Corona Virus main thread

[Barbe bleu 812]

30 minutes ago, Herman said:

This.

Too many noises coming from the usual suspects trying to hurry up unlocking. It would be unforgivable to rush back to normality which could potentially lead us back to square one. None of us like being locked down and we all want this to be the last one so we should time it right and not just to appease some noisy back benchers.

I wouldnt rush back 'to normality'  but we are at the point now where the balance is delicately poised and where the best answer almost certainly doesn't lie on either extreme.

I have a hypothetical situation.   We are getting to the point where we accept that vaccine  escape will not be the result of a single mutation from the wuhan strain but a series of these, each of which chips away at our vaccines.  Is it correct then to lockdown until we have 99% community immunity to the wuhan strain to then open up and find that we have to start all over again as we have no community immunity to the strains by then in worldwide circulation?  Is there then a purely epidemiological argument to say that circulation of an intermediate strain that gives rise to asymptomatic or very mild infection and keeps us up with the virus is actually a good thing? 

 

[Aggy 750]

6 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I wouldnt rush back 'to normality'  but we are at the point now where the balance is delicately poised and where the best answer almost certainly doesn't lie on either extreme.

I have a hypothetical situation.   We are getting to the point where we accept that vaccine  escape will not be the result of a single mutation from the wuhan strain but a series of these, each of which chips away at our vaccines.  Is it correct then to lockdown until we have 99% community immunity to the wuhan strain to then open up and find that we have to start all over again as we have no community immunity to the strains by then in worldwide circulation?  Is there then a purely epidemiological argument to say that circulation of an intermediate strain that gives rise to asymptomatic or very mild infection and keeps us up with the virus is actually a good thing? 

 

This exactly. As I’ve said (and as Fauci who gets quoted on here a lot has said as well I believe), mutations aren’t always the worst thing ever. Most viruses mutate all the time and most of the mutations actually end up making it more infectious but less deadly (which makes sense - if it kills people it loses a potential host). Another reason basing political decisions on possibilities of mutation is silly.

It will be a balance. It won’t be rushed. But no chance we’re still in this strong of a lockdown in June or July as some would have (or beyond?!). Schools open start of March. Non essential retail start of April. Hospitality May.  Unless we have a jump in  hospitalisations before then, that’s roughly what will happen I expect. And it needs to be hospitalisations not infections - infections are obviously going to go up as as soon as we get kids back in, and then when we open anything else up. The vaccines should stop hospitalisations jumping as well, which is the whole point. 

Edited February 14, 2021 by Aggy

[Yellow Fever 3,736]

41 minutes ago, Aggy said:

And it needs to be hospitalisations not infections - infections are obviously going to go up as as soon as we get kids back in, and then when we open anything else up. The vaccines should stop hospitalisations jumping as well, which is the whole point. 

This is the error. Covid is not flu, it's far worse. 

Most of the people in intensive care for weeks will be under 65, unvaccinated. 20% of these will likely have long Covid. Then again a reasonable % of the vaccinated are also likely to still fall ill. 

So it has to to be prevalence which determines the rate of opening. However, if the vaccines are effective these will also force this down too and hence hospitalization. If you don't care about prevalence then kiss the NHS and economy goodbye.

[Barbe bleu 812]

51 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

This is the error. Covid is not flu, it's far worse. 

Most of the people in intensive care for weeks will be under 65, unvaccinated. 20% of these will likely have long Covid. Then again a reasonable % of the vaccinated are also likely to still fall ill. 

So it has to to be prevalence which determines the rate of opening. However, if the vaccines are effective these will also force this down too and hence hospitalization. If you don't care about prevalence then kiss the NHS and economy goodbye.

 

Well you won't get hospitalisation  without prevalence but you could have prevalence without hospitalisation.

If there is no hospitalisation why would we be kissing anything  goodbye?

[Yellow Fever 3,736]

6 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

 

Well you won't get hospitalisation  without prevalence but you could have prevalence without hospitalisation.

If there is no hospitalisation why would we be kissing anything  goodbye?

Look at the percentage in intensive care at present. Shock horror a week or two ago it was about 50% in the under 65s.

[Aggy 750]

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Look at the percentage in intensive care at present. Shock horror a week or two ago it was about 50% in the under 65s.

What are the actual figures, not percentages.  Given elderly people have been receiving vaccinations for over two months and under 65s haven’t, hardly a shock the percentages are shifting.

 

[ricardo 7,339]

Vaccine target has been reached.

Well done all concerned👍

[Rock The Boat 1,324]

3 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

What we really need is data on vaccine efficacy in the field.  If it is really at rhw high end of predictions i suspect that we will have a very quick opening up from mid/late march.

By this point we'll hopefully have addressed more than 90% of serious disease and we will be bearing down on spread; seasonality will start being our friend, vaccines will be quite deep into the spreader groups and in some places natural immunity will be high.

At this stage there could even be an advantage in swift spread of variants we know we can deal with.

I wouldnt book a foreign holiday aaor buy ryan air shares though.  With variants being the absolute critical factor and a need to rebuild domestically this will/should be  heavily restricted.

 

Yes, let's remember last summer's experience when the virus was in full retreat. While a phased approach is right, we should aim to be open by beginning of June if rates haven't crept up from March. Social distancing measures still need to continue even after opening as a precaution.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

NZ has put Auckland into a three day lock down because they have three local cases which are one family. 

[ricardo 7,339]

National

10972 - 258

Local

[ricardo 7,339]

29 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

NZ has put Auckland into a three day lock down because they have three local cases which are one family. 

Can't say I blame them, they have lots of dry tinder left and vaccine is the only way out.

[Van wink 2,994]

11 minutes ago, ricardo said:

National

10972 - 258

Local

Good stuff

[Yellow Fever 3,736]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

What are the actual figures, not percentages.  Given elderly people have been receiving vaccinations for over two months and under 65s haven’t, hardly a shock the percentages are 

You might find this interesting.

To 11th January well before any vaccine effect.

40% were 18 to 65.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55586994

[ricardo 7,339]

Its hospitalisations that count

[ricardo 7,339]

Germany getting concerned about the fast spreading variants.

[ricardo 7,339]

[Van wink 2,994]

2 hours ago, ricardo said:

Vaccine target has been reached.

Well done all concerned👍

Magnificent national effort, 15 million vaccinations in 10 weeks, brilliant.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

16 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Magnificent national effort, 15 million vaccinations in 10 weeks, brilliant.

The benefit of a National Health Service.

[Aggy 750]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

You might find this interesting.

To 11th January well before any vaccine effect.

40% were 18 to 65.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55586994

That suggests 85 percent were over 60. So 18-65 is rather misleading in the first place. It also says of those under 39 who had died, 80 percent had diabetes/health issues.

Now, we’ve already offered at least one jab to the over 70s. We’ve also offered jabs to many of those under 70 who are clinically vulnerable.

The percentage of under 65s in hospitals is irrelevant. All it shows is that vaccines are already working. Total hospitalisations are going down, percentage of vaccinated over 65s in hospital is going down, percentage of non vaccinated younger people going up = vaccines keeping the elderly out of hospital. 

Now for some reason you chose not to quote the half of my post that said kids back in March, retail in April and hospitality in May (presumably because it’s exactly the same as you saying kids in March, wait 4-6 weeks, retail, 4-6 weeks hospitality, and you wanted an argument about something).

So give it another six weeks of vaccinating  60-70 year olds and clinically vulnerable under that age, and then we should be able to open up some retail unless (as I also said in the part of the post you didn’t bother quoting) there is a rise in hospitalisations during that period.

So what exactly about that are you arguing about?

 

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by Aggy

[Yellow Fever 3,736]

 

2 hours ago, Aggy said:

That suggests 85 percent were over 60. So 18-65 is rather misleading in the first place. It also says of those under 39 who had died, 80 percent had diabetes/health issues.

Now, we’ve already offered at least one jab to the over 70s. We’ve also offered jabs to many of those under 70 who are clinically vulnerable.

The percentage of under 65s in hospitals is irrelevant. All it shows is that vaccines are already working. Total hospitalisations are going down, percentage of vaccinated over 65s in hospital is going down, percentage of non vaccinated younger people going up = vaccines keeping the elderly out of hospital. 

Now for some reason you chose not to quote the half of my post that said kids back in March, retail in April and hospitality in May (presumably because it’s exactly the same as you saying kids in March, wait 4-6 weeks, retail, 4-6 weeks hospitality, and you wanted an argument about something).

So give it another six weeks of vaccinating  60-70 year olds and clinically vulnerable under that age, and then we should be able to open up some retail unless (as I also said in the part of the post you didn’t bother quoting) there is a rise in hospitalisations during that period.

So what exactly about that are you arguing about?

 

 

 

 

Here you go.  North of 50% (or even 60%) of ICU admissions (the actual occupancy is probably very much higher) 18 to 64 at present.

https://data.spectator.co.uk/city/nhs

Ergo although the 18 to 64s might generally  have better survival chances (but they survive often with long stays in ICU) they are a HUGE drain on NHS resources. Long Covid too. It's not just the oldies in ICU or hospital with Covid.

If you 'open up'  with high prevalence all you will do is ramp up these numbers as nearly all of this group are and will remain unvaccinated likely until the summer by all probability.

Still too early to see a strong vaccine effect (as opposed to lockdown) yet in these figures. 

Anyway - its seems the government and their scientists are of much the same opinion and slamming the door tonight on any such open up early nonsense until the numbers are very much lower and then with caution. Good.

 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by Yellow Fever

[Indy 3,283]

1 minute ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

 

 

Here you go.  North of 40% of ICU admissions (the actual occupancy is probably very much higher) 18 to 64 at present.

https://data.spectator.co.uk/city/nhs

Ergo although the 18 to 64s might generally  have better survival chances (but they survive often with long stays in ICU) they are a HUGE drain on NHS resources. Long Covid too. It's not just the oldies in ICU or hospital with Covid.

If you 'open up'  with high prevalence all you will do is ramp up these numbers as nearly all of this group are and will remain unvaccinated likely until the summer by all probability.

Still too early to see a strong vaccine effect (as opposed to lockdown) yet in these figures. 

Anyway - its seems the government and their scientists are of much the same opinion and slamming the door tonight on any such open up early nonsense until the numbers are very much lower and then with caution. Good.

 

 

 

To be honest those bands are far too wide, if you took under 50 it would probably show a huge % drop.

[Yellow Fever 3,736]

2 minutes ago, Indy said:

To be honest those bands are far too wide, if you took under 50 it would probably show a huge % drop.

I might agree but look at he under 45 - that nearly 20% !!!!!

So 45 to 64 is still about 40%

Edited February 14, 2021 by Yellow Fever

[Indy 3,283]

12 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I might agree but look at he under 45 - that nearly 20% !!!!!

So 45 to 64 is still about 40%

Yes but that’s intensive care and I would suggest most will be with underlying health or obese! So those would be priority 9 groups for vaccinations.

Edited February 14, 2021 by Indy

[Barbe bleu 812]

You all raise really good points.  YF s stats are concerning but maybe indy and aggy are right that the young uns in ITU are those already in priority groups due to underlying issues. Maybe these issues are the real reason they are there.

 

We provably have only a fraction of the info we need to begin the pink un plan.

This is complicated stuff now

[CANARYKING 634]

Think we will struggle to do the remaining population very quickly because the originals will need number two ?

[Yellow Fever 3,736]

44 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

You all raise really good points.  YF s stats are concerning but maybe indy and aggy are right that the young uns in ITU are those already in priority groups due to underlying issues. Maybe these issues are the real reason they are there.

 

We provably have only a fraction of the info we need to begin the pink un plan.

This is complicated stuff now

I'm just trying to bring some realism to the over optimistic assumptions by some. Vaccines are not 100% effective, many much younger than 65 can be seriously ill or indeed pass with or without underlying conditions. The NHS is full of them so no fast relaxation but a slow, step by step cautious approach whatever the 60 or so Tory usual suspects think.

[Indy 3,283]

YF we’ve had this conversation about the younger patients I believe with TJ and WBB and it was confirmed that an estimated 80% + were overweight or had underlying conditions which caused their hospitalisation.

So that really means most should be caught in the priority vaccination groups which will leave the numbers a vast amount lower.

Just need to wait for mid summer to see the real results from vaccinations to form a real idea where we’re at and next winter will certainly show if vaccines are the key to simulating flu vaccinations in the future.

[Yellow Fever 3,736]

28 minutes ago, Indy said:

YF we’ve had this conversation about the younger patients I believe with TJ and WBB and it was confirmed that an estimated 80% + were overweight or had underlying conditions which caused their hospitalisation.

So that really means most should be caught in the priority vaccination groups which will leave the numbers a vast amount lower.

Just need to wait for mid summer to see the real results from vaccinations to form a real idea where we’re at and next winter will certainly show if vaccines are the key to simulating flu vaccinations in the future.

Maybe but the 16 to 65 clinically vulnerable are group 6 and hence won't be vaccinated until say April or May.

[Indy 3,283]

3 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Maybe but the 16 to 65 clinically vulnerable are group 6 and hence won't be vaccinated until say April or May.

I think the estimate for that group is by April. But never the less hopefully they should get captured.

[ricardo 7,339]

9 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Maybe but the 16 to 65 clinically vulnerable are group 6 and hence won't be vaccinated until say April or May.

Err no, the clinically vulnerable under 65's are already being vaccinated in our area. My son (early 50's) had his last Monday.