What’s the point of vaccinations when still nothing is deemed ‘safe’?

[katieloves]

Just really struggling with this. We’re doing an amazing job and have so far vaccinated the people most likely to succumb to coronavirus and are cracking on with the people less vulnerable. But still it seems all news is bad and no end in sight. Looks likely that we’ll be lucky if only the youngest get back to school from the 8th and not much chance of secondary schools back until after Easter. It just doesn’t make sense to me at all. Most DC are struggling now - their lives are on hold (I appreciate some dc are thriving with home learning but this is not true for any of the dc I know). Motivation for is on a fine line and who can blame them? But apparently school’s not ‘safe’ even though the most vulnerable are vaccinated. People saying we’ll be back to where we were before lockdown if schools go back in full and hospitals will be overwhelmed. Why??? We’ve vaccinated the most vulnerable. I’m honestly loosing the will.

@chickadeeeeeeeee

In 2022! Not staying in until then are we?

Not according to the vaccine calculator

At 52 with no other factors, I’m estimated to be vaccinated between mid April and early May then the second dose in July

For the youngest on the list (16) it’s between May & July for the first dose and between July and September for the second

Estimated dates have been getting quicker as more vaccines have become available and capacity had increased in vaccination centres

www.omnicalculator.com/health/vaccine-queue-uk

@StealthPolarBear

We're waiting for them to cure death. Just hang on a few more decades, the end is in sight.

Beginning to feel true.

@hedgehogger1

The more cases there are, the more it can mutate. If it mutates to become more dangerous or in a way that stops the vaccine being effective we're back to square one. It's all about keeping cases low.

But we could be doing this for the next 100 years if we think like that.

Flu / chicken pox / etc etc may mutate. Anything could. Covid may mutate to be more or less deadly. No one knows. We can’t put our lives on hold for something that may or may not happen.

@hedgehogger1

The more cases there are, the more it can mutate. If it mutates to become more dangerous or in a way that stops the vaccine being effective we're back to square one. It's all about keeping cases low.

Do we lockdown for other scenarios that may happen?

@hedgehogger1

The more cases there are, the more it can mutate. If it mutates to become more dangerous or in a way that stops the vaccine being effective we're back to square one. It's all about keeping cases low.

The thing is, even if we get our cases low, there will be other countries where cases run riot and variants happen.

We can’t keep the borders shut forever.

@StealthPolarBear

We're waiting for them to cure death. Just hang on a few more decades, the end is in sight.

Feels like this in bleakest moments.

Yes. Who isn't vulnerable.

It you were an ICU doctor you'd be aware that even if one non vulnerable individual's odds are good, the virus is serious enough that high community transmission will still mean that a significant number of non vulnerable people become very ill. It's not about what might happen to you. No one is particularly interested if the grim reaper appears at one specific door. It's the number of people across the nation who will still become require care that is concerning.

There's also the question of mutations. Chance mutations persist when selection pressures are applied. We're now tinkering heavily with the virus and really inviting it to mutate by making the status quo harder. If you think you're not risking the efficacy of the vaccine by raising community transmission, you are wrong.

But apparently school’s not ‘safe’ even though the most vulnerable are vaccinated

Children won’t be, most staff wont be as not yet had vaccines and parents who then go into workplaces. Grandparents providing DH care are more likely to have been vaccinated but that’s just one small part so far.

The thing is, even if we get our cases low, there will be other countries where cases run riot and variants happen.

That's why there is a global vaccination programme. Hard to see what you're advocating for at this point as that new point shifts the goal posts and suggests you're looking for reasons to say this isn't worth the effort. Any scientist would tell you this is too serious to take that view.

I agree, OP.

This thread is an example of common sense v propaganda ('keep lockdown going until things are safer ...).

Tip: you can spot the propaganda bingo posts by the inclusion of such words/phrases as 'selfish' 'takes time' 'can't rush' 'need low numbers' 'have to be patient' 'need low cases' 'monitor new variants' 'prevent overwhelming the NHS' etc.

I hope the bingo posters get paid for their propaganda because their arguments are not based on evidence.

It seems that is where the goalposts have shifted to now, its focusing on cases instead of deaths.

If the most vulnerable get vaccinated, then it shouldn't really matter how high the case numbers are because the hospitalisation should be drastically lower since the vulnerable have that extra level of protection.

I really don't understand how it appears that we are in a worse position now than we were in the beginning.
I mean, this thing was apparently here before it was pumped through the media in March when everything changed. Yet we weren't hearing of people dropping like flies up until the media started telling us it was happening.

Thats not me denying it's existence. Its just worth noting that we weren't living in fear until we were told to be scared.

Hospitals still have nearly as many patients in as they did at the peak of the first wave. It's getting better but we're not there yet.

Reducing deaths is a good thing, but it's not the only thing: most elderly people aren't suitable for admission to intensive care, so vaccinating them doesn't reduce the stress on those wards.

As we move down the cohorts it will have more impact on hospitalisations and therefore put us in a better position to reduce restrictions.

I do also agree that it would be easier to keep on top of things if we push infections down enough that we can really keep on top of them with track and trace, but I struggle with the balance of what I want (to stop being locked down) with wanting not to go back round in a circle and end up with high infection rates again.

@Bagelsandbrie

I am in the clinically extremely vulnerable group and I am so sick of all of this now. We were led to believe that vaccines stop death and serious illness from coronavirus so the pressure on the NHS. If this is the case - and I believe it is - then we need to just get everyone vaccinated ASAP and get back to normal.

I actually believe we should just all stop testing as more and more people are vaccinated. It’s the only way out of this entire mess. The government can’t use the infection rate as a way to keep everyone locked down then.

If the new variants mean the vaccines aren’t working that’s an issue we need to tackle with boosters etc. They are still saying the vaccines work though so what are we doing?!

How ridiculous if they stop testing how are they meant to find the variants that are vaccine resistant? By the time they realise they exist and people start dying in their thousands again it’ll be too late to contain them in any way and you, as a shielding person, will have most likely already caught it!

Here is the thing with testing. Does the infection rate actually matter now? The infection rate will never go down to minimal levels as that's not the purpose of the vaccines. Surely as we start to open things up, all we should care about is the hospitalization and death rate. Over the next while, there is surely an argument for not testing on such a massive scale, as things like 10 day isolation will be no longer necessary. There will always be a section of society who will remain vulnerable, but at some point we need to take that risk in the same way as we do flu for elderly. Covid will just have to be part of our lives, and it will kill some, but for the majority the vaccine will stop death.

@hedgehogger1

The more cases there are, the more it can mutate. If it mutates to become more dangerous or in a way that stops the vaccine being effective we're back to square one. It's all about keeping cases low.

Misinformation - that's not how most viruses mutant. They usually become less dangerous - like the common cold type of coronavirus. Stop fear mongering.

Do we lockdown for other scenarios that may happen

Do we try to stay ahead of the virus, especially when we've had a hand now in driving the direction of it?

Yes. That would be wise. Otherwise we lurch between lockdowns which become unavoidable when our ICUs are full. Unless you're a total sociopath, it's not acceptable to sit and wait for very predictable catastrophes that will involve expensive resourcing that's needed elsewhere.

@Bagelsandbrie

I am in the clinically extremely vulnerable group and I am so sick of all of this now. We were led to believe that vaccines stop death and serious illness from coronavirus so the pressure on the NHS. If this is the case - and I believe it is - then we need to just get everyone vaccinated ASAP and get back to normal.

I actually believe we should just all stop testing as more and more people are vaccinated. It’s the only way out of this entire mess. The government can’t use the infection rate as a way to keep everyone locked down then.

If the new variants mean the vaccines aren’t working that’s an issue we need to tackle with boosters etc. They are still saying the vaccines work though so what are we doing?!

Have you been vaccinated?

Mutation is a random process. Generally viruses do mutate over time to become less dangerous, as the hosts are more likely to survive. That doesn't mean there's an intention to do so. It's just that if the virus mutates to become more dangerous the host has less chance of survival and therefore the virus does too. Not misinformation. Biology

Sunshining - they don't need compulsory testing of asymptomatic people to track viruses. Research is needed, yes, but can be done on a sample basis.

Mass compulsory 'surge' testing of asymptomatic people will just lead to false positives and the excuse for more lockdowns/restrictions. Mass testing of asymptomatic people is a nonsense.

Misinformation - that's not how most viruses mutant. They usually become less dangerous - like the common cold type of coronavirus. Stop fear mongering.

You don't know what you're talking about and you're now spreading misinformation.

Viruses that kill the host too early have every reason to become less virulent. Our virus is different because it has plenty of time to spread before causing damage or causing the host tob self isolate. So there is no reason for the persistence of a chance mutation to become less virulent.

When you apply a selection pressure like a partly vaccinated population without distancing, you're applying a selection pressure. That is, at best, a roll of the dice. As we have a vaccine that mostly works but is fragile, we don't want to roll the dice. The more transmission, the more opportunities for mistakes in replication and chance mutations.

It is indeed how it works.

TheChip - I agree. The focus on cases is what happened last summer when, coincedentally, the actual hospital admissions from covid was at its lowest rate.

In my opinion (and I'm certainly not the only one who things this) and I've been banging on about it since September, focusing on asymptomatic 'cases' - where we deem a 'case' to be a positive PCR test - is wrong. Misguided at best. It is not in everyone's best interests and people are naive if they think this. Monitor new strains, yes, focus on cases - no.

if the virus mutates to become more dangerous the host has less chance of survival and therefore the virus does too.

Unfortunately, not if the virus has replicated during the asymptomatic period.

We have a bad deal with this virus and your Pollyanna genetics doesn't work very well for it. You may as well accept that or you're going to be frustrated.

Also, the virus unfortunately became more virulent when it improved transmission. It didn't need to do that. That was completely unnecessary and someone should really sit down with it and say Enough.

I’m CEV. Yes I’ve been vaccinated. With a first dose. That doesn’t give complete protection.
Irrelevant though. Lockdown has purely been about ensuring that the (woefully underfunded) NHS isn’t completely overwhelmed. That’s all.

@hedgehogger1

Mutation is a random process. Generally viruses do mutate over time to become less dangerous, as the hosts are more likely to survive. That doesn't mean there's an intention to do so. It's just that if the virus mutates to become more dangerous the host has less chance of survival and therefore the virus does too. Not misinformation. Biology

From this point of view Covid has already got it right - it only kills a very small percentage of humans who catch it. There are still billions of us for it to live in. So no need for it to mutate to become less dangerous, it is already not very dangerous on a whole population, purely objective level.

18:13TravellingTilbury

You do realise that some of the words on your bingo list are just words that scientists use? You're labelling something as false because it sounds sciency?!