UKC

Somewhat inevitable but holy f*ck!

1 in 30 in London now have Covid!

https://twitter.com/DrNeilStone/status/1346512625199423488

Where to from here?

Kings Cross.

I am fleeing town.

I’d stay put if I was you because other places will catch up and surpass those rates. That’s the way it seems to go (

My money's on 70k by this time next week. Stay in, lock your doors and try not to breathe unless absolutely necessary.

Remember the good old days when we had to self isolate if you returned from a country with 20 per 100,000 cases?

Some more news that the vaccine doesn't completely prevent catching covid.

 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-brady-idUSKBN29B0HM

We already know it's not 100% effective, especially so for the initial period after recieving it and before recieving the 2nd dose. The article you linked isn't any more cause for concern, it's just packaged that way.

But we know that already, what we also know is that if you've had the vaccine the damage done to your body by catching the virus, will be considerably less, in most cases.

Sure we knew that already but our government shows many on the right need plenty of  hard evidence before they act.

Is acting when presented with evidence a negative thing? Would blindly reacting to all speculation be better?

I think all political spectra would like evidence to be gathered and acted on more quickly however. Easier said than done.

"Blindly reacting to all speculation"? The current position was beening predicted two, or even three weeks ago - many cases could have been prevented and lives saved,

Chris

The reply was regarding the Reuters article about the vaccine not being completely effective and the criticism of only acting with evidence. 

Ignoring the evidence we do have is another issue but doesn't undermine my points above.

Sorry looks like I totally misunderstood

Chris

We don't know. The next few weeks are going to be desperately grim but I don't think we know enough yet about the new strain to say for sure what happens after that.

jk

Unfortunately many people are seeing the vaccine as a magic bullet when the reality is somewhat short of that - a 10% risk of infection from a baseline of virtually guaranteed infection in a high prevalence scenario isn't something people should drop their guard over, and restrictions can't be relaxed until enough people have been vaccinated for herd immunity to kick in.

No worries. Your point on the current situation being so predictable weeks ago still stands...

Will be interesting to see the impact of lockdown on infection rates in ~2 weeks time considering the infectiousness of the New variant. I expect a levelling out but then a less step reduction than in previous lockdowns.

The vaccine roll out is targeting top end figures of death rate and severe hospitalisations but won't yet significantly impact infections.

Herd immunity, should it be achieved is likely to be temporary with new strains requiring vaccination similar to flu. Though from an immune perspective we may be more robustly able to deal with new strains having been exposed to similar ones previously.

You didn't misunderstand Chris, I was being satirical about our government seemingly not seeing the end of their nose in covid evidence terms.

I think the government is aware that vaccines aren't 100% effective.

Chris' point about predictable injection rates not being actioned in the weeks previously perhaps shows your point better than the article you posted. Politics and finances probably affected that more than ignorance though.

Yeah seen quite a few comments along the lines of "once the oldies are vaccinated then back to normal therefore its May". They dont seem to have quite grasped what herd immunity means and why you cant just vaccinate the vulnerable.

Quite likely the lockdown will simply hold case levels at around the current level:- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55544781

spot on.

Ah, the old 'save lives or save the economy' nonsense.

What we seem to be totally lacking in the Tory Party is the ability to project future scenarios and within those scenarios to graduate severity levels and then produce an operational plan to deal with those contingencies.

It seems to be "Oh - bad news - let's call a cabinet/spad meeting scratch heads and have a press conference and dictat a few regulations"

Let's face it this is a Brexit Party who elected a Brexit Leader and that does not include being able to visualise future scenarios very well so it takes away any ability to project future plans with any effect.

It's only the vulnerable who require hospitalization with Covid and the main reason for the restrictions is the pressure on hospitals.  So once they're vaccinated then, allowing for a little time lag, the restrictions can be largely eased.  Is that not the plan?   It's not about 'herd immunity', it's about pressure on the NHS

The virus will always be around, we'll never be totally immune, but it becomes like turbo-flu, still a killer, still need an annual vaccination program but no other impact on normal life.

May seems realistic for that to me

Its also about long covid, that's looking like an increasing problem and another burden on the country. That seems to be affecting more people of all ages and some of them will never fully recover.

I personally do agree though this is going to be an ongoing issue for many years now most likely. Its possible the old normal will never be fully realized again, much depends on how effective the vaccines prove to be as the virus mutates.

Maybe I'm being too subtle for you. This mess in the UK (hospitalisations, deaths and the chaos in schools) is directly due to the delays our government have taken in making decisions long after the facts were obvious in science, on TV and here (21 days after Wintertree called the need for a lockdown on UKC), they wouldn't recognise a fact if it was right in front of them, if it contradicted their libertarian instincts. They need a mass of facts and near panic.

Maybe my black humour was confusing in such terrible times.

Really...? How do we know if we're 'vulnerable'?

https://unherd.com/2021/01/inside-the-covid-ward/

"They are all between 60 and 64 years old, none of them with significant comorbidities; all were working full time until coronavirus struck."

Over 50% of covid patients in London hospitals are under 65, can you tell me who the vulnerable are?

I sort of agree with other points in your post. It will be interesting to see how non-key workers in their 40's and 50's behave in the spring before they are vaccinated, if restrictions are gradually eased.

That's one of the things I find most concerning.  It is definitely becoming a government narrative that lockdown precautions can ease as soon as the vulnerable are vaccinated.  I suspect they actually mean it and will do it, just like they allowed family gatherings at Christmas.

The implications of 'we can ease lockdown as soon as the vulnerable are vaccinated' is that it is OK for the rest of us to catch it.

You could argue that the main concern now should be R and reducing infections and the vaccines should be used on high-contact professions first like shop workers/delivery drivers/police etc.

Perhaps old people who live in their own homes should be allowed to ask that their vaccine be given to a relative.  Once the vaccine takes effect the relative will be able to visit the old person.  Instead of getting an old person with almost no outside contact immune the vaccine dose gets someone who has far more contacts immune and has a wider benefit.

You need a trip to a hospital!! FFS!

Might want to discuss that with Stichtplate's colleague:-

"and anyone thinking they’re covid proof, I’ve just been told another work mate has been hospitalised with covid pneumonia. He’s early thirties, fit and healthy and was chatting to me last week about his wedding plans."