Why?!!!

[MrsWarleggan]

Just got a text to self isolate after being in close contact last week with a positive case.

I had Covid in November and am double jabbed.....what is the chuffing point?!!!

I actually asked the T&T people why I have to self isolate and was told "because you need to protect the people who have chosen to not have the vaccine and to stop the spread". I also asked whether irrespective of vaccines would everyone have to self isolate until the end of time. They couldn't answer me.

I just genuinely don't understand. The rest of the household doesn't have to isolate as we have absolutely no symptoms, but I do school drop off and pick up due to DH working 12 hour shifts, so now my perfectly healthy DD can't go to school....for absolutely no reason.

Am I alone in my thinking???

I sometimes sit and muse on what would happen if the same amount of effort was put into other causes, for example the obesity crisis. How many deaths would be saved if the same investment was made in that, as has been in covid?

The vaccine isn't stopping the vast majority of infections, it is reducing them (let's say by 50%), so instead of an r-Rate of about 1.4, it might fall to 0.7 for the vaccinated individual, which eventually will lead to the dying out of the virus. However, not everybody is vaccinated, so the overall r-Rate will be higher than 0.7 but less that 1.4. As a rough guess, 0.9 say. In effect, the virus still dies out, but takes a longer to do so, and thus more deaths occur.

What data are you using for effectiveness against infection? Even for delta all the reports I’ve seen put it well above 50% - such as the data here, which shows lower effectiveness against infection for both after two doses with delta, but still at 79% for Pfizer and 60% for AZ.

Or are you thinking about transmissions? Yes, the risk of onward household (ie high risk) transmission from a vaccinated individual is reduced by 40-60% (no data for delta that I’ve seen yet).

So it’s cumulative. A vaccinated person is much less likely to catch it, even with delta. And even if they do, they’re less likely to transmit it.

Given uncertainties around delta and the increasing number of cases I think it’s right to err on the side of caution for now. But given there is a significant gap in relative risk of close contacts who have been vaccinated vs not, I wouldn’t be surprised that once we are out of this period, policy might change to reflect that.

Oh, and those who HAVE been vaccinated can still die from it. We absolutely must not forget that. It seems to be taken as read that once you've had the vaccine, you're 100% safe. You're not.

Does anyone actually think that? Have they been living under a rock for the last year?

Obesity doesn't spread (except around the waist).

The problem with Covid was always how relatively infectious it was, and so within weeks it could take over huge swathes of the population, which by sheer percentages resulted in large numbers of deaths.

Whilst obesity and many other diseases result in many deaths, they don't impose the immediate threat that Covid does, and continues to.

Also, obesity is much more of a mindset and human behaviour issue, so far harder to deal with in some senses (and yet in reality, the solution is fairly simple, just nigh on impossible to implement due to behaviour)

@JassyRadlett

Oh, and those who HAVE been vaccinated can still die from it. We absolutely must not forget that. It seems to be taken as read that once you've had the vaccine, you're 100% safe. You're not.

Does anyone actually think that? Have they been living under a rock for the last year?

Reading a few of the posts on here, they either don't know that, or have overlooked it. There's an awful lot of phrases like 'well they've been vaccinated, so aren't at risk'.

Because you can still catch an infection and pass it on. Self-isolation is about stopping the spread of the virus.

@IAmAWomanNotACis

Because you can still catch an infection and pass it on. Self-isolation is about stopping the spread of the virus.

We can't self isolate forever though! At some point we are going to have to get on with it and accept that while vaccines reduce the risk, covid isn't going away and life can't grind to a halt because of it.

There's an awful lot of phrases like 'well they've been vaccinated, so aren't at risk'.

Fair enough. I more or less read that as shorthand for the risk of death being extremely low compared with before they were vaccinated.

@JassyRadlett

The vaccine isn't stopping the vast majority of infections, it is reducing them (let's say by 50%), so instead of an r-Rate of about 1.4, it might fall to 0.7 for the vaccinated individual, which eventually will lead to the dying out of the virus. However, not everybody is vaccinated, so the overall r-Rate will be higher than 0.7 but less that 1.4. As a rough guess, 0.9 say. In effect, the virus still dies out, but takes a longer to do so, and thus more deaths occur.

What data are you using for effectiveness against infection? Even for delta all the reports I’ve seen put it well above 50% - such as the data here, which shows lower effectiveness against infection for both after two doses with delta, but still at 79% for Pfizer and 60% for AZ.

Or are you thinking about transmissions? Yes, the risk of onward household (ie high risk) transmission from a vaccinated individual is reduced by 40-60% (no data for delta that I’ve seen yet).

So it’s cumulative. A vaccinated person is much less likely to catch it, even with delta. And even if they do, they’re less likely to transmit it.

Given uncertainties around delta and the increasing number of cases I think it’s right to err on the side of caution for now. But given there is a significant gap in relative risk of close contacts who have been vaccinated vs not, I wouldn’t be surprised that once we are out of this period, policy might change to reflect that.

I am referring to infections (ergo transmissions). The vaccines are largely reducing the implications of an infection - massively reducing mortality rates, but they aren't stopping transmission (they are reducing it though).

A vaccinated person is no less likely to catch it than an unvaccinated person. They are less likely to transmit it, and far less likely to die from it (but it's still possible).

The problem with simply letting the entire population of vaccinated people run free, is that even with a 50% reduction in transmission, there will still BE transmissions, and there will still be vaccinated people dying. Whilst a small percentage, we are back to a small percentage of a very large number is a large number.

If we couple this with the fear of new mutations which might have significant differences in characteristics, there is still quite a bit of risk.

The bigger problem remains on a global level. There is very little to celebrate if the UK manages to deal with the current forms of Covid if large parts of the world allow the virus to thrive and mutate to a form we cannot manage to deal with.

@MrsWarleggan this study may be of interest to you. It's been talked about in the news today.

www.gov.uk/guidance/daily-contact-testing-study

@MrsWarleggan

How old are your children?

Can you drive them near school and watch them walk in?

Do you live in walking distance? Can another parent walk by and collect them?

There is hope that we will hopefully stop self isolating soon.

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/20/people-in-uk-with-both-covid-jabs-may-not-have-to-quarantine-says-scientist

Luckily I’ve never had to.

@JassyRadlett

There's an awful lot of phrases like 'well they've been vaccinated, so aren't at risk'.

Fair enough. I more or less read that as shorthand for the risk of death being extremely low compared with before they were vaccinated.

You may be right, or it's a mix of views (hard to read).

I do think some folks genuinely think vaccination = immunity.

@Onceuponatime1818

Eldest is 7. Youngest is 2 (parents childminder) None within walking distance unfortunately 🙄

I am referring to infections (ergo transmissions). The vaccines are largely reducing the implications of an infection - massively reducing mortality rates, but they aren't stopping transmission (they are reducing it though).

No, there are two mechanisms here when you’re looking at a vaccinated individual. First, their chance of getting infected - regardless of the vaccination status of the person they caught it from. If they don’t get infected in the first place, they can’t pass it on. That’s where delta seems to have made a dent in the effectiveness of the vaccines two weeks after second dose (though there are hopes AZ numbers will improve as it tends to take longer to take full effect. But if OP has had two doses, her chance of being infected by her close contact is much lower.

And then, there is the chance of that individual passing it on, if they’re in the minority who get infected after being exposed. Which is also reduced if the person is vaccinated. So if OP is unlucky enough to catch it from her close contact, the risk of her passing it on is lower.

They’re two totally separate mechanisms - one coming in, one going out. The vaccines have an impact on both - the PHE evaluation (for alpha, and I’ve seen more data on transmission that they’re not yet reflecting, PHE seem to be quite conservative and fair enough) is here.

Together, when you’re looking at the risk of a close contact of an infected person posing a risk to others, they play a pretty strong role in reducing that risk. Which should probably be considered in future policy on self-isolation.

@JassyRadlett

I am referring to infections (ergo transmissions). The vaccines are largely reducing the implications of an infection - massively reducing mortality rates, but they aren't stopping transmission (they are reducing it though).

No, there are two mechanisms here when you’re looking at a vaccinated individual. First, their chance of getting infected - regardless of the vaccination status of the person they caught it from. If they don’t get infected in the first place, they can’t pass it on. That’s where delta seems to have made a dent in the effectiveness of the vaccines two weeks after second dose (though there are hopes AZ numbers will improve as it tends to take longer to take full effect. But if OP has had two doses, her chance of being infected by her close contact is much lower.

And then, there is the chance of that individual passing it on, if they’re in the minority who get infected after being exposed. Which is also reduced if the person is vaccinated. So if OP is unlucky enough to catch it from her close contact, the risk of her passing it on is lower.

They’re two totally separate mechanisms - one coming in, one going out. The vaccines have an impact on both - the PHE evaluation (for alpha, and I’ve seen more data on transmission that they’re not yet reflecting, PHE seem to be quite conservative and fair enough) is here.

Together, when you’re looking at the risk of a close contact of an infected person posing a risk to others, they play a pretty strong role in reducing that risk. Which should probably be considered in future policy on self-isolation.

You stated that a vaccinated person is less likely to get infected. They're not. They are less likely to transmit.

The only reason the r-Rate goes does is due to the reduction in transmission.

Place three individuals in a room, one with the virus, two without. Of the two without, they are equally likely to contract it, regardless of vaccination status.

This is why I only pretend to take pictures in the track and trace!

The vaccinated person is less likely to remain a host, due to their vaccination status, but they are no less likely to be exposed or infected.

If you're treating 'infection' as a sustained proliferation, then yes, they are less likely.

Because the government has a duty to protect those who haven't had the chance to get fully vaccinated yet. Why should you be given extra privileges at this point while others have had to wait their vaccines for longer?

This is likely to change as all everyone who wants the vaccine has been offered both jabs and infection levels start going down. People who say there's no point to the vaccine if rules don't change are missing the fact we're not there yet. If you were having a new roof built you wouldn't say the first half of the roof tiles fitted are pointless. But you wouldn't have a watertight roof until they've all been fitted so would need to take other measures to protect the house from torrential rain while the work is underway.

@Temp023 me too, I have never had to self isolate thank goodness, my daughter once because of a false positive, that’s why my daughter’s stopped testing now.

@VerticalHorizon

The vaccinated person is less likely to remain a host, due to their vaccination status, but they are no less likely to be exposed or infected.

If you're treating 'infection' as a sustained proliferation, then yes, they are less likely.

That's weird. A previous poster provided a very informative link to public Health England data that when I read it said that those vaccinated had a reduce chance of being infected. Is it that you know something PHE don't know, or that I can't read?

@nordica yeah right, they didn’t protect us from the delta variant arriving, 900 people a day in February coming and going from the UK to India, 20,000 Scots travelling to London without anyone knowing if they took a test, oh no it’s all down to children to keep self isolating every 5 minutes

You stated that a vaccinated person is less likely to get infected. They're not. They are less likely to transmit.

They are less likely to become infected. Per plenty of studies now.

To quote from the PHE report I linked to:

Although individuals may not develop symptoms of COVID-19 after vaccination, it is possible that they could still be infected with the virus and could transmit to others. Understanding how effective vaccines are at preventing infection is therefore important to predict the likely impact of the vaccination programme on the wider population. In order to estimate vaccine effectiveness against infection, repeat asymptomatic testing of a defined cohort of individuals is required. Studies have now reported on vaccine effectiveness against infection in healthcare workers, care home residents and the general population. With the Pfizer-BioNTech, estimates of effectiveness against infection range from around 55 to 70%, with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine they range from around 60 to 70% (5) (10) (11) (12). Estimates for 2 doses are currently only available for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and indicate effectiveness against infection of 70 to 90% (5) (10).

And on transmission:

As described above, several studies have provided evidence that vaccines are effective at preventing infection. Uninfected individuals cannot transmit; therefore, the vaccines are also effective at preventing transmission. Data from Scotland has also shown that household contacts of vaccinated healthcare workers are at reduced risk of becoming a case, which is in line with the studies on infection (13). There may be additional benefit, beyond that due to prevention of infection, if some of those individuals who become infected despite vaccination are also at a reduced risk of transmitting (for example, because of reduced duration or level of viral shedding). A household transmission study in England found that household contacts of cases vaccinated with a single dose had approximately 35 to 50% reduced risk of becoming a confirmed case of COVID-19. This study used routine testing data so would only include household contacts that developed symptoms and went on to request a test via pillar 2. It cannot exclude asymptomatic secondary cases or mildly symptomatic cases who chose not to request a COVID test. (Bolding mine)

For the avoidance of doubt, these are consecutive paragraphs on the same page of the report. They are describing different mechanisms. Evidence increasingly shows the vaccine has an impact on both.

To be fair I have tried to get the app to work but I gave up when I was meant to use it outside a cafe, sitting meters away from anyone. I thought, what if T&T rings me and says you have to isolate because someone outside the cafe had Covid., bollocks to that.

No, we're talking the same thing... sort of...

The vaccinated person's immune response will deal with the infection (thanks to the vaccine) in most cases, but it doesn't magically prevent the virus reaching you.

A consequence of the vaccines reducing transmission is of course, a reduced likelihood in anybody getting the virus, because it's being transmitted less.

For all intents and purposed 'reduced chance of infection' means when exposed to the virus, the immune system will deal with it, and the virus won't have a sustainable host. However, the virus will still enter the body with equal odds as an unvaccinated person.