Who's had the vaccine?

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
User avatar
simonineaston
Posts: 8003
Joined: 9 May 2007, 1:06pm
Location: ...at a cricket ground

Re: Who's had the vaccine?

Post by simonineaston »

I see that the usual Tory suspects, whose colleagues failed to provide enough suitable PPE, or to give clear and consistant advice re the use of masks, and having confused the heck out of everyone with their stop / start lockdown rules have begun to blame a slow return to normality on the poor long-suffering workers for getting "too used to being on furlough..." ! Their cheek knows no bounds!!
The former business secretary Andrea Leadsom has said some people are reluctant to return to work because furlough has been “great” for them while others were “terrified” of going back to the office, sparking criticism from workers and business owners.
S
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
Marcus Aurelius
Posts: 1903
Joined: 1 Feb 2018, 10:20am

Re: Who's had the vaccine?

Post by Marcus Aurelius »

I’ve had both jabs now. I’m not making the assumption that vaccinated = immune.
It sounds as though the BBC’s Andrew Marr made that mistake
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57640550
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Who's had the vaccine?

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Marcus Aurelius wrote: 1 Jul 2021, 5:52am I’ve had both jabs now. I’m not making the assumption that vaccinated = immune.
It sounds as though the BBC’s Andrew Marr made that mistake
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57640550
That's because the assumption would be obviously wrong.
Of course it's also the assumption that is bandied around as fact by the blithering idiots in Downing Street.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Marcus Aurelius
Posts: 1903
Joined: 1 Feb 2018, 10:20am

Re: Who's had the vaccine?

Post by Marcus Aurelius »

[XAP]Bob wrote: 1 Jul 2021, 12:32pm

That's because the assumption would be obviously wrong.
Of course it's also the assumption that is bandied around as fact by the blithering idiots in Downing Street.
I’m glad I’m not the only one that sees this.
pwa
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Who's had the vaccine?

Post by pwa »

From watching the Downing Street briefings I have been informed that having two doses of a vaccine gives me a much reduced chance of showing symptoms or being really ill. And possibly a reduced chance of passing on infection to others. I don't remember ever being told that I will be totally immune to infection. The stated aim is to reduce the virus to one that causes very minor or no illness in most people, moderate illness in a minority, and serious illness or death in a very small minority. If anyone has been saying something different, along the lines of eliminating Covid completely, I have missed it. Unless we are talking about one of Boris's flippant off-the-cuff predictions from more than a year ago when we knew a lot less about Covid.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Who's had the vaccine?

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Ah, but that’s just the briefings, not all their emissions.

The message they continue to push is that vaccination is everything (and no variants will ever sidestep out current vaccines), and ignore the fact that the advertised benefits only apply two weeks after the second dose, and are not promised against any variants.

The repeated talk is of immunity passports, not vaccination passports.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Who's had the vaccine?

Post by thirdcrank »

One thing here is that people's views vary according to their personal circumstances. eg Having a guaranteed income + no school age children is compatible with permanent lockdown. Needing to work to get paid and having school age children leads to a different perspective.
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56359
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Who's had the vaccine?

Post by Mick F »

Spot on TC.

Grandson is at present, as from tomorrow morning, confined to barracks due to a Covid case at his primary school.
His mother - Daughter1 - has to go to work, so Mrs Mick F has gone there to stay for this week.

One, Mrs Mick F is a retired teacher, and two, Grandson needs education continuity, so she's taking the rein.
He's lucky. Many children aren't so lucky.
Mick F. Cornwall
User avatar
Cowsham
Posts: 4963
Joined: 4 Nov 2019, 1:33pm

Re: Who's had the vaccine?

Post by Cowsham »

Marcus Aurelius wrote: 1 Jul 2021, 5:52am I’ve had both jabs now. I’m not making the assumption that vaccinated = immune.
It sounds as though the BBC’s Andrew Marr made that mistake
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57640550
Sneezing is a bit new -- ( symptom wise with Andrew Marr )
I am here. Where are you?
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Who's had the vaccine?

Post by [XAP]Bob »

thirdcrank wrote: 4 Jul 2021, 2:03pm One thing here is that people's views vary according to their personal circumstances. eg Having a guaranteed income + no school age children is compatible with permanent lockdown. Needing to work to get paid and having school age children leads to a different perspective.
One thing all the experts agree on is that there needs to be adequate financial support for those isolating.

My income is only guaranteed in so far as I can, and do, work from home. But two school age kids here. And the lockdowns have all been too little too late, with mixed messaging continuously.

If we locked down when the scientific advice recommended it, rather than six weeks later, then we wouldn’t have needed a lockdown which felt long term. If we implemented quarantine time at all, or even put countries who were known to have new variants on the red list, then we wouldn’t be in the situation we are in now.

The farce of the “kill granny for Christmas” policy, and the “virus spreading day” start of term, and the failure to restrict travel from India are only the most obvious of contradictions.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Audax67
Posts: 6001
Joined: 25 Aug 2011, 9:02am
Location: Alsace, France
Contact:

Re: Who's had the vaccine?

Post by Audax67 »

Getting on for 3 weeks since my 2nd shot. Only AZ, alas - I'd have preferred an mRNA vaccine since it performs better against Delta, but at least an infection now probably won't put me in any danger. That said, it might even be an advantage to catch Covid now, because while all the vaccines target the S-protein, the immune system could be taking note of and reacting to a variety of surface proteins, giving wider across-the-board protection.
Have we got time for another cuppa?
Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Who's had the vaccine?

Post by Stevek76 »

Regarding lockdown lengths, if we assume (on the basis of observation) the government's main target was preventing NHS being overwhelmed then on a very simplified model of constant R values for different levels of restrictions, the time required in lockdown is the same regardless of whether lockdown is procrastinated each time or not. The only thing waiting does is increase the deaths.

I'd think my constant Rs simplification works in the government's favour as well, in the real world R is likely to increase initially with increased case rate as contact tracing can't keep up.

Stitch in time and and all that. A saying that neither the conservatives nor the treasury have demonstrated much awareness of over the last decade.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Who's had the vaccine?

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Nope - because if you lock down earlier the exponential curve upwards doesn't have as long to increase the base number of infections, so the lockdown doesn't need to be as long to keep that absolute number low.

Let's assume for a moment that the capacity of the NHS is fixed (it isn't because if infections are higher then more NHS staff will be isolating, so capacity actually reduces).

If you lock down (and therefore reduce the R number) 1 week earlier then you have a smaller "starting number" of infections, so the reduced R value (maybe 1.9, maybe 1.8 ) doesn't need to be applied for as long to keep the overall absolute count down.

There is always a delay between a lockdown starting and the reduction in cases, since those cases transmitted the day before lockdown started will appear over the course of the next two weeks - then the hospitalisations lag a further week or so, and deaths lag even further behind that.

The nature of an exponential curve always means that the best time to do something was earlier - the only reason not to lock down when the rate starts to climb is if you think that the climb is explained by something other than an exponential curve - maybe you have increased testing, so the increase is an increase in detection?
Maybe you think the curve will be sigmoid with a low top end, because you think that there is sufficient vaccination or other immunity to be suppress the spread (see flu, measles, etc).

There was never any doubt that the second wave was on its way, and the government not only ignored, but actively hid, the advice that they were given to lock down. Tens of thousands of deaths would have been prevented if the lockdown had been put in place six weeks earlier, and the lockdown could have been significantly shorter as well, since the absolute count of infections would have been much lower to start with.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Who's had the vaccine?

Post by Psamathe »

I think the concept of the NHS being overwhelmed is not a good measure for anything - partially because it is ill defined. If NHS is 100% loaded with staff working 23 hrs a day it is not "overwhelmed" because it is coping with the Covid load (albeit unsustainably). In other respects, if the NHS is at 20% of capacity of Covid patients but e.g. lifesaving cancer diagnoses & treatments are not happening and backlogs are building the NHS is overwhelmed.

Politicians simplistic view and use of "not overwhelmed" seems to be if somebody catches Covid a bed will be found - ignoring the failure to diagnose and treat so many other life threatening diseases & conditions (that don't cause a queue of ambulances outside A&E).

The Government should be concerned about the health of the nation not about keeping a public service working flat-out; and that means considering things like long-Covid and other complications e.g. cardiac damage, etc.

Ian
Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Who's had the vaccine?

Post by Stevek76 »

? Not sure you got my point, it was an argument in favour of earlier lockdowns.
Nope - because if you lock down earlier the exponential curve upwards doesn't have as long to increase the base number of infections, so the lockdown doesn't need to be as long to keep that absolute number low.
Regardless this is not true, exponentials work both ways and applies to the decline. The time to get from 10000 cases to 1000 cases will be the same as to get from 1000 to 100. if lockdown/not lockdown Rs remain the same then total time in lockdown required remains the same regardless of what case rate numbers you define lockdown off and on to be.

As I noted, it is likely that R can be kept lower when case rates are lower, so fixed Rs are a 'worst case' assumption. Even in such a case though it is still better to be proactive as it keeps deaths down. (Not to mention mutation risks etc etc)
I think the concept of the NHS being overwhelmed is not a good measure for anything
Well no, but it was nonetheless the one the government appeared to be working on. As for ill defined, I think it was defined for them as 'people dying in hospital corridors will look bad in the news for us'.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Post Reply