Corona Virus main thread

[Van wink 2,994]

2 hours ago, Well b back said:

That is spot on the data will continually reaffirm or of course cast doubt on the data obtained to date. 
 

If you had to make a prediction, what do you think the figure will be after 28 days? My punt would be around 55-60%
Is this data just confined to % less likely to be infected, is there any indication about severity of infection in the vaccinated group.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, paul moy said:

They are a number of 'states'  similar to the USA so can be treated accordingly, especially as the EU were doing the procurement for all of the 'states' and exercised control over them in the federation. 

Thus, it is fair to do the comparison although of course you do not like to admit that death rates in the EU will soon surpass 500,000.

With no vaccine I would expect Italy and maybe even France to surpass 100,000 covid death rates within the next month. 

Each member state had control over their procurement numb nuts. They chose to do it en bloc but some nations have also made other arrangements.

How about our death rate that is far higher than any other nation in Europe? Forgotten that? 1200 yesterday. The vaccine is not going to help anyone in hospital.

[ricardo 7,395]

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

Each member state had control over their procurement numb nuts. They chose to do it en bloc but some nations have also made other arrangements.

How about our death rate that is far higher than any other nation in Europe? Forgotten that? 1200 yesterday. The vaccine is not going to help anyone in hospital.

http://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-rejected-contracts-and-a-hollywood-movie-how-uk-struck-deal-to-guarantee-vaccine-supply-12204044

[ricardo 7,395]

Heading for massive vax numbers today. England alone well over half a million.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

10 minutes ago, Van wink said:

They are quite understandably terrified of an outbreak. What we would give to be in their position.

As an aside the Australian rugby union has volunteered host the 2021 Lions tour of South Africa. Seems to be being greeted warmly, Better than games behind closed doors. Might we find Oz and NZ hosting other international sports events even if it doesn’t involve their own teams.

Portalled the inlaws in NZ yesterday morning and asked about the large crowds now being allowed at rock concerts.

They said obviously it is still a massive talking point but apart from everyone having to have a phone with them for T&T, it is not an issue in their lives anymore.

They expect to start vaccinating in mid 2021. They have provisional orders but due to their almost non existent figures, they believe they can afford to wait on the data to choose the right vaccine.

Now thats what you call sensible.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

16 minutes ago, ricardo said:

http://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-rejected-contracts-and-a-hollywood-movie-how-uk-struck-deal-to-guarantee-vaccine-supply-12204044

Once again I will congratulate Hancock on the procurement of vaccine and hope it continues. Its a credit to him.

But my post was regarding Moys constant lying and his joy that we are doing better than others, particularly EU nations, in the vaccination rollout.

Our death rate remains a blight on this Governments overall handling. I prefer not to compare it to anyones but if people want to make it a competition then they can't be selective.

I have seen Contagion, when it was released and since the pandemic, and it is remarkably accurate.

Edited January 31, 2021 by keelansgrandad

[Well b back 3,222]

10 minutes ago, Van wink said:

If you had to make a prediction, what do you think the figure will be after 28 days? My punt would be around 55-60%
Is this data just confined to % less likely to be infected, is there any indication about severity of infection in the vaccinated group.

I think it’s 33% reduction of everything across the board, but I stress I think. I am basing that if you remember from last week, their hospital figures dropped and then dropped dramatically after week 4, those with 2 doses. That you combine with the PHE statement today that says we should start seeing some changes to hospitalisation in 2 weeks, but March / April until NHS pressure is hugely reduced.

It is important to note as well that the Oxford vaccine ( currently ) has more known about its benefits to prevent ‘ severe COVID ‘ and on test data there is not the same reliance on efficacy, so I would further guess due to Oxford when compared to Israel we will have less hospitalisation, but may well see more positives, that is only a guess. The big breakthrough will come if the Oxford / Sputnik trials go to plan as we will have another vaccine at 95%.

Till our six week figures come out we will have little real proof either way. 

[Well b back 3,222]

13 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Portalled the inlaws in NZ yesterday morning and asked about the large crowds now being allowed at rock concerts.

They said obviously it is still a massive talking point but apart from everyone having to have a phone with them for T&T, it is not an issue in their lives anymore.

They expect to start vaccinating in mid 2021. They have provisional orders but due to their almost non existent figures, they believe they can afford to wait on the data to choose the right vaccine.

Now thats what you call sensible.

It won’t happen, but based on the Israeli data there are thoughts ( not U.K. ) that people should have jab 1 then isolate for 3 weeks, have jab 2, isolate for one last week, with borders being closed, preventing variants. As I said won’t happen but an interesting take.

Vaccines are already being got ready for the attack on any hostile variant, Andrew Pollard said this morning. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 minutes ago, Well b back said:

It won’t happen, but based on the Israeli data there are thoughts ( not U.K. ) that people should have jab 1 then isolate for 3 weeks, have jab 2, isolate for one last week, with borders being closed, preventing variants. As I said won’t happen but an interesting take.

Vaccines are already being got ready for the attack on any hostile variant, Andrew Pollard said this morning. 

Interesting thoughts on vaccinating teachers. There is still the idea that they will be safe. And of course would still have to isolate if contacted by T&T.

But if there is such a desire for a return to schooling and with the vaccination programme rapidly increasing, the 900000+ in the state schooling industry, it wouldn't take too long to inoculate them.

[Well b back 3,222]

5 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Interesting thoughts on vaccinating teachers. There is still the idea that they will be safe. And of course would still have to isolate if contacted by T&T.

But if there is such a desire for a return to schooling and with the vaccination programme rapidly increasing, the 900000+ in the state schooling industry, it wouldn't take too long to inoculate them.

In Israel they took the decision to move 16 - 18 year olds up the queue ( if that’s the right word ) so they can finish their education and qualifications. One country ( Indonesia I think it was ) are reversing the process, vaccinating 18 - 45 first as they class them as the most likely catchers and spreaders, due to work social activities etc. 
 

[Van wink 2,994]

8 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Interesting thoughts on vaccinating teachers. There is still the idea that they will be safe. And of course would still have to isolate if contacted by T&T.

But if there is such a desire for a return to schooling and with the vaccination programme rapidly increasing, the 900000+ in the state schooling industry, it wouldn't take too long to inoculate them.

ONS and expert medical view is that teachers as a workforce are not more vulnerable than many others and that the existing priority groups shouldn’t change. I have to say that getting kids back to school is so important that politically it may be better to get them all done before school returns, we have huge capacity and really it’s worth it to get education beginning  to move again, even if on the face of it data doesn’t support it.

[Well b back 3,222]

44 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Portalled the inlaws in NZ yesterday morning and asked about the large crowds now being allowed at rock concerts.

They said obviously it is still a massive talking point but apart from everyone having to have a phone with them for T&T, it is not an issue in their lives anymore.

They expect to start vaccinating in mid 2021. They have provisional orders but due to their almost non existent figures, they believe they can afford to wait on the data to choose the right vaccine.

Now thats what you call sensible.

That is a very important point as in 6 months time it is inevitable that we will have either better vaccines or know the best or the best way existing vaccines work. Andrew Pollard and Sarah Gilbert have always said the first vaccines will be improved on.

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

18 hours ago, Aggy said:

Unfortunately hasn’t helped me, only confused me further. Are you saying you think the government should be more of a dictatorship or less? Your first post I quoted suggested you thought they were too much of a dictatorship already. 

But now you seem to be saying the government is in fact too liberal because it gave people the seemingly fairly obvious choice of either (a) staying at home or (b) seeing family in the middle of a global pandemic that had killed hundreds of thousands worldwide already, fully aware that meeting up would put themselves, their families and others at risk as well as putting children’s educations and people’s livelihoods at risk.

I don’t think Johnson’s trip to Scotland was essential and I was very critical of Cummins who should have resigned there and then. I’ve got no time for Boris, this government or the tories generally, so you’re barking up the wrong tree there. 

But I find it absolutely laughable that when it comes to students and young people breaking the rules, the students and young people are to blame, but when other adults choose to do what they want fully aware of the risks, they blame the government and refuse to take any responsibility. 

please see somebody about your professional cofusion, who knows you might find somebody who pays for a professional service. good luck. And try not to bend peoples words.

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

55 minutes ago, Van wink said:

ONS and expert medical view is that teachers as a workforce are not more vulnerable than many others and that the existing priority groups shouldn’t change. I have to say that getting kids back to school is so important that politically it may be better to get them all done before school returns, we have huge capacity and really it’s worth it to get education beginning  to move again, even if on the face of it data doesn’t support it.

We will have a severe log jam if it isn't restarted soon.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Economically, Covid has impacted Cornwall.

Data indicates that 62% of house sales have been for up country people. I know mine has gone up £30K. But long term its not good for young locals.

If this is going to mean up country people coming down without work or are working from home then that is a net loss to much of the area.

[Aggy 755]

1 hour ago, Well b back said:

In Israel they took the decision to move 16 - 18 year olds up the queue ( if that’s the right word ) so they can finish their education and qualifications. One country ( Indonesia I think it was ) are reversing the process, vaccinating 18 - 45 first as they class them as the most likely catchers and spreaders, due to work social activities etc. 
 

I thought there was suggestion that the vaccines helped with symptoms but didn’t necessarily stop you passing it on? In which case, I don’t see how vaccinating children helps all that much. I can just about see the logic for vaccinating teachers (if lots of teachers get ill then who runs the classes and of course some teachers will be higher risk than others).

I presumed the reason schools were closed was to try and keep community spread low rather than out of worry for the children themselves (who have very little risk from covid)?

[It's Character Forming 1,161]

The Guardian/Observer on the EU’s vaccine problems 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/31/the-observer-view-on-the-vaccine-dispute-with-brussels

I agree with pretty much all of this.

[ricardo 7,395]

National

21088 - 587

Local

dropping quite quickly now

Almost 600k

[The Real Buh 3,445]

7 minutes ago, ricardo said:

National

21088 - 587

Local

dropping quite quickly now

Almost 600k

Peoples feet will get itchy as the rates come down but we’ve got to get it properly bottomed out this time 

[ricardo 7,395]

1 minute ago, The Real Buh said:

Peoples feet will get itchy as the rates come down but we’ve got to get it properly bottomed out this time 

The vaccine is the only thing that will keep it there.

[The Real Buh 3,445]

Just now, ricardo said:

The vaccine is the only thing that will keep it there.

Yep, I’m thinking maybe round 3 this winter though. That’s why we need mass vaccinations and updates if variants change.

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

1 hour ago, Well b back said:

In Israel they took the decision to move 16 - 18 year olds up the queue ( if that’s the right word ) so they can finish their education and qualifications. One country ( Indonesia I think it was ) are reversing the process, vaccinating 18 - 45 first as they class them as the most likely catchers and spreaders, due to work social activities etc. 
 

That's my thoughts BUT it all hinges on if once vaccinated you can still be a (asymptomatic) carrier!

[Creative Midfielder 1,998]

1 hour ago, Van wink said:

ONS and expert medical view is that teachers as a workforce are not more vulnerable than many others and that the existing priority groups shouldn’t change. I have to say that getting kids back to school is so important that politically it may be better to get them all done before school returns, we have huge capacity and really it’s worth it to get education beginning  to move again, even if on the face of it data doesn’t support it.

Completely agree with that and am doubly in favour as I have never thought the existing priorities were right anyway. Of course there is a very obvious argument to say protect the most vulnerable first but it seems to me a poltical decision and one of overcompensating for the shocking way that in the early days care homes particularly were given absolutely zero resources  and actually in many cases forced to admit untested vulnerable patients from hospital who were potentially already infected.

But much has changed since then and surely the vast majority of the most vulnerable (in a purely medical sense) have survived this long because they are now well shielded. So their actual vulnerability is surely is less than other people who may be medically less vulnerable but are far more exposed to risk of infection - front line NHS staff being the prime example but really that could and should be extented to other vital public services such as teachers, the police etc, especially where the nature of their work or working environment pretty much by definition places them routinely at much higher risk.

Despite Johnson's usual nonsense 'every jab in an arm....blah, blah, blah,,,,whatever it was', the other issue which doesn't appear to have been given much thought is reducing the spread of the virus asap. There seems to be an assumption that because we are now vaccinating hundreds of thousands of people a day then that is going have a big impact in reducing the spread.

But in reality whilst it is fantastic news for the 8m people that have had a jab, the majority of them are doing the least mixing of any of the population - they're not the ones who are spreading the virus. So seems to me that we are still a way off the point where the vaccines will have a serious impact on the infection rate.

I know there is still uncertainly about whether the vaccines prevent transmission or not but there would seem to me to be a logic to trying to vaccinate people who are more likely to catch the virus and also transmit it to others, especially if they are vulnerable but not old enough to meet the current criteria. That I suggest is likely to save more lives and reduce the spread more than the current approach.

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

5 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Completely agree with that and am doubly in favour as I have never thought the existing priorities were right anyway. Of course there is a very obvious argument to say protect the most vulnerable first but it seems to me a poltical decision and one of overcompensating for the shocking way that in the early days care homes particularly were given absolutely zero resources  and actually in many cases forced to admit untested vulnerable patients from hospital who were potentially already infected.

But much has changed since then and surely the vast majority of the most vulnerable (in a purely medical sense) have survived this long because they are now well shielded. So their actual vulnerability is surely is less than other people who may be medically less vulnerable but are far more exposed to risk of infection - front line NHS staff being the prime example but really that could and should be extented to other vital public services such as teachers, the police etc, especially where the nature of their work or working environment pretty much by definition places them routinely at much higher risk.

Despite Johnson's usual nonsense 'every jab in an arm....blah, blah, blah,,,,whatever it was', the other issue which doesn't appear to have been given much thought is reducing the spread of the virus asap. There seems to be an assumption that because we are now vaccinating hundreds of thousands of people a day then that is going have a big impact in reducing the spread.

But in reality whilst it is fantastic news for the 8m people that have had a jab, the majority of them are doing the least mixing of any of the population - they're not the ones who are spreading the virus. So seems to me that we are still a way off the point where the vaccines will have a serious impact on the infection rate.

I know there is still uncertainly about whether the vaccines prevent transmission or not but there would seem to me to be a logic to trying to vaccinate people who are more likely to catch the virus and also transmit it to others, especially if they are vulnerable but not old enough to meet the current criteria. That I suggest is likely to save more lives and reduce the spread more than the current approach.

Yes - but I see it in a slightly different metric.

I believe I saw a figure of 52% in hospital in the over 65 group (or something similar) i.e. almost half where in the non priority group.

Now from a purely actuarial perspective - if we are trying to protect the NHS its not the 'death rate' (or survival rate) but the number of weeks anybody is in hospital that counts. The otherwise fit and healthy 50% may actually be the greatest strain on the NHS.

[Essjayess 307]

36 minutes ago, ricardo said:

National

21088 - 587

Local

dropping quite quickly now

Almost 600k

No surprise that Zoe app saying daily positive decrease is slowing. Just 2 or 3 weeks ago we had daily positives of over 50k  every day almost, even over 60k a couple times. This past week its  been consistently in the 20ks so thats a huge 25-30k drop in  a short time span, its only natural that decreases cannot  keep up that level of drop, we would be zero positives within  2 or 3 weeks.

Next hopeful sign would be to see daily deaths averaging under 1k each day, hoping thats not to far away now.

[Creative Midfielder 1,998]

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes - but I see it in a slightly different metric.

I believe I saw a figure of 52% in hospital in the over 65 group (or something similar) i.e. almost half where in the non priority group.

Now from a purely actuarial perspective - if we are trying to protect the NHS its not the 'death rate' (or survival rate) but the number of weeks anybody is in hospital that counts. The otherwise fit and healthy 50% may actually be the greatest strain on the NHS.

Yes, fair point. I can't remeber any relevant stats but there have certainly been multiple reports over the last couple of months that the age profile of the seriously ill Covid patients in hospital is dramatically younger now than was the case last May.

[Van wink 2,994]

44 minutes ago, ricardo said:

National

21088 - 587

Local

dropping quite quickly now

Almost 600k

Just beginning to feel the strain is easing off a bit, as Buh says have to get community transmission right down but it does feel like we are getting somewhere now

[Well b back 3,222]

The bit about transmission is the bit that makes the Israeli data fascinating. The efficacy rates are becoming something else after the second jab. The difference after the second dose and then after 1 week / 2 weeks also carries on. Of course by next week they may change again for the worse, but that’s what makes it. Based on these figures apparently at 60 % the virus won’t find it easy to find a new candidate. This data is Pfizer only and has only been running for 5 weeks. They are terrified of a variant coming along.

The Health Ministry said Thursday that out of a group of 715,425 Israelis fully vaccinated, only 317 — 0.04% — got infected with the virus at least one week after their second shot, and 16 were hospitalized with serious symptoms.

• Only 63 out of 428,000 Israelis — less than 0.02% — contracted the coronavirus after receiving their second doses after 2 weeks.

 

 

 

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

14 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Just beginning to feel the strain is easing off a bit, as Buh says have to get community transmission right down but it does feel like we are getting somewhere now

One other fear from scientists is that the longer the non third world goes without vaccine, the greater the chance of one if not more variations developing.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

26 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes - but I see it in a slightly different metric.

I believe I saw a figure of 52% in hospital in the over 65 group (or something similar) i.e. almost half where in the non priority group.

Now from a purely actuarial perspective - if we are trying to protect the NHS its not the 'death rate' (or survival rate) but the number of weeks anybody is in hospital that counts. The otherwise fit and healthy 50% may actually be the greatest strain on the NHS.

Agreed. Preventing the NHS from reaching over-capacity has to remain a priority.