Case numbers dropping due to lockdown

[womanity]

Not vaccine.

Why has Boris said this? I don’t understand.

I get he wants people to still follow rules, but he also wants them to get vaccinated, right?

He’s certainly giving the anti vaxxers ammunition. If he wants them to get vaccinated, telling them that it has had no effect on the numbers of cases/hospitalisation/deaths is probably the wrong way to go about it.

So why is his lifting lockdown?

What is he on about?

It's clearly absolute nonsense. Of course vaccination is making a huge difference. Stopping spread in hospitals and care homes has made an incredible difference and now it's making a difference in the community. I have no idea why the pm would deny how effective it's been.

Just incase they need to put more restrictions back in place I expect so people can't say 'but we're all vaccinated'
He does seem to like to change his view from one extreme to another!

Well he hasn't really helped his case for vaccine passports has he .

I saw that article too. He's really not helping things when we already have some vaccine hesitancy with AZ, by coming out and saying this.

I'm not sure about the science of this either. Cases have dropped due to lockdown but deaths have dropped much quicker than they did in first lockdown and that was when people were taking it seriously.

Because let's face it compliance eith lockdown is low now.

The case numbers have dropped through lockdown, the vaccine effect is limited at most.

It doesn't change the fact that the vaccine has save many lives.
It doesn't change the fact that the vaccine will reduce cases in the future.

But so far, the vast majority of the reduction in cases is because of the lockdown, not vaccination.

Surprisingly, he's saying it, because it's true.

My area's virus rates are plummeting rapidly. It's always been a bit of a stubborn area with some hotspots in particular neighbourhoods. We're ahead on vaccines, over a week ago 35+ were being invited and the plummet correlates with vaccine numbers rather than lockdown and despite slight easings of restrictions.
Surrounding areas' rate of decline is a bit more steady.

Lockdown can curtail rapid spread but alone does not manage the worst spread locations such as hospitals, care homes, prisons and assembly lines which carry on legally. As a long term measure it flounders because compliance is hard to maintain and has huge social costs as well as the financial impact.

The data on vaccines is speaking for itself, but in an attempt to cling onto indefinite complience the scaremongering messaging is pretty undermining of the vaccines.

It was mostly lockdown that got cases down through January.

The vaccines then got the deaths and hospitalisations down.

The vast majority of under 50's haven't had a vaccine, but the restrictions have kept cases down.

@sirfredfredgeorge

The case numbers have dropped through lockdown, the vaccine effect is limited at most.

It doesn't change the fact that the vaccine has save many lives.
It doesn't change the fact that the vaccine will reduce cases in the future.

But so far, the vast majority of the reduction in cases is because of the lockdown, not vaccination.

Surprisingly, he's saying it, because it's true.

The rates by age group since new year strongly indicate that it is vaccine having the impact as they fell fastest in the oldest age groups who were vaccinated first. If it was primarily lockdown, the pattern would have been broadly similar to the previous patterns. The oldest age groups tend to be less impacted by the lockdown changes when they are not at work, less socially active and maintain health and care needs from family or professionals.

I remember reading an article about this - vaccines work best in low levels of transmission - the efficacy is best when there is little community spread.

So in effect in order to keep numbers from rising you need the vaccines as they are effective at that what they arent so good at is bringing the numbers down in the first place

So the ideal solution to get out of it quickly is too suppress cases down (we did it via lockdown) to low levels alongside a vaccine programme that hopefully should keep those levels low.

It isnt saying vaccines dont work because they do but they work best in low numbers of cases

We don't have the numbers of people fully vaccinated yet to make a huge difference.
I think most vaccines need to be around 80% vaccinated.
Most people have only had the first dose.
Hopefully, as we get the majority of high risk people fully vaccinated, we'll be able to keep hospitalisations low enough to avoid another lockdown.

@sirfredfredgeorge

The case numbers have dropped through lockdown, the vaccine effect is limited at most.

It doesn't change the fact that the vaccine has save many lives.
It doesn't change the fact that the vaccine will reduce cases in the future.

But so far, the vast majority of the reduction in cases is because of the lockdown, not vaccination.

Surprisingly, he's saying it, because it's true.

This! Remember rates at the start of January? Vaccines will help keep them low but we could never have purely vaccinated our way out of this.

From the BBC:
He said that although the vaccination programme had helped reduce the numbers, "the bulk of the work in reducing the disease has been done by the lockdown" and he urged people to be "cautious".

BogRollBOGOF do you have a source as I don't think that your reasoning without any numerical analysis proves anything (other than 'both contributed' which we already know - are you really saying that vaccinating had a greater effect than lockdown on rates through January?)

You could just as easily say 'rates in the under 40s fell sharply during lockdown' (which they did) so that proves it wasn't anything to do with vaccines.

I said on a different thread, lockdown gets cases down and vaccines keep them down when we open things up again.

Although, Boris just splurged out words without any context once again 🙄

Although, Boris just splurged out words without any context once again

Exactly this. He talks without thinking. Then wonders why people don’t understand his point.

Surely the lockdown reducing numbers will segue into vaccination reducing numbers?

Ever felt manipulated?

Concerned about the South African variant perhaps, especially as the predominant vaccine here is AZ which is not as effective against this.

@SilverGlitterBaubles

Concerned about the South African variant perhaps, especially as the predominant vaccine here is AZ which is not as effective against this.

Then why not be honest?

Its not because its a seasonal virus is it? More active during autumn and winter months

@tobee

Surely the lockdown reducing numbers will segue into vaccination reducing numbers?

I think it goes into vaccinations KEEPING numbers down. Vaccines hamper community spread - the lower that is the easier it is for them to do their job.

I remember before the Kent variant kicked off and we were coming to the end of the November lockdown saying that in order to get the vaccines working most effectively I would support a short sharp lockdown alongside it to suppress community numbers right down. As it happens it was a lot longer and a lot worse than I thought but the principle still stands.

In my US state we have more than a 1/3 of the population vaccinated, and our Covid cases are currently rising.

We have been out of lockdown since last June, but it's only in the last month or two that things like youth sports have restarted. They seem to be a big driver of infections.

So many highly opinionated people about without a shred of scientific knowledge between them.

The native R rate for the virus is now estimated to be around 4. There's an estimate that vaccination is about 50-60% effective at preventing transmission and we've vaccinated about half the adults - that would be enough by itself to bring R down to about 3.

It's currently under 1.

For once in his life, Boris is actually perfectly correct. The bulk of the reduction in cases is down to the restrictions.