When will this shit end?

[zahidf]

Just now, stuartbert two hats said:

Those who won't take it can take their chances, those it won't work on are a genuine concern and the under 18s are pretty well protected by their immune system - and I'd be surprised if the programme to vaccinate the under 18s hasn't already started by the time the last adult is jabbed.

But still, when you put it like that, it does make herd immunity seem awfully difficult to achieve. Must be scary for the immunocompromised.

Peston saying 50% of the population are in danger AFTER the vaccine programme is ridiculous though.

[stuartbert two hats]

Just now, zahidf said:

Peston saying 50% of the population are in danger AFTER the vaccine programme is ridiculous though.

I've not calculated it, but it seems awfully high, doesn't it?

[March Hare]

30 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

even with completion of the vaccine programme about half the population will NOT be protected.

This lack of immunity for half the population stems from an estimate that 20% of adults won't take it, the vaccines won't work on between 10% and 20% of us, and the vaccines are not authorised for use on those under 18.

Even running with the 2x20% figures those not protected is closer to 33% (my crude maths off top of my head) and that’s assuming fit young people are “not protected” and therefore at risk.
Very poor and lazy reporting 

Edited February 21, 2021 by March Hare

[March Hare]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I've not calculated it, but it seems awfully high, doesn't it?

He’s got himself in a muddle.

[zahidf]

3 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I've not calculated it, but it seems awfully high, doesn't it?

He doesn't seem to understand numbers FFS

[BobWillis]

14 minutes ago, zahidf said:

The vaccines won't work for 10-20% of us??? Peston getting numbers from nowhere.

Think he’s getting himself confused about efficacy. The importance is that all will be protected from severe disease and death. 
 

Only those who refuse a vaccine will be at risk and 20% seems pretty high. 

[Chapple12345]

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

He doesn't seem to understand numbers FFS

Particularly useful as he was Buissness and Economic editor at the BBC 

[xxialac]

34 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

even with completion of the vaccine programme about half the population will NOT be protected.

This lack of immunity for half the population stems from an estimate that 20% of adults won't take it, the vaccines won't work on between 10% and 20% of us, and the vaccines are not authorised for use on those under 18.

He's also given zero allocation to quite a large chunk of people who won't take the vaccine or are under 18 but have already had Covid and thus have some immunity.

[Ozanne]

It's not the first time Peston's made himself look foolish during the pandemic.

[March Hare]

11 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

It's not the first time Peston's made himself look foolish during the pandemic.

Peston is the only one who can unite all sides of the debate on this thread.

[Toilet Duck]

32 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Those who won't take it can take their chances, those it won't work on are a genuine concern and the under 18s are pretty well protected by their immune system - and I'd be surprised if the programme to vaccinate the under 18s hasn't already started by the time the last adult is jabbed.

But still, when you put it like that, it does make herd immunity seem awfully difficult to achieve. Must be scary for the immunocompromised.

Yeah, agree it’s likely that use in under 18s will be forthcoming in the near future...so far, no reports of major problems in 12-18 year olds on the US trials for the mRNA vaccines and Oxford should have data on safety for 6+ by the time the new school year starts (maybe, cases are dwindling thankfully and I can’t remember where they are running the trial). How those with chronic inflammatory conditions etc who are taking immunosuppressive drugs will respond to the vaccine is currently unknown, whether they need to pause treatment is also unknown (if they do, get them on the 3 week Pfizer/Moderna regimen and back on treatment), so still things to figure out in real world use. I’d expect many people in these situations would have received a vaccine in Israel though, so again, they are our best source of information as to how things should pan out. 

Edited February 21, 2021 by Toilet Duck
Typo!

[gizmoman]

29 minutes ago, aj6658 said:

Is it really that high that 20% won't take it? Im all for a vaccine passport if its that high. You're refusing the vaccine? Then you cant go to the pub/go holiday.  Where is all this hubris that people think they know more than experts because of a post on Facebook... Literally ignores all experts on the matter because it doesn't fit their own world view.

 

re: under 18- not an issue. They're not at risk at all

Interesting that the first condition on his list is,

"1) whether the roll out of the vaccine remains on target"

Which suggests to me they will bring back restrictions to "persuade" people to get the vaccine if the uptake starts to decline (and it will). I suspect uptake is actually less than they claim at the moment, they seem to have moved down the age groups pretty rapidly, in any event I don't see 20% refusal as particularly high, not everyone is as pro-vax as those on here. Once they get to the younger ones uptake will drop off as they are at little risk and there is little community incentive if they think the vunerable are vaccinated and protected.

The view that "vaccine refusers" should be punished by restricting their access to pubs etc. is quite popular on here, it's easy to call for discriminatory measures against a faceless group of people you violently disagree with but the reality is many of these people will be friends or family of you or your close contacts. The reality is this policy will impact everyone, even those who get the vaccine and are happy to get a passport. For example let's assume Glastonbury goes ahead next year with access to those with a vaccine passport only. Most people go in groups so lets say in a group of 6 one person isn't vaccinated and won't get one, that would change the dynamic of the group, what if it is your best mate who you normally hang around with? Are you happy to lose friends because you disagree with their views on this? I'm sure some of you would but even so it will have had an impact on you. This year is going to be very interesting, the pro-vax v anti-vax debate is going to get nasty, we already have a taste of it on here.

[March Hare]

I’ve already had a discussion with a family member along these lines @gizmoman. We were talking about family holidays and they don’t fancy taking a vaccine that is so new. My response was we might end up doing the family holiday without them. I won’t compromise my lifestyle for someone who won’t take a vaccine.  As you say, not an easy conversation to have

[gizmoman]

8 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Yeah, agree it’s likely that use in under 18s will be forthcoming in the near future...so far, no reports of major problems in 12-18 year olds on the US trials for the mRNA vaccines and Oxford should have data on safety for 6+ by the time the new school year starts (maybe, cases are dwindling thankfully and I can’t remember where they are running the trial). How those with chronic inflammatory conditions etc who are taking immunosuppressive drugs will respond to the vaccine is currently unknown, whether they need to pause treatment is also unknown (if they do, get them on the 3 week Pfizer/Moderna regimen and back on treatment), so still things to figure out in real world use. I’d expect many people in these situations would have received a vaccine in Israel though, so again, they are our best source of information as to how things should pan out. 

Do you think it is ethical to give kids a vaccine that is not fully licensed and is still effectively experimental? Particularly as they are at such a low risk from the disease, surely it would be better to wait until all the adults are done and assess the results, by then the virus may be much less prevalent and much less of a risk.

[stuartbert two hats]

13 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

Interesting that the first condition on his list is,

"1) whether the roll out of the vaccine remains on target"

Which suggests to me they will bring back restrictions to "persuade" people to get the vaccine if the uptake starts to decline (and it will). I suspect uptake is actually less than they claim at the moment, they seem to have moved down the age groups pretty rapidly, in any event I don't see 20% refusal as particularly high, not everyone is as pro-vax as those on here. Once they get to the younger ones uptake will drop off as they are at little risk and there is little community incentive if they think the vunerable are vaccinated and protected.

The view that "vaccine refusers" should be punished by restricting their access to pubs etc. is quite popular on here, it's easy to call for discriminatory measures against a faceless group of people you violently disagree with but the reality is many of these people will be friends or family of you or your close contacts. The reality is this policy will impact everyone, even those who get the vaccine and are happy to get a passport. For example let's assume Glastonbury goes ahead next year with access to those with a vaccine passport only. Most people go in groups so lets say in a group of 6 one person isn't vaccinated and won't get one, that would change the dynamic of the group, what if it is your best mate who you normally hang around with? Are you happy to lose friends because you disagree with their views on this? I'm sure some of you would but even so it will have had an impact on you. This year is going to be very interesting, the pro-vax v anti-vax debate is going to get nasty, we already have a taste of it on here.

Then my best mate is probably a knobhead.

[august1]

5 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

Do you think it is ethical to give kids a vaccine that is not fully licensed and is still effectively experimental? Particularly as they are at such a low risk from the disease, surely it would be better to wait until all the adults are done and assess the results, by then the virus may be much less prevalent and much less of a risk.

I think only vulnerable children will be given the jab tbh unless the data is amazing in stopping the spread/wider risk.

[stuartbert two hats]

Just now, august1 said:

I think only vulnerable children will be given the jab tbh unless the data is amazing in stopping the spread/wider risk.

Have you seen the Pfizer data from Israel today? It is amazing.

[stuartbert two hats]

8 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

No chance of this... 

Will be all children as soon as the safety data is in...  We give the kids the flu vaccine for a reason...

To be fair the reason is because the flu can make children really ill. Not to stop it being spread to the wider population.

[august1]

13 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Have you seen the Pfizer data from Israel today? It is amazing.

Do they have data from kids?

11 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

No chance of this... 

Will be all children as soon as the safety data is in...  We give the kids the flu vaccine for a reason...

in terms of 'emergency use' I think it will be the vulnerable. Maybe a lot later down the line it might be rolled out to high school age, hopefully it wont be needed then.

[gizmoman]

11 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Then my best mate is probably a knobhead.

And of course he will have the same opinion of you (at least on this subject), this is the problem, this is so divisive even if we get through this with no vaccine passport and life returns to normal there will still be resentment towards the non-vaccinated as they will be seen to have got the benefit of the vaccine without taking their share of the "risk". The only solution I can see to this is if those that refuse the vaccine are able to contribute in some other way, say pay a bit more tax to boost the NHS or something otherwise you get a situation similar to the conscientious objectors during the war where the majority treated them as cowards.

[Toilet Duck]

20 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

Do you think it is ethical to give kids a vaccine that is not fully licensed and is still effectively experimental? Particularly as they are at such a low risk from the disease, surely it would be better to wait until all the adults are done and assess the results, by then the virus may be much less prevalent and much less of a risk.

It’s a difficult one. By vaccinating everyone else, we effectively end up making disease one of early childhood. As the father of a 5 year old, who has mild asthma (and has had all her scheduled vaccinations, plus her annual flu one), that thought does scare me a bit. I know she’s still low risk, but I’d prefer she didn’t have to risk it at all. By the time she’s old enough to get it, we’ll have over a year’s worth of safety data, adult administration will be complete in most of Europe and it’s likely that the vaccine will no longer be unlicensed (trial data in kids is one of the conditions that needs to be met to convert a CMA into a full authorisation...based on that it could quite conceivably not be approved for use under 18, or it’ll be deemed safe). An attenuated, nasally delivered one (of which a few are in development) might be a better option for kids (same type we use for flu). It’s likely something we’ll have to consider at some point in the near future, but let’s see how things develop. 

[Toilet Duck]

5 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

No it is not...  That is totally untrue...

We give the kids the flu vaccine to stop them spreading it.  Is your name Donald Trump ?

Not quite. Flu is very dangerous under 5. 

[stuartbert two hats]

11 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

No it is not...  That is totally untrue...

We give the kids the flu vaccine to stop them spreading it.  Is your name Donald Trump ?

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/child-flu-vaccine/#:~:text=It's offered every year as,such as bronchitis and pneumonia.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

No it is not...  That is totally untrue...

We give the kids the flu vaccine to stop them spreading it.  Is your name Donald Trump ?

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/child-flu-vaccine/#:~:text=It's offered every year as,such as bronchitis and pneumonia.

 

I should have said "not primarily to stop it being spread". But the main reason is to protect the children. Right above the section you quoted:

No idea about the Trump jibe, I do favour vaccinating children to prevent the spread, but it's important to recognise that unlike other vaccines (e.g. Measles which is very important to prevent spread), this cannot be sold on the basis of protecting the children.

My daughter (8) will probably get the COVID jab, pending trials, but it's a much harder sell and is quite different to any other vaccine I can think of in that it doesn't have any direct benefit to the child.

 

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by stuartbert two hats

[stuartbert two hats]

14 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

It’s a difficult one. By vaccinating everyone else, we effectively end up making disease one of early childhood. As the father of a 5 year old, who has mild asthma (and has had all her scheduled vaccinations, plus her annual flu one), that thought does scare me a bit. I know she’s still low risk, but I’d prefer she didn’t have to risk it at all. By the time she’s old enough to get it, we’ll have over a year’s worth of safety data, adult administration will be complete in most of Europe and it’s likely that the vaccine will no longer be unlicensed (trial data in kids is one of the conditions that needs to be met to convert a CMA into a full authorisation...based on that it could quite conceivably not be approved for use under 18, or it’ll be deemed safe). An attenuated, nasally delivered one (of which a few are in development) might be a better option for kids (same type we use for flu). It’s likely something we’ll have to consider at some point in the near future, but let’s see how things develop. 

The nasal spray looks like it could be the most effective is preventing spread too, doesn't it?

[Toilet Duck]

Just now, stuartbert two hats said:

The nasal spray looks like it could be the most effective is preventing spread too, doesn't it?

If it can stimulate strong mucosal immunity it could stop the virus getting a foothold in the first place, so definitely good potential if the right approach can be found!