If the government were honest about the next 4 months

[RuleWithAWoodenFoot]

They'd say that children are probably going to catch covid, there is nothing to stop this happening. Lots of families will probably catch it off their children, school staff will probably catch it off children too.

Education is going to be disrupted again if the above happens. No way around it. But it could be 'over' by November when the bad weather kicks in and older folk start getting ill as per usual circumstances. At that point booster vaccs could start.

It's definitely 'an approach', but not telling people that this is the plan is unfair. Do you think people have realised this yet? Or are the Emperor's new clothes still in view?

@Watapalava

Honey

Curious to know where you live that you can’t access a test centre on foot or bike and instead need a week off work everyone you need to test

Sound like taking the piss and wanting a week off to me

I live in the rural West Midlands and I can’t access a test centre on foot (5 mile walk, 10 round trip) by bike (I don’t have one) or on public transport (there isn’t any).

The second part of your post is sheer gratuitous rudeness. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Meh. Don't let it bother you on my account. Some people are extremely ignorant. There are plenty, plenty, plenty of places in the UK where you can't access a test centre if you can't drive. Funnily enough people are also taking a test because they are ill, also plenty of people are disabled with various mobility issues or just in their mid 60's and not up for a ten mile walk even when not ill with a continuous cough and high temperature.

It's not the reality of logistics it's just skiving workshy teachers wanting time off.

I think @TheHoneyBadger was just implying that is the motivation behind the why can't you go to a test centre comment?
Sadly they are probably right given how much stick teachers have wrongful had on here.

@sherrystrull, you might have misunderstood Honey there. She was being sarcastic to the poster who accused her of taking the piss earlier. She is a teacher too.

[quote CallmeHendricks]@sherrystrull, you might have misunderstood Honey there. She was being sarcastic to the poster who accused her of taking the piss earlier. She is a teacher too. [/quote]
Ah ok. Sorry! I saw red! I'll ask for it to be removed.

UCL modelling states (22nd August):
Current estimates of the vaccination efficacy are:
preventing infection: 22.3% (CI 18.5 to 26.0)
preventing transmission following infection 87.6% (CI 86.7 to 88.5)
preventing serious illness when symptomatic (age 15-34) 80.9% (CI 80.3 to 81.4)
preventing serious illness when symptomatic (age 35-70) 48.6% (CI 47.2 to 50.0)
preventing fatality when seriously ill 81.8% (CI 81.4 to 82.3)

fantastic thank you!

Are there figures for 1 dose as opposed to 2 doses?

Hmm so I’ve got a 1 in 5 chance of still catching and if I do get it symptomatically a 1 in 2 chance of getting serious illness. That’s not as reassuring as I might have liked given the viral loads we’re likely to be exposed to.

Sherry sorry you saw read I was indeed responding to the poster who said my not being able to get to a vaccine centre as a non driver where I live was just an excuse to take time off.

4 in 5 chance of catching it, Honey, although I am not clear what it is in comparison to. Your previous chance of catching it? In what scenario?

I suppose looking at the local case rates (or case rates in the population you’re mixing in) to start the calculation off is the sensible way to go, in which case Honey might not feel quite so concerned. Though as we know, those case rates will be higher in the school population than outside.

Oh yeah - bloody hell - it's worse than I thought Noble. Compared to an unvaccinated person in the same situation? I don't know how they can extrapolate these figures without controlled experiments. Oh but they would have included placebos during trials presumably and know who caught it and who didn't and who had vac and who didn't - but even then that would have been with alpha not delta

If they were working it out from percentages of cases presenting now who had and had not been vaccinated that would be a bit naff as the behavioural patterns of those two groups might be significantly different due to characteristics that contributed to why they made the vac choice they did, or alternatively the vac decision they made may be influencing their behaviour patterns eg. my parents double jabbed seem to think they're invincible now worryingly.

If we've got an 80% chance of catching it if exposed then surely schools are going to be utterly screwed by staff off with covid? Yes, we need to know what that 80% chance is in comparison to or in what context they're coming up with that figure. I knew Delta was more contagious by far but a figure like that still seems huge.

but they would have included placebos during trials presumably and know who caught it and who didn't and who had vac and who didn't - but even then that would have been with alpha not delta confused
In my trial, we have regular blood tests and - if we show any symptoms from a very long list - we get tested and that info is reported back to the trial.
We don't know when we were vaccinated because it was double blind, but we are now all done because it went cross over. In the first "round", there were real and placebo doses, and then again in the second.

Honestly step away from the covid threads

In reality everyone else is relaxed and going on holidays and to festivals

Huge vast majority are absolutely fine with covid stop scaremongering

Interesting indeed (the stats shared by @Cttontail).

They look quite stark. But what do they really mean?

For example, "preventing serious illness when symptomatic" is ~50% for older folk such as me. Do we take that to say that Delta has a 50% of giving me serious illness even though vaccinated once symptoms show?

If it was really 1-in-2 people requiring hospitalisation, we'd know about it, wouldn't we? It doesn't match the reported experience by 'everyone's getting covid'.

I suppose it could do if very very few end up symptomatic, but testing picks up many many more 'cases' that are not symptomatic simply by virtue of people testing out of caution. (Such as "I had a cough" so I tested, but then the cough itself doesn't count as symptomatic covid... but why would that be? And anyway, if it was 1-in-2 need hospitalisation following a cough, that'd be in the news.)

Or are they just modelling assumptions...? But if they are, they are seeming a bit high to me...

Got any links for provenance and context?

What do you mean a cough doesn't count as symptomatic covid?

Yeah, but it’s 50% chance of seeing severe symptoms given having a cough.

That seems a lot.

Unless severe doesn’t mean truly serious (like, maybe it means the reporter needed a day in bed, but nothing more). Which is not to decry a day in bed as trivia. But it would explain why it’s a high figure, yet doesn’t make the headlines.

I'm assuming that it's 50% of the chance of having severe covid if you have symptoms and are vaccinated, compared to the chance of having severe covid if you have symptoms and are unvaccinated.

Not 50% chance of having severe symptoms if you have a cough.

@Watapalava

Honestly step away from the covid threads

In reality everyone else is relaxed and going on holidays and to festivals

Huge vast majority are absolutely fine with covid stop scaremongering

Says one of the most prolific posters on the thread!!

No holiday for Watapalava

In reality everyone else is relaxed and going on holidays and to festivals

Which is one of the reasons for concern.

BUT YOU NEED TO BE TOLD HOW TO FEEL ABOUT THIS @CallmeHendricks

Repeatedly apparently.

@Watapalava

Honestly step away from the covid threads

In reality everyone else is relaxed and going on holidays and to festivals

Huge vast majority are absolutely fine with covid stop scaremongering

And some of us are being realistic and thinking about contingency plans for if/when it all goes tits up with school disruption etc.