Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Recommended Posts

Just now, fraybentos1 said:

Also is herd immunity not literally the only choice long-term? Just now we can do it via vaccines rather than through natural infection.

We’re actually working towards a mixture of both. Hasn’t recent studies placed as many as 8-10 million with antibodies? And the millions of vaccines to come in the next few months and hopefully we’re almost at an acceptable level. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 70.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • steviewevie

    7758

  • Ozanne

    6046

  • crazyfool1

    5153

  • zahidf

    4731

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think on a music festival message board it’s a legitimate question to ask. It doesn’t suggest the OP doesn’t give a shit about anything else. Of course there are much bigger things to be worrie

I can’t get the following thought out of my head and it’s making the old bottom lip wobble: Wednesday evening at the 2021 festival, the sun has been out all day but temperature not stifling, perf

Got my jab next tue ... 😀

Posted Images

2 hours ago, xxialac said:

No need to panic everyone

We have these colossal intellectual heavyweights to get us out of this misery.

Image

Shaap and Raab look they havent got a scooby where they are !!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, st dan said:

We’re actually working towards a mixture of both. Hasn’t recent studies placed as many as 8-10 million with antibodies? And the millions of vaccines to come in the next few months and hopefully we’re almost at an acceptable level. 

My hope is that around 20 percent have had it, and I think that is realistic. I know they said you need at least 70 percent to reach herd immunity territory but I don't know at what point you'd start to see some impact on lowering transmission.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

Also is herd immunity not literally the only choice long-term? Just now we can do it via vaccines rather than through natural infection.

This has always been the only way out but the choice is over time scale and method in getting there. it's really not helped discussion that the term herd immunity was bastardised really early on and now anyone who mentions it is considered a eugenicist.

Edited by Leyrulion
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst the message from the government recently seems to be all doom and gloom regarding the speed things will start opening up, I'm sure they are just being extra cautious in giving any kind of indication of relaxing of the rules, and when it does happen it will be very short notice.

When we came out of the first lockdown last year, as soon as the relaxation was announced people took that as a green light to end lockdown straight away, even though the relaxation didn't come in to effect for a few days.

I reckon we will be back in the tiers at half term like was originally hinted at when this lockdown came in, and if the numbers are good pretty rapidly working our way down the tiers through the spring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fraybentos1 said:

Also is herd immunity not literally the only choice long-term? Just now we can do it via vaccines rather than through natural infection.

herd immunity might be the choice but I don't think it's possible. I reckon we've got as much chance of wiping out the common cold.

Hopefully once everyone has had a dose of antibodies (via vaccine or infection) it'll end up much like the common cold: without a huge illness effect.  Perhaps ending up something like 'flu, which takes out the vulnerable but which isn't a big deal in general.

And quite possibly, the combined death toll from seasonal 'flu and seasonal covid won't be much different to the annual deaths cased by 'flu, because they will both badly effect the same cohort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s a novel virus and hence everybody reacts differently to it, a bit like how some people die from wasp stings (I know that’s way off from a scientific point of view, but dying from a wasp sting is effectively someone’s immune system reacting incorrectly to something it’s never encountered before)

The hope is once we’ve all had some interaction with it, through either vaccine or infection or will never be quiet as serious second time around, and so and so forth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

herd immunity might be the choice but I don't think it's possible. I reckon we've got as much chance of wiping out the common cold.

Hopefully once everyone has had a dose of antibodies (via vaccine or infection) it'll end up much like the common cold: without a huge illness effect.  Perhaps ending up something like 'flu, which takes out the vulnerable but which isn't a big deal in general.

And quite possibly, the combined death toll from seasonal 'flu and seasonal covid won't be much different to the annual deaths cased by 'flu, because they will both badly effect the same cohort.

Yeah from what the experts say it suggests Covid can't be fully eradicated like Smallpox (?). The experts (can't remember if it was Whitty or Vallance) mentioned recently that it might end up comparable to the flu and there are a certain number of deaths we 'accept' as a society. It's just a case of what that number is and when we are going to get there I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, xxialac said:

No need to panic everyone

We have these colossal intellectual heavyweights to get us out of this misery.

Image

I still can't figure out why Johnson taking on the appearance of a totally clueless fucking bellend apparently makes him the ideal choice to run the country for so many. But here we are.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

Yeah from what the experts say it suggests Covid can't be fully eradicated like Smallpox (?). The experts (can't remember if it was Whitty or Vallance) mentioned recently that it might end up comparable to the flu and there are a certain number of deaths we 'accept' as a society. It's just a case of what that number is and when we are going to get there I guess.

One of the reasons the annual 'flu deaths are regarded as acceptable is because they very much effect people who are end of life anyway. Historically, an oldie getting winter flu and dying was (and still often is) regarded as a blessed relief.

It's much harder, I think, for society to accept something new doing the same thing, but I'm hopeful it'll be easier to get our heads around because I think it's unlikely covid will add much to deaths from respiratory infections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a naive question, sorry I am just a bit confused! 

If the new variant initially had an r-rate of say 1.7, that means 10 people who have the virus spread it to 17 people who in turn spread it to 29 people, and so cases go up exponentially.

If the first does of a vaccine has a 75% efficacy rate, then 75% of the 17 above wont get it (assuming everyone is vaccinated) so only 4 get the virus who then pass it on to 1 or 2 people. so r-rate becomes 1.7 * .25 = 0.4, so does the virus then fizzle out (assuming no further mutations) . Does the virus then effectively disappear or at worst only affect a few people who in turn don't spread it? Or will all of the people who have the vaccination still be carriers even though they don't get the virus?

Won't there therefore be a target rate for r (being a combination of the rate from the variant * restrictions measures in place * effectiveness of the jab) where the virus will be allowed to go round the population on the basis it wont really spread any further, and people can only get it from importing it from areas/people not already vaccinated. And even if they do import it, it wont spread it anyway. So simplistically the r-rate is a*b*c,

a being the r-rate the most prevalent variant in the population currently

b being the impact of current restrictions 

c being a combination the efficacy of the jab and percentage of people who have had that jab 

... and when a*b*c that goes below certain levels restrictions could start be lifted (e.g. , <0.8 tier 4 restrictions lifted, < 0.6 tier 3 restrictions lifted, <0.4 all restrictions lifted). 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dingbat2 said:

I have a naive question, sorry I am just a bit confused! 

If the new variant initially had an r-rate of say 1.7, that means 10 people who have the virus spread it to 17 people who in turn spread it to 29 people, and so cases go up exponentially.

If the first does of a vaccine has a 75% efficacy rate, then 75% of the 17 above wont get it (assuming everyone is vaccinated) so only 4 get the virus who then pass it on to 1 or 2 people. so r-rate becomes 1.7 * .25 = 0.4, so does the virus then fizzle out (assuming no further mutations) . Does the virus then effectively disappear or at worst only affect a few people who in turn don't spread it? Or will all of the people who have the vaccination still be carriers even though they don't get the virus?

Won't there therefore be a target rate for r (being a combination of the rate from the variant * restrictions measures in place * effectiveness of the jab) where the virus will be allowed to go round the population on the basis it wont really spread any further, and people can only get it from importing it from areas/people not already vaccinated. And even if they do import it, it wont spread it anyway. So simplistically the r-rate is a*b*c,

a being the r-rate the most prevalent variant in the population currently

b being the impact of current restrictions 

c being a combination the efficacy of the jab and percentage of people who have had that jab 

... and when a*b*c that goes below certain levels restrictions could start be lifted (e.g. , <0.8 tier 4 restrictions lifted, < 0.6 tier 3 restrictions lifted, <0.4 all restrictions lifted). 

 

That is probs one for @Toilet Duck

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dingbat2 said:

I have a naive question, sorry I am just a bit confused! 

If the new variant initially had an r-rate of say 1.7, that means 10 people who have the virus spread it to 17 people who in turn spread it to 29 people, and so cases go up exponentially.

If the first does of a vaccine has a 75% efficacy rate, then 75% of the 17 above wont get it (assuming everyone is vaccinated) so only 4 get the virus who then pass it on to 1 or 2 people. so r-rate becomes 1.7 * .25 = 0.4, so does the virus then fizzle out (assuming no further mutations) . Does the virus then effectively disappear or at worst only affect a few people who in turn don't spread it? Or will all of the people who have the vaccination still be carriers even though they don't get the virus?

Won't there therefore be a target rate for r (being a combination of the rate from the variant * restrictions measures in place * effectiveness of the jab) where the virus will be allowed to go round the population on the basis it wont really spread any further, and people can only get it from importing it from areas/people not already vaccinated. And even if they do import it, it wont spread it anyway. So simplistically the r-rate is a*b*c,

a being the r-rate the most prevalent variant in the population currently

b being the impact of current restrictions 

c being a combination the efficacy of the jab and percentage of people who have had that jab 

... and when a*b*c that goes below certain levels restrictions could start be lifted (e.g. , <0.8 tier 4 restrictions lifted, < 0.6 tier 3 restrictions lifted, <0.4 all restrictions lifted). 

 

they don't know how much vaccine will stop spread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dingbat2 said:

I have a naive question, sorry I am just a bit confused! 

If the new variant initially had an r-rate of say 1.7, that means 10 people who have the virus spread it to 17 people who in turn spread it to 29 people, and so cases go up exponentially.

If the first does of a vaccine has a 75% efficacy rate, then 75% of the 17 above wont get it (assuming everyone is vaccinated) so only 4 get the virus who then pass it on to 1 or 2 people. so r-rate becomes 1.7 * .25 = 0.4, so does the virus then fizzle out (assuming no further mutations) . Does the virus then effectively disappear or at worst only affect a few people who in turn don't spread it? Or will all of the people who have the vaccination still be carriers even though they don't get the virus?

Won't there therefore be a target rate for r (being a combination of the rate from the variant * restrictions measures in place * effectiveness of the jab) where the virus will be allowed to go round the population on the basis it wont really spread any further, and people can only get it from importing it from areas/people not already vaccinated. And even if they do import it, it wont spread it anyway. So simplistically the r-rate is a*b*c,

a being the r-rate the most prevalent variant in the population currently

b being the impact of current restrictions 

c being a combination the efficacy of the jab and percentage of people who have had that jab 

... and when a*b*c that goes below certain levels restrictions could start be lifted (e.g. , <0.8 tier 4 restrictions lifted, < 0.6 tier 3 restrictions lifted, <0.4 all restrictions lifted). 

 

Interesting question @toiletduck is probably your man to answer that.

I guess the other problem the R at 1.7 is the R while we have a load of restrictions, the R if we were in complete normality would be much higher. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Homer said:

Sunak needs to have a word with his tailor too. His trousers look like an eight-year-old's at a wedding.

He's gone no break on the trousers in an effort to look taller - which is a legitemate technique - but he lacks the cool needed to pull it off.

Needs a different colour suit and a contrast sock.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dingbat2 said:

I have a naive question, sorry I am just a bit confused! 

If the new variant initially had an r-rate of say 1.7, that means 10 people who have the virus spread it to 17 people who in turn spread it to 29 people, and so cases go up exponentially.

If the first does of a vaccine has a 75% efficacy rate, then 75% of the 17 above wont get it (assuming everyone is vaccinated) so only 4 get the virus who then pass it on to 1 or 2 people. so r-rate becomes 1.7 * .25 = 0.4, so does the virus then fizzle out (assuming no further mutations) . Does the virus then effectively disappear or at worst only affect a few people who in turn don't spread it? Or will all of the people who have the vaccination still be carriers even though they don't get the virus?

Won't there therefore be a target rate for r (being a combination of the rate from the variant * restrictions measures in place * effectiveness of the jab) where the virus will be allowed to go round the population on the basis it wont really spread any further, and people can only get it from importing it from areas/people not already vaccinated. And even if they do import it, it wont spread it anyway. So simplistically the r-rate is a*b*c,

a being the r-rate the most prevalent variant in the population currently

b being the impact of current restrictions 

c being a combination the efficacy of the jab and percentage of people who have had that jab 

... and when a*b*c that goes below certain levels restrictions could start be lifted (e.g. , <0.8 tier 4 restrictions lifted, < 0.6 tier 3 restrictions lifted, <0.4 all restrictions lifted). 

 

This is EXACTLY how herd immunity works BUT you’re under egging the basic R rate. It’s 2.5-3.0 for original covid and probably nearer 4.0 for Kent SuperCovid.

 

So if it was 4.0 then you’d need 75% of the population to be immune (either naturally or by vaccination) in order for the rate to stay below 1.0 without any non-pharmacist interventions (fancy term for lockdown restrictions). If you have half the population immune then the R would cut to 2.0 but then you still need to eliminate 50% of household-to-household contacts to hold it below 1.

 

This is why we don’t really have measles epidemics in this country anymore. Measles has a very high R0 of around 15.0, but because nearly everyone has been vaccinated, there is a very low chance that a carrier will come into contact with an unvaccinated person to infect so the outbreak just naturally dies out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eustice played down the prospect of a full-blown travel ban being introduced to halt the spread of coronavirus across the UK:

"The judgement was for now is that the right thing to do was to require pre-travel testing and quarantine for everyone on arrival, and then for them to be able to exit earlier if they do second test at five day interval."

Yep, no surprise, they're bottling it.

Unfortunately, the UK has chosen to be a third country and may find that European countries ban the country unilaterally.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Padjeq said:

He's gone no break on the trousers in an effort to look taller - which is a legitemate technique - but he lacks the cool needed to pull it off.

Needs a different colour suit and a contrast sock.

You can see he has a pretty big heel on his shoe too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...