Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

If there’s a wait period to make sure everything is fine then you’ll just have to have two waiting rooms. One for those waiting for a vaccine and another one waiting to see if there’s any after effects. The second waiting room can have a nurse monitoring everyone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Copperface said:

Even Professor Sahin agrees (and that is only nine days old although the points in the original BBC article are still valid and not really affected by being 7 weeks old)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54949799

That's based on what the (naturally cautious) scientists are saying though, when the actual decision as to what happens when is with parliament and will be taken for entirely political reasons with little deference to science.

As things stand today, just about every restriction in law is scheduled to expire by the end of March and so requires new legislation to be passed to keep in place past then.

The Tory backbenches have made it very clear that they think current restrictions already go too far, and won't accept them being left in place longer than they absolutely have to. Boris won't risk a backbench revolt of that scale.

Realistically, if everyone listed as high or moderate on the vulnerable list has been given a suitable chance to have both shots of the vaccine by the end of March (as seems likely, even if they fall well short of current targets), then there's no likely scenario that the Tories agree to pass further restrictions other than as a very short term thing - Boris would have to rely very heavily on Labour support to get anything long or medium term through which I can't see him accepting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Waterdeep said:

Do you have to wait around for a bit after the flu vaccine? I think I read somewhere that the coronavirus one requires you to stay for a short amount of time afterwards (15-20 mins?) so you can be monitored for immediate adverse reactions. That might slow things down a bit if it's different from the flu setup already in place.

It's a fair point but the roll out for this will be huge compared to the flu vaccine. For instance, my GP surgery were only doing jabs on Saturday mornings. That won't be the case for this.

We're talking about incredible professionals here (I mean the NHS obviously, not our incompetent government)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, efcfanwirral said:

It's interesting that the conversation seems to have moved on from this - we're now more talking about getting everyone vaccinated. I'm not surprised, I still think we'll need to show proof of vaccination to do anything beyond going into a supermarket but I guess it needs to be backed by the population to push it through, and really needs a rollout before reopening too much

Long COVID isn't to be sniffed at - I'm not going out on the lash until I have that sweet, sweet vaccine running through my veins - but we could probably tolerate case numbers similar to pre-lockdown without the NHS being overwhelmed.  So we could start opening up sooner even when the case numbers look quite bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Punksnotdead said:

It's a fair point but the roll out for this will be huge compared to the flu vaccine. For instance, my GP surgery were only doing jabs on Saturday mornings. That won't be the case for this.

We're talking about incredible professionals here (I mean the NHS obviously, not our incompetent government)!

I wish the people in the NHS were running the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

It's interesting that the conversation seems to have moved on from this - we're now more talking about getting everyone vaccinated. I'm not surprised, I still think we'll need to show proof of vaccination to do anything beyond going into a supermarket but I guess it needs to be backed by the population to push it through, and really needs a rollout before reopening too much

Well yeah, the thinking is now changing.

The vaccine, even once we have the vulnerable done, eliminates the really big issue: the NHS being overwhelmed. That's always been talked about as the driving force behind everything because it is properly the worse-case scenario.

What we're seeing now is thinking past that, and for the first time it will actually become a lot more about an individual's appetite for risk. You're not going to overwhelm the NHS if you get it, but you might still get really ill, and you might still die. And a lot of people have, broadly, discovered that this risk is entirely avoidable by essentially avoiding people. And that will remain true. 

Plenty of people have been staying in, staying lockdown, often above and beyond what the guidelines are, because they're scared. Scared of getting ill themselves, or transmitting it to friends or loved ones. Those people won't suddenly be happy with going out again once BoJo says that the NHS will be fine. The NHS was not the reason they were keeping away from people in the first place.

Those people are going to need something else to encourage them to go back out again - that could be getting the vaccine themselves, or seeing the prevalence of COVID drop massively because the vaccine is preventing transmission. The second might happen but the first is more reliable.

And until you get that, you will never have the economy back on anywhere near the level it was before. It can't function in the same way if even 10-20% of people are still not going out because they're scared. The government recognize this, it's why "eat out to help out" was a thing in the first place.

I think quite a few people are in for a bit of a shock when everything is allowed to re-open, and they see how, after the initial mad rush, quiet things actually are, because of people voluntarily taking themselves out of pubs, town centres, bars, etc.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

If there’s a wait period to make sure everything is fine then you’ll just have to have two waiting rooms. One for those waiting for a vaccine and another one waiting to see if there’s any after effects. The second waiting room can have a nurse monitoring everyone. 

it doesn't even need to be a nurse, just someone who is able to call medical help if its needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Has “long covid” been proved to be anything other than the post viral fatigue syndrome that many people get after having the flu? 

We could debate the term proven, but I think so yes. It certainly seems to be the case that it can have a significant effect on the heart and lungs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, incident said:

We could debate the term proven, but I think so yes. It certainly seems to be the case that it can have a significant effect on the heart and lungs.

Fair enough. I just tend to see that argument wheeled out whenever people realise that “save all the grannies” isn’t a strong enough argument to persuade young and healthy anti-lockdowners to follow the rules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, incident said:

As things stand today, just about every restriction in law is scheduled to expire by the end of March and so requires new legislation to be passed to keep in place past then.

 

Been through all of this before but sorry,  that's incorrect. The Act lasts for two years and expires in March 2022. 

SIs are used in the majority of cases and are not voted on as they are issued under the PHCDA Act, which does not expire.

Edited by Copperface
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

If there’s a wait period to make sure everything is fine then you’ll just have to have two waiting rooms. One for those waiting for a vaccine and another one waiting to see if there’s any after effects. The second waiting room can have a nurse monitoring everyone. 

That strikes me as a not insignificant infrastructure challenge. Just because places set up for flu jabs or blood tests won't necessarily have that. My local pharmacist does both but doesn't even have a waiting room, you just have an appointment time and wait in the shop. It could be adapted, for sure, but that means adapting, which means time, money and planning.

9 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Long COVID isn't to be sniffed at - I'm not going out on the lash until I have that sweet, sweet vaccine running through my veins - but we could probably tolerate case numbers similar to pre-lockdown without the NHS being overwhelmed.  So we could start opening up sooner even when the case numbers look quite bad.

I'm really curious on this because I feel similarly but also, is 90% enough? If you're worried about it, does it make you comfortable enough that the chances are now 10% of what they were? I'm not sure it is for me, it's what I'm struggling with at the moment. I won't go out for a 1 in 10,000 chance of COVID but I'll do it for 1 in 100,000 sort of thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Well yeah, the thinking is now changing.

The vaccine, even once we have the vulnerable done, eliminates the really big issue: the NHS being overwhelmed. That's always been talked about as the driving force behind everything because it is properly the worse-case scenario.

What we're seeing now is thinking past that, and for the first time it will actually become a lot more about an individual's appetite for risk. You're not going to overwhelm the NHS if you get it, but you might still get really ill, and you might still die. And a lot of people have, broadly, discovered that this risk is entirely avoidable by essentially avoiding people. And that will remain true. 

Plenty of people have been staying in, staying lockdown, often above and beyond what the guidelines are, because they're scared. Scared of getting ill themselves, or transmitting it to friends or loved ones. Those people won't suddenly be happy with going out again once BoJo says that the NHS will be fine. The NHS was not the reason they were keeping away from people in the first place.

Those people are going to need something else to encourage them to go back out again - that could be getting the vaccine themselves, or seeing the prevalence of COVID drop massively because the vaccine is preventing transmission. The second might happen but the first is more reliable.

And until you get that, you will never have the economy back on anywhere near the level it was before. It can't function in the same way if even 10-20% of people are still not going out because they're scared. The government recognize this, it's why "eat out to help out" was a thing in the first place.

I think quite a few people are in for a bit of a shock when everything is allowed to re-open, and they see how, after the initial mad rush, quiet things actually are, because of people voluntarily taking themselves out of pubs, town centres, bars, etc.

This is a good post and I’d give you a Charles if I could.

 

I’ll add to it that from a moral “protect the NHS” standpoint, it doesn’t matter whether Joe Bloggs caught the virus from his best mate or from some randomer stood next to him in the pub. But when you start looking at individual risk tolerance, Joe himself is more likely to draw a distinction here. He might feel more comfortable avoiding crowded spaces, but he’s not going to stay away from his loved ones that he’s not seen all year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chef said:

 

Some questions raised by Ed Conway in this thread - @Toilet Duckany thoughts? 

EDIT: Questions raised in follow up tweet;

Is this a) a reminder that the immune system is ultimately something of a mystery b) something about the way the tests were carried out c) something about Brazil vs UK or d) something else? The gap between those numbers seems quite big.

Howdy, was in meetings all morning, so only joining the discussion now!

...why there is a different response to the different dosing regimens is unknown really. My best guess would be that it has something to do with the immune response to the chimp virus used to deliver the spike protein. This was seen with the SARS and MERS vaccines based on adenoviruses and is exactly the reason the Oxford team decided to go with a chimp virus instead of a human one (since we probably have some existing immunity to human adenoviruses). The Russian and some of the Chinese adenovirus vaccines have stuck with the human ones, but for those that need two shots (like the Russian one), they picked two different human adenoviruses for each dose so they could minimise this (and ones that aren't in general circulation much). So, presumably, with the higher dose first shot of the Oxford vaccine, the immune response destroys the second one (losing the CoV immune response as well).

Unlike many of the other trials, the Oxford vaccine trials are actually a whole bunch of smaller trials (Pfizer and Moderna have one big trial run in different countries). They've tried to look at as many different things as they can within these trials (so they are testing out different dosing (which you would usually just do at earlier phases), they are looking in depth at the type of immune response in different age groups, they are looking at HIV+ individuals, they have larger vaccine arms compared to placebo for better safety and, crucially, they are also swabbing a subset of participants weekly to look at the impact of the vaccine on asymptomatic cases...ie, sterilising immunity). The sterilising immunity part isn't included in the trial outcomes, their vaccine passes if it hits 50% reduction in disease (which it does), but they've been aiming for more while trying to ensure their trial doesn't fail. If they are saying that they are seeing a signal for reduced transmission, then they are the only trial to my knowledge that can accurately make this claim (since the others are using eDiaries and symptom reporting to scheduled tests). What it does highlight is the difference between industry-sponsored trials and investigator-led trials (investigator-led trials always ask academic questions, industry-sponsored ones want to see if the drug/product works so they can sell it). The "some" reduction in transmission is probably because they haven't got a statistically significant result yet, but it may be pointing that way. Either way, a 90% reduction in disease with the reduced dosing schedule, coupled with the simpler logistics and a big price difference (with a commitment to provide vaccine at cost for other, less developed parts of the world) makes this probably a bigger deal than the last two announcements...also important to note that while the 1.5 doses give 90% protection from disease, the first dose doesn't do nothing! (so it will provide some protection).

A hat trick from the first 3 vaccine candidates is pretty unbelievable. This is also based on different technology to the first 2, so again, we are seeing that making vaccines that work for CoVs can be done (by different means) and again, there are a whole bunch more coming down the tracks that we can be pretty confident about now (and we'll need lots). The fact that the mRNA vaccines work is really very exciting, they were originally being designed for cancer (with the potential to personalise them to your own cancer), so while we've always suspected it could be a good approach, to see it actually work is phenomenal and could really be a game-changer for cancer (not necessarily to stop you getting it, but to reprogram your immune system when you do). 

oh, and it appears there is a pattern!

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Waterdeep said:

Do you have to wait around for a bit after the flu vaccine? I think I read somewhere that the coronavirus one requires you to stay for a short amount of time afterwards (15-20 mins?) so you can be monitored for immediate adverse reactions. That might slow things down a bit if it's different from the flu setup already in place.

In theory, the protocol for the flu shot is also to wait for 15 minutes (since any anaphylaxis that could occur will happen within that time frame). In practice, they hoosh you out the door as soon as you are done! 

Edit: I should also add that fainting (which is more common than anaphylaxis) might be a concern at drive through vaccination centres, so parking for 15 minutes after the shot might not be a bad way of dealing with it...

Edited by Toilet Duck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

That strikes me as a not insignificant infrastructure challenge. Just because places set up for flu jabs or blood tests won't necessarily have that. My local pharmacist does both but doesn't even have a waiting room, you just have an appointment time and wait in the shop. It could be adapted, for sure, but that means adapting, which means time, money and planning.

I'm really curious on this because I feel similarly but also, is 90% enough? If you're worried about it, does it make you comfortable enough that the chances are now 10% of what they were? I'm not sure it is for me, it's what I'm struggling with at the moment. I won't go out for a 1 in 10,000 chance of COVID but I'll do it for 1 in 100,000 sort of thing?

Good points.

On the latter, it would be far, far, dramatically more than a 10-fold risk reduction if those people who are now vaccinated also cannot pass it on/transmit.

There were some encouraging signs from the Oxford trial.

If proven, that will speed up 'back to normal' by a huge margin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

If there’s a wait period to make sure everything is fine then you’ll just have to have two waiting rooms. One for those waiting for a vaccine and another one waiting to see if there’s any after effects. The second waiting room can have a nurse monitoring everyone. 

Why have 2 rooms that you need to disinfect for each person when the patient can stay in one place and the nurse moves between 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it’s probably wise to not rush these things and go with the mentality that the winter will largely be unaffected any vaccine so any form of normality won’t be seen till the Spring. Which is what all medical and scientific professionals have been saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Long COVID isn't to be sniffed at - I'm not going out on the lash until I have that sweet, sweet vaccine running through my veins - but we could probably tolerate case numbers similar to pre-lockdown without the NHS being overwhelmed.  So we could start opening up sooner even when the case numbers look quite bad.

Jq2Yv1Z.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I think quite a few people are in for a bit of a shock when everything is allowed to re-open, and they see how, after the initial mad rush, quiet things actually are, because of people voluntarily taking themselves out of pubs, town centres, bars, etc.

And on top of that a lot of people just won't be indulging in the same kinds of activities because they've seen the 'other side' to it. Suddenly a lot of people have realised they don't need shopping, boozing, etc etc to be happy and are quite happy saving money. I think there'll be an interesting shift around stuff like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Copperface said:

Been through all of this before but sorry,  that's incorrect. The Act lasts for two years and expires in March 2022. 

SIs are used in the majority of cases and are not voted on.

Getting deep into technicalities here, but the act you're talking about doesn't directly lay down the restrictions currently in place. What it does is provide ministerial powers to introduce restrictions as needed. While it's true that this could theoretically be used without parliamentary approval up until 2022, we both know that it won't barring a substantial and currently unforeseen change in situation.

The current restrictions, broadly speaking, did go through parliament, and that legislation certainly does expire in March. SIs have been used as short term fixes and as clarifications but not to push through any substantial long/medium term changes.

While they may not technically need to go back to parliament, it's near certain that any significant further restrictions (beyond emergency use) will do so because again, Boris won't risk going against his MPs to that extent.

You can argue technicalities all you want, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation - as it stands today most restrictions expire by the end of March and while yes there's legal provision to extend them without parliamentary consent that realistically won't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jannybruck said:

And on top of that a lot of people just won't be indulging in the same kinds of activities because they've seen the 'other side' to it. Suddenly a lot of people have realised they don't need shopping, boozing, etc etc to be happy and are quite happy saving money. I think there'll be an interesting shift around stuff like this.

I reckon there might be a bit of this. My bank balance is through the roof and my friend and I have basically realised we can sit on his sofa, drinking our own booze while watching the football and get to choose our own music too. Although any of the posters on here from NZ and Australia should be able to confirm if things really do change that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Homer said:

I reckon there might be a bit of this. My bank balance is through the roof and my friend and I have basically realised we can sit on his sofa, drinking our own booze while watching the football and get to choose our own music too. Although any of the posters on here from NZ and Australia should be able to confirm if things really do change that much.

I think there was a big trend towards 'experiences', partly driven by Instagram, before lockdown and I expect that to continue.

People will be prepared to spend big for special events...probably less so for average restaurants, pret coffees, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...