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?

I see the opening up as a bit of a probability game... in most cases (not all) any socialising at pubs etc is likely to be with people around your age bracket...anyone over 50 going to the pub is likely to be doing it with other over 50s so should be a relatively safe bet... whereas 30 year old will likely go with others in the 25-35 range, so yes there is lack of protection but the chances are highly likely that those people won't get seriously ill and die.

I understand its different if families are meeting up but to be honest that's been happening for months on end indoors anyway.

Thanks to @PrincessNutNuts and @psychomath for their explanations. Makes sense. Loving the squirty cream analogy.

@savethegrannies

PrincessNutNuts Many of the currently known variants of concern have some degree of ability to get round antibodies from infection or vaccines. So they can already make the vaccines less effective, not completely ineffective. QUESTION - With respect, this seems a bit vague. When you say less effective, do you mean people will get ill still? Get ill but not die? How ill? Hospitalised ill? Are there any stats/evidence of this yet? (The Daily Mail chart is about 3 weeks old but it gives a good clear overview.) Restrictions and lockdown have held the Brazilian, the South African and all the other variants back. QUESTION - Is there any proof of this? Or is this anecdotal? Sooner or later one that renders the vaccines a lot less useful will emerge. QUESTIONS - Are you certain of this? Is there any precedent here? Also, when you say a lot less useful what do you mean? Again, do you mean it would mean the vaccine was rendered completely ineffective? Or that the person got ill but did not die?

I'm in agreement here... especially with the last point.. you say sooner or later one will come that makes the vaccine a lot less effective... however surely its just as likely to get a dominant variant that is much less deadly as well... nobody knows what will happen with variants and nothing is more or less likely than anything else.

I guess this is what I am trying to understand Chatterbox1987
There seems to be a lot of confusion and different views around variants and how worried we should be about them.
This makes me think that nobody is 100 per cent sure.
In which case there is a strong argument for getting on with it.
I personally don't think you can justify keeping restrictions in placed based on "but what if?"

@savethegrannies

I guess this is what I am trying to understand Chatterbox1987 There seems to be a lot of confusion and different views around variants and how worried we should be about them. This makes me think that nobody is 100 per cent sure. In which case there is a strong argument for getting on with it. I personally don't think you can justify keeping restrictions in placed based on "but what if?"

Absolutely, they have already said we have to live with it forever...so surely there will always be the chance for new variants

@TooManyPlatesInMotion

I think the problem is that Boris explained himself very badly, as usual. Dreadful messaging, and no context or attempt at explanation. I don't know what the fuck he was thinking putting it as he did - maybe he doesn't either. Many people will have read or heard that and wondered why they should bother with the jab, esp in light of the issues in the press with AZ. Very poor comms, as usual.

Agreed - the way he phrased it made it sound like the vaccine wasn't doing anything, and we'd be back to square one as soon as lockdown was lifted. Really don't think that's what was meant but a lot of people will have heard it that way.

@savethegrannies

PrincessNutNuts Many of the currently known variants of concern have some degree of ability to get round antibodies from infection or vaccines. So they can already make the vaccines less effective, not completely ineffective. QUESTION - With respect, this seems a bit vague. When you say less effective, do you mean people will get ill still? Get ill but not die? How ill? Hospitalised ill? Are there any stats/evidence of this yet? (The Daily Mail chart is about 3 weeks old but it gives a good clear overview.) Restrictions and lockdown have held the Brazilian, the South African and all the other variants back. QUESTION - Is there any proof of this? Or is this anecdotal? Sooner or later one that renders the vaccines a lot less useful will emerge. QUESTIONS - Are you certain of this? Is there any precedent here? Also, when you say a lot less useful what do you mean? Again, do you mean it would mean the vaccine was rendered completely ineffective? Or that the person got ill but did not die?

The extent of and specific effects of each variant's vaccine escape are not fully known.

We do know that the vaccines don't work to their full advertised strength on some people, and those people can spread it, can be hospitalised and can die. So it's likely that vaccine escape will have similar effects.

The fact that the world's currently most successful variants can evade immunity means in all likelihood the next batch of variants will be able to do it too - only they'll be better at it.

Lockdown held back the spread of all variants. If it hadn't, the hospitals would still be full and using their operating rooms as ICUs and the numbers would not have come down. It's not a coincidence that all the numbers start to drop a few weeks after we enter lockdown and rise again if we come out when numbers are still high. (As we did in December 2nd 2020.)

What will happen now depends on which variant spreads most successfully and becomes dominant. As we open up pockets of South Africa, Brazil and others will pop up to challenge B117's dominance in the UK.

B117 has already spread rapidly all over the world and kicked off a more transmissible wave setting everyone's efforts back considerably.

That's your precedent for the trouble variants can cause.

@Chatterbox1987 They don't need to be more deadly to cause us a lot of trouble. Hospitalisation is enough.

They don't even have to be more deadly to kill more of us. B117 kills more people simply because it spreads faster and gets to more people

It's unlikely that a variant mutated to be less transmissible will become dominant and take over because it's less transmissible and variants that spread faster will always beat it to the punch.

@savethegrannies

I guess this is what I am trying to understand Chatterbox1987 There seems to be a lot of confusion and different views around variants and how worried we should be about them. This makes me think that nobody is 100 per cent sure. In which case there is a strong argument for getting on with it. I personally don't think you can justify keeping restrictions in placed based on "but what if?"

There's no confusion that I know of in the science. There's just things that we don't know yet and misinformation exploiting that.

We live with polio and we live with measles. We'll live with covid, just not yet awhile.

@TooManyPlatesInMotion

I think the problem is that Boris explained himself very badly, as usual. Dreadful messaging, and no context or attempt at explanation. I don't know what the fuck he was thinking putting it as he did - maybe he doesn't either. Many people will have read or heard that and wondered why they should bother with the jab, esp in light of the issues in the press with AZ. Very poor comms, as usual.

In an environment such as a Soho street full of crowded noisy beer patios when almost nobody there is vaccinated how would those people have expected the vaccines to help?

PrincessNutNuts
"What will happen now depends on which variant spreads most successfully and becomes dominant. As we open up pockets of South Africa, Brazil and others will pop up to challenge B117's dominance in the UK."
This is where I am genuinely confused. If the elderly and vulnerable - the main people being hospitalised and dying - have all been vaccinated, surely we will be fine (within reason)? Unless, that is, the new variants override the vaccine?
Are you saying that we should proceed on the assumption that they WILL override the vaccine? That's the only scenario I can see where the shit will hit the fan.
The alternative is that the variants do not override the vaccine, the rollout continues as we open open up, and sooner or later we have herd immunity?

@savethegrannies

PrincessNutNuts "What will happen now depends on which variant spreads most successfully and becomes dominant. As we open up pockets of South Africa, Brazil and others will pop up to challenge B117's dominance in the UK." This is where I am genuinely confused. If the elderly and vulnerable - the main people being hospitalised and dying - have all been vaccinated, surely we will be fine (within reason)? Unless, that is, the new variants override the vaccine? Are you saying that we should proceed on the assumption that they WILL override the vaccine? That's the only scenario I can see where the shit will hit the fan. The alternative is that the variants do not override the vaccine, the rollout continues as we open open up, and sooner or later we have herd immunity?

The elderly and vulnerable aren't fully vaccinated.

Most of them haven't had their second dose yet. In my family we have 2 fully vaccinated out of about 20 on the JCVI priority lists.

It is hoped that we'll see a vaccine effect (like Israel) in May once the first 4 groups have had their second dose.

But it might take the full JCVI 9 to get their second dose to really kick in and start doing some heavy lifting. (So, mid-June)

And it looks like they'll be getting a third dose in the autumn. So if that's needed can Herd immunity be reached before that's done?

I've included this chart from the Warwick modelling because it's pertinent to where we are right now.

The big red section under hospital admissions is unvaccinated and under 50.

The big blue sections are vaccinated but because of their health status, or perhaps the size of their viral load, they'll be ill enough to be hospitalised.

Obviously don't know what's going to happen with the variants, but 2020 produced at least three extremely troublesome ones so there's no reason to think 2021 won't do the same.

We should do we all we can to get to vaccine-led herd immunity, and that includes keeping cases low to prevent new variants emerging and derailing us.

Because viruses mutate and so far covid's mutations have not been helpful.

Because Boris Johnson is a great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jelly.

He's completely undermined what him and band of eejits have been saying about vaccines for this past year. Hes given anti vaxxers ammunition.

The deaths and hospitals have plummeted due to the top groups being vaccinated who were the majority of deaths and admissions.

Wanker.

elderly and vulnerable aren't fully vaccinated yet

The first dose offers a high leve

52% Pfzier
64.1% az
80.2% moderna

The flu vaccine is around 43%. This is still significant protection hence why the government went ahead and gave everyone their first dose to give some protection rather than wait til every had their second.
If they hadn't had done that, more people would not have their first dose and the hospital and deaths admissions wouldn't have declined the way they have.

MrsHastingslikethebattle what protection does second does offer for each different vaccine? Does it make a big difference?

dose ffs

Pfizer 92%

Az is 70.4% if you've had two full doses, or – oddly – 90% in people who have had one half dose followed by one full dose.

Moderna, 95.6% after the second(in people aged 18 to 65 – it's 86.4% in those over 65).

So quite a bigh jump from first to second yes, but as I said, the flu vaccine is only 43%.
First doses have given higher protection, all the elderly and vulnerable with over 50% protection, of course they will be a decline in deaths and admissions.
How anyone can say it's all down to lockdowns is crazy.

@MrsHastingslikethebattle

elderly and vulnerable aren't fully vaccinated yet

The first dose offers a high leve

52% Pfzier
64.1% az
80.2% moderna

The flu vaccine is around 43%. This is still significant protection hence why the government went ahead and gave everyone their first dose to give some protection rather than wait til every had their second.
If they hadn't had done that, more people would not have their first dose and the hospital and deaths admissions wouldn't have declined the way they have.

I haven't seen any modelling on the U.K. hospitalisations and deaths if we hadn't made the most vulnerable wait three months for their second dose, but Israel didn't do it that way and it's the point where they had large numbers of second doses where their vaccine effect kicks in from everything I've seen.

As you would expect, because 95% is a big improvement on 52%

@MrsHastingslikethebattle

Pfizer 92%

Az is 70.4% if you've had two full doses, or – oddly – 90% in people who have had one half dose followed by one full dose.

Moderna, 95.6% after the second(in people aged 18 to 65 – it's 86.4% in those over 65).

So quite a bigh jump from first to second yes, but as I said, the flu vaccine is only 43%.
First doses have given higher protection, all the elderly and vulnerable with over 50% protection, of course they will be a decline in deaths and admissions.
How anyone can say it's all down to lockdowns is crazy.

That's interesting. Thanks I also think vaccines surely must have had an impact - I wonder if anybody has done a timeline of vaccine rollouts in the UK alongside covid deaths and hospitalisations. The way I am reading all this is that a variant which renders the vaccines completely ineffective is the only thing that can de-rail all this. But is a variant likely to come along which can evade three different vaccines? Actually I don't have a clue Surely the move towards warmer weather is also very favourable here also?

It's doesn't have to be all or nothing @savethegrannies

Remember this?

"Two doses of the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine were found to have only a 10.4% efficacy against mild-to-moderate infections caused by the B.1.351 South Africa variant, according to a phase 1b-2 clinical trial published on Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine. This is a cause for grave concern as the South African variants share similar mutations to the other variants leaving those vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine potentially exposed to multiple variants."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2021/03/17/astrazeneca-vaccine-fails-to-protect-against-the-south-african-variant/amp/?twitterrimpression=true

Might that be the real reason why some countries don't want AZ?

That said, I understood scientists believe that AZ will still stop serious hospitalision and death from the South African strain?

@Tealightsandd

Might that be the real reason why some countries don't want AZ?

That said, I understood scientists believe that AZ will still stop serious hospitalision and death from the South African strain?

There's "no evidence that it doesn't" in the study quoted in that Forbes article where all participants were in good health and had an average age of 30 (and nobody at all over 65).

But you'd need to do a study that included some people with poorer health and/or older than 65 to demonstrate it.

I still am puzzled they are saying vaccinated people can still pass on the virus. So that means a vaccinated person could pass on the virus to another vaccinated person? Surely that would imply vaccines are pointless?
And what about children as potential vectors? Are people saying they should be vaccinated? I thought that had been ruled out? The risk of vaccine negative impacts on children are probably as high or higher than the risk of the virus itself?

Vaccines do not stop you from contracting the virus you are being protected against. If your immune system has been able to properly "learn" how to recognise how to eradicate a particular virus via vaccination then if you do get the virus it can be dealt with far more quickly.

For most people it will be recognised and dealt with before it has a chance to make you ill

For some it might take slightly longer so you may feel slightly ill (which could also mean that you have enough virus in you to pass on)

For a very few their immune system simply may not be strong enough, even with the vaccination, to be able to recognise and deal with the virus.

This is the same principle that pretty much all vaccine work on.

So that means a vaccinated person could pass on the virus to another vaccinated person? Surely that would imply vaccines are pointless?

No, it doesn't imply vaccines are pointless. It's not an absolute.
Vaccines reduce the risk of the vaccinated person getting ill and also reduce transmission. However no vaccine is 100% effective. But if you have two vaccinated people in a small room, the risk to them both is much, much smaller than if you had two unvaccinated people in a small room. If one of them is vaccinated, then the risk to both is also smaller than if they were both unvaccinated. If you vaccinate as many people as possible (worldwide, ideally), then there should be less of the virus in circulation as it can't spread as easily, and those who get ill are likely to not get as ill as they would have done before getting vaccinated.

That's why the variants are a concern though - they don't need to completely evade the vaccine to start causing infection rates to go up.