If the vaccines don’t stop the spread....

[TwilightSkies]

And just make symptoms less severe...why do we have to stay locked up until EVERYONE is vaccinated?
Surely the vast, vast majority of under 60’s will only get the virus very mildly so keeping us in lockdown when there is no evidence that vaccines actually curb the spread, doesnt make much sense?

There's no point in using any logic. There's none to be found in this situation. We are just subject to whatever the prevailing nonsense is and eventually it will stop, it's a matter of waiting. Trying to fathom out any sensible thinking behind it will drive you nuts.

I thought it had been shown to reduce transmission.

I dont think we are locked up until everyone is vaccinated but we need those most vulnerable to be protected

I haven’t seen any evidence at all that it reduces transmission.

It does reduce (but not eliminate) transmission, as well as reducing (for most people) the severity of the symptoms.

I thought studies had shown I did

It*

OP here's a helpful link:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-55913913

Evidence is now showing it could be helping stop spread .

Incorrect @TwilightSkies - early data is really promising. As I expected to be honest, all vaccines stop spread. Why would this be any different?! We just haven’t had long enough to gather adequate data.

www.livescience.com/astrazeneca-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-cuts-transmission.html

@TheDailyCarbunkle

There's no point in using any logic. There's none to be found in this situation. We are just subject to whatever the prevailing nonsense is and eventually it will stop, it's a matter of waiting. Trying to fathom out any sensible thinking behind it will drive you nuts.

I think I need to do this. But it's easier said than done. It drives me to distraction how people will just believe anything the government and media say at face value and not question it.

I'd like to know why, if it only lessens the symptoms and reduces the chance of hospital admissions. Why are they wanting even those who have a small chance of being affected by the actual virus vaccinated?

If this virus is going to stay with us, then wouldn't it be better to allow those who can, to continue using their immune system up until they are more vulnerable. Then there is no risk of allowing people to develop some kind of immunity to the vaccine, like antibiotics.

By focusing the vaccine solely on those who are vulnerable and more in need of it, they could have vaccinated them fully at a much faster rate. Instead of making them wait 3 months between doses.

I think I need to do this. But it's easier said than done. It drives me to distraction how people will just believe anything the government and media say at face value and not question it.
And it drives me to distraction how many questions for the sake of questioning something because they think it makes them look clever.

@TheChip

I'd like to know why, if it only lessens the symptoms and reduces the chance of hospital admissions. Why are they wanting even those who have a small chance of being affected by the actual virus vaccinated?

If this virus is going to stay with us, then wouldn't it be better to allow those who can, to continue using their immune system up until they are more vulnerable. Then there is no risk of allowing people to develop some kind of immunity to the vaccine, like antibiotics.

By focusing the vaccine solely on those who are vulnerable and more in need of it, they could have vaccinated them fully at a much faster rate. Instead of making them wait 3 months between doses.

You can't be immune to a vaccine. Immunity to antibiotics come as they are looking to destroy and remove the infection, and If some bacteria remains then it can recognise the 'tools' used by the antibiotics and mutate to grow resistance.

A vaccine is simply training your immune system to recognise a virus and fight it effectively. There is no difference in building immunity between a vaccine or exposure, other than the vaccine is a known entity and cannot infect you. Letting people out to build natural immunity simply builds the same antibodies in a less controlled way, with the risk for complications/hospital admission

Why are they wanting even those who have a small chance of being affected by the actual virus vaccinated?
Because the vaccine slow the spread, and the vaccines are not 100% effective. The more people are vaccinated, the less the virus is able to spread through the population and reach people who can't be vaccinated or for whom the vaccine was not effective.

Also while young adults are far less likely to become ill, some still do and put pressure on healthcare services. If the number of young people getting seriously ill can also be reduced that is a good thing.

It does slow spread, according to latest

But I didn’t think we were waiting for everyone to be vaccinated

mobile.twitter.com/nataliexdean/status/1357011532106792960

Ah that makes sense with the vaccine and antibiotics. Thanks.

But the point stands, if there is no difference building immunity between a vaccine and exposure then wouldn't it make sense to fully focus on those who can't build immunity?
Especially amongst those in the ages with a minimal chance of being hospitalised by the virus.

There's a big difference between saying 'we don't yet have evidence that it reduces transmission' and 'it doesnt reduce transmission'.

It would be expected to help reduce transmission and the evidence seems to be pointing this way.

@bruffin

I think I need to do this. But it's easier said than done. It drives me to distraction how people will just believe anything the government and media say at face value and not question it. And it drives me to distraction how many questions for the sake of questioning something because they think it makes them look clever.

I guess some people dont mind reading scare mongering headlines and their freedoms and children's education and futures been taken from them over something that less than a million chance in killing them. Can't understand it myself.

@TheChip people can't become immune to vaccines or antibiotics.

Bacteria can be resistant to antibiotics, but humans are not. The virus may mutate and evade the vaccine (which us why we are able to develop boosters for viruses such as flu, to protect against variants) but the person having the vaccine is not the issue there, it's the virus.

Resistant is what I meant. I couldnt think of the word before!

Mutations will happen with or without a vaccine, and so boosters will be needed and altered regularly like the flu, no doubt. Which again makes me wonder why the focus is on everyone, and not just the ones the virus is mostly likely to affect badly.

When lockdown starts to relax in march this will still likely have to be gradual. I think the government have been quite clear about this. Too many cases in under 50's could lead to more mutations that the vaccine won't work against and of course the vaccine is not fully protective especially as the vulnerable won't get their second jab for 3 months.

They will also need to keep community cases at a lowish level to control outbreaks and sequence genomes etc.

How quickly restrictions relax will depend on the transmission rates. There's probably not enough data yet to make reasonable predictions but it has been stated multiple times they can start to collect it and give more details from the 22nd.

@TwilightSkies

I haven’t seen any evidence at all that it reduces transmission.

Do you mean that SAGE didn't send the evidence round to you personally on a velvet cushion in a horse-drawn carriage?

Or do you mean that you haven't googled?

@TheChip

Ah that makes sense with the vaccine and antibiotics. Thanks.

But the point stands, if there is no difference building immunity between a vaccine and exposure then wouldn't it make sense to fully focus on those who can't build immunity?
Especially amongst those in the ages with a minimal chance of being hospitalised by the virus.

Except there is quite a bit of difference between natural immunity and that conferred by vaccination...

I thought that was the whole point.

Vaccine reduces risk if severe disease sharply. In effect it gets everyone's risk down to that of healthy under-50s

Current lockdown is to hold transmission down (so NHS not overwhelmed) whilst vaccination goes on 'at pace'

Get the first 9 priorities first done by summer, and the first 6 priorities will be completing their full course as second shots will have been done by then too.

As Vallance said at one press conference, that's the state at which the expected burden of serious illness and death becomes acceptable at the population level.