weeks after the Cheltenham Festival and the Liverpool game against Atletico Madrid, we saw the number of people reporting COVID symptoms in the COVID Symptom Study app from those particular areas increase and both areas became key hotspots in the UK.
> 
> "This suggests that both events were, in part, a cause for the spread of COVID-19 in those areas."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coronavirus: Cheltenham Festival and Liverpool v Atletico Madrid 'led to spike' in COVID-19 deaths
> 
> 
> The government had repeatedly dismissed the need to cancel mass gatherings in the days leading up to the events.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.sky.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness the government and its scientific advisors got with the programme not longer after.



They could have banned large gatherings for a bit. They didn't need to remove seats from swings and close down business and shops.


----------



## Selwyn

alanpo68 said:


> The slight issue that you seem to have missed is that natural infection has killed millions of people.



Lots of things kill people every day. You cannot live without risk. Covid is not the only cause of death in this country.


----------



## Selwyn

Ozi said:


> Not looking for a fight here. The figures are never absolute, I tend to believe that in this country we get reasonably accurate figures but that they are often spun to a political agenda. The reported figures for the last flu season are really interesting, almost zero deaths in hospital with flu as the only cause is unheard of. We can argue about the accuracy but it's a certainty that flu deaths were down dramatically. The why is what matters, some who would have died were already dead, some were isolating so never caught it, some like me had the flu jab for the first time ever, a massive increase in vaccination so we didn't die of it or spread it. It's proof that for flu at least lock down and vaccination worked. Interestingly and I'm not trying to extrapolate one case into nationally significant figures my friend caught covid early on and spent 28 days in intensive care, very lucky to be alive yet tested negative at the time for the disease but later at discharge positive for the antibodies. If Chris had died he would not have counted in the national total. As I said the figures can never be precise.



Do we do a pcr test for influenza on everyone in a care home every week? Do we continually test people for flu via PCR test upon death? As John Lee says in my video a lot of people expire in the end with a number of things ie comorbidities. 

Its not unreasonable to suppose covid may push out influenza for a bit. I don't hear of any lobbying for zero influenza or lockdown for flu though.


----------



## Selwyn

John Brown said:


> Sorry, I genuinely don't understand why we need the virus to circulate in the young and healthy. Doesn't a larger pool make for more chance of new variants evolving?



Well the idea is that it develops antibodies better. The clinically vulnerable will remain so but the less vulnerable won't. We are all genetic survivors of the Spanish flu - that was nasty but its not to the survivors of it. 

The idea that we are free of virus' and somehow better off totally protected from virus' isn't true. The clinically vulnerable would be because it gives them an extra lifespan.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Looking back at those announcements....seems a lifetime ago.
> 
> Goodness me what a year its been.
> 
> I can remember watching the news around new year 2020 talking about Wuhan....I just watched it, like you do - idly thinking it was another of those Asian viruses, nothing to do with me.
> 
> Even when the first case was announced in UK, it never occurred to me what was to come.



Whilst glued to the telly on Wuhan and stuck in your bedroom you have missed out on the massive survival rates of Covid especially for those under 60. More especially for those under 50.

People have been circulating with no masks after March 2020 with massively declining amounts of virus.


----------



## Jonm

hairy said:


> UK news article today says "Just 15 people among the 58,000 who took part in government run trials for re-opening large events tested positive for Covid" "The trials included the FA Cup final and a semi final at Wembley, the Brit awards at the O2 arena in London and DJ sets at the Circus nightclub in Liverpool."
> I would guess at events like that not many would have been vaccinated being mostly under 50? The pictures show young clubbers mask free and rammed together having a great time


I think it is a Telegraph article behind a paywall. The Sun says “_Out of the 58,000 people who attended the events, such as the World Snooker Championship, just 15 positive Covid cases have so far been recorded, sources told the Telegraph._” It also says “_And further positive tests could emerge from the most recent events - such as the FA Cup final last weekend_”

It sounds like good news but I am always wary of “sources” without defining who they are. Perhaps the Telegraph article defines them. No doubt we shall find out more when official reports are released. As I understand it everyone attending was tested beforehand.


----------



## alanpo68

Selwyn said:


> Lots of things kill people every day. You cannot live without risk. Covid is not the only cause of death in this country.



Did you not see what happened in Italy when their Health service was overwhelmed. Without a lockdown and other mitigation that would have happened here. Look at what happened in certain areas of the USA, Brazil and India where the risks of COVID were played down. 

COVID may not be the only cause of death in this Country but it is one of the few causes of death that spreads exponentially.


----------



## alanpo68

Selwyn said:


> Whilst glued to the telly on Wuhan and stuck in your bedroom you have missed out on the massive survival rates of Covid especially for those under 60. More especially for those under 50.
> 
> People have been circulating with no masks after March 2020 with massively declining amounts of virus.



People have not been circulating in Wuhan without masks since march 2020.

This picture was taken on the 23rd of January 2021.






From the same article. 

Since the end of the lockdown, Wuhan has largely been spared further outbreaks, something residents such as chemistry teacher Yao Dongyu attribute to heightened awareness resulting from the traumatic experience of last year.


----------



## RobinBHM

Jonm said:


> Clearly with this simplified measuring tool, there is a big difference between deaths due directly to Covid and those where it had no impact whatsoever, and a lot of grey areas in between



It opens up the ability for Covid sceptics to interpret the date to fit their argument.

The reality is assigning primary cause of death is difficult and thus death rate metrics have to be considered along with other metrics to build a true picture of a pandemic.

In any case, death rates don't consider long term health problems for Covid sufferers.


----------



## RobinBHM

hairy said:


> The pictures show young clubbers mask free and rammed together having a great time


Every single one of them had to have a PCR test.


----------



## RobinBHM

hairy said:


> UK news article today says "Just 15 people among the 58,000 who took part in government run trials for re-opening large events tested positive for Covid" "The trials included the FA Cup final and a semi final at Wembley, the Brit awards at the O2 arena in London and DJ sets at the Circus nightclub in Liverpool


That is rather missing the point I was making and out of context to the post stream

Rorschach made the claim he was only promoting the govts advice of over a year ago.....well back before March 23 pro lockdown 2020, the govt first chose herd immunity and had a lax approach....resulting in the UK having amongst the worst death rates in the world.......hence I said "that didn't age well".


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Well the idea is that it develops antibodies better


Not better than the vaccine.

The evidence proves it.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Not better than the vaccine.
> 
> The evidence proves it.



Wrong.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> u have missed out on the massive survival rates of Covid especially for those under 60. More especially for those under 50.



my niece, an NHS radiographer spent almost all of January this year doing CT scans of Covid patients....people in their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60's etc, She said the patients all had nasty pneumonia spots on their lungs, many were really ill and pretty much all of them that were in acute wards ended up with long term Covid.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Wrong.


Rorschach, did you ever go to school, further education or university? ....if so, I seriously wondered how you got, as you seem totally to have a complete inability to absorb facts, data or evidence.......it must be a real hindrance in your life.

I posted the evidence in post 975

Here is a quote for you:
*"Immune Response From mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Is More Robust Than Natural Infection*"








Immune Response From mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Is More Robust Than Natural Infection


Antibody levels induced by mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are much higher than those induced by natural infection and confer cross-reactivity that could be effective against new variants, a new study from the University of California, Irvine, found.



www.contagionlive.com





And another for you:
*"Vaccines are capable of stimulating a better immune response than the natural infection"*





Immunity and COVID-19: What do we know so far? | British Society for Immunology


A summary of what we do and don't know about immunity to SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19.




www.immunology.org





*Four studies all show superior protection against variants from vaccines*









Dr. Fauci explains why COVID-19 vaccines work much better than natural immunity to protect you from the coronavirus


Fauci points to several new studies which show COVID-19 vaccines boost protection from concerning variants among people who've had prior infections.




www.businessinsider.com


----------



## alanpo68

Rorschach said:


> Wrong.




It isn't wrong, that is why people who have already been infected are still being vaccinated.

Immune Response From mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Is More Robust Than Natural Infection

_ After the second dose of the vaccine, antibody titers were up to 10 times higher than those of patients who had recovered from natural COVID-19 infection, suggesting that even those with prior exposure could benefit from vaccination. _


----------



## alanpo68

RobinBHM said:


> my niece, an NHS radiographer spent almost all of January this year doing CT scans of Covid patients....people in their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60's etc, She said the patients all had nasty pneumonia spots on their lungs, many were really ill and pretty much all of them that were in acute wards ended up with long term Covid.



January would have been people who were infected when Boris decided to take Xmas off from fighting COVID. A disastrous move that led to us going back in to lockdown.

The terrifying part is that without the lockdowns then some of those people who suffered with pneumonia spots would have died because the NHS would have been overwhelmed.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

I see we are still all entrenched in our positions. It could be fun to have a look at the following:









Who had Covid first? - Pearls and Irritations


The Coronavirus might have been spreading quietly in humans for years, or even decades, without causing a detectable outbreak – Dr Francis Collins, Director, The National Institutes of Health. Governments treat epidemics as acts of a capricious God and have done so every ‘flu season for...




johnmenadue.com





This is interesting: rather than China developing/creating/releasing Covid19, they may actually have been one of the very last countries to be infected. It would appear, according to the article, that the USA had its first infections in 2015. China's big mistake was to actually isolate and identify it -because of SARS they are somewhat more motivated to look for new, novel viruses.

The number of infections or deaths may therefore be related to how early the virus arrived in the country, rather than which lockdown policy or double mask theory is followed. I know some people like to blame whichever politician is deemed to be of the wrong shape, color or variety, but maths tends to trump politics, mostly. 

This may also back up the theory: Coronavirus traces found in March 2019 sewage sample, Spanish study shows


----------



## RobinBHM

alanpo68 said:


> January would have been people who were infected when Boris decided to take Xmas off from fighting COVID. A disastrous move that led to us going back in to lockdown.
> 
> The terrifying part is that without the lockdowns then some of those people who suffered with pneumonia spots would have died because the NHS would have been overwhelmed.


Lockdown sceptics always like to use the "only a tiny percentage of people die and they are elderly" argument....which conveniently ignores the overloaded hospitals and the 1 million suffering long Covid. 

It can be nasty for a wide age range - my niece said many of the people she saw were gasping for breath and scared. In mid Jan they were certainly not just the really elderly.

My niece knows colleagues unable to work full time due to Covid damage and she says some of the newly qualified staff have had to take time off due to stress.....so it's frustrating when people trivialise it, with their "no worse than flu" claims.


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> I see we are still all entrenched in our positions. It could be fun to have a look at the following:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who had Covid first? - Pearls and Irritations
> 
> 
> The Coronavirus might have been spreading quietly in humans for years, or even decades, without causing a detectable outbreak – Dr Francis Collins, Director, The National Institutes of Health. Governments treat epidemics as acts of a capricious God and have done so every ‘flu season for...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnmenadue.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is interesting: rather than China developing/creating/releasing Covid19, they may actually have been one of the very last countries to be infected. It would appear, according to the article, that the USA had its first infections in 2015. China's big mistake was to actually isolate and identify it -because of SARS they are somewhat more motivated to look for new, novel viruses.
> 
> The number of infections or deaths may therefore be related to how early the virus arrived in the country, rather than which lockdown policy or double mask theory is followed. I know some people like to blame whichever politician is deemed to be of the wrong shape, color or variety, but maths tends to trump politics, mostly.
> 
> This may also back up the theory: Coronavirus traces found in March 2019 sewage sample, Spanish study shows


So that would be the same Dr Francis who strongly recommends people who've had Covid to still have the vaccine.


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> may


Not


----------



## Jonm

RobinBHM said:


> It opens up the ability for Covid sceptics to interpret the date to fit their argument.
> 
> The reality is assigning primary cause of death is difficult and thus death rate metrics have to be considered along with other metrics to build a true picture of a pandemic.
> 
> In any case, death rates don't consider long term health problems for Covid sufferers.


I looked at the ONS website




__





Coronavirus (COVID-19) latest insights - Office for National Statistics


A roundup of the latest data and trends about the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic from the ONS and other sources



www.ons.gov.uk





it contains this graph






The main thing this shows is the number of excess deaths when compared to the average of the previous 5 years, 2015 to 2019 inclusive.

It also indicates that in the first wave there was under reporting of Covid deaths and various reasons have been given, including the shortage of Covid testing capacity. In the second wave it looks like over reporting of Covid deaths to me, possibly due to people having a positive covid result but it not actually contributing to a death. But this is a simplistic view, I suspect the reality is far more complicated. 
Main point is as I stated above, there were a lot of excess deaths, April last year the weekly death rate doubled.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

RobinBHM said:


> So that would be the same Dr Francis who strongly recommends people who've had Covid to still have the vaccine.


I'm sorry, but now you've got me confused. You said half a dozen posts earlier that the vaccine gives better protection than actually having the disease. If this is the case, then surely having the vaccine even if you have had the virus is as good thing. Boris did it, so it must be sensible! 

Is your somewhat snide response a suggestion that _Dr_ Francis is wrong? Or completely correct, which means everything he says is gospel? 

To quote Tom Hanks in "Big": "I don't get it".


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Not better than the vaccine.
> 
> The evidence proves it.



The vast majority of people don't get the virus.

Of those who do the vast majority of people don't notice

Of those who notice the vast majority don't get very ill

Of those who get ill the majority don't go to hospital

Of those who go to hospital the majority survive

Of those who survive the majority don't get long covid

The majority of of those who die are very old, largely with other morbidities.

These are the statistics. Look at the "cases" vs "deaths"


----------



## Selwyn

alanpo68 said:


> January would have been people who were infected when Boris decided to take Xmas off from fighting COVID. A disastrous move that led to us going back in to lockdown.
> 
> The terrifying part is that without the lockdowns then some of those people who suffered with pneumonia spots would have died because the NHS would have been overwhelmed.



Or alternatively a virus that is now in the country and within the country is doing its rounds seasonally. You tell me where it the virus was last summer?


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Lockdown sceptics always like to use the "only a tiny percentage of people die and they are elderly" argument....which conveniently ignores the overloaded hospitals and the 1 million suffering long Covid.
> 
> It can be nasty for a wide age range - my niece said many of the people she saw were gasping for breath and scared. In mid Jan they were certainly not just the really elderly.
> 
> My niece knows colleagues unable to work full time due to Covid damage and she says some of the newly qualified staff have had to take time off due to stress.....so it's frustrating when people trivialise it, with their "no worse than flu" claims.



I think your are exaggerating the numbers suffering from long covid massively. It is not unusual for people to suffer from post viral syndrome.

Its also a convenient tool to justify a never ending lockdown. Tim Spector's analysis was that 10% of sufferers (not cases- sufferers) had symptomns for a month and one or two percent for 3 months. 

I actually felt rubbish for 9 days after my jab! Do we count that?

Stop the fearmongering


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> I think your are exaggerating the numbers suffering from long covid massively. It is not unusual for people to suffer from post viral syndrome.
> 
> Its also a convenient tool to justify a never ending lockdown. Tim Spector's analysis was that 10% of sufferers (not cases- sufferers) had symptomns for a month and one or two percent for 3 months.
> 
> I actually felt rubbish for 9 days after my jab! Do we count that?
> 
> Stop the fearmongering



Selwyn, please contact your local NHS trust immediately and tell them they are wasting their time and merely fearmongering. 

From the Standard, April 14th 2021:

"The NHS will set up a long Covid clinic in every area of England to treat the thousands of people suffering from the condition.
NHS Chief Executive Sir Simon Stevens said that people suffering from long-term after-effects after battling Covid-19 need a “clear front door” for treatment.
The NHS has already opened 63 long Covid clinics to try and offer help to people who have suffered for months after their infection.

There will be 83 clinics open by the end of the month."









NHS to set up long Covid clinic in every area of England


The NHS will set up a long Covid clinic in every area of England to treat the thousands of people suffering from the condition.




www.standard.co.uk


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Selwyn, please contact your local NHS trust immediately and tell them they are wasting their time and merely fearmongering.
> 
> From the Standard, April 14th 2021:
> 
> "The NHS will set up a long Covid clinic in every area of England to treat the thousands of people suffering from the condition.
> NHS Chief Executive Sir Simon Stevens said that people suffering from long-term after-effects after battling Covid-19 need a “clear front door” for treatment.
> The NHS has already opened 63 long Covid clinics to try and offer help to people who have suffered for months after their infection.
> 
> There will be 83 clinics open by the end of the month."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NHS to set up long Covid clinic in every area of England
> 
> 
> The NHS will set up a long Covid clinic in every area of England to treat the thousands of people suffering from the condition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.standard.co.uk



Well they've got 4.7 million people on the waiting list for other procedures. Post viral syndrome isn't unique to covid

And yes without a doubt the NHS have definitely been fearmongering over Covid. As are you. Do you realise virtually no one is dying of covid in the UK at the moment?


----------



## alanpo68

Selwyn said:


> I think your are exaggerating the numbers suffering from long covid massively. It is not unusual for people to suffer from post viral syndrome.
> 
> Its also a convenient tool to justify a never ending lockdown. Tim Spector's analysis was that 10% of sufferers (not cases- sufferers) had symptomns for a month and one or two percent for 3 months.
> 
> I actually felt rubbish for 9 days after my jab! Do we count that?
> 
> Stop the fearmongering



https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases


Over the four-week period ending 6 March 2021, an estimated 1.1 million people in private households in the UK reported experiencing long COVID (symptoms persisting more than four weeks after the first suspected coronavirus (COVID-19) episode that are not explained by something else).


----------



## alanpo68

Selwyn said:


> Well they've got 4.7 million people on the waiting list for other procedures. Post viral syndrome isn't unique to covid
> 
> And yes without a doubt the NHS have definitely been fearmongering over Covid. As are you. Do you realise virtually no one is dying of covid in the UK at the moment?




It is almost as if things like lockdowns, social distancing and above all vaccinations have worked isn't it.


----------



## alanpo68

Selwyn said:


> The vast majority of people don't get the virus.
> 
> Of those who do the vast majority of people don't notice
> 
> Of those who notice the vast majority don't get very ill
> 
> Of those who get ill the majority don't go to hospital
> 
> Of those who go to hospital the majority survive
> 
> Of those who survive the majority don't get long covid
> 
> The majority of of those who die are very old, largely with other morbidities.
> 
> These are the statistics. Look at the "cases" vs "deaths"



Amazing how you believe all of that but still had the vaccine. Do as I say not as I do.


----------



## Rorschach

alanpo68 said:


> It is almost as if things like lockdowns, social distancing and above all vaccinations have worked isn't it.



Except that regardless of NPI's the viral curve is unaffected.


----------



## Rorschach

alanpo68 said:


> https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
> 
> 
> Over the four-week period ending 6 March 2021, an estimated 1.1 million people in private households in the UK reported experiencing long COVID (symptoms persisting more than four weeks after the first suspected coronavirus (COVID-19) episode that are not explained by something else).



But what are the symptoms? If 1.1 million people are suffering from a bit of fatigue or a loss of taste, is that really a big issue? 
I suffered some kind of illness last year and had persistent symptoms for over 3 months but the symptoms were mild, didn't really affect my day to day activity, should I be making a fuss about that?


----------



## alanpo68

Rorschach said:


> Except that regardless of NPI's the viral curve is unaffected.




The problem with that argument is that NPI's have practically eradicated the Flu season so must have had an effect on the transmission of COVID.


----------



## alanpo68

Rorschach said:


> But what are the symptoms? If 1.1 million people are suffering from a bit of fatigue or a loss of taste, is that really a big issue?
> I suffered some kind of illness last year and had persistent symptoms for over 3 months but the symptoms were mild, didn't really affect my day to day activity, should I be making a fuss about that?



The issue is that Long COVID is impacting huge numbers of people. 





__





Prevalence of ongoing symptoms following coronavirus (COVID-19) infection in the UK - Office for National Statistics


Estimates of the prevalence of self-reported “long COVID” and the duration of ongoing symptoms following confirmed coronavirus infection, using UK Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey data.



www.ons.gov.uk





Self-reported long COVID symptoms were adversely affecting the day-to-day activities of 674,000 people in private households in the UK, with 196,000 of these individuals reporting that their ability to undertake their day-to-day activities had been limited a lot.


Those are truly horrific numbers. When you consider that less than 10% of the population have so far contracted COVID then the fact that 320,000 have either died or have had their health severely impacted.


----------



## selectortone

If ever there was a demonstration of the effectiveness of NPIs, it's the almost non-existence of influenza this winter.


----------



## Jonm

Selwyn said:


> Or alternatively a virus that is now in the country and within the country is doing its rounds seasonally. You tell me where it the virus was last summer?



How do you explain South Africa, first wave winter, second wave summer


----------



## Rorschach

alanpo68 said:


> The problem with that argument is that NPI's have practically eradicated the Flu season so must have had an effect on the transmission of COVID.



Except all those who would have died from flu likely died of Covid instead, we also had a lot more flu vaccination including those who would not normally get vaccinated.


----------



## Selwyn

alanpo68 said:


> Amazing how you believe all of that but still had the vaccine. Do as I say not as I do.



Not at all.

I believe the vaccine is effective against covid. I also think its important for the most vulnerable to have a vaccine. I only had one because although I think its wrong I think vaccine regulation is going to come in.

I'm not anti vac but I don't think we need to vaccinate everyone under 40. We know they are scarcely at risk. Over 70's give the most bang for the buck and then we should have opened up and cracked on very fast


----------



## Selwyn

selectortone said:


> If ever there was a demonstration of the effectiveness of NPIs, it's the almost non-existence of influenza this winter.



Did they PCR test everyone for influenza?

You seriously think shutting down some sectors of the economy but keeping supermarkets open has eliminated flu? Its just not realistic


----------



## alanpo68

Rorschach said:


> Except all those who would have died from flu likely died of Covid instead, we also had a lot more flu vaccination including those who would not normally get vaccinated.



I am not talking about deaths from Flu. I am talking about the number of people who have contracted flu. There were far fewer occurrences of flu because we eliminated the conditions that help it spread. Things like poor hand hygiene, people being in close contact and preventative interventions such as masks have prevented flu from being spread. 

That has helped stop the spread of COVID. Why do you think we have isolation wards for infectious diseases ?


----------



## selectortone

Selwyn said:


> Did they PCR test everyone for influenza?
> 
> You seriously think shutting down some sectors of the economy but keeping supermarkets open has eliminated flu? Its just not realistic


So, to what do you attribute the virtual non-existent of flu this winter?


----------



## alanpo68

Selwyn said:


> Did they PCR test everyone for influenza?
> 
> You seriously think shutting down some sectors of the economy but keeping supermarkets open has eliminated flu? Its just not realistic



They didn't just keep supermarkets open though. They enforced social distancing, hand sanitisation and people wore masks. That is what stopped the spread of flu.


----------



## Jonm

Selwyn said:


> Or alternatively a virus that is now in the country and within the country is doing its rounds seasonally. You tell me where it the virus was last summer?


Brazil has not had a lockdown, Daily cases do not look very “Seasonal”


----------



## Selwyn

alanpo68 said:


> They didn't just keep supermarkets open though. They enforced social distancing, hand sanitisation and people wore masks. That is what stopped the spread of flu.



You seem very certain about that. All these masks, social distancing and hand sanitisation didn't stop the spread of covid between sept - march did it? Or is it that we were "doing it properly" for flu but not for covid?


----------



## Selwyn

selectortone said:


> So, to what do you attribute the virtual non-existent of flu this winter?



I think lack of some large gatherings will have helped. As will people not working in offices all day every day. I've said before I've no real issue with a bit of voluntary "social distancing" ke the swedes and americans have done but shutting down pubs and resturants, peoples shops, schools, colleges etc was just way over the top. As is silly masks because they are not applied in a clinical fashion at all. Its a compliance signal rather than having any affect.

But I think the biggest thing is that covid will have displaced flu as one of the causes of death on a death certificate is because as John Lee explains when you die in old age you die of a multitude of factors and influenza is one of many put on a death certificate as is pneumonia. They won't be pcr tested in the way covid is. Many deaths previously may not even have been influenza - a lot of if it just old age = poor immune systems


----------



## sometimewoodworker

alanpo68 said:


> Those are truly horrific numbers. When you consider that less than 10% of the population have so far contracted COVID then the fact that 320,000 have either died or have had their health severely impacted.


Do please get your numbers accurate the infections are in the region of 30%+ of population having been infected.

That doesn’t invalidate the numbers of people who have be effected by the virus, though the numbers are probably higher than you list.


----------



## alanpo68

sometimewoodworker said:


> Do please get your numbers accurate the infections are in the region of 30%+ of population having been infected.
> 
> That doesn’t invalidate the numbers of people who have be effected by the virus, though the numbers are probably higher than you list.


John Hopkins University has the UK at 4.46m cases of Coronavirus and we have a population of 68m people.


----------



## alanpo68

Selwyn said:


> You seem very certain about that. All these masks, social distancing and hand sanitisation didn't stop the spread of covid between sept - march did it? Or is it that we were "doing it properly" for flu but not for covid?



Of course masks, social distancing and hand sanitisation stopped the spread of COVID otherwise it would have spread exponentially. 

If you were having an invasive clinical procedure would you be happy for a load of people who hadn't sanitised their hands and were not wearing masks to crowd around you.


----------



## sometimewoodworker

alanpo68 said:


> John Hopkins University has the UK at 4.46m cases of Coronavirus and we have a population of 68m people.


And it is well established that the recorded numbers are not remotely accurate and the real are significantly higher than official numbers. There are substantial numbers of people who have had symptomless infection who are not in the record.
The best estimates of unrecorded infections worldwide run from 2 to 3 times to well over 10 times reported figures.
Also asymptomatic infection is one of the sources of long Covid


----------



## Rorschach

alanpo68 said:


> Of course masks, social distancing and hand sanitisation stopped the spread of COVID otherwise it would have spread exponentially.



Wrong.


----------



## Chris152

PHE research on single jab/ infections in relation to the variant found in India just released:
'...both vaccines were only 33% effective against the Indian variant three weeks after the first dose.
This compared with 50% effectiveness against the Kent variant.'
50%? That's not the figure we've been reading til now.
After two jabs, they found:
'The Pfizer vaccine was found to be 88% effective at stopping symptomatic disease from the Indian variant two weeks after the second dose, compared with 93% effectiveness against the Kent variant.
The AstraZeneca jab was 60% effective against the Indian variant, compared with 66% against the Kent variant.'
So Pfizer seem to be doing far better on that.
Hopefully both are successful at stopping severe illness.








Covid: Pfizer and AstraZeneca jabs work against Indian variant - study


They are effective against symptomatic disease but protection is low after only one dose, a study says.



www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## sometimewoodworker

Chris152 said:


> PHE research on single jab infections in relation to the variant found in India just released:
> '...both vaccines were only 33% effective against the Indian variant three weeks after the first dose.
> This compared with 50% effectiveness against the Kent variant.'
> 50%? That's not the figure we've been reading til now.
> After two jabs, they found:
> 'The Pfizer vaccine was found to be 88% effective at stopping symptomatic disease from the Indian variant two weeks after the second dose, compared with 93% effectiveness against the Kent variant.
> The AstraZeneca jab was 60% effective against the Indian variant, compared with 66% against the Kent variant.'
> So Pfizer seem to be doing far better on that.
> Hopefully both are successful at stopping severe illness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Covid: Pfizer and AstraZeneca jabs work against Indian variant - study
> 
> 
> They are effective against symptomatic disease but protection is low after only one dose, a study says.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.co.uk


You are confusing things by quoting some data from 3 weeks after the first vaccination (it is well established that this period and timing don’t provide much protection) with 2 weeks after the second vaccination (a period when protection is still ramping up)

If you want to demonstrate reasonably accurate information the take a period that has a good data point after the second vaccination when the protection is not rapidly increasing this is accepted to be 21 day. Then make a comparison of effectiveness.
AFIK at that point there is little difference in protection against hospitalisation and severe disease between most vaccines.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Except that regardless of NPI's the viral curve is unaffected.


In your opinion, which is wrong.

Stop stating opinions as fact, it is dishonest.


----------



## Chris152

sometimewoodworker said:


> You are confusing things by quoting some data from 3 weeks after the first vaccination (it is well established that this period and timing don’t provide much protection) with 2 weeks after the second vaccination (a period when protection is still ramping up)
> 
> If you want to demonstrate reasonably accurate information the take a period that has a good data point after the second vaccination when the protection is not rapidly increasing this is accepted to be 21 day. Then make a comparison of effectiveness.
> AFIK at that point there is little difference in protection against hospitalisation and severe disease between most vaccines.


I'm not sure I'm confusing anything, am I?! That's how the PHE research is presented. As far as I can tell (quick search of the internet), first and second doses take different periods of time to become effective - about 3 weeks for the first dose, 2 weeks for the second? Tho that seems to vary according to the type of vaccine.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> But what are the symptoms? If 1.1 million people are suffering from a bit of fatigue or a loss of taste, is that really a big issue?
> I suffered some kind of illness last year and had persistent symptoms for over 3 months but the symptoms were mild, didn't really affect my day to day activity, should I be making a fuss about that?



1.1 million people are not just suffering "a bit of fatigue" 
Quote from the British Heart Foundation:

Just for you Rorschach, I've made the relavent bit nice and big, I am trying to help with your total inability to absorb facts.


"1.1 million people in the UK were reporting long Covid symptoms in the four weeks to 6 March 2021. These were defined as symptoms that had lasted more than four weeks from initial infection, though for more than two thirds of these people the symptoms had lasted more than 12 weeks. *A fifth said their symptoms limited their daily activities a lot"*


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Post viral syndrome isn't unique to covid


Dishonest debating.....classic strawman.
Nobody was saying it s unique to Covid.

What we are saying is long Covid is serious and many people are suffering.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Do you realise virtually no one is dying of covid in the UK at the moment?


I never said they were.

Plenty of people suffering long Covid though.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> And yes without a doubt the NHS have definitely been fearmongering over Covid


In your opinion.....which is wrong  

Oh perhaps you are right, it's so bad, the NHS are opening 80 long Covid clinics - just for fearmongering

"More than 80 new clinics to assess patients suffering with symptoms of long Covid are to be opened by the NHS by the end of this month"

It's terrible the way 850 healthcare workers have died from Covid, just for fearmongering


My niece has a colleague suffering heart problems from Covid and can't workmfull time now......maybe that's all lies and it's just fearmongering.


----------



## Jonm

Selwyn said:


> Masks don't work because on a practical level they just don't. Frequently dirty, reused, not fitting, round chins etc. They do nothing on a practical level .....


There are two different reasons for mask wearing
1. to reduce the risk of the wearer catching Covid, as in a clinical setting.
2. To reduce the risk of the wearer passing on the virus to others. This is the purpose of the requirement to wear masks worn by the general public when indoors in shops etc.

I think you are deliberately muddling the two. With regard to the general public, a mask being dirty or re-used has no effect on its ability to reduce the risk of onward transmission. Not fitting could affect its ability to prevent onward transmission, worn around the chin it is useless.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> In your opinion, which is wrong.
> 
> Stop stating opinions as fact, it is dishonest.



Like you you mean? I back up my facts with evidence as do you, the problem is we both have different evidence


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> In your opinion.....which is wrong
> 
> Oh perhaps you are right, it's so bad, the NHS are opening 80 long Covid clinics - just for fearmongering
> 
> "More than 80 new clinics to assess patients suffering with symptoms of long Covid are to be opened by the NHS by the end of this month"
> 
> It's terrible the way 850 healthcare workers have died from Covid, just for fearmongering
> 
> 
> My niece has a colleague suffering heart problems from Covid and can't workmfull time now......maybe that's all lies and it's just fearmongering.



"My Niece" Anecdotes aren't evidence, wicker man!


----------



## Rorschach

Jonm said:


> There are two different reasons for mask wearing
> 1. to reduce the risk of the wearer catching Covid, as in a clinical setting.
> 2. To reduce the risk of the wearer passing on the virus to others. This is the purpose of the requirement to wear masks worn by the general public when indoors in shops etc.
> 
> I think you are deliberately muddling the two. With regard to the general public, a mask being dirty or re-used has no effect on its ability to reduce the risk of onward transmission. Not fitting could affect its ability to prevent onward transmission, worn around the chin it is useless.



Problem is, neither 1 or 2 works unless you use a proper grade of mask, for an aerosolised virus you need a full hazmat suit with air scrubber to actually do anything useful.


----------



## sometimewoodworker

Chris152 said:


> I'm not sure I'm confusing anything, am I?! That's how the PHE research is presented. As far as I can tell (quick search of the internet), first and second doses take different periods of time to become effective - about 3 weeks for the first dose, 2 weeks for the second? Tho that seems to vary according to the type of vaccine.


It may be your sources are also confused if not you.

The first question is what do you understand effective to mean? This is not an argumentative question as there are many possible answers.

the first vaccinations provide some protection measurable about 12 days after vaccination. So you can compare vaccinations with a first dose some number of days, preferably over 21, after vaccination to a different vaccine the same number of days after it’s first dose has been given.
However since the protection increases reasonably quickly for several weeks (AZ is around 12) that is the only sensible comparison with 2 dose (almost all) vaccines.
You can compare protection after the second dose (again 21days or more) between different vaccines.
Both of these comparisons will give sensible results.

However any comparison between 1st dose protection of 1 companies vaccines and 2nd dose protection of another’s will not be useful and impossible to draw logical conclusions from that data.

protection is a sliding scale 12 days after the first dose you have virtually no more protection than before getting vaccinated. 91 days after (with AZ) your protection is very much better, get your second dose and your protection will continue to improve.

There is no study I have heard of that says at what point your protection plateaus. Current protection is at 8 months because that’s the maximum time people have been vaccinated for. Protection is going up by 1 month every month at the moment.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Problem is, neither 1 or 2 works unless you use a proper grade of mask, for an aerosolised virus you need a full hazmat suit with air scrubber to actually do anything useful.


That's your opinion, Please don't state it as fact unless you can back it up with evidence

Here's evidence which proves you are wrong. I have posted it previously, but you are incapable of accepting evidence 








Effectiveness of Mask Wearing to Control Community Spread of SARS-CoV-2


This JAMA Insights CDC review summarizes accumulating evidence that mask wearing reduces spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection and that universal mandatory mask wearing policies reduce infections and deaths and emphasizes face masks are one component of pandemic control measures, including physical...




jamanetwork.com


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> That's your opinion, which is wrong.
> 
> Here's evidence which proves you are wrong. I have posted it previously, but you are incapable of accepting evidence



As I said, I don't accept your evidence, just like you don't accept mine


----------



## TominDales

Terry - Somerset said:


> How about a change of covid topic.
> 
> The government has had a lot of criticism for its reluctance to put India on the "red list". It is being touted as the reason why "Step 4" return to normality may not happen as planned.
> 
> The link below is to a report in the Guardian 5 days ago showing that 21 countries have sequenced the Indian variants including 486 in the US and 85 in Australia (held in high regard for effective border control) , 156 in Singapore and 29 in Japan.
> 
> Guardian - India variant
> 
> Whilst the Guardian often demonstrates a clear political bias, it tends to be fairly reliable in its factual content.
> 
> Questions
> 
> do these figures demonstrate that trying to control borders is ultimately futile
> is criticism of the government justified or simple political point scoring
> UK has the highest number of cases outside India. Is this simply the result UK capacity enabling more cases to be sequenced.


I think controlling borders can only slow the spread on new variants, unless we adopt a china or New Zealand style border & TTI regime it will in the end get in. Australia and New Zealand will probably stamp out the Indian variant as they have with all the others, in Europe I think the best we can hope for is to slow it down and keep R low.

Slowing the spread is extremely valuable as it allows time to asses how dangerous the new variants will be. We have data demonstrating that the vaccine is effective against the Indian variant and so can relax a bit. But that wont always be the case.
In my view, we should be quick to close borders to new variants to buy time; time is vital early on, it is needed to asses how dangerous the variants are, and give us valuable time for mount a proper response. If a variant escapes vaccines and proves to be deadly and transmissible we will have to react quickly or we there have a repeat of last years lockdown and casualties. 
New variant vaccines can be produced quite quickly, - same manufacturing plant as existing covid vaccine, just tweaked to produce a different protein, so there is a good rational to slow down the spread of new variants.


----------



## Chris152

sometimewoodworker said:


> It may be your sources are also confused if not you.
> 
> The first question is what do you understand effective to mean? This is not an argumentative question as there are many possible answers.
> 
> the first vaccinations provide some protection measurable about 12 days after vaccination. So you can compare vaccinations with a first dose some number of days, preferably over 21, after vaccination to a different vaccine the same number of days after it’s first dose has been given.
> However since the protection increases reasonably quickly for several weeks (AZ is around 12) that is the only sensible comparison with 2 dose (almost all) vaccines.
> You can compare protection after the second dose (again 21days or more) between different vaccines.
> Both of these comparisons will give sensible results.
> 
> However any comparison between 1st dose protection of 1 companies vaccines and 2nd dose protection of another’s will not be useful and impossible to draw logical conclusions from that data.
> 
> protection is a sliding scale 12 days after the first dose you have virtually no more protection than before getting vaccinated. 91 days after (with AZ) your protection is very much better, get your second dose and your protection will continue to improve.
> 
> There is no study I have heard of that says at what point your protection plateaus. Current protection is at 8 months because that’s the maximum time people have been vaccinated for. Protection is going up by 1 month every month at the moment.


I cited the source, it's here:








Covid: Pfizer and AstraZeneca jabs work against Indian variant - study


They are effective against symptomatic disease but protection is low after only one dose, a study says.



www.bbc.co.uk




If you see confusion (I don't, you seem to want to take issue with the method described, but that's not confusion) maybe BBC or PHE have made an error.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> "My Niece" Anecdotes aren't evidence, wicker man!


Perhaps you didn't read the whole of my post, as it also included quotes and links, ie evidence.

I am happy to post again if it helps


----------



## TominDales

gregmcateer said:


> Genuine question, not attempt to argue with either side:
> do we NEED the virus to circulate amongst the young? Doesn't vaccination achieve immunity for them as, or more effectively, but without X (insert percentage here), getting ill, or have I missed the point?


This is being debated, its quite a nuanced subject. Unlike flue the young (ie bellow age 11 or so) don't get dangerously ill with the Kent variant, and there is a risk of side effects from the vaccine, so the equation is not so in favour of vaccination. However the young could become a reservoir for continued spread of covid and hence potential new and more deadly variants. The other issue, is some variants, the Indian one included, seem to be more dangerous to the young. 
The other factor is whilst vaccines are in short supply, it may be both more effective and more ethical to ship vaccines to developing countries ahead of vaccinating our own children. Note, though, many developing countries don't have covid outbreaks, but those that do are probably a priority for the vaccine. I think we need to wait a bit this debate to settle. As with most things to do with Covid, the circumstance could change quite radically if a new variant emerged, so the policy may have to flex to cope with new information. 
Right now I'd be in favour of prioritising India and south America with vaccines ahead of our own children, to get the global R rate down, but that view would change if a variant emerged that was dangerous to children.


----------



## RobinBHM

TominDales said:


> I think controlling borders can only slow the spread on new variants, unless we adopt a china or New Zealand style border & TTI regime it will in the end get in. Australia and New Zealand will probably stamp out the Indian variant as they have with all the others, in Europe I think the best we can hope for is to slow it down and keep R low.
> 
> Slowing the spread is extremely valuable as it allows time to asses how dangerous the new variants will be. We have data demonstrating that the vaccine is effective against the Indian variant and so can relax a bit. But that wont always be the case.
> In my view, we should be quick to close borders to new variants to buy time; time is vital early on, it is needed to asses how dangerous the variants are, and give us valuable time for mount a proper response. If a variant escapes vaccines and proves to be deadly and transmissible we will have to react quickly or we there have a repeat of last years lockdown and casualties.
> New variant vaccines can be produced quite quickly, - same manufacturing plant as existing covid vaccine, just tweaked to produce a different protein, so there is a good rational to slow down the spread of new variants.



It would be interesting to see more data on this. 

It certainly seems logical that closing borders can slow the rate new variants arrive. However my guess is that by the time variants are sequenced and known about, the variant will already have escaped the source country.

The Kent variant was the dominant strain in UK from Dec, but it didn't become the dominant strain in France till much later - I wonder how much closing borders would have slowed that more. I've no idea.


----------



## RobinBHM

TominDales said:


> This is being debated, its quite a nuanced subject. Unlike flue the young (ie bellow age 11 or so) don't get dangerously ill with the Kent variant, and there is a risk of side effects from the vaccine, so the equation is not so in favour of vaccination. However the young could become a reservoir for continued spread of covid and hence potential new and more deadly variants. The other issue, is some variants, the Indian one included, seem to be more dangerous to the young.
> The other factor is whilst vaccines are in short supply, it may be both more effective and more ethical to ship vaccines to developing countries ahead of vaccinating our own children. Note, though, many developing countries don't have covid outbreaks, but those that do are probably a priority for the vaccine. I think we need to wait a bit this debate to settle. As with most things to do with Covid, the circumstance could change quite radically if a new variant emerged, so the policy may have to flex to cope with new information.
> Right now I'd be in favour of prioritising India and south America with vaccines ahead of our own children, to get the global R rate down, but that view would change if a variant emerged that was dangerous to children.


Thats very interesting.

Europe is now getting on with vaccine roll out and it seems likely most of the big EU countries will have vaccinated most adults by July....and EU has potential for high levels of vaccine manufacture - so we may see vaccines being distributed to these risk countries such as India towards the summer


----------



## TominDales

Rorschach said:


> Actually natural infection is more effective than vaccination for immunity.


That as a generalisation is not true, certainly not supported by the data we have for Covid.

My understanding is the vaccine for covid has a massive concentration of spike protein and induces a very effective and long lived responses, far higher than even severe disease in patents monitored so far, post mortem of victims to covid show low accumulation of memory B cells in lymph notes.

Note the AZ and Pfizer vaccines are very concentrated whereas Sinovac is not is more old school and weaker so may not provide such long lasting protection. To my knowledge, the latest mRNA (Pfizer) and viral vector (AZ) vaccines are more effective than the disease. Its true that some of the early vaccines notably Polio were developed to prevent polio not to prevent infection and the latest understanding about measles vaccination is the vaccine prevent infection for several years, but then is suspected to prevent disease later on. This is emerging science and there is no simple rules. Modern vaccines eg HPV for Papillomavirus is highly effective and far more effective at preventing cancer than natural infection.
The argument for natural infection is the patient develops immune response to more than one protein. However for Covid, where the spike protein is key to infection that is the obvious protein to target. It almost certainly why the variants have not escaped the vaccine so far.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

The working assumption must be that virus mutations will arrive here - to assume otherwise would be complacent. It would run counter to the evidence from Australia and NZ where, despite border controls and quarantine, the Indian variant has arrived.

The real challenge is the much maligned (with some justification) track and trace system. It should be workable with (say) less than a few thousand cases a day. But at the peak in January, 60,000 cases a day were being identified from a lower level of tests than currently. 

For any system, to flex capacity by a factor of 20-30 over the space of only a few weeks is an unreasonable expectation (in my view). The key must be in maintaining cases at sufficiently low a level that new variants are quickly identified, and appropriate action taken.

Finally, if we accept that variants will arrive on our shores irrespective of how robustly border controls are applied, why control the borders anyway. If the variant is materially resistant to the vaccine we have a problem anyway. If the vaccine is effective - why worry.

Like alway running into the cinema shouting "fire" - eventually no-one will take a blind bit of notice having heard the cry so many times before!


----------



## Selwyn

alanpo68 said:


> I am not talking about deaths from Flu. I am talking about the number of people who have contracted flu. There were far fewer occurrences of flu because we eliminated the conditions that help it spread. Things like poor hand hygiene, people being in close contact and preventative interventions such as masks have prevented flu from being spread.
> 
> That has helped stop the spread of COVID. Why do you think we have isolation wards for infectious diseases ?



That funny because there are an awful lot of nosocomial covid cases. It was a massive driver in the number of cases


----------



## alanpo68

Rorschach said:


> As I said, I don't accept your evidence, just like you don't accept mine


You don't provide any though. A one word answer 'wrong' isn't evidence.


----------



## Selwyn

TominDales said:


> That as a generalisation is not true, certainly not supported by the data we have for Covid.
> 
> The argument for natural infection is the patient develops immune response to more than one protein. However for Covid, where the spike protein is key to infection that is the obvious protein to target. It almost certainly why the variants have not escaped the vaccine so far.



What about the people who have been asymptomatic or even mild ill ie the majority of covid "cases"? Their own immune system has statistically appeared to serve them very well


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Dishonest debating.....classic strawman.
> Nobody was saying it s unique to Covid.
> 
> What we are saying is long Covid is serious and many people are suffering.



Lockdown is also serious and many people are suffering.


----------



## alanpo68

Selwyn said:


> That funny because there are an awful lot of nosocomial covid cases. It was a massive driver in the number of cases


That was because of the horrific lack of PPE. Medical professionals having to reuse masks and using makeshift gowns.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> In your opinion.....which is wrong
> 
> Oh perhaps you are right, it's so bad, the NHS are opening 80 long Covid clinics - just for fearmongering
> 
> "More than 80 new clinics to assess patients suffering with symptoms of long Covid are to be opened by the NHS by the end of this month"
> 
> It's terrible the way 850 healthcare workers have died from Covid, just for fearmongering
> 
> 
> My niece has a colleague suffering heart problems from Covid and can't workmfull time now......maybe that's all lies and it's just fearmongering.



How many people do you know - exactly you know yourself who have died from covid who weren't pretty old and infirm?


----------



## Selwyn

alanpo68 said:


> That was because of the horrific lack of PPE. Medical professionals having to reuse masks and using makeshift gowns.



There was a lack of PPE in the beginning. A lot was being hoarded too. It was a tricky situation for sure. There is no doubt covid was all over the country last march and most probably before xmas too. 

But don't kid yourself nosocomial infection was just in March last year. If you think the future is so terrifying then tell me why the nightingales have all been disbanded?


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Thats very interesting.
> 
> Europe is now getting on with vaccine roll out and it seems likely most of the big EU countries will have vaccinated most adults by July....and EU has potential for high levels of vaccine manufacture - so we may see vaccines being distributed to these risk countries such as India towards the summer



Are you finally acknowedging risk for the young is massively less than for the old? If you think covid is still the great threat you claim then I'm stunned that you are not advocating injecting everyone from birth to death


----------



## alanpo68

Selwyn said:


> There was a lack of PPE in the beginning. A lot was being hoarded too. It was a tricky situation for sure.
> 
> But don't kid yourself nosocomial infection was just in March last year. If you think the future is so terrifying then tell me why the nightingales have all been disbanded?



The Nightingales have been disbanded because the lockdowns and vaccines have worked. Look at places like India where they haven't been able to control the spread of the virus.


----------



## alanpo68

Selwyn said:


> Are you finally acknowedging risk for the young is massively less than for the old? If you think covid is still the great threat you claim then I'm stunned that you are not advocating injecting everyone from birth to death


COVID has killed 3.5 m people worldwide of course it is a great threat.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Are you finally acknowedging risk for the young is massively less than for the old? If you think covid is still the great threat you claim then I'm stunned that you are not advocating injecting everyone from birth to death


Childish strawman and ad hominem awfully tedious

You can't debate honestly because you are debating from a position that is wrong.

You are welcome to continue believing your own hogwash, but I do wish you would stop subjecting us to it.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Lockdown is also serious and many people are suffering.


Whataboutery.


----------



## D_W

RobinBHM said:


> Whataboutery.



pot, meet kettle.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> How many people do you know - exactly you know yourself who have died from covid who weren't pretty old and infirm?


Whataboutery.

The NHS are opening loads of long Covid clinics.

Why are you avoiding commenting on that?


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> pot, meet kettle.


Untrue.

I have responded directly to each of Selwyn points.

Zero whataboutery.

Selwyn however can't debate honestly because he is arguing from a position that is demonstrably untrue.


----------



## Rorschach

alanpo68 said:


> You don't provide any though. A one word answer 'wrong' isn't evidence.



I tried in the past, he ignores it.


----------



## Rorschach

Selwyn said:


> How many people do you know - exactly you know yourself who have died from covid who weren't pretty old and infirm?



I know one person who possibly died with covid in Feb 2020, they were in their mid 90's and riddled with dementia, their death was a blessing really. Otherwise no one I know, or anyone I know knows has died.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Untrue.
> 
> I have responded directly to each of Selwyn points.
> 
> Zero whataboutery.
> 
> Selwyn however can't debate honestly because he is arguing from a position that is demonstrably untrue.



Wicker man, ad homonym!


----------



## John Brown

Rorschach said:


> Wicker man, ad homonym!


What, exactly, do either of those terms mean?


----------



## TominDales

Selwyn said:


> What about the people who have been asymptomatic or even mild ill ie the majority of covid "cases"? Their own immune system has statistically appeared to serve them very well


That is perfectly true, but its a risky strategy as those whose immune system does not respond to covid are at risk of getting a nasty disease. The older and the more vulnerable would be far safer getting a vaccine. For children ie below age 11 the data seems to suggest they are fine without the vaccine, very few get complications. For teenage the data is a mixed. I know of older teenagers who have been seriously ill. 

There is a risk that those who were asymptomatic or mildly ill with covid first time round, may not be immune to the Indian and other new variants, some of which are implicated with higher mortality and serious illiness in the young. Data on this is only just emerging in India so we really dont know, but its something to watch as that would change the risk profile.


----------



## Selwyn

alanpo68 said:


> The Nightingales have been disbanded because the lockdowns and vaccines have worked. Look at places like India where they haven't been able to control the spread of the virus.



The vaccines have worked. The lockdown wasn't necessary. Particularly 12 months plus of in/out lockdown

India. I don't think any countries have particularly managed to control the spread of the virus once its endemic.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Childish strawman and ad hominem awfully tedious
> 
> You can't debate honestly because you are debating from a position that is wrong.
> 
> You are welcome to continue believing your own hogwash, but I do wish you would stop subjecting us to it.



What is childish about it? 

Do you finally accept that the risk for under 25's is minute and incrementally it the risk is higher as you age. The risk of dying for a 80 year old is many times higher than an under 50. And even if you are 80 the risk is way less than 1 in 100. Statistics and data counts!


----------



## TominDales

Terry - Somerset said:


> Finally, if we accept that variants will arrive on our shores irrespective of how robustly border controls are applied, why control the borders anyway. If the variant is materially resistant to the vaccine we have a problem anyway. If the vaccine is effective - why worry.
> 
> Like alway running into the cinema shouting "fire" - eventually no-one will take a blind bit of notice having heard the cry so many times before!


The argument in favour of controlling the border is to slow the spread of a new variant. If a variant is resistant to the vaccine, we will need to supress that new variant to slow transmission down until we can get a booster vaccine launched. This might sound a bit fanciful, but a booster right now could be rolled out in under six months and I suspect we could get one out in 3 months if the variant was that deadly. The vaccine would be tweaked to modify the protein but essentially every other ingredient would remain the same. So it would be a question of slowing the spread of the new variant until then. The longer it can be held at bay at the border more we can hold off more drastic isolation measures at home. 
I've not done analysis, but presume lockdown is massively more damaging than restricting international travel. At the moment its all a bit hypothetical as the vaccines are coping with the variants, and the virus seems to mutate quite slowly.


----------



## Selwyn

TominDales said:


> That is perfectly true, but its a risky strategy as those whose immune system does not respond to covid are at risk of getting a nasty disease. The older and the more vulnerable would be far safer getting a vaccine. For children ie below age 11 the data seems to suggest they are fine without the vaccine, very few get complications. For teenage the data is a mixed. I know of older teenagers who have been seriously ill.
> 
> There is a risk that those who were asymptomatic or mildly ill with covid first time round, may not be immune to the Indian and other new variants, some of which are implicated with higher mortality and serious illiness in the young. Data on this is only just emerging in India so we really dont know, but its something to watch as that would change the risk profile.




Which of the variants thus far have behaved particularly different from the initial covid? None. Every few days we see the nervousness ramp up only to peter out again about a certain "variant". Not every country is talking about the "indian" variant. India doesn't even recognise this "variant". I doubt this variant is significantly different at all, like the others.

I totally agree the old and vulnerable would be best having a vaccine. How many teenagers do you know directly have been seriously ill? Remember schools have been open again for 2 months now.


----------



## Selwyn

Rorschach said:


> I know one person who possibly died with covid in Feb 2020, they were in their mid 90's and riddled with dementia, their death was a blessing really. Otherwise no one I know, or anyone I know knows has died.



I suppose we could all pretend they should still be alive and thriving?


----------



## Rorschach

Selwyn said:


> I suppose we could all pretend they should still be alive and thriving?



Well if you listen to some they would tell you that having reached the ripe old age of 94 they statistically had another 10 years to live in their demented misery and their death was a tragedy.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Whataboutery.
> 
> The NHS are opening loads of long Covid clinics.
> 
> Why are you avoiding commenting on that?



To be honest I think long covid is a thing. Like all post viral syndromes its a thing. But the reality is most people don't get long covid, those who do have symptoms that last for a month, some get a little longer and a smaller amount are badly affected (and probably have other health issues as well). I'm sorry for them but this is the way it goes. Maybe they didn't wear their masks? That saves them apparently...

I think opening long covid clinics is a bit of a publicity stunt, a bit like the nightingales. A bit like the Indian variant etc.


----------



## D_W

TominDales said:


> There is a risk that those who were asymptomatic or mildly ill with covid first time round, may not be immune to the Indian and other new variants, some of which are implicated with higher mortality and serious illiness in the young.



I've got a problem with this statement as we've been hearing it all along, but there's no data to support it. "we may get covid over and over", "we may not have immunity to ___ new variant"

This has been going on for a year now without any evidence of significant cohorts getting seriously ill twice (except in the case of seriously compromised individuals).


----------



## Selwyn

How long are the Covid fanatics planning on wearing their masks for? 

Indefinitely?


----------



## Jonm

Selwyn said:


> Not every country is talking about the "indian" variant. India doesn't even recognise this "variant".


The Indian government objects to the B.1.617 strain being called the “Indian Variant”. They recognise the variant but call it B.1.617. 

It is similar to us referring to the UK variant as the “Kent” variant. Don’t know what they call it in Kent.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> But the reality is most people don't get long covid


The evidence proves that is not true.

"674,000 people saying it was affecting their day to day lives"

"Almost 200,000 people have said their ability to carry out normal activities has been severely limited by the condition"








More than 80 long Covid clinics to be opened by NHS in England with extra £24m funding


NHS boss says health service must ‘expand its offer’ for those suffering from condition




www.independent.co.uk







Selwyn said:


> I think opening long covid clinics is a bit of a publicity stunt


you really are crazy.


Selwyn said:


> Maybe they didn't wear their masks? That saves them apparently


The evidence proves masks are beneficial








Effectiveness of Mask Wearing to Control Community Spread of SARS-CoV-2


This JAMA Insights CDC review summarizes accumulating evidence that mask wearing reduces spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection and that universal mandatory mask wearing policies reduce infections and deaths and emphasizes face masks are one component of pandemic control measures, including physical...




jamanetwork.com






Are you not embarrassed by constantly posting stuff that's demonstrably untrue? 

It isn't doing a lot for your credibility.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> How long are the Covid fanatics planning on wearing their masks for?
> 
> Indefinitely?


It will be a considerably shorter time than it will take you to begin absorbing facts.


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> I've got a problem with this statement as we've been hearing it all along, but there's no data to support it. "we may get covid over and over", "we may not have immunity to ___ new variant"
> 
> This has been going on for a year now without any evidence of significant cohorts getting seriously ill twice (except in the case of seriously compromised individuals).



I understand your point, but in a pandemic with a novel virus, you can't make assumptions and the scientists are learning as fast as the data is available.

We don't know yet how long natural or vaccine acquired immunity lasts, so we don't know if it's possible to catch it again.


I really hope the vaccine roll out will continue and we are able to vaccinate all adults as soon as possible so we can prevent the inevitable next wave needing lockdowns.

USA is doing pretty well on vaccination rates as far as I know, I hope the sceptics can be persuaded to be jabbed.


----------



## Jonm

D_W said:


> I've got a problem with this statement as we've been hearing it all along, but there's no data to support it. "we may get covid over and over", "we may not have immunity to ___ new variant"
> 
> This has been going on for a year now without any evidence of significant cohorts getting seriously ill twice (except in the case of seriously compromised individuals).


But tomindales then goes on to say “Data on this is only just emerging in India so we really dont know, but its something to watch as that would change the risk profile”. He is not scaremongering, just advocating being vigilant, this disease has wrong footed us a number of times, like the Kent variant destroying our tiered system and putting us in lockdown in January.


----------



## D_W

None of these things has involved a variant breaking through prior infection and making people have more than a mild second case (unless there's a complication involved). 

That becomes the expectation *unless* data emerges, not "oh, we have to wait and see". If there is second symptomatic infection, we will know very quickly.


----------



## TominDales

D_W said:


> I've got a problem with this statement as we've been hearing it all along, but there's no data to support it. "we may get covid over and over", "we may not have immunity to ___ new variant"
> 
> This has been going on for a year now without any evidence of significant cohorts getting seriously ill twice (except in the case of seriously compromised individuals).


Hi DW, I'm not saying there is an evidence for this. Your are right.
My comment was very specific in relation to natural immunity verses taking or not taking a vaccine and the risks involved, it was made in the context of my response to the post 970 - ''Actually natural infection is more effective than vaccination for immunity''.
This was a commonly held belief with early vaccines as they were only partially effective, not unlike flue which is only 60% effective, however more recent vaccine approaches build very targeted and highly concentrated vaccines, - mRNA and viral vector are highly effective and safe. The data for Covid is incredibly good. Which is the point I made in post 1059
Its in this context that I replied to Selwyn's question regarding people who have asymptomatic or mild covid. He asks a good question, if you didn't get ill why take the vaccine, I think that question deserves a considered response. Its down to personal risk analysis, there are some obvious risks, if someone was symptomless, they may not know if you have had covid and wont know if they are vulnerable to it. Then there is the theoretical risk that natural immunity to covid may not impart immunity to variants (as with other coronaviruses). 
However I must stress I am not advocating that there is evidence that people get seriously ill twice, I agree with you that there is very little data on this point and certainly no evidence that points to it. However it is a risk factor when considering vaccinating people who may have had covid. This concern stems from observatoins of other coronaviruses, so may not be relevant to Covid.
There are a number of common coronaviruses, in most cases they give people the common cold, but occasionally we have a winter of chest infectoins and pneumonia side effects. It happened in the winter of 2019/20!, before covid struck there was a nasty strain of OC43 circulating in the UK, my wife and loads of people at work got a nasty chest infection. The point is these coronaviruses re-infect people, they mutate and come round again. It for this reason that the medical/phama profession are nervous about covid. We could get a variant that re-infects those who have had mild Covid. There is no evidence for this, but it is a risk factor and in my view a reason to take the covid vaccine. The vaccine is more effective than natural immunity, it targets the spike protein which seems to be a common link to covid illness and lasting immunity, whereas we don't really know what proteins cause the immune response in those who get mild covid.

Sorry for such a complicated answer, this was part of a linked set of comments and raising some quite important questions regarding the risks people need to consider when contemplating taking the vaccine - especially the young who are much less effected by covid.


----------



## D_W

I don't think you had ill intent - I think it's been the narrative all along where we say "let's follow the data" until we decide we don't want to follow the data, but we want to go to supposition instead. Especially if supposition is negative, because that's popular and will get views. 

It's so prevalent (and anti-data) that it's become a semi-consensus or a stylish thing for people to say even if those people tend to try to make accurate statements only. 

It's happened just about every time a variant pops up (UK, S.A., Brazil, now India), or when there's some tiny data point ("S.A. Variant 8 times more likely to break through pfizer vaccine!!" ....that story was based on a whopping 8 total cases vs. an expected 1). 

I'm just not a fan of it.


----------



## sometimewoodworker

Chris152 said:


> I cited the source, it's here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Covid: Pfizer and AstraZeneca jabs work against Indian variant - study
> 
> 
> They are effective against symptomatic disease but protection is low after only one dose, a study says.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you see confusion (I don't, you seem to want to take issue with the method described, but that's not confusion) maybe BBC or PHE have made an error.


I’m now not surprised at the confusion in your original post.

The study concluded


‘PHE’ said:


> After 2 doses of either vaccine there were only modest differences in vaccine effectiveness with the B.1.617.2 variant. Absolute differences in vaccine effectiveness were more marked with dose 1. *This would support maximising vaccine uptake with 2 doses among vulnerable groups.*



The BBC article did contain this information, though not as clearly as PHE your summary of a summary did not.

The intent of the study was finding out at what point in the vaccination regimen the vaccines were most effective and if there were significant differences between them.

The study has almost certainly caused a shorter interval in second doses of vaccine in some areas in the U.K. where the India variant is most prevalent.

your post took random points out of a BBC summary of a PHE *preprint* paper and drew comparisons. That is bad science and poor reporting.


----------



## D_W

RobinBHM said:


> I understand your point, but in a pandemic with a novel virus, you can't make assumptions and the scientists are learning as fast as the data is available.
> 
> We don't know yet how long natural or vaccine acquired immunity lasts, so we don't know if it's possible to catch it again.
> 
> 
> I really hope the vaccine roll out will continue and we are able to vaccinate all adults as soon as possible so we can prevent the inevitable next wave needing lockdowns.
> 
> USA is doing pretty well on vaccination rates as far as I know, I hope the sceptics can be persuaded to be jabbed.



The US is generally vaccinated, Skeptics will take their lumps if they're older, but the adult population is well vaccinated at this point, especially in more populated areas. (specific numbers for my state are slightly over 50% with both shots and another 20% above that for at least one shot. I think we are generally expecting an 80% take rate for adults, and probably a quarter or more of the remaining cohort are people who had covid. 

All of the people I know who have had covid have gotten at least one vaccine shot at this point, too, which seems to me to be a little odd without data proving that it's necessary (why? imagine you train your immune system to stop something and then you blast it with something it would have blocked. One of my relatives who had covid and then got their first vaccine shot got very ill from the shot. Not for too long, but unexpectedly harsh reaction......the rest just had mild symptoms from the vaccine, and they also had mild cases of covid).


----------



## Chris152

sometimewoodworker said:


> your post took random points out of a BBC summary


No it didn't. I quoted a couple of what I considered to be key points made in the report. Random points would have looked very different. Any extracts are necessarily removed from broader context - that's part of the definition of 'extract'. As for the conclusion that you say I overlooked, the difference between effectiveness of first and second doses is very clear in the passages I quoted - 33% becomes 60/ 88%.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> It will be a considerably shorter time than it will take you to begin absorbing facts.



No need for ad hominem attacks. 
It will sink in eventually that you have been totally played by all this. Lockdown hasn't proved a saving of a single life, but we do know what harm it has done. 

Anyway how many people do you know who have died of Covid?


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> I understand your point, but in a pandemic with a novel virus, you can't make assumptions and the scientists are learning as fast as the data is available.
> 
> We don't know yet how long natural or vaccine acquired immunity lasts, so we don't know if it's possible to catch it again.
> 
> 
> I really hope the vaccine roll out will continue and we are able to vaccinate all adults as soon as possible so we can prevent the inevitable next wave needing lockdowns.
> 
> USA is doing pretty well on vaccination rates as far as I know, I hope the sceptics can be persuaded to be jabbed.



We've made a load of assumptions from day 1. Dodgy modelling and exponential growth for one. 
There have also been a lot of assumptions about the vaccine.

"prevent the next inevitable wave needing lockdowns" - you have swallowed all this hook, line and sinker! 

Its absolute madness what we are doing to our country!


----------



## Selwyn

Jonm said:


> But tomindales then goes on to say “Data on this is only just emerging in India so we really dont know, but its something to watch as that would change the risk profile”. He is not scaremongering, just advocating being vigilant, this disease has wrong footed us a number of times, like the Kent variant destroying our tiered system and putting us in lockdown in January.




The kent variant didn't destroy our tiered system. Political decisions did. The kent variant spread around the world in no time at all. You think it originated in Kent and then just went round england?


----------



## Selwyn

D_W said:


> I don't think you had ill intent - I think it's been the narrative all along where we say "let's follow the data" until we decide we don't want to follow the data, but we want to go to supposition instead. Especially if supposition is negative, because that's popular and will get views.
> 
> It's so prevalent (and anti-data) that it's become a semi-consensus or a stylish thing for people to say even if those people tend to try to make accurate statements only.
> 
> It's happened just about every time a variant pops up (UK, S.A., Brazil, now India), or when there's some tiny data point ("S.A. Variant 8 times more likely to break through pfizer vaccine!!" ....that story was based on a whopping 8 total cases vs. an expected 1).
> 
> I'm just not a fan of it.



The data is demonstrating an IFR of 0.14%. Ionaddis says about 0.15%.

There is no reason to think any of these "variants" are likely to radically change that. Obviously in a microcosm ie a care home, a hospital, a built up area the IFR will be higher

For people aged 20-50 the IFR is 0.03-0.05%. The is the basis for the injections. Its way ott above and beyond anything else we have used a vaccine for in the past, predicated on some dodgy modelling which has not been accurate even in places that didn't do any lockdowns


----------



## Jonm

Selwyn said:


> The kent variant spread around the world in no time at all.


And it did it without any paperwork, perhaps it should give lessons to our shellfish exporters.


----------



## alanpo68

Selwyn said:


> No need for ad hominem attacks.
> It will sink in eventually that you have been totally played by all this. Lockdown hasn't proved a saving of a single life, but we do know what harm it has done.
> 
> Anyway how many people do you know who have died of Covid?




Please explain how the horrific situation in Italy in which their health system was overwhelmed was turned around if it wasn't through Lockdown ?


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Its absolute madness what we are doing to our country


In your opinion which is wrong.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> In your opinion which is wrong.



As is your opinion


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> What is childish about it?
> 
> Do you finally accept that the risk for under 25's is minute and incrementally it the risk is higher as you age. The risk of dying for a 80 year old is many times higher than an under 50. And even if you are 80 the risk is way less than 1 in 100. Statistics and data counts!


Whataboutery.

The NHS have set up many long Covid clinics....Which you childishly deny are needed


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> As is your opinion


I don't post opinions, my posts are backed with facts.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> The lockdown wasn't necessary


In your uninformed opinion not backed up by fact.

And you are wrong.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> In your uninformed opinion not backed up by fact.
> 
> And you are wrong.



He backed it up with facts, ONS facts, you just didn't accept them.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> e spread of the virus once its endemic


You keep claiming Covid is endemic.

Perhaps you aren't aware you are wrong.

'Covid-19 is *still* classed as in a *pandemic* phase because infections continue to increase worldwide and many people are *still* susceptible. In an *endemic* phase the number of infections becomes relatively constant across years, with occasional flare-ups"


is covid endemic yet or atill pandemic - Google Search


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> As I said, I don't accept your evidence, just like you don't accept mine


It's not my evidence - it's from a respected source.

You haven't provided any evidence


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> He backed it up with facts, ONS facts, you just didn't accept them.


He did not back up his post with facts.

Quoting ONS out of context is meaningless.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> The data is demonstrating an IFR of 0.14%


Thank goodness NPIs and full lockdowns kept it down to that?

how high would it have been with your preferred plan (actually you don't have one, your argument is lockdowns don't work, but you have no alternative)


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> exponential growth for one


Infections do grow exponentially before the peak.....surely you know this by now.

The earlier the intervention the lower the peak.

If you can stamp down very early you can achieve elimination.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Thank goodness NPIs and full lockdowns kept it down to that?
> 
> how high would it have been with your preferred plan (actually you don't have one, your argument is lockdowns don't work, but you have no alternative)



Er, not everywhere locked down. Also there were differing "variants" of lockdown throughout the world.

The crucial blind spot you have is the assumption that people take zero precautions without a government mandated lockdown. Which is demonstrably untrue


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Whataboutery.
> 
> The NHS have set up many long Covid clinics....Which you childishly deny are needed



Its not childish at all. We don't need special long covid clinics. We didn't even bother doing special covid hospitals - which genuinely may have helped.

Besides 24 million is just publicity stunt

Its really really important that you understand that the covid risk is wildly different for age groups. I'm still shocked this hasn't sunk in yet. When will you realise this?


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Infections do grow exponentially before the peak.....surely you know this by now.
> 
> The earlier the intervention the lower the peak.
> 
> If you can stamp down very early you can achieve elimination.



No you can't achieve elimination. 

It is your presumption that growth in covid increases exponentially but the fact it that it doesn't. It doesn't in places where there is no lockdown either - all virus' ebb and flow


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> You keep claiming Covid is endemic.
> 
> Perhaps you aren't aware you are wrong.
> 
> 'Covid-19 is *still* classed as in a *pandemic* phase because infections continue to increase worldwide and many people are *still* susceptible. In an *endemic* phase the number of infections becomes relatively constant across years, with occasional flare-ups"
> 
> 
> is covid endemic yet or atill pandemic - Google Search



Whataboutery

It is in endemic in the UK.


----------



## TominDales

Selwyn said:


> . How many teenagers do you know directly have been seriously ill? Remember schools have been open again for 2 months now.


Two. My niece and her boyfriend got Covid 12 months ago in London, she lost her sense of smell and has had stomach aches to this day, its was very severe last April until September and have lessened in the last six months. She resigned her job in November and is taking a sabbatical (she is young) and plans to start work again later this year.
A work friend of my 19 year old son who is now 20 years old has also had a very bad stomach. He was off-work for six months. He was the leader of their friendship group organising footie, nights out, also amateur boxing he was also charismatic supervisor at the venue where they work. He was complety incapable of any of this activities for six months, at one point his GP said he may be disabled for life. He is on medication and he is slowly recovering, a working part time. Being only 19 years old, and going from fit to invalid, has been a shock to him and his friends.


----------



## RobinBHM

I thought this was interesting:

*Dogs can better detect Covid in humans than lateral flow tests, finds study*
French trial shows dogs were able to detect presence of coronavirus with 97% accuracy


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Whataboutery
> 
> It is in endemic in the UK.


Wrong

You've been claiming Covid has been endemic for months and months.
It is only just now becoming endemic due to our vaccination programme....but it's still a pandemic, here and everywhere else.

It's yet another thing you are wrong about.


----------



## RobinBHM

TominDales said:


> Two. My niece and her boyfriend got Covid 12 months ago in London, she lost her sense of smell and has had stomach aches to this day, its was very severe last April until September and have lessened in the last six months. She resigned her job in November and is taking a sabbatical (she is young) and plans to start work again later this year.
> A work friend of my 19 year old son who is now 20 years old has also had a very bad stomach. He was off-work for six months. He was the leader of their friendship group organising footie, nights out, also amateur boxing he was also charismatic supervisor at the venue where they work. He was complety incapable of any of this activities for six months, at one point his GP said he may be disabled for life. He is on medication and he is slowly recovering, a working part time. Being only 19 years old, and going from fit to invalid, has been a shock to him and his friends.


This is why long Covid should be considered when talking about the lower age groups and the dangers of Covid - it's not simply "a few people over 80" It has affected a lot of people and it can be very debilitating - like your sons work friend.


My niece has 2 colleagues that have long Covid.
One has respiratory problems, loss of stamina and brain fog and has had to give up her job
The other has heart problems.

My wife knows a family where a 42 year old died, whilst her elderly mum didn't get it.


----------



## selectortone

TominDales said:


> Two. My niece and her boyfriend got Covid 12 months ago in London, she lost her sense of smell and has had stomach aches to this day, its was very severe last April until September and have lessened in the last six months. She resigned her job in November and is taking a sabbatical (she is young) and plans to start work again later this year.
> A work friend of my 19 year old son who is now 20 years old has also had a very bad stomach. He was off-work for six months. He was the leader of their friendship group organising footie, nights out, also amateur boxing he was also charismatic supervisor at the venue where they work. He was complety incapable of any of this activities for six months, at one point his GP said he may be disabled for life. He is on medication and he is slowly recovering, a working part time. Being only 19 years old, and going from fit to invalid, has been a shock to him and his friends.


You're wasting your breath, or typing time. No amount of first hand experience will sway these two guys. 

They are stuck away in provincial backwaters which are blessed to have been relatively unharmed by covid. I posted evidence from a nurse friend of my daughter at Bournemouth General, RobinBHM has posted about his niece, others have posted similar accounts. We have had people with medical, pharmaceutical and other related backgrounds giving their accounts. Yet these two persist with their insinuations that it's all a giant world conspiracy to sell vaccines and keep us under the thumb of tyrannical governments.

They have dug themselves into such deeply entrenched positions that it's a complete waste of time trying to reason with them. This thread could be really useful and has contained some excellent information, but it keeps being sidetracked off into conspiracy-land.

(waits for the laughing emoticon from Mr Rorschach...)


----------



## Rorschach

Damn, Sweden still doing so badly, I wish I hadn't looked up to them as a guide for what we should do.......


----------



## John Brown

RobinBHM said:


> I thought this was interesting:
> 
> *Dogs can better detect Covid in humans than lateral flow tests, finds study*
> French trial shows dogs were able to detect presence of coronavirus with 97% accuracy


I found that interesting.
Especially so, since I saw/read something many years ago, whereby in double-blind tests, drug and explosive sniffing dogs performed no better than random, and the supposition was that they tended to pick up on body language clues from either their handler, or the suspect.
I believe they've had good results with cancer and other conditions, though.
I also remember reading that bees are even better sniffers, and can be trained more quickly.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Its not childish at all. We don't need special long covid clinics


And that is exactly what is childish.

Anything that doesn't fit with what you believe is dismissed without any evidence, facts or data.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Anything that doesn't fit with what you believe is dismissed without any evidence, facts or data.



 Who does that remind me of? Give you a clue, begins with R and ends BHM


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Damn, Sweden still doing so badly, I wish I hadn't looked up them as a guide for what we should do


Ah yes, good old Sweden. 

"Denmark, Norway and Finland, with a combined population of around 16.75 million, have recorded 4,331 deaths attributed to coronavirus as of Thursday (259 per million). All three enforced lockdowns early on in the pandemic. Sweden, by contrast, has registered 12,798 deaths, and possesses a population 10.2 million, meaning it has a far higher death rate than its immediate neighbors (1,255 per million"









Sweden has avoided a COVID-19 lockdown so far: Has its strategy worked?


Sweden has drawn both international praise and criticism for its decision to stay open during the pandemic. ABC News looks at how their strategy has played out.




abcnews.go.com







By the way are talking about the Sweden that:
*Coronavirus: Sweden brings in rule of eight for diners amid spike in infections


Faced with the reality of a winter surge, Sweden is finally bringing in some harsher restrictions after months of being one of the few countries with no lockdown

Sweden is to close its upper secondary schools for the first time during the coronavirus pandemic in a bid to put the brakes on its second wave of Covid. *


----------



## Rorschach

And my point is proved, thank you


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Who does that remind me of? Give you a clue, begins with R and ends BHM


If you ever get around to posting any actual data from qualified sources I will look at it.

But you haven't and can't.....because anything from a high quality source disagrees with you


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> And my point is proved, thank you


As I said, you posted a simplistic graph of Sweden, without explaining what non pharmaceutical interventions they had used.

I've just posted that Sweden did need to use to reduce spread......which disproves your argument they don't work.


By the way, I could easily post examples of Australia, New Zealand, South Korea to prove lockdowns work.....but I understand demographics, geography etc play a part, so rather like Sweden, its all about the detail.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> No you can't achieve elimination


New Zealand proves you wrong


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> It is your presumption that growth in covid increases exponentially but the fact it that it doesn't. It doesn't in places where there is no lockdown either - all virus' ebb and flow



They increase exponentially before the peak.

What happens is the infections spreads as fast as can via transmission......and when you have the vulnerable staying at home, there is less transmission and a lower peak.

You are using the simplistic argument that because viruses come in waves that means we can't influence what happens with the peaks. 

I recommend you go and learn the basics of epidemiology, it will help you.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> They increase exponentially before the peak.
> 
> What happens is the infections spreads as fast as can via transmission......and when you have the vulnerable staying at home, there is less transmission and a lower peak.
> 
> You are using the simplistic argument that because viruses come in waves that means we can't influence what happens with the peaks.
> 
> I recommend you go and learn the basics of epidemiology, it will help you.



Actually I'm no arguing virus come in waves at all. A lot of them just circulate, peter out and become endemic - all the common colds etc we get are past virus that would have killed people with their novelty. No waving at all. 

We can influence the peaks of virus' to a degree but we don't need to trash the economy to do it, that is my central point. Particularly with a disease with an IFR of 0.14% and 0.03-05% amongst 20-50 year olds. Its a good thing the vulnerable stayed at home

A lot of very well qualified epidemiologists have been saying this again and again. A lot of the covid issues are being manufactured because of the PCR tests. We will have killed more from lockdown and lost more years of quality of life in the end than any lockdown. The second lockdown was particularly henious and unneccessary.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> New Zealand proves you wrong



They will still get covid unless they want to stay locked up forever. You have to be capable of thinking further than just what the BBC says each day


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> As I said, you posted a simplistic graph of Sweden, without explaining what non pharmaceutical interventions they had used.
> 
> I've just posted that Sweden did need to use to reduce spread......which disproves your argument they don't work.
> 
> 
> By the way, I could easily post examples of Australia, New Zealand, South Korea to prove lockdowns work.....but I understand demographics, geography etc play a part, so rather like Sweden, its all about the detail.



Er, no one was arguing against some NPI. A lot of this is voluntary anyway. Its why the peaks of covid in the UK occured before lockdown. You are the fanatic who thinks only confining people to their houses will work.


----------



## Selwyn

selectortone said:


> You're wasting your breath, or typing time. No amount of first hand experience will sway these two guys.
> 
> They are stuck away in provincial backwaters which are blessed to have been relatively unharmed by covid. I posted evidence from a nurse friend of my daughter at Bournemouth General, RobinBHM has posted about his niece, others have posted similar accounts. We have had people with medical, pharmaceutical and other related backgrounds giving their accounts. Yet these two persist with their insinuations that it's all a giant world conspiracy to sell vaccines and keep us under the thumb of tyrannical governments.
> 
> They have dug themselves into such deeply entrenched positions that it's a complete waste of time trying to reason with them. This thread could be really useful and has contained some excellent information, but it keeps being sidetracked off into conspiracy-land.
> 
> (waits for the laughing emoticon from Mr Rorschach...)



I think we can all agree its a very nasty disease but the facts remain the IFR is 0.14-15%. For 20-50 year olds is 0.03-05%. Under no other circumstances would we be vaccinating the world like this. A lot of business' have been trashed and our country will be poorer for a number of years which will without doubt affect our ability to provide quality healthcare in the future.

When you look at the figures and you start to strip away at the deaths due to the care home complete pineapple up, the nosocomial infections, the pcr positive tests combined with comorbidities you can see what the idea that it is a silent killer roaming the land doesn't stack up. We knew so much more about it from April 2020 yet stuck to the modelling from 2 months before. 

I don't see what is conspiratorial about that statement.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

I am not sure where IFR of 0.15% arises - this would suggest on a UK population of 66m that fatalities would be ~100k. We have already reported 127k.

To date the UK have reported 127k deaths on 4.5m cases = ~2.7%. Similar figure for Europe are 1062k deaths on 46m cases = ~ 2.3%

I suspect there are some significant errors in these figures. Cases are almost certainly under reported due to lack of testing capacity and asymptomatic infection. Reporting of deaths can be imprecise due to measurement criteria used. 

Assuming UK deaths to date are skewed towards the more elderly, and that the rate in the population as a whole would be less than 2.7% reported, it is likely to be higher than 0.15%.

That severe or fatal covid victims are old and/or vulnerable is correct. Does that justify ignoring their plight to avoid the damage done to the rest of society due to lockdown.

I do not believe life should be prolonged at almost any cost. Personally I have no desire to spend the final months or years of my life a dribbling incontinent wreck and a burden on my family. But this should be a rational personal choice when able. 

Balancing this are large numbers of elderly far removed from the paragraph above who live fulfilling and worthwhile lives. They need to be protected.

Just imagine for a moment that the pandemic were like the Spanish flu 100 years ago and predominantly affected the young. How would you react if the elderly asserted "we only have a few years to live, we worked hard all our lives, lockdown would deny us these final pleasures, etc".


----------



## Selwyn

Terry - Somerset said:


> I am not sure where IFR of 0.15% arises - this would suggest on a UK population of 66m that fatalities would be ~100k. We have already reported 127k.
> 
> To date the UK have reported 127k deaths on 4.5m cases = ~2.7%. Similar figure for Europe are 1062k deaths on 46m cases = ~ 2.3%
> 
> I suspect there are some significant errors in these figures. Cases are almost certainly under reported due to lack of testing capacity and asymptomatic infection. Reporting of deaths can be imprecise due to measurement criteria used.
> 
> Assuming UK deaths to date are skewed towards the more elderly, and that the rate in the population as a whole would be less than 2.7% reported, it is likely to be higher than 0.15%.
> 
> That severe or fatal covid victims are old and/or vulnerable is correct. Does that justify ignoring their plight to avoid the damage done to the rest of society due to lockdown.
> 
> I do not believe life should be prolonged at almost any cost. Personally I have no desire to spend the final months or years of my life a dribbling incontinent wreck and a burden on my family. But this should be a rational personal choice when able.
> 
> Balancing this are large numbers of elderly far removed from the paragraph above who live fulfilling and worthwhile lives. They need to be protected.
> 
> Just imagine for a moment that the pandemic were like the Spanish flu 100 years ago and predominantly affected the young. How would you react if the elderly asserted "we only have a few years to live, we worked hard all our lives, lockdown would deny us these final pleasures, etc".



WHO figures 0.15%. You need to remember that the PCR tests are creating this figures as well. We are testing ourselves into a blind alley. 

Who is ignoring their plight? Are you saying that because I think lockdowns acheived nothing that I want people to die of covid? If so you are wrong. Its like saying lockdown fanatics want more people to die of other deaths. The cost/ benefit analysis of lockdown are coming out now and they don't look pretty at all - whatever happened to "first do no harm"? 

Context is very important.


----------



## southendwoodworker

Selwyn said:


> No need for ad hominem attacks.
> It will sink in eventually that you have been totally played by all this. Lockdown hasn't proved a saving of a single life, but we do know what harm it has done.
> 
> Anyway how many people do you know who have died of Covid?



Earlier in this discussion I presented 11 people that I know have died from covid. 5 from one family, 3 from another, one more, and then a couple more.

I also presented two others I know that have serious long covid complications. Both of them young strong and healthy.

You and Rorschach trivialised them, in particular one death. You then ignored my replies and one of you, paraphrasing, said that you couldn't reply to my post because it was too hard to unpack.

You ask for evidence, then consistently disregard it. One of the links you've presented is from a known quack website, with low reputation and poor credibility, which endorses child labour.

It's very clear you both have small social circles, in areas that have luckily had low death rates, and have argued that because you haven't witnessed the sadness that it mustn't be real.

You've presented conspiracy theories about the government trying to control us, and disregarded opinions of the world wide scientific community. Who are smarter and more qualified than any of us here.

I understand and sympathise that you've had someone (or you) impacted by the lack of capacity of the NHS to deal with their other health issues, be it cancer therapy or mental health support. Lockdowns have sucked for all people, in some form, to differing degrees.

But no one here is going to be able to really convince you otherwise. Your opinions are entrenched and I think they'll only change when you experience first hand the sorrow from seeing a covid death or long term covid. Which I honestly hope doesn't occur.

As someone who has been part of the covid response, and my partner too, with what I thought a small social sphere, as well as deaths in my peripheral circles, and long covid in immediate circle, I find your arguments presented very frustrating.

The only evidence I can probably share would be censored emails from care home workers begging for help as people died around them.


----------



## Selwyn

southendwoodworker said:


> Earlier in this discussion I presented 11 people that I know have died from covid. 5 from one family, 3 from another, one more, and then a couple more.
> 
> I also presented two others I know that have serious long covid complications. Both of them young strong and healthy.
> 
> You and Rorschach trivialised them, in particular one death. You then ignored my replies and one of you, paraphrasing, said that you couldn't reply to my post because it was too hard to unpack.
> 
> You ask for evidence, then consistently disregard it. One of the links you've presented is from a known quack website, with low reputation and poor credibility, which endorses child labour.
> 
> It's very clear you both have small social circles, in areas that have luckily had low death rates, and have argued that because you haven't witnessed the sadness that it mustn't be real.
> 
> You've presented conspiracy theories about the government trying to control us, and disregarded opinions of the world wide scientific community. Who are smarter and more qualified than any of us here.
> 
> I understand and sympathise that you've had someone (or you) impacted by the lack of capacity of the NHS to deal with their other health issues, be it cancer therapy or mental health support. Lockdowns have sucked for all people, in some form, to differing degrees.
> 
> But no one here is going to be able to really convince you otherwise. Your opinions are entrenched and I think they'll only change when you experience first hand the sorrow from seeing a covid death or long term covid. Which I honestly hope doesn't occur.
> 
> As someone who has been part of the covid response, and my partner too, with what I thought a small social sphere, as well as deaths in my peripheral circles, and long covid in immediate circle, I find your arguments presented very frustrating.
> 
> The only evidence I can probably share would be censored emails from care home workers begging for help as people died around them.



I think you must be mixing me up with someone else as I would never use the phrase "hard to unpack" and I have yet to produce any conspiracy theory.

Were the 5 people from one family in the newspapers? Its a highly unusual number. very very unusual.

I find your arguments for lockdown very frustrating too. Care home workers were put in that position because of a specific govt policy that moved the unwell covid infected into care homes from hospitals. Luckily this didn't last a long time yet it happened and its because of lockdown policy this happened, lockdown will do more damage than it saves.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

> WHO figures 0.15%. You need to remember that the PCR tests are creating this figures as well. We are testing ourselves into a blind alley.



Could you provide a link to the 0.15% as it seems completely divergent from reported figures be they national or european.

I also don't understand your point on testing - IFR is the ratio of infections (cases?) to fatalities. 

It has little to do with testing save that a lack of testing may cause the number of cases to be understated, equally deaths due to covid may be understated. Transparency would help!


----------



## Selwyn

Terry - Somerset said:


> Could you provide a link to the 0.15% as it seems completely divergent from reported figures be they national or european.
> 
> I also don't understand your point on testing - IFR is the ratio of infections (cases?) to fatalities.
> 
> It has little to do with testing save that a lack of testing may cause the number of cases to be understated, equally deaths due to covid may be understated. Transparency would help!





https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf



Remember this is real world data not scare story media rubbish. Now obviously you will have to adjust it for age, comorbidites etc. so 0.15 is not a constant. but its pretty good. 

The other side of the coin of saying the number of cases is understated is that a lot more covid has passed through the population to absolutely zero effect and people didn't get tested because they weren't ill and had no symptoms - it doesn't mean that covid has not passed through them though. 

This little video on the ireland may help you contextualise:









Ultimate Risk Update - The Bottom Line from Real World Data!


Title says it all. Do YOU know the actaul real-world risks from this affliction? Not the theoretical or antibody-based - but the actual reality after more than a year and huge exposure across the popu...




odysee.com


----------



## Chris152

Selwyn said:


> https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf


0.15% doesn't seem to appear anywhere relevant in the document you linked to.


----------



## Selwyn

Chris152 said:


> 0.15% doesn't seem to appear anywhere relevant in the document you linked to.



It was his estimate based on the data.

No one can come up with an exact % ifr because there are so many variables (age, comorbidities etc even when people are pretending covid can kill people equally indiscrimenantly). He says the median IFR appears to 0.23% and is probably substantially lower. Listen to his interviews to hear more.

Certainly lockdown is an overreacting at these IFR levels, let alone injecting the world!


----------



## Chris152

Ah, so you thought we'd read the full article and make the same estimate. Fair enough. 
Maybe take a look at the post I made a while back, indicating how punters can fail to understand how the scientific community will rightly offer different perspectives on things and the dangers of latching onto one without enough understanding to judge between those available. A quick read around the net and you can see quite easily the suspicion with which the research by Ioannidis is regarded by others in the field. To treat his account as accurate you'd need either to be a fellow specialist in the field who saw the veracity of his research into IFR, or just another punter who's simply decided to regard is as true coz it suits you.


----------



## D_W

The area where I live is 70% vaccinated, about 50% both shots (50% of the total population of adults). 

population on this side of the state is 4MM. 

Zero new deaths. Everything is open, though some still working from home (most of us because we like it better, I'd guess, though some workplaces are going to have to figure out what they'll do long term as their employees will seek work at home employment if they try to go full time office - places like google, etc, where competition for top talent is stiff). 

Very few new cases, no mask mandate now, and most large retailers in the last few days removing mask requirement for vaccinated. 

This is why we don't gnash our teeth about "this or that possible variant" as anything defeating the vaccines will spread quickly, yet nothing. Even the local news has given up on scary stories.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

The whole point of lockdown(s) was to avoid a tsunami of infection (it's been known since early on that this bug is very transmissible in the right circumstances) which would blow up the healthcare system (and possibly civil society). As DW says, in the US and the UK, the number of people (in groups more vulnerable to be hospitalised) vaccinated and/or previously exposed to the virus is such that we probably no longer need to worry about that tsunami - as long as no evil mutant strain evolves to evade existing antibodies (however acquired). I believe strongly that lockdown was right, and largely worked as intended (although everyone went slightly bonkers at Christmas and we paid a high price for that).


----------



## Selwyn

Chris152 said:


> Ah, so you thought we'd read the full article and make the same estimate. Fair enough.
> Maybe take a look at the post I made a while back, indicating how punters can fail to understand how the scientific community will rightly offer different perspectives on things and the dangers of latching onto one without enough understanding to judge between those available. A quick read around the net and you can see quite easily the suspicion with which the research by Ioannidis is regarded by others in the field. To treat his account as accurate you'd need either to be a fellow specialist in the field who saw the veracity of his research into IFR, or just another punter who's simply decided to regard is as true coz it suits you.



Ionaddis has often said 0.15%. It could even be lower, I'd not be surprised if it is but of course a number of factors come into play. The worldwide evidence every day still gets a little clearer that this isn't the great killer it was claimed. Loads of countries didn't lockdown because they couldn't afford too and the general thrust of IFR isn't massively different - there are no major outliers.

Now you may want to claim he's a crank but he's pretty well qualified and I think he doesn't appear to wildly off on his predicitions. 

Maybe you decide to regard lockdowns as reducing covid just coz it suits you? We can all play that silly game.


----------



## Selwyn

Woody2Shoes said:


> The whole point of lockdown(s) was to avoid a tsunami of infection (it's been known since early on that this bug is very transmissible in the right circumstances) which would blow up the healthcare system (and possibly civil society). As DW says, in the US and the UK, the number of people (in groups more vulnerable to be hospitalised) vaccinated and/or previously exposed to the virus is such that we probably no longer need to worry about that tsunami - as long as no evil mutant strain evolves to evade existing antibodies (however acquired). I believe strongly that lockdown was right, and largely worked as intended (although everyone went slightly bonkers at Christmas and we paid a high price for that).



It may have been the point of it. However despite using words like "blow up the healthcare" "tsunami of infection" "evil mutant strain" etc. there is precious little evidence that it was necessary or effective, and I don't disagree with the 2-3 week lockdown maximum that we had back in March in order to bring a bit of order/ calm but there was no need to extend it.

Put it this way if covid managed to spread so quickly in March 2020 how come it didn't manage to spread so quickly in August or July 2020? It was just as capable of increasing exponentially then as March if you believe its not got a strong seasonal element to it.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> The cost/ benefit analysis of lockdown are coming out now and they don't look pretty at all



You are right.

The countries which were slow to lockdown, had weak controls ended up with the highest death rates and the worst economic damage.

"Contrary to the idea of a trade-off, we see that countries which suffered the most severe economic downturns – like Peru, Spain and the UK – are generally among the countries with the _highest_ COVID-19 death rate"








Which countries have protected both health and the economy in the pandemic?


Responses to the pandemic have often been framed in terms of striking a balance between protecting people’s health and protecting the economy. There is an assumption that countries face a trade-off between these two objectives. But is this assumption true?




ourworldindata.org





Oh dear, that's your argument shot down in flames


----------



## Chris152

Selwyn said:


> Maybe you decide to regard lockdowns as reducing covid just coz it suits you? We can all play that silly game.


No, I think lockdowns are probably the right thing to do on account of what seems to be the overwhelming consensus among the world's leading authorities on the matter. What I most certainly wouldn't do in the midst of a pandemic is repeatedly cite highly questionable accounts, based on no greater knowledge than bits and bobs I've found on the net, as if I were in a position to know they were true. That'd be deeply foolish, given the potential consequences. It'd be a complete failure to recognise the limits of my knowledge and understanding, and a complete failure to recognise and act according to my responsibilities to others. That'd certainly be a terribly silly game to play.


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> The area where I live is 70% vaccinated, about 50% both shots (50% of the total population of adults).
> 
> population on this side of the state is 4MM.
> 
> Zero new deaths. Everything is open, though some still working from home (most of us because we like it better, I'd guess, though some workplaces are going to have to figure out what they'll do long term as their employees will seek work at home employment if they try to go full time office - places like google, etc, where competition for top talent is stiff).
> 
> Very few new cases, no mask mandate now, and most large retailers in the last few days removing mask requirement for vaccinated.
> 
> This is why we don't gnash our teeth about "this or that possible variant" as anything defeating the vaccines will spread quickly, yet nothing. Even the local news has given up on scary stories.



That's excellent news, I'm pleased to hear the vaccination programme is going well in USA.

We see in the UK media some parts of the states are struggling to get people to have the vaccine and there are various incentives including a weekly raffle or a free beer or free uber taxi etc.

Is there much of an issue with anti vaxxers - or is it just the media making a story


----------



## Rorschach

Woody2Shoes said:


> The whole point of lockdown(s) was to avoid a tsunami of infection (it's been known since early on that this bug is very transmissible in the right circumstances) which would blow up the healthcare system (and possibly civil society). As DW says, in the US and the UK, the number of people (in groups more vulnerable to be hospitalised) vaccinated and/or previously exposed to the virus is such that we probably no longer need to worry about that tsunami - as long as no evil mutant strain evolves to evade existing antibodies (however acquired). I believe strongly that lockdown was right, and largely worked as intended (although everyone went slightly bonkers at Christmas and we paid a high price for that).



Ok, but once we had reached a peak and number were going down, why were we so slow to release the lockdown?


----------



## RobinBHM

Chris152 said:


> No, I think lockdowns are probably the right thing to do on account of what seems to be the overwhelming consensus among the world's leading authorities on the matter. What I most certainly wouldn't do in the midst of a pandemic is repeatedly cite highly questionable accounts, based on no greater knowledge than bits and bobs I've found on the net, as if I were in a position to know they were true. That'd be deeply foolish, given the potential consequences. It'd be a complete failure to recognise the limits of my knowledge and understanding, and a complete failure to recognise and act according to my responsibilities to others. That'd certainly be a terribly silly game to play.



The vast majority of viroligists and epidemiologists do agree that lockdowns to flatten the curve are the right thing to do.

My view is, like yours: not being an expert myself, I take the majority consensus view as being the most truthful account.

Clearly there is a lot to learn about lockdowns, there have been mistakes, I'm sure some interventions may have been wrong. 

However those that simply want to have a simplistic "lockdowns are wrong" refuse to engage in a nuanced debate and will throw any misleading data set to prove their point.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Ok, but once we had reached a peak and number were going down, why were we so slow to release the lockdown?


When are referring to?

This year?


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> When are referring to?
> 
> This year?



All the lockdowns.


----------



## D_W

RobinBHM said:


> That's excellent news, I'm pleased to hear the vaccination programme is going well in USA.
> 
> We see in the UK media some parts of the states are struggling to get people to have the vaccine and there are various incentives including a weekly raffle or a free beer or free uber taxi etc.
> 
> Is there much of an issue with anti vaxxers - or is it just the media making a story



Combination of the two. If you go to very rural areas, you'll find people who don't trust the medical establishment as much (not to the point that they won't go to the dr., but if they have already have covid, they won't get vaccinated, and some who are young and healthy won't either. And then a small minority of people who should have more sense won't). 

I think county health care and local health plans generally have an initiative to get as many vaccinated as possible and they'll come up with creative ideas (not sure what the fed. reimbursement is for giving vaccines, as there may also be profit motive). 

Generally here, though, most are going to get the vaccine - expectation from the outset has been 70% but I think after seeing a 90%+ uptake among front line workers and nursing home residents, it's expected to end up at 80%+, and some of the remaining cohort will have had covid, so some level of immunity will be closer to 90% and that should be enough to shove covid off into the penalty box. 

I may come off as a contrary crank, but it seemed like a clear case to me and I got pfizerized as soon as it was available (back in feb and early march? two shots were only 3 weeks apart that I recall). My dad would be in the category of folks who voted for trump and had bumper stickers with trump stuff (and my mother has a car in the same driveway next to it with hillary and biden stuff all over it - terrible . both of them!), but he also got vaccinated right away, as did my mother. I think that's more typical here - that even folks politically opposed to it recognize how effective it is and bite their tongue.


----------



## alanpo68

Rorschach said:


> Ok, but once we had reached a peak and number were going down, why were we so slow to release the lockdown?



Because there were still huge numbers of people who were infected and would have passed the virus on. The irony is that when we relaxed the rules for Xmas and ended up with cases spiking.


----------



## D_W

alanpo68 said:


> Because there were still huge numbers of people who were infected and would have passed the virus on. The irony is that when we relaxed the rules for Xmas and ended up with cases spiking.



Since we had a double whammy of holidays a month apart (thanksgiving and Christmas), they absolutely exploded here. A shame as the vaccine was so close to being available. 

We are very close to being absolutely open now, but the covid relief bill with steroid-pumped unemployment benefits has left a lot of rank and file employers unable to find workers. A large % of those folks will not come off of the sidelines until they're absolutely forced. 

Some of the rest of us have been working the entire time, and listening to folks boast that they're making as much or more after taxes (and taking under the table work) than they were when they were "working".


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> You are right.
> 
> The countries which were slow to lockdown, had weak controls ended up with the highest death rates and the worst economic damage.
> 
> "Contrary to the idea of a trade-off, we see that countries which suffered the most severe economic downturns – like Peru, Spain and the UK – are generally among the countries with the _highest_ COVID-19 death rate"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which countries have protected both health and the economy in the pandemic?
> 
> 
> Responses to the pandemic have often been framed in terms of striking a balance between protecting people’s health and protecting the economy. There is an assumption that countries face a trade-off between these two objectives. But is this assumption true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ourworldindata.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear, that's your argument shot down in flames



Nope









Decision to lockdown caused 282 times the loss of years of life says Economics professor - Gript


Allen noted that many of the lockdown costs will not be known for years.




gript.ie


----------



## Selwyn

Chris152 said:


> No, I think lockdowns are probably the right thing to do on account of what seems to be the overwhelming consensus among the world's leading authorities on the matter. What I most certainly wouldn't do in the midst of a pandemic is repeatedly cite highly questionable accounts, based on no greater knowledge than bits and bobs I've found on the net, as if I were in a position to know they were true. That'd be deeply foolish, given the potential consequences. It'd be a complete failure to recognise the limits of my knowledge and understanding, and a complete failure to recognise and act according to my responsibilities to others. That'd certainly be a terribly silly game to play.



The Imperial Modelling was demonstrably wrong. We locked down on the basis of that junk prediction which has not come true anywhere in the world whether they locked down or not.

Keep believing that it if you want to but there is not a consensus amongst scientists or virologists. Very few deny there is a nasty virus doing the rounds however, it has been vastly vastly overexaggerated and you have been daft enough to fall for it.


----------



## Selwyn

alanpo68 said:


> Because there were still huge numbers of people who were infected and would have passed the virus on. The irony is that when we relaxed the rules for Xmas and ended up with cases spiking.



Well I'll have a sporting bet with you that cases are going to rise next autumn/ winter again. Viral triggering for what will be the third season in the UK of a novel covid virus which is now endemic. Vaccines will have helped and lets hope there are no long term issues from them (there could be) but there will be covid deaths again


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> Combination of the two. If you go to very rural areas, you'll find people who don't trust the medical establishment as much (not to the point that they won't go to the dr., but if they have already have covid, they won't get vaccinated, and some who are young and healthy won't either. And then a small minority of people who should have more sense won't).
> 
> I think county health care and local health plans generally have an initiative to get as many vaccinated as possible and they'll come up with creative ideas (not sure what the fed. reimbursement is for giving vaccines, as there may also be profit motive).
> 
> Generally here, though, most are going to get the vaccine - expectation from the outset has been 70% but I think after seeing a 90%+ uptake among front line workers and nursing home residents, it's expected to end up at 80%+, and some of the remaining cohort will have had covid, so some level of immunity will be closer to 90% and that should be enough to shove covid off into the penalty box.
> 
> I may come off as a contrary crank, but it seemed like a clear case to me and I got pfizerized as soon as it was available (back in feb and early march? two shots were only 3 weeks apart that I recall). My dad would be in the category of folks who voted for trump and had bumper stickers with trump stuff (and my mother has a car in the same driveway next to it with hillary and biden stuff all over it - terrible . both of them!), but he also got vaccinated right away, as did my mother. I think that's more typical here - that even folks politically opposed to it recognize how effective it is and bite their tongue.



That's really interesting, many thanks for your insight.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> virus which is now endemic



You've been claiming for months and months Covid is endemic in UK.

But you haven't once backed it up with any evidence......for a simple reason: it's not true.

Vaccination rollout may see Covid becoming endemic in the UK, but there is still a Covid pandemic.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> You've been claiming for months and months Covid is endemic in UK.
> 
> But you haven't once backed it up with any evidence......for a simple reason: it's not true.
> 
> Vaccination rollout may see Covid becoming endemic in the UK, but there is still a Covid pandemic.



It has been endemic for months, the very fact it curled over in April 20 and then came back in another viral season is evidence of this. It will come back in the next viral season too albeit probably lower. 

Now go away and keep believing to yourself you are at huge risk and stay inside


----------



## Petehpkns

Selwyn said:


> It has been endemic for months, the very fact it curled over in April 20 and then came back in another viral season is evidence of this. It will come back in the next viral season too albeit probably lower.
> 
> Now go away and keep believing to yourself you are at huge risk and stay inside







__





Coronavirus (COVID-19) latest insights - Office for National Statistics


A roundup of the latest data and trends about the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic from the ONS and other sources



www.ons.gov.uk


----------



## Chris152

Selwyn said:


> it has been vastly vastly overexaggerated and you have been daft enough to fall for it.


I expect that's right. Good job we've got really smart people like you to skip around the net to establish the truth for us.
'Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge'.


----------



## D_W

RobinBHM said:


> That's really interesting, many thanks for your insight.



(news here is very bad for the "gawly-ghee" stuff. Last night, they were showing local people wearing masks even though the mandate was over, and interviewed two people who both said they were wearing masks to make other people comfortable - they picked the heaviest local dialects they could find and two people who had the mask hanging below their nose and halfway down over their mouths boasting of their accommodation of others. I can't imagine that they couldn't ask people who had their masks on properly, but as time goes on, they are doing the local TV version of clickbait, which is to find something irritating if possible to keep your attention). 

If you consider what they could do, which is to research the midwest and provide actual statistics, it would be illuminating, but not very interesting. Showing stories of freebies and making it out like you have to trick people into getting vaccinated is more popular, though even in the most MAGA areas, it won't be the majority.). 

it's uncommon for me to watch local news as it's generally not up to the definition (information you didn't know before, vs. regurgitation or commentary or reaction).


----------



## Jonm

Selwyn said:


> It has been endemic for months, the very fact it curled over in April 20 and then came back in another viral season is evidence of this. It will come back in the next viral season too albeit probably lower.


 I responded to you and this “viral season“ idea in my post number 1022, showing the “seasons” in South Africa as 6 months apart (winter and summer). I also responded to you in post 1029 showing Covid cases in Brazil which is one long bumpy ride upwards for over one year. Both posts contain graphs showing these features. I note you have not responded to the two posts.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Nope
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decision to lockdown caused 282 times the loss of years of life says Economics professor - Gript
> 
> 
> Allen noted that many of the lockdown costs will not be known for years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gript.ie




That's very interesting.....it shows where you get most of your "ideas" from.

Nowhere does it actually do any cost analysis other than this (which is a joke):


"That means that the average Canadian has lost two months of normal life. The population of Canada is about 37.7 million people, which means that 6.3 million years of life have been lost due to lockdown. "

So it's headline figures are based on a calculation that people "lost" 2 months of their lives....so it puts a cost to that 2 months, oh look lockdowns cost more. 

For anybody interested in reading the full paper, it's here:


http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/LockdownReport.pdf



I should warn though it makes painful reading, it's unscientific, it ignores many factors and is wholly biased. 
If and it's not peer reviewed nor does it seem to be published anywhere


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> It has been endemic for months



I asked for evidence....where is it?

Now please go away and provide some or edit your posts to say "in my opinion, Covid is now endemic"


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> I asked for evidence....where is it?
> 
> Now please go away and provide some or edit your posts to say "in my opinion, Covid is now endemic"



Pot calling kettle


----------



## Selwyn

Jonm said:


> I responded to you and this “viral season“ idea in my post number 1022, showing the “seasons” in South Africa as 6 months apart (winter and summer). I also responded to you in post 1029 showing Covid cases in Brazil which is one long bumpy ride upwards for over one year. Both posts contain graphs showing these features. I note you have not responded to the two posts.



There is no reason to suppose that covid behaves any different to any other coronavirus' or influenza. So once it is has established itself in the country (and basically got everywhere which it has) it is endemic. 

In Europe the response curves from covid are pretty clear (both in locked and unlocked countries) there is a strong element of seasonality, is quite glaring. If you don't think this is the case then presumably you think that we will not see any uptick in the virus this winter and presumably you are expecting the virus to spread again this summer - much like it didn't last summer? 

Remember a virus doesn't distinguish between people who work through a lockdown and people who don't so those people who have kept working and mixing out of necessity are just as likely to spread a virus beforehand than those who just come out of their lockdown burrows surprised to see a country still functioning. As has long been said - why weren't supermarket workers particularly hit by the viral load during lockdowns? They are super exposed but there is no pattern at all there.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> I asked for evidence....where is it?
> 
> Now please go away and provide some or edit your posts to say "in my opinion, Covid is now endemic"



The evidence is that covid is still here and will now always be here. It won't be eliminated. Its probably done the rounds of the country twice.

The reason its not recognised as endemic rather than pandemic? Politics. Its much easier justify extreme reactions if we pretend we are still in a state of emergency. Average deaths in the UK for the past month with covid? 


About 10

Thats a pandemic apparently......


----------



## Rorschach

Selwyn said:


> There is no reason to suppose that covid behaves any different to any other coronavirus' or influenza. So once it is has established itself in the country (and basically got everywhere which it has) it is endemic.
> 
> In Europe the response curves from covid are pretty clear (both in locked and unlocked countries) there is a strong element of seasonality, is quite glaring. If you don't think this is the case then presumably you think that we will not see any uptick in the virus this winter and presumably you are expecting the virus to spread again this summer - much like it didn't last summer?
> 
> Remember a virus doesn't distinguish between people who work through a lockdown and people who don't so those people who have kept working and mixing out of necessity are just as likely to spread a virus beforehand than those who just come out of their lockdown burrows surprised to see a country still functioning. As has long been said - why weren't supermarket workers particularly hit by the viral load during lockdowns? They are super exposed but there is no pattern at all there.



Sitting at a checkout touching tens of thousands of items every day while thousands of ever changing people walk through the shop touching said items - Perfectly safe. 
Taking a plate of chips to one of a few dozen people for that day in your restaurant - Oh dear god they're all gonna die!


----------



## MikeK

This thread has run its course.


----------

