Tiering up the Covid elimination strategy

[dancemom]

Sadly the end was not as close as we thought so new thread required ....

@WouldBeGood

Christ, me too *@Bytheloch*.

This is also probably due to the ridiculous zero Covid strategy pursued by the SG until now

Yes I agree, it almost certainly has contributed. Not least because that was the driver behind the enhanced restrictions that have probably (ironically) left us a little more vulnerable now. It was never a feasible strategy with a virus like COVID but they held on to the belief that Scotland could eliminate COVID for far too long (although I suspect one or two key advisors may have driven that one..).

Overall I do think there are positive signs though, as we have still got the most vulnerable vaccinated (mostly double vaccinated) and so you wouldn't expect an uptick of cases to affect hospitals too much. If only the SG could find the courage to let cases go!

The antibody level plays a bigger factor then it appears.

Studies are showing that those with antibodies still detectable at the time of first dose of vaccination have a higher protection then non-covid people after 2 doses although the study groups so far are quite small and it's emerging studies.
So if England has had more cases and more people with antibodies than Scotland (which is does) more people are fully protected sooner even though advise is still to get the second jab.
They have so far only really looked at Pfizer and moderna for it but it would tie in with why cases are higher in Scotland as not only less second doses due to the delayed start but less are protected. Studies also showing that full vaccination does reduce the likelihood of catching and spreading it although not to the same level it reduces chance of serious illness.

@WouldBeGood

People need to stop cooperating with this asymptomatic testing bollocks.

Agree. But not for a few weeks please as my S6 school leaver has applied for a job as a Covid tester/swabber over the summer. £13.50 an hour!!!!

@Scottishskifun that's really interesting and makes perfect sense from an immunological point of view - people who have had the disease are already 'primed' so that when they get their jag it is effectively a booster and they get full immunity sooner. If it's spread through the community more widely in England, more of them are already primed, which coupled with the faster start to the vaccination programme delivering first doses means there might be many more with full immunity than is realised. It also makes sense that those with full immunity would be less likely to catch and spread the disease, explaining why it isn't taking off so much, while of course any immunity reduces the chance of severe illness.

@44Y0uCann0tBeSer10us yep it seems like we might actually be suffering as a result of having less cases last year/through the winter as the virus has more people with no or little protection.

Its why some countries are saying if you have had covid in the last 6 months then you only need one jab rather then 2 due to antibodies left.
The studies are small at the moment (few hundred people) but I did find it interesting.

I definitely have detectable antibodies still and had first jab there has to be one silver lining to catching covid and I've finally found it! 😂 (other then my anxiety levels around DS catching it as he was completely fine and I now know he has antibody protection as well)

This may well be related to the 2 primaries that had to shut though

Ah, didn't realise there had been big school outbreaks. That could be the issue, you're right.

So if England has had more cases and more people with antibodies than Scotland (which is does) more people are fully protected sooner even though advise is still to get the second jab.

That is really interesting. So in effect the infection is acting like the first jag, and the first jag is therefore more like the second! Obviously "herd immunity" would never have been an advisable strategy but it sounds like the proponents weren't too far off the mark - had there been a better way of telling who would actually be badly affected if they were infected, or a way of guaranteeing vulnerable people couldn't be infected. Which of course there isn't.

It was obvious very early who was genuinely at risk from Covid though.

I blame Jacinda 😃

@RaspberryCoulis good rates! 😂

I always found it bizarre how 'herd immunity' became almost a taboo phrase. It's a well known scientific concept and the means by which we as a species deal with most viruses! I do accept that it would have been effectively impossible to protect everyone from COVID and in retrospect we should have shielded the vulnerable much earlier (especially in care homes), but on the other hand these ridiculously long lockdowns have done plenty of damage on their own and the scaremongering aimed at low risk groups of people has been a bit much at times. I guess it just shows that you pick your harms but there's no such thing as staying completely 'safe'.

@Y0uCann0tBeSer10us

I always found it bizarre how 'herd immunity' became almost a taboo phrase. It's a well known scientific concept and the means by which we as a species deal with most viruses! I do accept that it would have been effectively impossible to protect everyone from COVID and in retrospect we should have shielded the vulnerable much earlier (especially in care homes), but on the other hand these ridiculously long lockdowns have done plenty of damage on their own and the scaremongering aimed at low risk groups of people has been a bit much at times. I guess it just shows that you pick your harms but there's no such thing as staying completely 'safe'.

Because attempting to achieve it without vaccines or medicines meant thousands and thousands of otherwise avoidable deaths.

Florida managed pretty well by looking after their elderly. And not going down the full lockdown road.

It’s been clear from pretty near the start that zero Covid was not a good plan. Even in NZ and Australia we shall see how that plays out long term.

Haha! Yes. On the one hand it's scientifically worthless. On the other hand, it's good pay

And I agree- obvious who was most at risk from serious illness and death - but not necessarily who would be affected badly in the longer term. And it would be a brave politician who would gamble that people would just accept the very small numbers of young and healthy people who did actually die. Let alone the "old but healthy" or the "young but not very healthy but not at deaths door" who were statistically more at risk of death had they been "accidentally" infected.

I think the single biggest, unforgiveable mistake made by both the UK and Scottish governments was seeding care homes with untested and known positive patients. It was clear even from Jan/Feb last year that this group was the most vulnerable to the virus by a considerable margin. They should have been protected, as apparently they did in Florida. I'm not convinced full lockdowns would have been necessary had this been done as the hospitals may not have been under major strain. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, but this was known which makes it unbelievable that anyone ever thought this was acceptable.

Yep, @Y0uCann0tBeSer10us

"Because attempting to achieve it without vaccines or medicines meant thousands and thousands of otherwise avoidable deaths."

I agree there have undoubtedly been many avoidable deaths, not least from the care homes, and we were far too slow to recognise that the virus had already taken hold in the community. But we do a disservice to many thousands more if we don't also recognise that our 'solution' of lockdown has also led to significant harms of many kinds, from children's development and life prospects, to businesses, to general physical and mental health of the population. Hence you 'pick your harms'. Just because we only seem to count COVID deaths doesn't mean its the only thing out there.

My experience as a hard hearted witch who makes unpleasant decisions based on actual evidence would have made me an ideal candidate to be in charge in committee with other sensible women 😃

@WouldBeGood

Florida managed pretty well by looking after their elderly. And not going down the full lockdown road.

It’s been clear from pretty near the start that zero Covid was not a good plan. Even in NZ and Australia we shall see how that plays out long term.

Did they? I have a friend in Florida who would wholeheartedly disagree with that!

@Y0uCann0tBeSer10us

"Because attempting to achieve it without vaccines or medicines meant thousands and thousands of otherwise avoidable deaths."

I agree there have undoubtedly been many avoidable deaths, not least from the care homes, and we were far too slow to recognise that the virus had already taken hold in the community. But we do a disservice to many thousands more if we don't also recognise that our 'solution' of lockdown has also led to significant harms of many kinds, from children's development and life prospects, to businesses, to general physical and mental health of the population. Hence you 'pick your harms'. Just because we only seem to count COVID deaths doesn't mean its the only thing out there.

I'm not quibbling with that. I was answering as to why the phrase 'herd immunity' has negative connotations.

The same S6 DS has just had his Covid jab - no underlying medical issues. Texts flying round the S6 chat group saying that the local vaccine centre has excess supply and although the official policy is over 40s only, they're doing anyone who turns up and is over 18.

Dropped DS at 5pm, he was done by 5.30pm.

Great for us on a personal level but you have to wonder what's going on with appointment letters.

@RaspberryCoulis

The same S6 DS has just had his Covid jab - no underlying medical issues. Texts flying round the S6 chat group saying that the local vaccine centre has excess supply and although the official policy is over 40s only, they're doing anyone who turns up and is over 18.

Dropped DS at 5pm, he was done by 5.30pm.

Great for us on a personal level but you have to wonder what's going on with appointment letters.

I think that public confidence has been hugely dented with the AZ situation. Lots of people refusing it I hear.

Of course Pfizer and Moderna for under 40s only but I don't think confidence has been dented generally.

It was Pfizer! AFAIK they are only giving out AZ to over 40s? (unless you've had your first AZ obvs, then under 40s getting second AZ too)

@RaspberryCoulis

The same S6 DS has just had his Covid jab - no underlying medical issues. Texts flying round the S6 chat group saying that the local vaccine centre has excess supply and although the official policy is over 40s only, they're doing anyone who turns up and is over 18.

Dropped DS at 5pm, he was done by 5.30pm.

Great for us on a personal level but you have to wonder what's going on with appointment letters.

Our vaccine centre has done similar and drop in days with just the over 18 rule. They are finding a high no show due to the letter system rather then vaccine hesitancy hence Grampian also set up a phone number for over 30s.

The Pfizer is difficult to store and can only be moved a certain number of times so once open it's use it or bin it which is great for people able to just turn up like I did!

Back to be positive today!!!!

Have had dose 2 and am fully jagged. Very happy indeed.

However, 100 / 540 did not turn up for their vaccine today in St Andrews. DH says it is younger group (Pfizer) and some May be students who have gone home.

They do need to sort the system.

But, am happy, happy, happy.

I’ve still not got my letter and was due to have the jag today which seems a bit farcical (ended up rescheduling it for last week)... Only found out I was scheduled as I filled in the online missing appointment form.