Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[l'Otters]

I also think you are missing out the fact that my concerns were also based on the data, or lack of data, available at the time.

it may be that experts in the field had prior knowledge which enabled them to believe that increasing the timing between doses might have a positive effect, even before such data was actually in place.

The official reason given was they they weighed various things up and decided the potential upside, in terms of the vaccine rollout schedule, outweighed the risks.

This is the thing, they didn’t share the information they based that change to the vaccine dose intervals on. I was very concerned about it at the time. It typifies the approach to communicating with the people, they don’t give us the relevant data, the info to be able to make an informed choice just isn’t there. We’re told what to do.

 

[bimble]

for every 10 unvaccinated people who develop a symptomatic infection at any time over a period, only 4 vaccinated people will over the same period

It's probably my lack of patriotism but that (4 out of 10 vaccinated people are still susceptible to symptomatic infection) does not seem to me very astounding, and does not seem to justify headlines like this one which are all over the place today.




Look at them all the papers have gone with the same idea.

Newspaper headlines: Jab beats variant and BBC review to be widened

New data showing vaccines are effective against the Indian variant is among Sunday's front-page stories.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[elbows]

Yeah thats why I said spot the spin when I linked to the BBC version of the story late last night. The sugarcoated headlines for this sort of thing never match the underlying numbers as far as I'm concerned.

Similar to when I complain about cheering that 'the vaccine is still effective' when the detail matters, ie how effective.

 

[teuchter]

It means that 60% of people who would have developed a symptomatic infection due to their exposure (or exposures) to the virus had they not been vaccinated will not develop one because of the effect of the vaccine. NB it’s not per exposure, it’s total risk over the timeframe of the whole study - ie for every 10 unvaccinated people who develop a symptomatic infection at any time over a period, only 4 vaccinated people will over the same period (assuming the populations are properly randomly selected). The period in question is I believe still increasing (ie I don’t think we’ve seen evidence of immunity drop off in the study populations yet - anyone know?).

Ok, I see, thanks.

I guess the number cannot really take into account change in behaviour/risk attitude of vaccinated vs unvaccinated people. Which could mean that in reality it might actually be a bit better.

 

[teuchter]

That wouldn't make any sense would it? The 60% would vary depending on how many people around you were infected.

Yes, that was going to be my next (now redundant) question.

 

[teuchter]

It's probably my lack of patriotism but that (4 out of 10 vaccinated people are still susceptible to symptomatic infection) does not seem to me very astounding, and does not seem to justify headlines like this one which are all over the place today.




Look at them all the papers have gone with the same idea.

Newspaper headlines: Jab beats variant and BBC review to be widened

New data showing vaccines are effective against the Indian variant is among Sunday's front-page stories.

www.bbc.co.uk

It seems to me that the more important numbers are the ones for severe symptoms/hospitalisation.

 

[bimble]

It seems to me that the more important numbers are the ones for severe symptoms/hospitalisation.

True. I don't know what's known now about that, apart from the old hopefully misremembered / outdated news about a third (something like that ?) of the people in hospital in Bolton having been vaccinated.

 

[Artaxerxes]

It's probably my lack of patriotism but that (4 out of 10 vaccinated people are still susceptible to symptomatic infection) does not seem to me very astounding, and does not seem to justify headlines like this one which are all over the place today.

View attachment 269845


Look at them all the papers have gone with the same idea.

Newspaper headlines: Jab beats variant and BBC review to be widened

New data showing vaccines are effective against the Indian variant is among Sunday's front-page stories.

www.bbc.co.uk

The papers have, even by their standards, not covered themselves in glory this last year.

They are solely responsible for the hype around "we're going to have a normal Christmas" that loomed around in the autumn and was only gradually removed a week or two before

 

[teuchter]

True. I don't know what's known now about that, apart from the old hopefully misremembered / outdated news about a third (something like that ?) of the people in hospital in Bolton having been vaccinated.

As far as I understand, the vaccines are thought to still be pretty highly effective in terms of preventing hospitalisations too. I think that's misremembered/misreported info.

 

[bimble]

Maybe the “astoundingly effective” (at 60%) headlines are meant to encourage people to get jabbed, they read like adverts.

 

[2hats]

It means that 60% of people who would have developed a symptomatic infection due to their exposure (or exposures) to the virus had they not been vaccinated will not develop one because of the effect of the vaccine. NB it’s not per exposure, it’s total risk over the timeframe of the whole study

This. It's an estimate for the sub-population in the study. It is not an individual's level of risk.

The period in question is I believe still increasing (ie I don’t think we’ve seen evidence of immunity drop off in the study populations yet - anyone know?).

Not seen any documented in any studies yet (note: there is at least one study identifying that there could be an intradose drop in neutralising titres for some BNT162b2 cohorts). Probably won't manifest until around a year or so into studies, if it does.

 

[2hats]

It seems to me that the more important numbers are the ones for severe symptoms/hospitalisation.

In the short term, but not necessarily the longer term.

 

[bimble]

Are there any ideas as to what causes a person to be amongst 60% or the 40% ? Or is that just not known yet. Or is it a missing the point entirely question .

 

[LDC]

In the short term, but not necessarily the longer term.

It's also entirely possible that even if nobody died or got seriously ill that some parts of the NHS could still be over-whelmed and maybe grind to a halt through dealing with all the 'not that seriously unwell' people needing assessment, advice, and maybe some treatment and care.

 

[LDC]

Are there any ideas as to what causes a person to be amongst 60% or the 40% ? Or is that just not known yet. Or is it a missing the point entirely question .

This. It's an estimate for the sub-population in the study. It is not an individual's level of risk.

 

[elbows]

At least we now have a better sense of why they've made a bi deal of bringing forwards second doses.

 

[sheothebudworths]

Ok, I see, thanks.

I guess the number cannot really take into account change in behaviour/risk attitude of vaccinated vs unvaccinated people. Which could mean that in reality it might actually be a bit better.

I am due to have my 2nd AZ vacc on Tuesday (although now only 9 weeks apart from my first).
My daughter's secondary have made the sensible decision to keep the kids wearing masks in all common areas (although a few teaching staff have also never followed the open windows policy in their classrooms).
The school I work in (almost literally next door) has not - and on top of that, on Friday - have also decided to move the tills around in the canteen to get the kids through more quickly but which means we are now even closer to the kids.

We asked from the start that they put up plastic barriers and they did on some of the tills but not all of them (and not mine) because they said they were going to put better ones up instead (the ones they did put up are ridiculous/pointless) but have never done it.
The member of the SLT who was overseeing the change on Friday did voice a vague 'Hmm.. social distancing though?' thought, but they've done it anyway.

It's also made no difference to the speed because our cook is now manning the food counters on our side and is being totally over the fucking top about insisting on them all queueing when the first place they arrive is the baguettes, where they scan through a huge choice of available options, instead of moving directly on to the hot food points if they DON'T want a baguette, which has been deliberately reduced from the start, so as NOT to give them so much choice/time spent deciding.

I am sat by an open door (a couple of meters behind me) but they now pass directly by me, along with the queue from the till one of my workmates is on (one of two anti-vaxxers I work with ) via a very narrow gap.

I expect this sort of stuff is going on very widely - how employers choose to interpret and/or ignore exisiting rules, with the changing advice - let alone individuals, cos I imagine there's a huge signal (even more so to the younger, unvaccinated cohorts?) that it's all ok now.

 

[MrSki]

So how much was Cummings actually involved in the policy of herd immunity?

 

[elbows]

I cant say but I can say that it is my very strong opinion that its the approach they would have tried regardless of whether Cummings was within a million miles of government at the time.

Because there was a tedious and misguided rationale behind it which was quite predictable and it was also predictable that all manner of experts in establishment roles would go along with it up to a certain point at least. The deep unease had likely very much set in by the time they were trying to explain and sell the concept publicly but the fact they still went ahead with such attempts at that point speaks volumes. As well as it going down badly in public, it was the somewhat improved modelling that was eventually done which showed really huge numbers for hospitalisations and deaths that killed that plan.

 

[elbows]

Basically I'd say the attempt to go along with the idea was down to a combination of:

Lack of UK capacity in various key regards.
Some epidemiological concepts being used inappropriately in lieu of vaccines being available.
Ideology regarding restrictions etc.
A can't do mentality in terms of many things that needed to be done to pursue a different approach well from the start.
The nature of pre-existing pandemic plans.
Some idiotic misunderstandings about the scale of the hospital and death problem that the approach would create.

It was UK business as usual. The unusual thing was that it blew up in their face so early that it got ditched rapidly (although still not rapidly enough).

 

[sheothebudworths]

It should be an appalling embarrassment (at the least) that they're still trying to pretend that wasn't the case, eh - but while they're still stalling the start of an enquiry, I guess they're just figuring no one will give a fuck by the time it's widely known and acknowledged that that is exactly the route they pursued to begin with. Shameless, all the way through.

 

[Sunray]

The Gov has got in another order of 60m Pfizer for boosters in the Autumn just in case it's needed. I think we have now ordered a total of 500m vaccines.

I see there has been a modest bump in the numbers but nothing yet on people going to hospital. I suppose it takes a week before that increase in numbers to translate into anything significant. According to the Guardian data page, it's mainly in the 0-19 age group.

 

[BillRiver]

It seems to me that the more important numbers are the ones for severe symptoms/hospitalisation.

Plus those who develop Long Covid.

 

[Supine]

Shakes head

 

[elbows]

I dont know as that was down to confusion, it was more likely that initial version of plan B also fell well short of what was needed and what eventually ended up being done.

It goes without saying that the 2nd tweet/graphs peak death rate and total deaths in both of the scenarios was terrible.

 

[MrSki]

Shakes head

I saw this tweet earlier but not the actual interview. Still very believable & if true a good piisstake.

 

[elbows]

So far what he has tweeted about that crucial u-turn week and plans A and B is consistent with the impression we could glean at the time or shortly afterwards.

 

[MJ100]

I would take anything that comes out of the mouth of Cummings with an enormous pinch of salt unless he backs it up with verifiable evidence as to what was said or done (SAGE minutes, confidential emails or the like). We know he has a history of making shit up (remember when he edited his blog to make it sound like he had been a Cassandra-type figure crying out about the dangers of Coronaviruses?) and that he also has a big axe to grind with the man who got rid of him. That doesn't mean what he says isn't true, but it needs to be backed up by actual facts rather than just his word against that of someone else. If you're looking for ways to criticise the government over the early days of the response, there are plenty of other sources out there (not least their own press conferences, SAGE notes, what Vallance said, etc) that are likely to be more reliable. Not sure Cummings will bring anything new to the party unless he has access to data which he is allowed to share but has not yet been released by anyone else. Are those graphs in his Twitter stuff new, or are they just slides that were available at the time?

 

[Supine]

Big summary. I’m getting concerned.

 

[elbows]

Big summary. I’m getting concerned.

Yep, good summary, consisting mostly of stuff thats come up here and certainly the stuff thats influenced my opinion the most during this delicate phase.

I'm glad they drew attention to the way the latest vaccine effectiveness estimates against that strain have been presented by media etc as great news but that actually there is plenty of bad news, or at least news with big implications, in the figures.

I wasnt very confident about chances of avoiding a substantial third wave even without that variant, so I'm certainly not confident about our prospects now that this variant is on the march towards dominance. More than one piece of genuinely good news will have to emerge in the coming weeks to start to change my mind about that.