Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

exactly. Its not a difficult decision if delaying it will lead to more deaths and hospitlisations...

It smells more political than anything.  Scientifically and statistically its a no brainer.  

I wish I could give my wife my jab I am booked in for on Thursday 😞  its not fucking fair to be frank.  I work from home all day and the only risk I take is going the gym 😞  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

Hmmm

 

"Many more deaths". The over 40s will be done, the numbers in total who've died under 40, while sad, is low. Plus many of those will have been in the vulnerable group. What am I missing here? There's a lot of this "much more death" but as that didn't happen previously in the unvaccinated age group why would it happen now? Especially as any "delay" likely still keeps it all being done in summer when last year prevalence was low anyway

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, efcfanwirral said:

"Many more deaths". The over 40s will be done, the numbers in total who've died under 40, while sad, is low. Plus many of those will have been in the vulnerable group. What am I missing here? There's a lot of this "much more death" but as that didn't happen previously in the unvaccinated age group why would it happen now? Especially as any "delay" likely still keeps it all being done in summer when last year prevalence was low anyway

I know - I wish we was putting these people under more scrutiny when they make these comments.

I get the feeling they are concerned about variants and 30 to 40s still be exposed at the moment with unlocking due to take place etc etc.  There is no doubting they are seeing younger people in Brazil and India passing away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, xxialac said:

When indoor concerts open up in the UK requiring maskwearing, I predict a lot of people will ignore the rule and take them off because of the kind of attitudes we see on here. This will in turn cause problems. And this wouldn't have happened if maskwearing was more deeply ingrained in society through (temporary) mandatory outdoor use.

We shall see....

That's part of the reason they are running these trial events. People have been questioning how good the data on virus transmission and such can be from these trial events, especially with the numbers and timescales involved. And they're right. I'm pretty sure a huge part of the trials is to see what compliance will actually be like with various measures at various events. If people refuse to wear masks at trials of indoor gigs, then we are not allowed indoor gigs.

1 hour ago, SwedgeAntilles said:

Obviously great news that over 30s are eligible for vaccines but can't help feel this is a logistical misstep. 

I dunno - at this point, where deaths are low enough, the economy becomes an issue again. We are starting to open up and plenty of people are happy to go out to pubs etc. without being vaccinated. Economically, it's less important to vaccinate these people than it is people that are waiting for the jab before they do anything. 

And if you open up to more people, the spots will probably get booked by those who are paying the most attention, or willing to travel furthest, etc. These people will generally be the people that have been more cautious and not already going out.Economically it definitely makes more sense to give 20 and 30-somethings who won't go out until they get vaccinated a vaccine ahead of 40-somethings that don't really give a crap and think COVID won't hurt them and they can't catch it anyway. Morally it's more dubious!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

"Many more deaths". The over 40s will be done, the numbers in total who've died under 40, while sad, is low. Plus many of those will have been in the vulnerable group. What am I missing here? There's a lot of this "much more death" but as that didn't happen previously in the unvaccinated age group why would it happen now? Especially as any "delay" likely still keeps it all being done in summer when last year prevalence was low anyway

many more deaths in comparision to not jabbing them. So it could mean not a LOT more...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

I don't get how they can say they are facing a "difficult problem" and then say the second line...

At the very least give people a choice.

Yeah - it doesn't seem that difficult to me.

Offer jabs to everyone as soon as possible. The risks, albeit very low, are pretty well known so people can take their own decisions. Just give everyone 30-40 a choice of having AZ now, or waiting ~3 months and instead getting Pfizer/Moderna/Novavax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, JoeyT said:

I don't know what to believe on herd immunity.

Some scientists are saying it'll come soon whilst there are articles such as the one you've linked which say it's probably impossible...

Is anyone else feeling a bit confused by the mixed messaging on this or is it only me? 

I'm equally baffled. I know what I think is the case but that means it's basically impossible.

59 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

68.3% antibodies would be enough to produce herd immunity under the original R0 of 3.0. Unfortunately, the new variant is closer to 4. The good news is that we only need to get to 75% and we were at 68.3% a few weeks ago. The vaccines are getting us closer and closer.

I want to try to follow this through, bear with me if I'm getting it wrong.

R is 4 in this variant, so uncontrolled the average person will pass it on to 4 other people. So to reduce R below 1 (at which point, mathematically the virus should eventually die out), we need to cut transmission by 75% - ie. to 25% of what it naturally is, so the 4 is reduced to a 1. 

So if you're using a sterilizing vaccine - ie. one that completely kills off the virus, prevent any onward transmission, then if you vaccinated 75% of the population, you'd achieve this.

Example: 100 people, would normally spread the virus to 400 people (R=4).

If you vaccinated 75% of them, 75 of them spread the virus to 0 people, but the 25 unvaccinated people spread it to 4 people each, so again, 100 people - R=1. Vaccinated one more person and R starts to go under 1.

But the problem is that this isn't a sterilizing vaccine. It only reduces transmission by somewhere between 30 and 70%.

And that can't be good enough? Even if it's 70%, and we vaccinated 100% of the population, that's a flat 70% reduction in transmission across the population. But if the natural R is 4, that means it gets cut down to 1.2. Which isn't enough?

Except the vaccine then also prevents you from catching it, at least in some cases? So if that's 70% effective then 70% of the 1.2 people won't be eligible so that reduced R to 0.36 and then that could work.

And I guess the confusion is we don't know how these figures interact. So I don't even know what "reduce transmission" means in this context. Like, if the vaccine is 70% effective, it means I have a 30% chance of catching it, and then a 30% chance of passing it on. Or are they overall figures?

And I think some people are just using "herd immunity" to mean something different to what it actually does too. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Leyrulion said:

Tbh at this stage she should be facing a disciplinary for knowingly coming into a pharmacist job with symptoms.

I agree. I’d go as far as dismissal. When you can get free tests sent to your house that take 20 minutes to do, it’s just a selfish thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

 

I'm equally baffled. I know what I think is the case but that means it's basically impossible.

I want to try to follow this through, bear with me if I'm getting it wrong.

R is 4 in this variant, so uncontrolled the average person will pass it on to 4 other people. So to reduce R below 1 (at which point, mathematically the virus should eventually die out), we need to cut transmission by 75% - ie. to 25% of what it naturally is, so the 4 is reduced to a 1. 

So if you're using a sterilizing vaccine - ie. one that completely kills off the virus, prevent any onward transmission, then if you vaccinated 75% of the population, you'd achieve this.

Example: 100 people, would normally spread the virus to 400 people (R=4).

If you vaccinated 75% of them, 75 of them spread the virus to 0 people, but the 25 unvaccinated people spread it to 4 people each, so again, 100 people - R=1. Vaccinated one more person and R starts to go under 1.

But the problem is that this isn't a sterilizing vaccine. It only reduces transmission by somewhere between 30 and 70%.

And that can't be good enough? Even if it's 70%, and we vaccinated 100% of the population, that's a flat 70% reduction in transmission across the population. But if the natural R is 4, that means it gets cut down to 1.2. Which isn't enough?

Except the vaccine then also prevents you from catching it, at least in some cases? So if that's 70% effective then 70% of the 1.2 people won't be eligible so that reduced R to 0.36 and then that could work.

And I guess the confusion is we don't know how these figures interact. So I don't even know what "reduce transmission" means in this context. Like, if the vaccine is 70% effective, it means I have a 30% chance of catching it, and then a 30% chance of passing it on. Or are they overall figures?

And I think some people are just using "herd immunity" to mean something different to what it actually does too. 

The figures we have so far from PHE is just for 1 dose. I think itd be fair to increase the percentages for 2 doses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

R is 4 in this variant, so uncontrolled the average person will pass it on to 4 other people.

Surely this assumption is based on an 100% susceptible population, which hasn't been the case since around December 2019?

Apologies if I have read/understood your workings incorrectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

 

I'm equally baffled. I know what I think is the case but that means it's basically impossible.

I want to try to follow this through, bear with me if I'm getting it wrong.

R is 4 in this variant, so uncontrolled the average person will pass it on to 4 other people. So to reduce R below 1 (at which point, mathematically the virus should eventually die out), we need to cut transmission by 75% - ie. to 25% of what it naturally is, so the 4 is reduced to a 1. 

So if you're using a sterilizing vaccine - ie. one that completely kills off the virus, prevent any onward transmission, then if you vaccinated 75% of the population, you'd achieve this.

Example: 100 people, would normally spread the virus to 400 people (R=4).

If you vaccinated 75% of them, 75 of them spread the virus to 0 people, but the 25 unvaccinated people spread it to 4 people each, so again, 100 people - R=1. Vaccinated one more person and R starts to go under 1.

But the problem is that this isn't a sterilizing vaccine. It only reduces transmission by somewhere between 30 and 70%.

And that can't be good enough? Even if it's 70%, and we vaccinated 100% of the population, that's a flat 70% reduction in transmission across the population. But if the natural R is 4, that means it gets cut down to 1.2. Which isn't enough?

Except the vaccine then also prevents you from catching it, at least in some cases? So if that's 70% effective then 70% of the 1.2 people won't be eligible so that reduced R to 0.36 and then that could work.

And I guess the confusion is we don't know how these figures interact. So I don't even know what "reduce transmission" means in this context. Like, if the vaccine is 70% effective, it means I have a 30% chance of catching it, and then a 30% chance of passing it on. Or are they overall figures?

And I think some people are just using "herd immunity" to mean something different to what it actually does too. 

Very good post...  and all pretty much spot on from my understanding.

We don't actually need herd immunity I would suggest to get back to normal and I think you are right in saying people seem to not understand what it actually is and means.

If the virus ends up with a R rate of 1.2 in a fully vaccinated population then we aren't going to see the NHS overwhelmed and massive number passing away.  I don't think we need the holly grail of herd immunity to live with this thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mellotr0n said:

Surely this assumption is based on an 100% susceptible population, which hasn't been the case since around December 2019?

Apologies if I have read/understood your workings incorrectly.

Its not an assumption its a fact.  The R rate is 4. That won't change any time soon.

And I think you have misunderstood the post.  You have to start with the natural R rate of the virus and work from that. 

Edited by Barry Fish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, zahidf said:

The figures we have so far from PHE is just for 1 dose. I think itd be fair to increase the percentages for 2 doses. 

Results demonstrated vaccine efficacy of 76% (CI: 59% to 86%) after a first dose, with protection maintained to the second dose. With an inter-dose interval of 12 weeks or more, vaccine efficacy increased to 82% (CI: 63%, 92%)

So not a massive jump on the averages.  Most the work is done by the first dose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Barry Fish said:

Results demonstrated vaccine efficacy of 76% (CI: 59% to 86%) after a first dose, with protection maintained to the second dose. With an inter-dose interval of 12 weeks or more, vaccine efficacy increased to 82% (CI: 63%, 92%)

So not a massive jump on the averages.  Most the work is done by the first dose.

that's different to vaccine onward infection though. For that we only the first dose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, zahidf said:

that's different to vaccine onward infection though. For that we only the first dose

Not sure the second dose is going to be a big game changer in that regards.  Second dose is very much about extending the length of protection I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stealing this from another forum I am on...  Hurts my head to think about it but the guy who posts it knows his shit 🙂   but it demonstrates why todays study is so important and big news


- One dose plus three weeks leads to a reduction in infections by 60-65%
- Breakthrough infections are 38-49% less likely to transmit.

A few months ago, I posted a summary by immunologist Andrew Croxford where he explained about the steps of transmission reduction.

EsFhTZxXYAABx-r?format=jpg&name=small

Mr Pink doesn’t get infected. Mr Green does, but has far lesser symptoms and a reduced chance of transmission. Mr Blue is unvaccinated and is the reference.

Well, he’s now not only proven to be true in the fact that “Mr Greens” are demonstrated to be less likely to transmit. And now we can get a bit of an estimate on the total transmission reduction.

If 60-65% of vaccinees become “Mr Pinks”, then 35-40% are “Mr Greens”.
Mr Pinks have a 100% reduction in transmission
Mr Greens have a 38-49% reduction.

Therefore total demonstrated reduction is 75%-83%

[chance of onwards transmission = (1-(Px1.0) + (Gx[0.51 to 0.62])]

Edited by Barry Fish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Very good post...  and all pretty much spot on from my understanding.

We don't actually need herd immunity I would suggest to get back to normal and I think you are right in saying people seem to not understand what it actually is and means.

If the virus ends up with a R rate of 1.2 in a fully vaccinated population then we aren't going to see the NHS overwhelmed and massive number passing away.  I don't think we need the holly grail of herd immunity to live with this thing.

Agreed - I'm leaning towards actual herd immunity being impossible, and various (non-scientists) in the media using "herd immunity" to mean "the point at which enough people are vaccinated that we can drop all restrictions without needing to worry" rather than "the point at which the virus will naturally die out".

11 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Stealing this from another forum I am on...  Hurts my head to think about it but the guy who posts it knows his shit 🙂   but it demonstrates why todays study is so important and big news


- One dose plus three weeks leads to a reduction in infections by 60-65%
- Breakthrough infections are 38-49% less likely to transmit.

A few months ago, I posted a summary by immunologist Andrew Croxford where he explained about the steps of transmission reduction.

EsFhTZxXYAABx-r?format=jpg&name=small

Mr Pink doesn’t get infected. Mr Green does, but has far lesser symptoms and a reduced chance of transmission. Mr Blue is unvaccinated and is the reference.

Well, he’s now not only proven to be true in the fact that “Mr Greens” are demonstrated to be less likely to transmit. And now we can get a bit of an estimate on the total transmission reduction.

If 60-65% of vaccinees become “Mr Pinks”, then 35-40% are “Mr Greens”.
Mr Pinks have a 100% reduction in transmission
Mr Greens have a 38-49% reduction.

Therefore total demonstrated reduction is 75%-83%

[chance of onwards transmission = (1-(Px1.0) + (Gx[0.51 to 0.62])]

That's fascinating. Are there actual Mr Pinks and Mr Greens do you know? I've never quite understood that. When they say the virus is 70% effective at stopping you getting COVID, do they mean whenever I would have got COVID previously, I'm basically rolling a ten sided die and if I get 1-7 I am safe, 8-10 I catch it. Or does it literally mean like in here, where 70% of people are totally immune to it, even if they went to an orgy with 9 people who all tested positive, while 30% of people will always catch it like before (but symptoms are reduced). 

And if it's the latter, can we identify if someone is pink or green? And should we? It seems like if we're talking vaccine passports and such it would make sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Agreed - I'm leaning towards actual herd immunity being impossible, and various (non-scientists) in the media using "herd immunity" to mean "the point at which enough people are vaccinated that we can drop all restrictions without needing to worry" rather than "the point at which the virus will naturally die out".

That's fascinating. Are there actual Mr Pinks and Mr Greens do you know? I've never quite understood that. When they say the virus is 70% effective at stopping you getting COVID, do they mean whenever I would have got COVID previously, I'm basically rolling a ten sided die and if I get 1-7 I am safe, 8-10 I catch it. Or does it literally mean like in here, where 70% of people are totally immune to it, even if they went to an orgy with 9 people who all tested positive, while 30% of people will always catch it like before (but symptoms are reduced). 

And if it's the latter, can we identify if someone is pink or green? And should we? It seems like if we're talking vaccine passports and such it would make sense. 

Edit:

I think its more a roll of the dice.  I don't know to be honest.

Edited by Barry Fish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Its not an assumption its a fact.  The R rate is 4. That won't change any time soon.

And I think you have misunderstood the post.  You have to start with the natural R rate of the virus and work from that. 

Not sure that's how it works.  From wikipedia: 

"R_{0} is not a biological constant for a pathogen as it is also affected by other factors such as environmental conditions and the behaviour of the infected population. R_{0} values are usually estimated from mathematical models, and the estimated values are dependent on the model used and values of other parameters. Thus values given in the literature only make sense in the given context and it is recommended not to use obsolete values or compare values based on different models.[25] R_{0}} does not by itself give an estimate of how fast an infection spreads in the population."

Edited by ErnestWorthing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Agreed - I'm leaning towards actual herd immunity being impossible, and various (non-scientists) in the media using "herd immunity" to mean "the point at which enough people are vaccinated that we can drop all restrictions without needing to worry" rather than "the point at which the virus will naturally die out".

I've always taken herd immunity to mean a limit to how quickly/far the virus will spread, rather than meaning no-one will get it and it will die out, not sure if that's the general understanding

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...