Government are waiting for a vaccine

[Biscuit0110]

It was always going to be a possibility, waiting for a vaccine, but one I did not believe, due to the length of time it will take, but it is gathering momentum now. Why do I think this?

Well the lockdown with a few variations looks likely to be staying in place over the whole summer, there was none of the big announcements that we were expecting to hear last night.
Apart from a few year groups heading back 'at some stage' to school, and the people that were always supposed to continue to work apparently - doing just that. There are no other big changes as far as I can see.

Then I started to see the universities are unlikely to open in September
thetab.com/uk/2020/03/27/unis-wont-even-be-back-to-normal-by-september-warns-expert-149741

Many now reporting this, and can we be sure secondary schools will reopen fully or even partially? I am not sure we can be sure of that at all.

So either we are all staying in lockdown indefinitely, which I find hard to believe, or there is a good chance that confidence is increasing that a vaccine will soon be here (but the government are unable to say categorically so they are keeping quiet)

Is there a plan to vaccinate before there is any real return to life? How feasible is that with 66 million of us, and how long will it take?

Boris speech was uncharacteristically gloomy, very far from his normal bouncy manner. What do you think?

I am 45 and cranky as hell this morning,

Me too!

I'm now not clear whether we're waiting for one or not, but waiting for a vaccine is terrible policy. I don't want to be negative about it but there is absolutely no guarantee of a vaccine even in 2021. It's fine for individuals to hope for it, and even fine if individuals want to wait for it before they return to normal, but for the government to forceably put huge chunks of our lives on hold until it's here is not on.

I thought the German study was interesting when you apply it to the UK:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/09/many-people-may-already-have-immunity-coronavirus-german-study/

The other concern, not wishing to be pessimistic, is that the vaccine may not work if the virus mutates, or indeed another coronavirus arrives next year. I know that is not what we want to hear, but the only way out is the vaccine, according to all pandemic experts.

When we think of the new normal, most of us are thinking short term pain, I am now concerned that there is going to be nothing short term about this at all, and maybe it is actually here to stay.

I did not expect Boris to flick a switch and turn the lights back on the UK, but I did expect a slightly more ambitious plan yes.

Where is the Keele University tweet? I can’t find it.

And not everyone will be suitable for the vaccine anyway.

It's all so depressing.

Relying on the vaccine is rather putting all your eggs in one basket. As I say, ok for individuals, not ok for the government. My feeling is that we need to shield the vulnerable and get the rest of us back to normality. Otherwise the impacts of the highly unnatural way we're currently living will themselves be pretty grim, particularly for children and young people.

110 I agree, but Boris is showing no sign of that kind of thinking whatsoever. I think he has been badly affected by his own experience, he has a new baby to add to the mix. He is most definitely not in the right place to be kickstarting anything, much less the economy.

It is depressing new

I don't really understand why the majority of teaching in university isn't online anyway. Fair enough tutorials which could be done via zoom as smaller class sizes but lectures could easily be delivered via an online campus.

jent because university experience is about far more than the academics.

The other thing is that this staggered return to a new normality totally relies on the R staying below 1. It could creep up again very quickly with people having to use public transport to get to work, particularly in London and other large cities.

new yes as it has done in Germany, and SK. When they explained the 'whack a mole' strategy they were clearly not kidding, or talking about reopening funfairs.

I am a positive person, and when people were wailing (and I mean that kindly by the way) that their lives were literally over, I felt quietly that they were being very dramatic, now I am not so sure. Perhaps those people simply had the measure of this.

Shielding the vulnerable is not practical...that's 30% roughly of the population

Letting the vulnerable loose as part of a " let most people return to normal " strategy however would rapidly overwhelm the nhs

Around 3000 people aged 45 to 65 have died , mostly vulnerable. With an infection rate of around 3 or 4%

So we could imagine another 60,000 people just in that age bracket dying over around a 2 to 3 month period if we just let everyone but the shielded go back to normal, taking us to herd immunity

Which implies over a couple of months we would need around 120,000 critical care beds at any one time ( actually we would need many more as people tend to stay in hospital a long time and many under 45s would also need beds)

Now I think we might have 18,000 if we include the nightingales, so that's many thousands of beds short ....

Never mind those additional 60,000 deaths of people who are currently economically active as well as typically caring for both children or grandchildren and parents...the generation that holds much of society together

@Biscuit0110 I too am generally positive but this situation is starting to feel very claustrophobic.

So it's going to be a bit like the hokey-cokey - gingerly trying to edge back into normality only to have to retreat rapidly when the R climbs back up?

And what happens if it rises above 1 in London but is very low (say 0.4) in other parts of the country? Surely allowing people to travel further afield is now going to have more of an equalising impact on the R (but maybe that's what they want to happen)?

That's not how I read it at all. I'm staggered by your assumption.
I don't think the focus is on a vaccine at all. I think it will be a long time coming.

So why can't the 30% who are vulnerable carry on as they are while other people go back to normal? How is that less practical than all of us locking ourselves inside? Yes, it's not great if you are vulnerable, but you'd be no worse off than you are now.

attack And looking at the cold hard numbers, it is not difficult to see why Boris has come to this decision. The question still remains - at what point if any, will the lockdown ease? Those numbers will happen at any time we ease the lockdown.

Additionally I would add even those that don't end up on the death toll, could still have life long health problems with kidneys/liver and other major organs. I have been critically ill (not with coronavirus) and I would not wish it on anyone.

For all the zoom parties, on line learning and extra gardening etc chatter we have a very very serious problem on our hands, no shit sherlock, but perhaps a far bigger one than 'most' people realise.

obl The ONLY consensus among the pandemic experts is that the ONLY way out of lockdown is with a vaccine.

They agree on very little else, but on this it is clear.

I don't think we will see anything like normal life until this happens. If you feel the exit plan is going to be different, please say, as we could do with some cheering up!

I didn't see that at all

I saw
It's not going
We don't want everyone dying all at once
We don't want anyone blaming us
Just spin it out slowly over a number of months/years so people die more tidily

I thought the vaccine part was really depressing. Essentially the shielded are looking at years, possibly their lifetime, shielding.

To use the immortal line of Dad's Army's Frazer "we're doomed".

I can also see the population splitting into those who will venture out and those who are so terrified of catching COVID-19 that they will be very reluctant to return to a new normal again (until there''s a vaccine).

Like brexit only this time, we will be split into those that are risk takers and those that are risk adverse (people may not be able to choose which category they fall into due to occupation) and maybe some hogging around the middle feeling confused.

llets for sure the gov have one eye on the inquiry.

Who wants to be the only PM in British history to sign off tens of thousands of deaths.

If people choose to ignore the rules, the government won't be held accountable. The statement and guidelines are so woolly, they could be interpreted in many different ways - we are being invited to make our own decisions is my assumption, to a degree.
Lockdown is being guided by the people, because the government does not want to be mauled in the inquiry for making catastrophic mistakes if things go wrong.

Test track and trace is the only possible way to enable us to get back to normal without escalating death rates or a vaccine

So;

We need to ensure that no one who self isolates on symptoms or on contact with a carrier is financially penalised

We need to turn test results around quickly, so people don't spend a week needlessly in self isolation

We need to have lots of random testing to catch flare ups that escape test and trace

We need to be able to do test and trace...that's work out what app we will use, recruit and train many people , perhaps also encourage a diary like in New Zealand,

It sees likely that the number of new cases will need to be in the hundreds not thousands to make it viable , which I have to say is at least another 3 weeks away ,it would be longer but I think a lot of new cases are confined to care homes

Other countries have shown it is possible

There is a way out, we are getting close,