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???

@JassyRadlett

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.

This evidence is it from experts? Do remember that we are done with experts, and much prefer to pay attention to twits on twitter from people who are famous.

^This evidence is it from experts?

I know right. Why would we listen to public health experts on whether the vaccine stops infections? What kind of fools are we?

I have chosen not to have the vaccine. That's on me. I don't expect vaccinated people to isolate to save me. Ridiculous.

You can still carry and spread covid, even if you have no symptoms yourself.

Personally I'd be ignoring it as far as school drop off goes, if you can avoid coming into contact with others there. Your child shouldn't have to miss yet more school because of this circus.

OK, @VerticalHorizon, we are talking with different definitions of ‘infection’.

I’m going to stick with the one PHE and the scientists in the field are using, distinct from exposure and based on the WHO case definition. When we’re talking about risk it paints a better picture - most vaccinated people will pose no risk at all, a minority will pose a risk that is much lower than if they hadn’t been vaccinated.

For your own calculations on the impact of vaccination, you’ll want to include the scientists’ data on both transmission and infections to make sure that you’re providing an accurate picture. On that basis, your 50% estimate is way too low. You’ll probably also want to reflect that the risk reduction isn’t uniform - for the majority of cases it will be absolute, but then a correspondingly lower risk reduction those those who do meet WHO academic criteria.

@quizqueen

I have chosen not to have the vaccine. That's on me. I don't expect vaccinated people to isolate to save me. Ridiculous.

I havent totally made my mind up yet, but I dont expect people to isolate me either.

In fact, I dont want them too.
I have sort of been going out of my way to see if I can recatch it.
I have had it already, and if I can recatch it, I want it now, not in the middle of the next winter pandemic, in amongst everyone else.

What happens with test and trace-do they text you and then someone rings you, @MrsWarleggan ?

Why both?

@JassyRadlett

OK, *@VerticalHorizon*, we are talking with different definitions of ‘infection’.

I’m going to stick with the one PHE and the scientists in the field are using, distinct from exposure and based on the WHO case definition. When we’re talking about risk it paints a better picture - most vaccinated people will pose no risk at all, a minority will pose a risk that is much lower than if they hadn’t been vaccinated.

For your own calculations on the impact of vaccination, you’ll want to include the scientists’ data on both transmission and infections to make sure that you’re providing an accurate picture. On that basis, your 50% estimate is way too low. You’ll probably also want to reflect that the risk reduction isn’t uniform - for the majority of cases it will be absolute, but then a correspondingly lower risk reduction those those who do meet WHO academic criteria.

The 50% was used as an illustration of how vaccinations help to reduce the r-Rate. Somebody asked why it mattered for someone to remain isolated if they had the infection but were vaccinated. My point was that if they are infected, regardless of vaccination, they can still propogate, which is to be avoided wherever possible. It was never meant to be '50% is the actual figure'! - it was for illustration. That's why I said 'say' to imply it was illustrative only. The same with the 1.4 r-Rate.

The point being, vaccines not only affect the vaccinated, but the unvaccinated too - by reducing the transmissions (and risk), it makes everybody safer, but conversely, those who do not vaccinate, increase the risks.

Ignore it and keep dropping your child off to school..

@Howshouldibehave
Text message gives you a link to log on to to ask some general health questions giving you a reference to log in with. I didn't and then the phone calls happened. I eventually answered as I was getting annoyed! There must be some link up from the text to the website. I'm assuming if I had gone on the site I wouldn't have got a call.

My point was that if they are infected, regardless of vaccination, they can still propogate, which is to be avoided wherever possible.

Yes, I generally agree with that. And the vaccines do have a great benefit here in the vaccinated infected which seems to be linked to the much lower viral load in those people.

But that’s if they’re infected. And brilliantly, even with delta, most vaccinated people won’t be. Zero chance of onward transmission. Antibodies preventing the virus entering cells. Total cause for celebration.

Re @SunbathingDragon's point Over 50 of my colleagues at a local hospital have been double jabbed and tested positive for the delta variant. That’s the point

That's not the point at all - it's how badly have the majority been affected by it? If they are all fully vaccinated, were re-infected but the majority got mild case then why all the worries about how dangerous it is? Ok, so some won't vaccinate - but it's free, so up to them. I appreciate some can't but we can't keep isolating for ever for a few.

Delete the app and move on.

[quote MrsWarleggan]@Howshouldibehave
Text message gives you a link to log on to to ask some general health questions giving you a reference to log in with. I didn't and then the phone calls happened. I eventually answered as I was getting annoyed! There must be some link up from the text to the website. I'm assuming if I had gone on the site I wouldn't have got a call.[/quote]
Interesting-I got an alert by the app a couple of weeks ago saying I had to isolate but didn’t get a phone call or anything. That might have been useful!

Mine didn't come through as an app alert, but then again I haven't got it!!

I am getting a bit WHY? about this too

*Evidence is strong that all the vaccines cut transmission

*Evidence is there that if a double jabbed person catches the virus they are highly unlikely to spread it

Both of these reasons are why the American health people have dropped the request for double jabbed people to wear masks on the back of said evidence. We are just waiting for our own evidence yet again apparently. A trial is starting now.

We haven’t finished the vaccine rollout yet so rules are still in place. Plenty haven’t had it yet due to age or are waiting for their second dose or waiting period to pass etc.
I’d not want to risk passing it on regardless of the vaccine as we haven’t come out of this yet.

@TillyTopper

Re *@SunbathingDragon's point Over 50 of my colleagues at a local hospital have been double jabbed and tested positive for the delta variant. That’s the point*

That's not the point at all - it's how badly have the majority been affected by it? If they are all fully vaccinated, were re-infected but the majority got mild case then why all the worries about how dangerous it is? Ok, so some won't vaccinate - but it's free, so up to them. I appreciate some can't but we can't keep isolating for ever for a few.

But what when they are working with vulnerable patients, for whom the vaccine may not work well at all?

It could be quite dangerous to let it spread in hospitals

Were you closer than 2m? If not, do you still have to self isolate?

Also, I agree. What a load of rubbish? Get the vaccine and still have to stay in your house for 2 weeks every time someone with a virus most people don't even know they have workout a test walks past you.

You might get a message asking if you want to be part of the testing study which means you can test every day and not isolate. Dh and I have. I'm not sure if there's anywhere you can volunteer to be a part of it? Then at least you could drop dd at school.

Tbh i suspect the real answer is because we've only just opened up vaccinations to all adults - politically there would've been an outcry if old people could carry on willynilly because they were vaxxed but younger people had to keep isolating... it'll be a little while but sooner or later the rules will change i think. There'll probs be an outcry anyway tho

Exactly we can't live like this forever so various people and unvaccinated people will always be at risk.

For those that onky get paid when at work, will the government pay forever or pay all isolating periods. Kids cannot simply be sent home all the time.

MakkaPakkas
Yes we found that out a few weeks ago. Both kids got sent home from school, told to self isolate for 10 days plus get tested. Both tested negative, but still had to self isolate for 10 days. I had to take unpaid leave from work. Totally unreal!!