Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion
- Thread starter Sasaferrato
- Start date
magneze
🎧
I believe so - trouble is that it's not 100% and with the figures being what they are, shit loads of vaccinated people will catch it. The key point though is severity of disease - very few vaccinated people get severely ill.
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
It defines how you define "catching it"
No vaccine is going to prevent virus particles going up your nose and getting started while your immune system gets its act together.
It's belt and braces to reduce the chance of moderate to serious disease ...
Personally I don't want to give it any chance.
elbows
Well-Known Member
It reduces the chances but not to anything even remotely close to no chance. And less reduction of infection risk with Delta than what went before, and less with Omicron than with Delta, and less after the passing of time. Boosters restore some degree of protection but not to sufficient levels that vaccine-breakthrough infections could be considered rare, especially not when faced with Omicron. As you have seen for yourself, they are common.
If they were uncommon then the original summer relaxing plan would have been a better fit for the Delta variant than was actually the case. And authorities would not be busy shitting themselves about Omicron.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Its about both, because if far less transmission and infection happened in this mass vaccination era then there would be less of the virus around for those who are susceptible to severe illness to catch.
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
Here's a key player on the FDA committee whose advice was ignored and the CDC - just like in the UK - went on to offer "boosters for all" - his opinion is that the avoidance of light to moderate disease in younger people is far less important than getting the world vaccinated...
andysays
Love and solidarity
And because vaccines only reduce the dangers (of catching it, of being seriously affected by it, of passing it on), a sensible policy would have involved ensuring that other measures like mask wearing and social distancing were kept in place rather than being discarded.
Even now, the idea that Omicron won't really be a threat because most people are (supposedly) vaccinated seems to be commonplace.
Even now, the idea that Omicron won't really be a threat because most people are (supposedly) vaccinated seems to be commonplace.
bimble
floofy
Does it though is there far less transmission? Just doesn’t seem that way right now, at least in my little circle.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Interestingly I've seen a similar argument used against vaccinations in Africa - frontline African medical staff asking why they should direct their precious resources at jabbing mostly young adults against COVID when they'd rather concentrate on e.g. vaccinating children against measles.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Yes, what could possibly go wrong? It's almost funny.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Estimates are only estimates.
But to illustrate the point properly I would have to be able to show you two worlds, one with current levels of vaccination and one with no vaccination, and then chuck in Omicron.
Omicron is ridiculously transmissible compared to the strain of virus we first faced. But if it had been around at the start then we had very little testing capacity so the number of positives wouldnt have properly reflected the absolute shitshow that would have resulted. Hospitalisations and deaths would have, but then past a certain point everyone would have hid, even without formal lockdown, reducing the numbers.
cupid_stunt
Merry fecking Christmas.
Yeah, it's now so bad the extra category they added needs another one adding ...
It's coming.
magneze
🎧
I know? That's why my post already had that information in it.
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
Bit unclear what you're asking? What is it that people in your circle think?
cupid_stunt
Merry fecking Christmas.
I know? That's why my post already had that information in it.
OK. sorry, your post wasn't clear by saying 'extra category they added', which implied the last one, not the one they are adding tomorrow.
bimble
floofy
It’s just, so many people I know or friends know have covid right now and all of those people have been vaccinated some twice some 3 times. That’s all, it seems to prevent severe disease but not infection. If it reduces chances of infection it seems it’s not by a significant amount.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Protection against Omicron infection after 2 doses that have wained is expected to be really quite poor, and it depends which vaccines they had too. Early estimates for the effect of boosters will get firmer as more real world data accrues. Early estimates may have overstated the level of protection, time will tell.
Even if it offers 80% protection thats still a lot of people who will catch it. And if its more like 50% or well below 50% then thats absolutely shitloads of people.
If we hadnt settled on language such as 'new variants' then Omicron would be routinely described as an escape mutant by now. It is escaping a lot of the protection our authorities were relying on in order to ask vaccines to carry the vast bulk of the pandemic burden.
2hats
Dust.
It doesn't say "prevent infection" there. That text says "preventing COVID-19". These are two different, distinct states: you can get infected, you might then go on to develop the disease COVID-19.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
From what I've read, however confident you were feeling with 2 jabs Vs Delta is about where you should be feeling with 3 jabs Vs Omicron. At least defined by levels of protection in the person- not of course Vs the amount of virus floating round society, which is probably higher at the moment.
No doubt all of the above is wither wrong, unproven or based on small studies, but it'll do for me.
elbows
Well-Known Member
I'd slightly modify that to "2 jabs vs Delta after quite some time for waning to set in". So not the same confidence as when at the peak of 2 dose protection against Delta. Plus authorities probably tended to overplay the power of vaccines against Delta in the first place. And as you indicate this early estimate could yet end up quite wide of the mark.From what I've read, however confident you were feeling with 2 jabs Vs Delta is about where you should be feeling with 3 jabs Vs Omicron. At least defined by levels of protection in the person- not of course Vs the amount of virus floating round society, which is probably higher at the moment.
No doubt all of the above is wither wrong, unproven or based on small studies, but it'll do for me.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
And of course whilst it's useful to think about individual risk, it's better to think about issues of public health. Ideally, it would be good if the government could manage to think in those terms as well.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Also it still does my head in that there is a conflict between messages in the press, often from hospital workers, and the data we get to see.
Its really very understandable that the emphasis was on the benefit of vaccines, and trying to encourage people to get them, and not to create defeatism about the effectiveness of vaccines. But this has led to a situation where hospital workers keep describing a situation where most of the people they are seeing seriously ill in hospital are unvaccinated. But the data I keep posting tells a different, more nuanced story. The data I can see is not the whole picture either, but I still think there have been some counterproductive impressions created by this simplistic messaging.
I'm not going to post any tables from the data I am on about yet again, I've done so way too often already, but the sort of thing I mean is on pages 36-38 of this document. The press hardly ever talk about it, and when they do they will mostly use versions of the data that over the population rates rather than the absoute number of patients and deaths.
Its really very understandable that the emphasis was on the benefit of vaccines, and trying to encourage people to get them, and not to create defeatism about the effectiveness of vaccines. But this has led to a situation where hospital workers keep describing a situation where most of the people they are seeing seriously ill in hospital are unvaccinated. But the data I keep posting tells a different, more nuanced story. The data I can see is not the whole picture either, but I still think there have been some counterproductive impressions created by this simplistic messaging.
I'm not going to post any tables from the data I am on about yet again, I've done so way too often already, but the sort of thing I mean is on pages 36-38 of this document. The press hardly ever talk about it, and when they do they will mostly use versions of the data that over the population rates rather than the absoute number of patients and deaths.
andysays
Love and solidarity
It reduces the chances of infection compared to what they would have been without vaccination, but not to zero, so if people who have been vaccinated continue to mix with people who may have it while not taking other measures, it's not surprising that significant numbers are still catching and spreading it.
cupid_stunt
Merry fecking Christmas.
This gets lost because the media tends to only bang on about COVID-19, which as you say is the disease, caused by the SARS-CoV 2 virus.
You can get SARS-CoV2 without developing COVID-19, see also HIV and AIDS.
Similar threads
