Will this level of cases now just be acceptable?

[Tuba437]

Just having a think to myself. We're now at around 30k cases a day in general. The 7 day average daily deaths is about 89 (this was for around 45-50k cases a day). We can assume that I a month or so deaths will be at around 60 a day.

Over a year that works out at about 21k worth of deaths. Will this just be the acceptable number. We know the vaccine doesn't stop the spread so I highly doubt were ever just going to get down to sub 5k cases a day again.

21k is considered a very mild flu death rate for the year. We have a new virus around now so more deaths a year are going to be a thing whether we like it or not.

I also think red list countries should only be for countries with worrying variants. If I don't have to isolate if my wife tests positive (just daily testing) then why on earth would I have to spend 1500 on a government hotel to quarantine as I've been to a country with a lower covid rate than us?

Sorry about the rant.

Nope. I did not say restrictions. The choice is not 'restrictions' or 'fuck it who cares how many people die' as Johnson would like us to believe.

I said:

• Proper testing and tracing, to make sure the right people take PCRs promptly. That is not a restriction, it is a mitigation.
• Masks are not restictions, they are mitigations.
• Vaccinating young people is not a restriction, it is preventative.
• Ventilation in schools is not a restriction, it is a mitigation.

It is what it is - absolute bollocks IMO. It is what our political leaders are choosing it will be. They have other choices. The (Conservative) government are happy to see a high death toll this winter. They are choosing that. They are choosing for more people to die this year than need to.

@lannistunut ok fair enough I do agree we should do those things but nothing else.

I am very angry () today that we are seeing such a shitshow AGAIN.

It is important we distinguish between mitigations and restrictions.

A condom is a mitigation against STDs, banning sex is a restriction.

A PCR test is a mitigation against spreading covid, banning indoor socialising is a restriction.

We need mitigations.

We need to vaccinate children, at least down to 12, both for their own sakes and to allow us to continue with few restrictions The more I read, the more I am convinced of this.

I suspect vaccinations are not happening due to lack of vaccine, rather than any other reason.

I think we will be in for a very grim few months between September and December.

‘For their own sakes’ why? The evidence shows that they are very low risk snd it’s a very fine balance between risk and benefit of the vaccine for them. Particularly when you take existing immunity after infection into account.

@TheReluctantPhoenix why then though? Surely Jan / Feb 2022 will be worse?

Do you mean grim as in high deaths or grim, lockdown?

I think the Boardmasters event has highlighted the pointlessness of vaccine passports even further. Everyone should have had to test. There is no point in exempting vaccinated people when they can still be infected and spreading the virus around.

@bumbleymummy,

The children may be at low risk, but for many of them COVID is still really unpleasant (plus the small risk of long COVID ).

I know my children would prefer to be vaccinated than ill.

We don’t only vaccinate against deadly illnesses (mumps and chicken pox for instance).

Sorry, I meant rubella, not chicken pox, though many countries do also vaccinate against chicken pox.

I would like my own children to be vaccinated in time once a vaccine is available to them, but I'm not really comfortable with the idea of my healthy, low-risk children getting it to spare them a few days of Calpol when there are countries with 99% of the population unvaccinated.

@nomore3lw,

With an r of 6, I don’t think major epidemics in schools will take long to get going (and spread to parents).

I would think by Christmas it will be pretty much over, either via infection or vaccinations. We should get to herd immunity (unless locked down again).

@TheReluctantPhoenix Christ, would be interesting to see if the government hold their nerve and don't lockdown if that happens.

I have a big wedding to attend in Dec, what are your odds on it happening ....

Look at what other countries are doing - making different political choices.

All the European countries and many others (e.g. Singapore) are doing exactly the same thing - vaccinating as many people as they can and opening up. Other countries are waiting until they have got sufficient vaccine before they can go ahead with re-opening.

The only officially self-proclaimed "zero Covid" pursuers so far are New Zealand and China. Even Australia seems to be revisiting its approach.

[quote TheReluctantPhoenix]@bumbleymummy,

The children may be at low risk, but for many of them COVID is still really unpleasant (plus the small risk of long COVID ).

I know my children would prefer to be vaccinated than ill.

We don’t only vaccinate against deadly illnesses (mumps and chicken pox for instance).[/quote]
Yes but vaccine side effects can also be unpleasant. If they’re not getting much added benefit from the vaccine, particularly if they’re already immune after being infected, why put them through that?

They will not lockdown, we will have retrictions is my guess.

Don;t see how we get from here to Nov without serious numbers in hospital.

If I am wrong, I will be happy!

With an r of 6, I don’t think major epidemics in schools will take long to get going (and spread to parents).

Cases in Florida appear to have peaked during the week school re-opened (more data needed to confirm this).

Many countries are closer to endemic equilibrium than people seem to think.

there are countries with 99% of the population unvaccinated

And this^. It makes me very uncomfortable that developed countries are vaccinating low risk groups when developing countries can’t vaccinate their most vulnerable.

@nomore3lw,

Umm, low, but I would not attach a high degree of confidence to my guesstimate!

The government can keep their hands ‘clean’ by waiting for schools to close themselves if too many staff are infected. What I don’t know is whether a vaccine protection of 2/3 means 2/3 of people are 100% protected or 100% of people are 2/3 protected (or realistically, somewhere in the middle). I think that will make a big difference as to how schools cope (thinking about teachers here).

It is unethical to expose children to a higher risk of covid infection impacts when you can choose a lower risk of vaccine side effects.

The likelihood of catching covid affects the comparison between the two. If you take a 100% likelihood of catching covid against the 100% likelihood of having the vaccine, the vaccine is safer. If you take a 1% likelihood of catching covid against a 100% likelihood of having the vaccine, the covid risk is lower. Somewhere between the two is the tipping point.

But our children are going to have a very high likelihood of catching covid due to our high rates of circulating virus.

It is unethical to take that higher risk with their health. Only a monster of a PM would do that. We have a monster of a PM.

@bumbleymummy

I think the Boardmasters event has highlighted the pointlessness of vaccine passports even further. Everyone should have had to test. There is no point in exempting vaccinated people when they can still be infected and spreading the virus around.

Why are you assuming that the only reason the broadmasters event has been such a problem is because of "vaccinated people..spreading the virus around?"

Given that LFT is only around ~60% sensitive, and that tests are easy to fake, they will miss a significant proportion of infectious people. This is only exacerbated by the fact you can take a test up to three days before, so can easily pick up coronavirus in the intervening period.

@wintertravel1980,

Aren’t Florida vaccinating 12+ children?

Also I read many schools are already bringing masks back.

Where do you read it has already peaked in Florida?

If they’re not getting much added benefit from the vaccine, particularly if they’re already immune after being infected, why put them through that?

There is not strong evidence that individuals are "immune after being infected", and in fact there's mounting evidence to show how important is to bolster the immune response with vaccination to generate robust, long lasting immunity.

@bumbleymummy

there are countries with 99% of the population unvaccinated

And this^. It makes me very uncomfortable that developed countries are vaccinating low risk groups when developing countries can’t vaccinate their most vulnerable.

There is no direct trade off tbh. Pfizer for example can not easily be distributed in many countries due to the way it has to be kept.

Sometimes we aim to do two things at once. I would pay for more vaccines for Covax of course.

Yes - this is a false dichotomy that keeps being pushed by the same crowd.

It isn't vaccinate low risk children or vaccinate the vulnerable abroad. Vaccine doses is not the limiting factor, infrastructure and funding are.

@lannistunut,

We will vaccinate children 12+, just watch.

I am not sure we have the vaccine yet. As soon as we do, Bojo will (be advised to) change his mind.

I agree with you, though, that getting COVID can be really unpleasant for some children, worse than many of the old ‘childhood’ illnesses that everyone happily vaccinated against.