When will this shit end?

[xxialac]

1 hour ago, StuMalinas said:

I think that they think we shouldn’t morally being going as fast as we are and therefore should slow down to help other nations, I think it’s jealousy more than anything 

Paranoid and crazy take on this. 

[StuMalinas]

1 minute ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Why would we “have to lockdown again”? 

Mutant Variant although really low chances if it happens then we are truly fucked

[StuMalinas]

1 minute ago, xxialac said:

Paranoid and crazy take on this. 

Fair enough, what makes you think that and whats your opinion 

[Fuzzy Afro]

Just now, StuMalinas said:

Mutant Variant although really low chances if it happens then we are truly fucked

I don’t think it’s proportionate to remove civil liberties based on the hypothetical potential of a “mutant variant”

[stuartbert two hats]

31 minutes ago, StuMalinas said:

This is going to get really hard to look at in the near future because everytime you post it it gets smaller. Perhaps only provide us with a daily 7 day snapshot and then give us the whole table weekly? Just an idea though. 

How about the last month?

[StuMalinas]

Just now, Fuzzy Afro said:

I don’t think it’s proportionate to remove civil liberties based on the hypothetical potential of a “mutant variant”

im not saying permantly, I just think staying locked down till April will get the numbers as low as possible and the vaccines as high as possible which will be much more benefical in opening up at a faster rate after. If we can get to 60% vaccinated before opening up

[StuMalinas]

Just now, stuartbert two hats said:

How about the last month?

@Ozanne Ye perhaps have a column for comparison for one month ago should be easier to formulate

[BobWillis]

Just now, Fuzzy Afro said:

I don’t think it’s proportionate to remove civil liberties based on the hypothetical potential of a “mutant variant”

Especially not when you account for the fact that some years the flu jab doesn’t work, the NHS gets overwhelmed (not on the scale we’ve just seen but overwhelmed nonetheless) and 10’s of thousands die as a result. It barely gets a passing mention, but with covid we need to keep a “new normal” just incase that happens. 

That sort of stuff can get in the bin. 

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, xxialac said:

Paranoid and crazy take on this. 

I disagree its just a different take ... maybe not your view or mine ... we really dont know how this is going to pan out 

[StuMalinas]

Just now, crazyfool1 said:

I disagree its just a different take ... maybe not your view or mine ... we really dont know how this is going to pan out 

Whats your view alex, Should we be sending vaccines to other countries now?

[xxialac]

6 minutes ago, StuMalinas said:

Fair enough, what makes you think that and whats your opinion 

She's the Head of the World Trade Organization.

She's not representing one country that could be 'jealous'.

Her comments were not an attack on the UK specifically but a reasoned argument that it is in the *economic interest of rich countries* to have poor countries vaccinated and thus they should ensure fair distribution.

She quoted an independent study from a reputable source stating this.

https://iccwbo.org/media-wall/news-speeches/study-shows-vaccine-nationalism-could-cost-rich-countries-us4-5-trillion/

For clarity, the 'take' only referred to the idea that she was 'jealous'.

Edited February 20, 2021 by xxialac

[Toilet Duck]

10 minutes ago, StuMalinas said:

If you were running this country based on what youve said "it probably does since 6-8 months seems to be stable enough post-infection" Would you take another risk and extend it again.  Am i right in thinking that the quicker we get to 'herd immunity' the less virus will be circulating meaning less people are gonna catch it which means first doses are more important the second doses in the first phase then after give second doses for longevity 

Honestly, I’d do 3 week gap with Pfizer and about 9 with OX/AZ...given unlimited supplies, I would use Pfizer for healthcare, Moderna for >70s, OX/AZ for under 70s and J&J for under 55s...but it doesn’t work like that, we don’t have unlimited supplies and there’s logistical challenges with each of them...so any vaccine is better than none.

Still variable reports on how much transmission is cut post-vaccination,  ranges from 10% (SA variant) to 80%+ depending on the report, so I guess we still don’t know for sure how much the vaccine will lead herd immunity in the sterilising sense. Protection from severe disease, hospitalisation and death remains exceptionally high, even in places with new variants, so were still in a good place, but have a look at the models in the link Fuzzy posted a couple of pages back. They predict what happens in optimistic and pessimistic scenarios depending on vaccination rates, uptake and efficacy in preventing transmission. The most optimistic scenario has no wave 4 (after reverting to normal life in early summer...wave 2&3 merged in the UK) which requires efficacy against transmission of 60% after dose 1 and 75% after dose 2, with 80%+ uptake of the vaccine. While optimistic, based on some of the numbers we are seeing, it’s not impossible (certainly it’s well within what Pfizer are observing in Israel). One of the assumptions in the model is that all vaccines will be the same, that’s a fairly big assumption (AZ for example are suggesting about a 67% reduction in transmission). The worst case scenario has a fairly big 4th wave in Summer/Autumn with lower efficacy against transmission (50% or lower) and lower uptake (all of these scenarios are with no mitigation, so back to life as normal over the summer). If correct, what the models suggest is that we can push the outcome with higher uptake, and full vaccination. Given how well the vaccines all work, uptake is rapidly becoming one of the most important aspects of how well they will control this (it always was to be fair) and there’s fairly fine lines in terms of outcome. What I never see accurately included in any of these models is natural immunity though, and I think that will play a huge role in pushing “uptake” numbers higher in younger age groups as they have had the higher caseload. A single J&J jab would be perfect for younger individuals that had a prior infection (pretty good for younger individuals full stop). Basically, we need the susceptible population as small as possible when all the shackles are off, be it via vaccination or prior infection. I think the timelines being discussed are fairly reasonable and in line with what most were expecting before the vaccination programme got into full swing (better after Easter, way better by summer). If you see better trends in the data, flexibility to accelerate should be there, similarly, if the data suggests you are going too fast, stepping back should remain on the table. We’re on the home straight, we’ll get there, it’s hard when you can almost see the finish but it’s going to end!

[fraybentos1]

2 hours ago, duke88 said:

That’s not against the rules though...

It is where I am

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, xxialac said:

She's the Head of the World Trade Organization.

She's not representing one country that could be 'jealous'.

Her comments were not an attack on the UK specifically but a reasoned argument that it is in the *economic interest of rich countries* to have poor countries vaccinated and thus they should ensure fair distribution.

She quoted an independent study from a reputable source stating this.

https://iccwbo.org/media-wall/news-speeches/study-shows-vaccine-nationalism-could-cost-rich-countries-us4-5-trillion/

also this.

 

[duke88]

2 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

It is where I am

You can’t even exercise outdoors with one other person? That’s harsh

[StuMalinas]

2 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Honestly, I’d do 3 week gap with Pfizer and about 9 with OX/AZ...given unlimited supplies, I would use Pfizer for healthcare, Moderna for >70s, OX/AZ for under 70s and J&J for under 55s...but it doesn’t work like that, we don’t have unlimited supplies and there’s logistical challenges with each of them...so any vaccine is better than none.

Still variable reports on how much transmission is cut post-vaccination,  ranges from 10% (SA variant) to 80%+ depending on the report, so I guess we still don’t know for sure how much the vaccine will lead herd immunity in the sterilising sense. Protection from severe disease, hospitalisation and death remains exceptionally high, even in places with new variants, so were still in a good place, but have a look at the models in the link Fuzzy posted a couple of pages back. They predict what happens in optimistic and pessimistic scenarios depending on vaccination rates, uptake and efficacy in preventing transmission. The most optimistic scenario has no wave 4 (after reverting to normal life in early summer...wave 2&3 merged in the UK) which requires efficacy against transmission of 60% after dose 1 and 75% after dose 2, with 80%+ uptake of the vaccine. While optimistic, based on some of the numbers we are seeing, it’s not impossible (certainly it’s well within what Pfizer are observing in Israel). One of the assumptions in the model is that all vaccines will be the same, that’s a fairly big assumption (AZ for example are suggesting about a 67% reduction in transmission). The worst case scenario has a fairly big 4th wave in Summer/Autumn with lower efficacy against transmission (50% or lower) and lower uptake (all of these scenarios are with no mitigation, so back to life as normal over the summer). If correct, what the models suggest is that we can push the outcome with higher uptake, and full vaccination. Given how well the vaccines all work, uptake is rapidly becoming one of the most important aspects of how well they will control this (it always was to be fair) and there’s fairly fine lines in terms of outcome. What I never see accurately included in any of these models is natural immunity though, and I think that will play a huge role in pushing “uptake” numbers higher in younger age groups as they have had the higher caseload. A single J&J jab would be perfect for younger individuals that had a prior infection (pretty good for younger individuals full stop). Basically, we need the susceptible population as small as possible when all the shackles are off, be it via vaccination or prior infection. I think the timelines being discussed are fairly reasonable and in line with what most were expecting before the vaccination programme got into full swing (better after Easter, way better by summer). If you see better trends in the data, flexibility to accelerate should be there, similarly, if the data suggests you are going too fast, stepping back should remain on the table. We’re on the home straight, we’ll get there, it’s hard when you can almost see the finish but it’s going to end!

Thanks that really interesting to read!! world of so many variables we just go to hope that people take the vaccine! eventhough unfortunately amongst my peers there are some who won't which is really ashame 

[Toilet Duck]

46 minutes ago, Havors said:

There is data from the studies. Showed a good length of time if i can remember 

I think Oxford most recent paper pushes it out a bit further, but confidence intervals widened big time after 12 weeks, so they themselves weren’t all that sure. The line looks pretty flat after 9 weeks, not much to be gained in terms of extra protection, but obviously facilitates additional doses in more individuals rather than fully vaccinating everyone within the 12 week gap. I suspect it would be fine for all the vaccines up to 6 months since they elicit a neutralising antibody response far in excess of natural infection.

[Fuzzy Afro]

2 minutes ago, duke88 said:

You can’t even exercise outdoors with one other person? That’s harsh

You can exercise but you can’t “socialise”. For clarity, going for a walk with a friend is okay but what you can’t do (yet) is sit in the park with them for coffee and chat or a beer or a picnic. This is what’s been decriminalised on 8th March. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, StuMalinas said:

@Ozanne Ye perhaps have a column for comparison for one month ago should be easier to formulate

Yeah I can do monthly totals too, the issue was that the daily amounts started being published 10 days into Jan so it wasn’t a full months amount. 

[BobWillis]

9 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

It is where I am

Aren’t you in Scotland?

[Guest]

 

[fraybentos1]

13 minutes ago, duke88 said:

You can’t even exercise outdoors with one other person? That’s harsh

 

4 minutes ago, BobWillis said:

Aren’t you in Scotland?

Aw maybe it was within the rules actually - getting a coffee and going a walk. For some reason I took exercise to mean playing tennis or something lol oops.

 

[gizmoman]

2 hours ago, StuMalinas said:

Imagine ending this pandemic and then another pandemic happening straight after 

Bill seems to think another one is coming,

Anyone care to explain to me why he smiles when he talks about it and why Melinda looks at him and smiles? Don't pandemics cause worldwide death?

[JoeyT]

 

[Crazyfool01]

24 minutes ago, StuMalinas said:

Whats your view alex, Should we be sending vaccines to other countries now?

Bit of a dilemma that one ... I think they need to work out when they can be sure ... as near as they can that there are enough for this country ... but also make sure they can send them to others absolutely as soon as they know they will have enough for requirements as soon as supply firms up ...