Data & analysis thread, started 1 December

[NoGoodPunsLeft]

New thread!

Link to previous:

Data and analysis thread, started 12 November www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/4077794-data-and-analysis-thread-started-12-november

Please don't misunderstand the below, but I do wonder....

Do you think there will be a follow-up study to see how long those really elderly who now got the vaccine will actually live? And what effects/changes having the vaccine has made to them?
I think it would be crucial to know, not because it could underpin/defy any argument to give it to them specifically or others*. If nothing else societal benefits and long term/other pandemic planning would greatly benefit from studying the effects of it. And there is a huge opportunity for a cross discipline team to do a longitudinal comparative study as european countries chose to vaccinate diff groups.

*I fear that any such study would be used wrongly :(

They will have to study it because they need to know what effect the vaccines actually have in the UK/ the world (given that travel is so common). I am utterly pro vaccine and will have any one I am offered, because I have no (known) conditions and I think it is important - but I will be a tiny, insignificant cog in the system, getting older and needing boosters etc in a covid containing world - they won't be able to NOT study all of this, because I will be around, along with millions of others. My grandmother will be 100 in April (God willing) She has not been vaccinated yet, but the rest of my family spread out down to 2 years old - they will all be affected differently (but all ardent vaxxers!)

@schimmelreiter
I'm afraid that this will be limited to a medical/health follow up questionnaire....

@Burpeesshmurpees I agree. I think one of the attractions of the current approach is that it is simple and there aren't many complex arguments against it- which the government will shy away from....

Once you try to measure the exposure risk and value of people's jobs all sorts of people will have all sorts of opinions....

I'm not saying the current approach is right- just that it removes a degree of angst and debate.

I think @Chaotic is right. There are all sorts of more nuanced approaches they could take - balancing risks of severe illness against risks of catching it. But the more complex and detailed you make the rules the more arguments you get, and it becomes harder for GPs, etc to get it right. And the bigger picture of course is to vaccinate whoever you can get your hands on as quickly as possible. More complex criteria would get in the way of that.

It is really hard, and I am the last person the government will listen to. I would say the 'point' of vaccinating my 99 year old grandmother who has dementia compared with vaccinating her visitor (not happening at the moment) and her carers is minimal - considering visitor/carers are economically active and support others - assuming that the vaccination means you can't catch it, not that it 'just' protects you from bad covid. But I wouldn't put her or her carers through a horrid death sequence (the m having to care for her) either, if possible. Equally, my long term health is more valuable to the economy, as a podg y late 40s teacher. But even after I have had the vaccine, I will still be careful in case I can still spread it. By handing out vaccine, we will find out what actual effect it has, that is what I mean by they can't avoid studying us. And the effects of lots of vaccinated people will be much better than no vaccinations, whatever the precise ins and outs of protection rates are.

But isn’t the biggest barrier to economic activity overwhelming the NHS?

So once you remove the age groups most likely to need it restrictions can go and activity can be at 100%

Personally I'd probably give the Oxford one to the 65-80 age group - who are the least likely to catch Covid (as they're not mostly in the workplace) but will benefit in particular from having less severe symptoms if they do.

You do realise what the death rate has been like in the age group you think is least likely to catch covid?

I'm in that age group and I'm in the workplace as are many people of a similar age that I know. Personally I think we should let the experts who have made the priority list make their decisions on the basis they know more than we do.

It is all very well to say if you are x age you've only got so many years left but have you considered the sort of death you are condemning these elderly people to? Not slipping away but suffocating in a horrible death. Younger people have very little chance of dying from this virus, the elderly are at more risk so need more protection.

So once you remove the age groups most likely to need it restrictions can go and activity can be at 100% Well that is very logical, doesn't suit the sharp elbowed though does it.

@Chaotic45 @Burpeesshmurpees @Firefliess
This thread is probably the only one I've read (and not just on MN, but on comments sections or other sm) where we can put forwards arguments on who should be vaccinated without being called different vile things.

I agree to some extent with the reasoning on why not make it nuanced, but on the hand not.
And here are the IFs

1. If we had a gov we trusted then an explained, rationale based, nuanced argument could be made.

1. There are comms techniques to successfully disseminate complex issues. The fact that on the world's current course govs/people are not using them doesn't mean everything, all the time has to be dumbed down.

1. A logical gov which wants the best for IT'S PEOPLE would just succumb to the notion that they will do unpopular things to "save the nation" and then be booted for it. That is a high level of morality that not one MP sitting in parliament, let alone HoL even comprehends. And I see the real issue in this. Gov is governed by concepts of "like" and "popularity",

A governemnet should never be run like a sm account or a high school class.

Ok, posted too soon about logical theoretical debate.

What I’ve posted isn’t illogical is it?

Anybody know what is going on with wales? There dashboard hasn't updated and there cases have been quite low for the past few days?
I know they said Sunday that they wasn't updating that day but heard nothing today.

@MarshaBradyo

But isn’t the biggest barrier to economic activity overwhelming the NHS?

So once you remove the age groups most likely to need it restrictions can go and activity can be at 100%

Although with this approach there needs to be some thought about how to support CEV working age people until they can be vaccinated. Because it would be great that the NHS wouldn't be overwhelmed, but I'm not sure it would be ethical to send folk into workplaces with no social distancing and no masks, make them send their kids to school with no close contacts isolated etc. etc.

Nutty yes I meant and should have said phase 1 which includes CEV. After this restrictions could lift

By handing out vaccine, we will find out what actual effect it has, that is what I mean by they can't avoid studying us. Also how long the effects last, one might give a higher level of protection but only last a few months, another might be lower but maintain that level for much longer.

But still same order due to reducing strain faster

I think you could also do some work about modelling which restrictions to drop even before phase 1 is totally complete, by ensuring elderly,CEV or vulnerable people are eligible for furlough or similar support if they work in customer facing roles and by keeping restrictions in places people can't avoid. So you could have looser restrictions in pubs or restaurants, but still mandatory masks on public transport, keep measures in place in schools, probably keep masks in shops as they are hard to entirely avoid for some people etc.

It is all very well to say if you are x age you've only got so many years left but have you considered the sort of death you are condemning these elderly people to? Not slipping away but suffocating in a horrible death. Younger people have very little chance of dying from this virus, the elderly are at more risk so need more protection.

1 in 5 covid patients are likely to have long covid. Translate those numbers to working population age. Then translate those numbers to disability benefits + extra nhs costs + lost tax + lost shopping revenue.
Now on the opposite you have a 9x year old, where vaccinating 5 ppl would solve the trick.
Please take out the emotion.

So once you remove the age groups most likely to need it restrictions can go and activity can be at 100% Well that is very logical, doesn't suit the sharp elbowed though does it.

No, it's not logical. You removed a portion of the population that is not as mobile/doesn't come in contact with as many ppl as say HC or teachers.
For arguments sake put aside that there is a portion who are still working and above 65.
You didn't account for the millions of CV/ECV people. And you need to min. double that number because they have family, kids. They would need to be isolated for 100% activity to be okay.
And that brings me back to long covid and it's potentially disastrous results in 1-5-10 years time....

And to be totally written off as someone who has no heart: death is not always pillows. Reducing the argument to horrific death vs peaceful/pillows is naive.

Nutty- True yes I was just thinking it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. It could be phased in some way.

@NuttyinNotts
Very good idea, but...
"keep measures in place in schools, probably keep masks in shops as they are hard to entirely avoid for some people etc."
There are no proper measures in schools! For anyone (E)CV school is a nightmare in itself either side they are on.
Apart from that it's not a bad solution potentially.

If we were truly a society who cares about it's more vulnerable than we would already have in place a basic income scheme for them, not just the ubi of £96/week. We would have online school options/ or something where you don't lose your place. But we don't. And it tells a lot about the society we live in.

@ancientgran - I think the data from the Oxford trial suggested that even though 30% of people were not fully protected and so still able to catch Covid, none of them were seriously ill - so if that holds up then it would work ok for the older age groups. Presumably those people with mild Covid would still spread it though - so matters more that they're not the people who come into contact with the most other people during the course of their lives.

Sunshine no - removing the people most likely to pass through hospital (to be ok or sadly not).

Now on the opposite you have a 9x year old, where vaccinating 5 ppl would solve the trick. You really think 5 ppl would protect them? Who is being naive now? Even in a small care home you would have far more carers than that, then family visiting, community nurse visiting, GP visiting. Five doesn't even start to cover it.

Please take out the emotion. No, we aren't machines emotion is part of being human. Think of the emotions of the staff in care homes, some have had dozens of elderly people dying quite horrific deaths. The carers are suffering, hospital staff are suffering. MarshaBradyo is right about protecting the NHS and vaccinating in age order is the most effective way to do it. It just so happens that the first vaccine to be approved is the one you want, well that's just one of those things. The Oxford Vaccine will be out soon but don't expect to be able to go into your GP and pick the one you fancy, it won't work like that.