Corona Virus main thread

[Well b back 3,248]

35 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Big anti vax anti masks demo going on in France at this moment.

Our French cousins do like taking to the streets.

 

A bit misleading that Ricardo they are protests against the requirement for a vaccine certificate. It takes away your right to do most things unless you have been vaccinated. I guess all countries doing the same thing ( we keep saying we are discussing the same ) will have the same reactions by the under 30’s. 

[Yellow Fever 3,810]

44 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Hi CF, hope you are well.

This is exactly what I have been saying about how you put things. The world data shows to the hour the % of population that has been vaccinated rather than adults. Based on that data the U.K. have 68.4% + 1 dose and 52.4% fully vaccinated, France 55.9% and 44.9%. Our current average first dose per day is hovering around 100,000 theirs is fast approaching 800,000. So why do I mention whole population %, well although we have lots of adults still not vaccinated our % can’t go much higher as we are fast approaching all over 18’s prepared to have the vaccine will have had it. France can go all the way down to 12 year olds so potentially they could vaccinate all but 8 million ( approx figure ) of their population, although of course that probably won’t happen. They also 2 nd vaccinate quicker than us and also use one dose Johnson and Johnson. 
There is also the debate as to wether countries using mainly the mRNA vaccines need as they claim only 60 - 70 % vaccinated to be close to immunity, but I am not prepared to comment on that until the real live data backs it up.

Putting everybodies into perspective China have I believe a 1.4 billion population ( 20 % of the world ? I think I heard ) and have in the last couple of days given their 1.4 billionth dose. 50% of their population fully vaccinated in a number of weeks. There is so much Pfizer available, we really need to start getting it out to the world as in the not to distant future China will seize their opportunity to do so.

I agree with you WBB. Tell it cold unspun. Than we can compare apples with apples, oranges with oranges and not lemons with bananas (both yellow)

I do think we should consider vaccinating quickly 16's and get all double dosed asap (3 weeks plus no questions mRNA or J&J etc).

[sonyc 5,539]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

National 42,302 - 49 rate of increase 27% Local Norwich infection rate up from  188.5 to 216.3 Vax 1st Dose       59,073                87.4% done                 Norwich numbers   74.3% 2nd Dose     158,276              66.7% done                                                   50.7%   Hospital Inpatients the last 7 days   13-07-2021           3,615 12-07-2021 3,412 11-07-2021 3,142 10-07-2021 2,999 09-07-2021 2,907 08-07-2021 2,736 07-07-2021 2,651 06-07-2021 2,458                                               Just been reflecting on your figures R...           For sure we are now deciding policy on dates rather than data. Government cannot deny this because we may be approaching rates comparable to autumn. Those hospitalisation rates are stark aren't they? 50% increase in a week in your table. What chance 5400 I wonder by the 20th? Perhaps it won't be such a straightforward straight line linear increase though.

And perhaps we are getting to the point where, for the unvaccinated, it is a choice not to have a jab?

Biggest gamble ever in this pandemic? We didn't know a lot of things in Feb/Mar 2020 but we know a lot more now.

Edit: no idea how half my post has moved within yours. But you can still read the gist.

Edited July 14, 2021 by sonyc

[Capt. Pants 4,263]

A month to go before 27,000 from Norfolk and Merseyside pack into Carrow Rd and surrounding amenities, and the best part of a month's worth for a free for all in pubs and clubs before that. Coupled with the already worrying trend, this isn't going to end well is it?

The % of 2nd vaxers is surely too low to justify easing restrictions.

Don't know what's happening in Norfolk, but my 21 year old has to wait until September for her 2nd dose. Don't know why we are making it so difficult for them.

 

 

[CANARYKING 642]

17 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

A month to go before 27,000 from Norfolk and Merseyside pack into Carrow Rd and surrounding amenities, and the best part of a month's worth for a free for all in pubs and clubs before that. Coupled with the already worrying trend, this isn't going to end well is it?

The % of 2nd vaxers is surely too low to justify easing restrictions.

Don't know what's happening in Norfolk, but my 21 year old has to wait until September for her 2nd dose. Don't know why we are making it so difficult for them.

 

 

No way can they allow full crowds to go ahead, closed doors till Christmas 

[sonyc 5,539]

9 minutes ago, CANARYKING said:

No way can they allow full crowds to go ahead, closed doors till Christmas 

I believe the plan is that people are expected to make their own assessment of risk and decide what to do. The talk for a few weeks from government is that people ought not be mandated by government. If you recall it was stated that the policy would be irreversible at the time. Whether that stays the same, who knows? I can't see any  "closed doors" or lockdowns coming back now. It will be about us all making our own judgements. I'm 100% sure at the time of writing that I would not risk going to a game tomorrow as I would want to know the effect of the vaccine from a lot more data and after much more time has passed. Yet...we cannot lock ourselves away forever!  Hopefully Canaryking, by the time the season starts (or soon after)  then numbers will have levelled or be falling away?  I will not be betting on it though as yet. But again to answer your point, I don't see them "not allowing" crowds to attend.

[Well b back 3,248]

4 minutes ago, CANARYKING said:

No way can they allow full crowds to go ahead, closed doors till Christmas 

Hi CK

I mean this in the nicest way, dream on. 
There were an estimated 1 million people around Wembley Sunday and nothing was done to stop anybody, ticket or no ticket coming to the area. If you would have played spot the mask you would have done well to spot one. I now know the ground was so full, despite the limited tickets, in the end we were in security feared another Hillsborough disaster. 

[It's Character Forming 1,164]

55 minutes ago, sonyc said:

And perhaps we are getting to the point where, for the unvaccinated, it is a choice not to have a jab?

Biggest gamble ever in this pandemic? We didn't know a lot of things in Feb/Mar 2020 but we know a lot more now.

Edit: no idea how half my post has moved within yours. But you can still read the gist.

I agree it’s worrying, but we’ve know for quite a while that cases will rise sharply at this point with restrictions being largely withdrawn already. I think the increases we’ve seen so far are if anything less than projected?
 

That PCCF model shows a steep rise in cases in late July and August, peaking in late August with peaks for hospitalisations and deaths following later as you’d expect. So it will get worse before it gets better ! The key being the models all seem to show a peak with numbers then dropping right down without restrictions being imposed ( unlike previous waves which would have continued upwards into huge numbers).

So the government are I think relying on the modelling (and therefore the underlying scientific thinking on the performance of the vaccines coupled with natural immunity for those who’ve had it) being sufficiently accurate.

 

Part  of the thinking clearly being that summer helps keep numbers down naturally to a degree and having the school holidays also puts a break on transmission plus the NHS is not subject to the normal pressure it suffers in the winter. If we delay and then reopen in September or October those factors are all lost.

 

Ultimately it is a gamble to a degree, but keeping restrictions and delaying reopening would also be a gamble, and continued lockdown has health costs of its own. There are no easy answers!

[ricardo 7,395]

23 minutes ago, CANARYKING said:

No way can they allow full crowds to go ahead, closed doors till Christmas 

Can't  see that happening now. 

[Well b back 3,248]

3 minutes ago, sonyc said:

I believe the plan is that people are expected to make their own assessment of risk and decide what to do. The talk for a few weeks from government is that people ought not be mandated by government. If you recall it was stated that the policy would be irreversible at the time. Whether that stays the same, who knows? I can't see any  "closed doors" or lockdowns coming back now. It will be about us all making our own judgements. I'm 100% sure at the time of writing that I would not risk going to a game tomorrow as I would want to know the effect of the vaccine from a lot more data and after much more time has passed. Yet...we cannot lock ourselves away forever!  Hopefully Canaryking, by the time the season starts (or soon after)  then numbers will have levelled or be falling away?  I will not be betting on it though as yet. But again to answer your point, I don't see them "not allowing" crowds to attend.

I am afraid the risk factor is the type of venue you attend. If you go to a nice restaurant or The Shakespeare theatre I am sure the vast majority will be vaccinated and masked. If you go to a football match there will be a low % vaccinated fully and those wearing masks will look out of place. You had to have a LF negative for Wembley or be vaccinated fully, but even if you had a positive I am sure people would have registered a negative.

Here is food for thought though, I assume if a footballer is positive they can’t play, so for the first few weeks of the season I guess a lot of players will be missing.

[Yellow Fever 3,810]

21 minutes ago, Well b back said:

I am afraid the risk factor is the type of venue you attend. If you go to a nice restaurant or The Shakespeare theatre I am sure the vast majority will be vaccinated and masked. If you go to a football match there will be a low % vaccinated fully and those wearing masks will look out of place. You had to have a LF negative for Wembley or be vaccinated fully, but even if you had a positive I am sure people would have registered a negative.

Here is food for thought though, I assume if a footballer is positive they can’t play, so for the first few weeks of the season I guess a lot of players will be missing.

I was thinking along similar lines ... its the laws of unintended consequences. Many many events, companies and services will likely collapse if the virus simply explodes .... football amongst them. Its the uncontrolled nature thst will be unmanageable.

[Well b back 3,248]

Ultimately it is a gamble to a degree, but keeping restrictions and delaying reopening would also be a gamble, and continued lockdown has health costs of its own. There are no easy answers!
 

@It’s Character Forming

There are lots of gambles who knows what will work, we are relying on everyone getting infected and not many dieing, the EU and others including Israel are relying on mRNA vaccines stopping it at around 60 - 70 % vaccinated, Australia and New Zealand have closed themselves off, China are vaccinating 100 % of their population. 
Other than the China model, all countries seem to stall once they get into the under 30 groups so I suspect as we move nobody will want to admit they got it wrong.

 

 

[Tetteys Jig 830]

to be honest, whilst I'm not throwing caution to the wind, I fully expect to be exposed to Sars-cov-2 at some point in the near future and put my faith in the vaccine protecting me as much as it can. I appreciate I'm still fairly young and healthy so my individual risk profile is low anyway but still I get I'd rather not catch it.

It's damage limitation with a multitude of factors at this point as simply stopping society just isn't an option as many places are slowly finding out.

I'll still wear a mask in indoor enclosed public settings where people don't have a choice but to be there (so places like public transport), test when required and I'll still look out for the usual symptoms (sneezing, high temp, runny nose, sore throat) but I can no longer let it just dominate my life as I'll lose the will to live as I'm sure many will.

Slowly over the coming months/years it will become less and less of an issue and there has to come a point where we don't even give it a moments thought. Internationally, I fear it will get a lot worse before it gets better.

[CANARYKING 642]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

Can't  see that happening now. 

Do mean crowds or no crowds ?

[Creative Midfielder 1,999]

7 minutes ago, Tetteys Jig said:

to be honest, whilst I'm not throwing caution to the wind, I fully expect to be exposed to Sars-cov-2 at some point in the near future and put my faith in the vaccine protecting me as much as it can. I appreciate I'm still fairly young and healthy so my individual risk profile is low anyway but still I get I'd rather not catch it.

It's damage limitation with a multitude of factors at this point as simply stopping society just isn't an option as many places are slowly finding out.

I'll still wear a mask in indoor enclosed public settings where people don't have a choice but to be there (so places like public transport), test when required and I'll still look out for the usual symptoms (sneezing, high temp, runny nose, sore throat) but I can no longer let it just dominate my life as I'll lose the will to live as I'm sure many will.

Slowly over the coming months/years it will become less and less of an issue and there has to come a point where we don't even give it a moments thought. Internationally, I fear it will get a lot worse before it gets better.

Agree with most of that, especially the last paragraph, but it still begs the question of what is the most effective strategy for reaching that point.

IMO the notion that the only thing that is holding the economic recovery back is the legal restrictions, which appears to be the government's stance, is risibly naive and a total misunderstanding the situation.

Of course lifting the restrictions will lead to a bit of increase in economic activity, e.g. nightclubs, but in reality this is at the margins. Real economic recovery isn't going to occur until the large majority of the population feel confident enough to do whatever it is that they would normally do, and that clearly isn't going to happen when we lift restrictions at a time when infections are running at 30/40/50,000 a day.

So my pretty confident prediction is that we are going to see a very muted recovery for the forseeable future when a more prudent stance on the restrictions which produced a much greater feeling of securitya mongst most people would have led to a much bigger and faster recovery.

 

[Tetteys Jig 830]

52 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Agree with most of that, especially the last paragraph, but it still begs the question of what is the most effective strategy for reaching that point.

IMO the notion that the only thing that is holding the economic recovery back is the legal restrictions, which appears to be the government's stance, is risibly naive and a total misunderstanding the situation.

Of course lifting the restrictions will lead to a bit of increase in economic activity, e.g. nightclubs, but in reality this is at the margins. Real economic recovery isn't going to occur until the large majority of the population feel confident enough to do whatever it is that they would normally do, and that clearly isn't going to happen when we lift restrictions at a time when infections are running at 30/40/50,000 a day.

So my pretty confident prediction is that we are going to see a very muted recovery for the forseeable future when a more prudent stance on the restrictions which produced a much greater feeling of securitya mongst most people would have led to a much bigger and faster recovery.

 

possibly, it's tough to know really as there comes a point where we would have to accept some form of exit wave. If delta didn't come when it did, there'd have been another more transmissible variant some point along the line as Israel found.

I suspect them giving "freedom" this summer might give them more room to bring some stuff back and maybe target the vaccine hesitant since I don't think they're going to be keen on things like furlough lasting for the long term.

I do subscribe to the theory that the next variant would go one of 2 ways:

a) another more transmissible variant with not much vaccine escape in which case delta is already virtually cleaning up on that front so I cant see a big difference there. It might become more deadly but if it was I don't see it being able to be quite as insidious as the delta variant so it likely would struggle to take off (see what happened to SARS-COV-1)

b) Alternatively we get one that starts to escape the vaccine but then since it has to reinvent itself and with how that seems to work, it might have to concede its potency in favour of its transmissibility in the face of a highly vaccinate population.

I don't subscribe to the theory that we can avoid new variants altogether but clearly its important to keep surveillance strong so we can prepare for what is coming. I also don't see some super vaccine resistant potent, transmissible monster completely resetting things either, the bigger threat there is a completely new pandemic with a new flu strain or a new coronavirus strain.

My dream would in some ways be option b where we essentially turn SARS-COV-2 into a mild cold via mass vaccination. It would take a long time for many mindsets to adapt though. If we did, would we still be mass testing and quarantining asymptomatic people?

Edited July 14, 2021 by Tetteys Jig

[Well b back 3,248]

I have heard many on here state we don’t test or isolate for flu, well that maybe coming to an end. Note as well the last paragraph about masks.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57837192

[horsefly 4,310]

The sort of example that should serve as a warning about the disingenuous and ambiguous government advice on mask wearing:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/we-didn-t-want-to-be-in-the-news-pastor-pleas-for-mercy-after-125-in-his-masks-optional-summer-camp-get-covid/ar-AAM9N7o?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

We didn’t want to be in the news’: Pastor pleas for ‘mercy’ after 125 in his ‘masks optional’ summer camp get Covid

 

Note too, the significant number contracting the delta variant who had been double vaccinated.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

The sort of example that should serve as a warning about the disingenuous and ambiguous government advice on mask wearing:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/we-didn-t-want-to-be-in-the-news-pastor-pleas-for-mercy-after-125-in-his-masks-optional-summer-camp-get-covid/ar-AAM9N7o?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

We didn’t want to be in the news’: Pastor pleas for ‘mercy’ after 125 in his ‘masks optional’ summer camp get Covid

 

Note too, the significant number contracting the delta variant who had been double vaccinated.

no they weren't... its 6 out of the 57... no context on what ratio of the total were double vaxxed, no word on how severe their infections were, just another story set out to get clicks. Nobody ever claimed the vaccines were 100% effective and masks aren't the silver bullet people are lead to believe they are.

We're gonna be getting used to articles like this and in the end people will just adapt

Edited July 15, 2021 by Tetteys Jig

[horsefly 4,310]

34 minutes ago, Tetteys Jig said:

no they weren't... its 6 out of the 57...

Erm...! that's just a straight contradiction. And are you claiming these people didn't catch covid? (did you read the article?)

[Tetteys Jig 830]

8 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Erm...! that's just a straight contradiction. And are you claiming these people didn't catch covid? (did you read the article?)

taken straight from the article.

Nope, I'm not but the vaccine "doing its job" isn't just a black and white thing.

You don't "catch covid" either, you are exposed to SARS-COV-2 which then in turn causes the susceptible party to then be vulnerable to Covid 19. How do you know these 6 cases weren't asymptomatic?

The article is lacking so much context and just there to scare people.

[Well b back 3,248]

As lots of Countries are considering vaccine passports in their own countries ( including the U.K. ) I think it is really important to bring you up to date on the French protests, which were part of the anti vax movement, as they have been in the U.K. 

Whilst ‘ thousands ‘ took part in the demonstrations ‘ millions ‘ in the last 48 hours have come forward and booked their first vaccinations.

A similar thing has happened in Greece and I expect a similar thing to happen in the U.K. as the world decides will you be allowed into areas without good reason for not having the vaccine.

I should also point out France had not hit a wall, it’s just that people now want them ASAP to avoid any restrictions on their lives.

[horsefly 4,310]

4 minutes ago, Tetteys Jig said:

taken straight from the article.

Nope, I'm not but the vaccine "doing its job" isn't just a black and white thing.

You don't "catch covid" either, you are exposed to SARS-COV-2 which then in turn causes the susceptible party to then be vulnerable to Covid 19. How do you know these 6 cases weren't asymptomatic?

The article is lacking so much context and just there to scare people.

Well it can't be both "no they weren't" and "six of the 57 cases". And are you denying this "maskless" event happened, and 125 attendees ended up with Covid? The pastor certainly isn't denying it. 

[Well b back 3,248]

7 minutes ago, Tetteys Jig said:

taken straight from the article.

Nope, I'm not but the vaccine "doing its job" isn't just a black and white thing.

You don't "catch covid" either, you are exposed to SARS-COV-2 which then in turn causes the susceptible party to then be vulnerable to Covid 19. How do you know these 6 cases weren't asymptomatic?

The article is lacking so much context and just there to scare people.

Hi TJ

Seems to tie in with our Wembley group experience, although not 100% protection after being double jabbed, the only ones with any protection from Delta were those double jabbed. Ours is a much smaller sample though. 

[Well b back 3,248]

Not sure if many of you have the NHS app, but those that do will of course tell you every now and then you get a ping to say you have been in contact but don’t worry you were not close enough for long enough.

Since my app went red I have to confess I have not been taking a lot of notice of any messages, but I just had one that made me gasp 

‘ Your device detected 26 potential COVID exposures this week and shared them with NHS COVID 19 ‘

I guess that would be from Wembley last Wednesday, Sunday to come lol

[Well b back 3,248]

Tesco is joining Sainsbury's in announcing they will continue to ask shoppers to wear masks, even after the legal requirement to do so in England is dropped on Monday.

[Barbe bleu 830]

2 hours ago, horsefly said:

Well it can't be both "no they weren't" and "six of the 57 cases". And are you denying this "maskless" event happened, and 125 attendees ended up with Covid? The pastor certainly isn't denying it. 

I'm with TJ on this.   The article implies 125 'caught covid' as a direct result of attendance.  That might be the case but the article doesn't seem to account for the possibility (indeed likliehood?) that at least one of these 125 'caught' it beforehand.

Turning to the 6 in 57, this ratio implies(very loosely indeed)  a 90% efficacy for the vaccine.   That's a pretty reassuring statistic in and of itself. But it's a very loose implication as the article tells us nothing about the relative numbers of vaxxed and non vaxxed in the whole population involved. We need this information before we can do anything remotely 'scientific' with these numbers 

Tj has already made the point about the difference between infection and disease and how a vaccine might prevent the former from turning into the latter.

For what it is worth I doubt masks do a lot but even a 1% reduction in transmission might make the 'sacrifice' worthwhile so I'll continue to wear one for rhe time being.

Don't dig in on this horsefly.  

 

 

Edited July 15, 2021 by Barbe bleu

[horsefly 4,310]

4 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'm with TJ on this.   The article implies 125 'caught covid' as a direct result of attendance.  That might be the case but the article doesn't seem to account for the possibility (indeed likliehood?) that at least one of these 125 'caught' it beforehand.

Turning to the 6 in 57 that implies(very loosely)  a 90% efficacy for the vaccine.   That's a pretty reassuring statistic in and of itself. That aside the article tells us nothing about the relative numbers of vaxxed and non vaxxed in the whole population involved and we need this information before we can do anything with these numbers.

Tj has already made the point about the difference between infection and disease and how a vaccine might prevent the former from turning into the latter.

For what it is worth I doubt masks do a lot but even a 1% reduction in transmission might make the 'sacrifice' worthwhile so I'll continue to wear one for rhe time being.

Don't dig in on this horsefly.  

 

 

My point is about mask wearing and not the efficacy of the vaccine (TJ decided to make a confusing comment on that facet). The fact that doubly vaxed individuals also caught the virus is a worrying addition. The simple reality is that the greater number of infections, the greater the possibility of new variants developing that render current vaccines ineffective. In that scenario you also increase the chances of a variant developing for which infections turning into disease is vastly increased. 

I have been told throughout my professional life that one should always look to examples of best practice when considering what course of action to take. Take a look at the countries who have by far the best records on infection control and one finds they are also the countries with mandated mask wearing (or cultures where that is common practice). Perhaps that is a mere coincidence, the science suggests not.

[Well b back 3,248]

The vaccine passports moves on as it looks like they will be required at PL grounds. Just like the French and other countries I guess a few will have an issue with this ( mainly anti vaxers ) but the vast majority will support it. I must add though you had to have the same at Wembley and that was a total farce as LF tests are a) not accurate b) you can just say you were negative. 
https://www.edp24.co.uk/sport/norwich-city/norwich-city-fans-mixed-on-covid-passports-8148296

[Barbe bleu 830]

22 minutes ago, horsefly said:

My point is about mask wearing and not the efficacy of the vaccine (TJ decided to make a confusing comment on that facet). The fact that doubly vaxed individuals also caught the virus is a worrying addition. The simple reality is that the greater number of infections, the greater the possibility of new variants developing that render current vaccines ineffective. In that scenario you also increase the chances of a variant developing for which infections turning into disease is vastly increased. 

I have been told throughout my professional life that one should always look to examples of best practice when considering what course of action to take. Take a look at the countries who have by far the best records on infection control and one finds they are also the countries with mandated mask wearing (or cultures where that is common practice). Perhaps that is a mere coincidence, the science suggests not.

Fair enough.   You did comment on vaccines but masks was the main thrust of the original post.

I think it's too complicated to say country x uses masks and they are doing  well so masks must work. Country x is likely to be very different to country y in many ways, making reductivist claims close to impossible.

That said as a general approach I do agree with masks.  They might do only a little good, but they certainly do very, very little harm.

I get that we should value our freedoms highly and that mask mandates do interfere with freedom but I think that the balance on this hadn't quite shifted enough. Tough call though