What if the vaccines hasn’t broken the link

[DisposableNamechange]

Between infection and death.

What if it’s just slowed it down? (Ie more time elapses between becoming infected and dying.)

I’d been wondering this anyway but deaths have increased by a bigger percentage than infections, according to Sky.

‘COVID cases in the past week have risen by just over 27% compared with the previous week while deaths have risen by two thirds.’

Plus a failure to treat double-vaccinated people differently to voluntarily unvaccinated is leading to a large section of the population having absolutely zero incentive to get vaccinated (unless they really fancy the Russian roulette of foreign travel).

In the US, students need vaccination to go on campus, The UK many courses will still be online in September, while the rest of the economy reopens. Many of over 18s will only have had one vaccine by September due to the long gap between doses in the UK (uniquely in the world).

So the government are actually not relying on vaccines. That is why it will fail.
Reopening with a reliance on vaccination requires a full and fast vaccination programme, whereas now we have a partial and slow programme (not due to the NHS, but due to the JCVI and government).

I dont think it has ever been claimed the vaccines would stop all infection or hospital admissions.
Patrick Vallance stated in the last press conference that the link had been weakened rather than broken. But, that even if a much smaller percentage of people need to be hospitalized , that could become a problem if infection numbers escalate beyond a certain point.

Well done @NannyAndJohn you got what you were hoping for at the football last night (England losing) but not sure your wish of everyone going to bed early happened though.

@user213235

Plus a failure to treat double-vaccinated people differently to voluntarily unvaccinated is leading to a large section of the population having absolutely zero incentive to get vaccinated (unless they really fancy the Russian roulette of foreign travel).

In the US, students need vaccination to go on campus, The UK many courses will still be online in September, while the rest of the economy reopens. Many of over 18s will only have had one vaccine by September due to the long gap between doses in the UK (uniquely in the world).

So the government are actually not relying on vaccines. That is why it will fail.
Reopening with a reliance on vaccination requires a full and fast vaccination programme, whereas now we have a partial and slow programme (not due to the NHS, but due to the JCVI and government).

No reason at all why under 18s won't have had both doses. They're eligible for a dose now, and second doses are available from 8 weeks. So if they get a move on and get their first appointment now, they'll be fine for the second by the end of September.

@Bordois

The only real debate is how high and quickly it would happen. Some insisted that there would be 100k cases in June. Many others said that was ridiculous and it would take longer.

Don't forget that according to a certain person we will be seeing 100000 cases/day in a week's time. Not sure if they've backtracked on that prediction in the same way they did for June.

You’re more likely to die of covid if you’re vaccinated?! What?

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Utter tosh and I've reported your post.

No reason at all why under 18s won't have had both doses. They're eligible for a dose now, and second doses are available from 8 weeks. So if they get a move on and get their first appointment now, they'll be fine for the second by the end of September

No, the official guidance is still over 18s. It's just individual vaccination sites that have spare doses that have moved on to under 18s now.
Our local centres all have lots of spare doses and are doing walk-ins now.

Walk-ins for over 18s, that is.
Trying desperately to get the hesitant vaccinated before July 19.
DP works in hospital - plenty of those admitted are voluntarily unvaccinated.

User you can accuse this appalling government of many things, but saying that the vaccination programme is slow and partial is really not one of them. The UK has a larger percentage of the population fully vaccinated than the US even though we’re working on a longer, and probably more effective gap between doses. And with world-beating levels of take up, I think that they’re right to be very wary of introducing anything which might look like coercion.

I do think that 16 and 17 year olds should be given the choice of a vaccine though.

@user213235

Walk-ins for over 18s, that is. Trying desperately to get the hesitant vaccinated before July 19. DP works in hospital - plenty of those admitted are voluntarily unvaccinated.

I meant over 18s which is what the poster I replied to was talking about.

Vacciation rates in the US vary by state. Some have better rates than ours. Plus they are vaccinating those that actually want the vaccine much better than the UK. Not that I disagree with the UK policy, but it has always been not to move onto the next group down until maximum efforts have been put into getting the hesitant in each group vaccinated, so there is often a week or 2 of lull while trying to encourage these people in. Whereas US, they move swiftly onto the next group and see those choosing not to get vaccinated as having decided for themselves. So they are already vaccinating over 12s widely.
There is a deadline though in the UK, and that is the start of term in September for schools and the start of university terms. I think UK pupils deserve uninterrupted schooling next school year and I think UK university students deserve more than online teaching for their money.
Vaccination is the way to achieve that.
Bear in mind that the JCVI still have not agreed the under 18s to officially be vaccinated, even though it has been approved by MHRA for months for over 12s. Not even CEV and CV over 12s

We should be pleased that the JCVI is taking is time in making this decision - it should mean that when they do it is because it is right for the 12-18s year old. There are some risks involved and making a decision with more data when the stock is used for the over 18s is the right one. All over 18s can book online

With the vaccinated and deaths - yes that is to be expected. The older you are the higher the risk so a vaccinated over 80 year old still has a much higher risk than an unvaccinated 20 year old. They are still going to make up a high proportion of the deaths that occur but the number of deaths is much lower.

"According to PHE your 62% more likely to die from Covid if vaccinated"

No the actual fact about the 62% didn't say that but never get accurate interpretation of stats get in the way of anti vax bollocks.

@Quartz2208

We should be pleased that the JCVI is taking is time in making this decision - it should mean that when they do it is because it is right for the 12-18s year old. There are some risks involved and making a decision with more data when the stock is used for the over 18s is the right one. All over 18s can book online

With the vaccinated and deaths - yes that is to be expected. The older you are the higher the risk so a vaccinated over 80 year old still has a much higher risk than an unvaccinated 20 year old. They are still going to make up a high proportion of the deaths that occur but the number of deaths is much lower.

Do you know what the MHRA do? They already did the benefit/risk assessment. And they already do on-going pharmacovigilance and post-marketing surveillance - this is on-going analysis of the data. MHRA are best placed to decide on drug/vaccine safety and approval. JCVI and government are not best placed to decide on safety, they are purely deciding government policy and spending.

But you are right about the reason for deaths among the vaccinated.
To say any direct link is a misuse of statistics and misinformation.
Believe me when I say hospitals are full of very ill people who decided they didn't fancy vaccination and needed time to assess the data themselves a bit better than the experts.

• not 'full' literally of course, just an expression.

@Pinuporc

I dont think it has ever been claimed the vaccines would stop all infection or hospital admissions. Patrick Vallance stated in the last press conference that the link had been weakened rather than broken. But, that even if a much smaller percentage of people need to be hospitalized , that could become a problem if infection numbers escalate beyond a certain point.

Well done @NannyAndJohn you got what you were hoping for at the football last night (England losing) but not sure your wish of everyone going to bed early happened though.

Well everything here went completely silent after the penalties, before that all you could hear was a load of drunken chanting and shouting.

Though yesterday was still the biggest superspreader event of the pandemic so far, the loss should have reduced the impact a little.

Is this a firm prediction now nanny?

@Bordois

Is this a firm prediction now nanny?

I know who not to ask for my lottery ticket's numbers :)

So far the biggest super spreader of the pandemic has been the Indian festival

@Earlydancing

I don't understand the phrase `break the link`. People are going into hospital because they've got covid. There they might die because they've got covid. How can you ever break the link with covid?

One day, in a country that has beaten covid, a cluster of cases will be detected.

(Probably connected to travel from one of the countries where covid was poorly controlled, and has now become endemic)

But their excellent test trace and isolate system keeps it from spreading,and nobody goes to hospital with covid or dies of covid.

Then they can say they've broken the link.

Countries where government policy leads to rise in covid cases, which leads to a rise in covid hospital admissions, and a rise in covid deaths... can't.

@NannyAndJohn I dont understand how you think losing would have less impact than winning? Its the final match people went out drinking etc.

Unless you mean with a celebration event?

[quote Quartz2208]@NannyAndJohn I dont understand how you think losing would have less impact than winning? Its the final match people went out drinking etc.

Unless you mean with a celebration event?[/quote]
If they had won then the yobs would have been out into the early hours, drinking and continuing to spread Covid. After the loss, a lot of them probably decided to go home to bed instead.

Though yesterday was still the biggest superspreader event of the pandemic so far, the loss should have reduced the impact a little.

Surely this wont be known? (yet)

@NannyAndJohn then no I dont think this had any impact at all because drinking would have continued regardless! And more fighting would have occurred rather than jubliant hugging.

Cant see the difference