Will UK govt covid strategy stop another wave?

[CarrieAntoinette]

According to the last Warwick University modelling I've seen, numbers are due to start ticking upwards soon. (Graph below)

Do you think the current government covid strategy will prevent another wave like the last two?

And if so, how?

(My view is that there'll be a honeymoon period where it all looks ok for a bit, and then it will kick off again, much like it has before.)

@Tealightsandd

The reason it saved lives was because obviously some protection is better than nothing. Vaccine supply is limited. Global demand. But - fully vaccinated is always better, and if there had been enough supply to fully vaccinate sooner even more lives would've been saved.

Now we're facing the new Indian variant of concern, full vaccination becomes even more important.

I get what you are saying.

But many more people with one jab died in the early months of 2021 than the just under 12,000 lives the government say their policy has now saved.

The policy didn't save lives. It took protection from the most vulnerable and gave it to people less vulnerable.

Princess that’s absolute rubbish

@PrincessNutNuts

Do you have a source for that?

[quote Sunshinegirl82]@PrincessNutNuts

Do you have a source for that?[/quote]
You don't need a source.

Look at the age groups that died in largest numbers...

And the dates that age groups were said to have been vaccinated.

And the very high take up in those age groups

Most of the thousands of over 80s and Over 75s who died in February and March and April got their first jabs in December and January.

But never got their second.

I'm going to take that as a no.

That's awful @PrincessNutNuts

Do we know, of those who died after just one dose, if there's any difference between those given Pfizer and those who had AZ?

@Tealightsandd

That's awful *@PrincessNutNuts*

Do we know, of those who died after just one dose, if there's any difference between those given Pfizer and those who had AZ?

The government hasn't released the data on that.

I think we need to know.

publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2021/02/23/covid-19-analysing-first-vaccine-effectiveness-in-the-uk/

Princess

No they didn’t

They started vaccinating care homes and health care in December

Most of the 80/70 were January and Feb plus then 3 weeks to have an effect

Oh and many of those who died would have had infection for weeks as it’s well known people don’t die overnight

So bullsit

Enough to keep hospitalisation within limits I reckon.

June 21 up for assessment.

Most of the thousands of over 80s and Over 75s who died in February and March and April got their first jabs in December and January.

This is highly unlikely. It wasn’t until 25th feb it was announced that 78.7% of those over 80 had received at least one dose. [https://www.gponline.com/four-five-over-80s-first-covid-19-jab-despite-weekend-slump-vaccinations/article/1705476] Within that article it also clearly states that one week previously (so 18th Feb) it was only 60%.

Of course if you have any data on the number of people who have died after catching Covid 3+ weeks after their first dose, I’d love to see it.

Click lay link fail! Second attempt:

www.gponline.com/four-five-over-80s-first-covid-19-jab-despite-weekend-slump-vaccinations/article/1705476

Chloe

She won’t have that data because she’s literally talking bullshit

Spreading crap like that is not god princess

good

@ChloeCrocodile

Most of the thousands of over 80s and Over 75s who died in February and March and April got their first jabs in December and January.

This is highly unlikely. It wasn’t until 25th feb it was announced that 78.7% of those over 80 had received at least one dose. [https://www.gponline.com/four-five-over-80s-first-covid-19-jab-despite-weekend-slump-vaccinations/article/1705476] Within that article it also clearly states that one week previously (so 18th Feb) it was only 60%.

Of course if you have any data on the number of people who have died after catching Covid 3+ weeks after their first dose, I’d love to see it.

That data isn't in the public domain as far as I know.

So are we assuming that the many tens of thousands of people who died earlier this year were all unvaccinated then?

Are we assuming that people who've had a first dose can't die of covid?

But @PrincessNutNuts you are assuming that those who died, could have fitted in having another vaccine and had the required amount of time after to get fully vaccinated. How many do those actually number.

And if you also take into account that you assume that first vaccinations give some protection then some of those you deem less vulnerable may also have died.

Of all the decisions the Government have made there are many which you can question. This I dont think is one of them

one covid dose reduces deaths by 80% so yes the one dose saved many many lives

It's been proven by every study

you cannot keep going with this one princess as every study, (inc several US/non UK) suggests it was right decision

The government made a big thing out of vaccinating strictly in the order of the JCVI 9 priority groups.

The first four were

1. Care home residents and workers

1. The rest of the over 80s and social care workers

1. Over 75s

1. Over 70s and the clinically vulnerable.

This totalled 21% of the population.

My family got pretty short notice of their jabs. Generally they had it a few days after being offered it.

From what I remember, the government reached their first 4 groups by February 15th target. I think they hit it by February 13th.

So given the strict order and the Feb 15 date target for all 4 groups, I think it's a safe assumption that most of the first three groups were vaccinated in December and January.

@Quartz2208

But *@PrincessNutNuts* you are assuming that those who died, could have fitted in having another vaccine and had the required amount of time after to get fully vaccinated. How many do those actually number.

And if you also take into account that you assume that first vaccinations give some protection then some of those you deem less vulnerable may also have died.

Of all the decisions the Government have made there are many which you can question. This I dont think is one of them

One day hopefully the government will release the data so we can work it out.

Vaccination has saved many lives.

I'm not convinced that this order of vaccination saved more than giving the most vulnerable as much protection as we could as soon as possible would have done.

Or if it saved the same number of people but different people. (Younger ones)

Its not a safe assumption tho as they simple said they could offer it not that it would be done.

Many care homes hadnt even been touched in feb due to outbreaks so teams couldn't even enter to do the vaccines

Then its 3-4 weeks after so mid march before they got any immunity

you can go on the gov site and see by mid feb they had only just started on the over 75s

This is taken from the gov site in ther end of feb report:

"COVID-19 vaccinations currently being offered to those over 75 years of age and in the eligible at-risk groups
The COVID-19 programme continues at pace and we want to thank everyone for all the incredible hard work to make this roll-out so successful.

We now have a very good uptake of the vaccine in the over 80s age group and very good signs that health and social care professionals are taking up the offer of vaccination. We are very keen to encourage all the eligible groups to come forward when they are invited for their vaccination."

Princess i don't know what your agenda is but your looking at dates only when EVERY study says you are wrong!

so we are talking mid march before anyone in the priority groups got immunity

Don't forget the numbers vaccinated in dec and early jan were very low compared to now

I think this

Or if it saved the same number of people but different people. (Younger ones)

Is far more true. I think the Government took a risk in prioritising giving first vaccines out to as many people as possible.

I agree it may actually not as saved as many as the Government say because some were lost in not getting their second jab but I dont think you can make it a bad decision because of that.

Neither can you compare the US whose stock of Pfizer far exceeded ours. Difficult decisions need to be made - this wasnt a bad one. It was a difficult one that I think was the right call.

Just like how to handle the AZ vaccine with the Indian variant raising its head for the under 40s is a difficult one. What is going to save more lives because you cannot save everyone

By middle of January they hadn't even vaccinated 3 million people

So are we assuming that the many tens of thousands of people who died earlier this year were all unvaccinated then?

Not at all. In fact, I’m making no assumptions at all. I’m asserting that it is more likely that the vast majority were unvaccinated, or within a couple of weeks post vaccination, at the time they contracted covid. I understand and accept that some may have received one dose, and some may have had both doses when they contracted it. But I want to see some data, and as you appeared confident I hoped you had some.

So given the strict order and the Feb 15 date target for all 4 groups, I think it's a safe assumption that most of the first three groups were vaccinated in December and January.

This is not a safe assumption at all. Particularly given the fact that less than 80% of the over 80s (in group 2) were vaccinated by 25th Feb. So even an assumption that the first two groups were all done by the end of Feb would be quite a leap of faith.

FWIW I think almost everything this government did in managing the pandemic has been shambolic. But I think that it was the correct strategy to delay the second dose (in the time when our access to vaccines was severely limited). My reasoning is simple. For every 100 doses we could chose to either
A) partially vaccinate 100 people
B) fully vaccinate 50 people
If one dose of the vaccine is more than 50% effective at preventing death then A is correct. If less than 50% B is correct. The trial data indicated that one dose was significantly more than 50%. I’m open to changing my mind, but I’d need actual data to do so.