Coronavirus outbreak

[Craig the cyclist]

Probably not, will it?

Is this belief another contributor to some people wanting to let the virus rip through the under 50s? Revival of the "herd immunity" mistake?

Herd immunity is not a mistake, it's what will save the day. When enough people have immunity the r rate will drop and the virus will be kept at bay. Why are you so blinkered?

No-one wants the virus to 'rip through' the under 50s, the aim is for everyone to develop immunity, some through exposure to the virus, some through vaccination, some through a freak of genetics may already be immune. Stop using histrionic language and educate yourself.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

An area I frequent in this city has 97% of people unvaccinated.

Precisely what do people think would happen if controls were lifted right now? That's right, there would be a massive fecking outbreak if it gets a hold.

On the other thread the daily mail vaccination figures may suggest why some areas the virus is much lower (not low enough sadly) with affluence, rurality and high percentages vaccinated (40 or 50%).

Why? Is it a predominantly student area and people are too young to have been reached yet, is it a heavy BAME community, is there something else going on?

There always needs to be more behind a statement like that.

 

[marinyork]

Why? Is it a predominantly student area and people are too young to have been reached yet, is it a heavy BAME community, is there something else going on?

There always needs to be more behind a statement like that.

You need to read around a bit. It's been confirmed that some areas with high percentages vaccinated are also a month ahead, as well as the very obvious factors.

 

[marinyork]

Herd immunity is not a mistake, it's what will save the day. When enough people have immunity the r rate will drop and the virus will be kept at bay. Why are you so blinkered?

It's a mistake calling it blinkered. You sound like a person that thinks herd immunity will appear at around 60 or 70%. Me and mjr and others are people that worry that herd immunity may not appear till around 90% or may even be impossible. Especially as the virus spreads quite a lot in 14 and 15 year olds who in general cannot be vaccinated for a long time.

If you're so confident you should merely be reading a lot of stuff coming out on Israel, because the 60% for herd immunity test is coming up in March. And what will happen? You'll get your evidence very soon if that's the case and if it's not you'll have to eat humble pie and start to worry like the rest of us (well not like the rest of us as you've probably already had your vaccine but people know what I mean).

 

[Ajax Bay]

Hospitalisation. Long covid. Your repeated attempts to divert the issue and constantly go on about deaths will not work. . . . . . . . . .
New covid death map published by the ONS.

You pointed out Long Covid as risk about which the parent of a teenager should be concerned. Did I get that right?
The ONS offers this insight on post-Covid symptoms/illness:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...nceoflongcovidsymptomsandcovid19complications
Of the 8000+ surveyed, having had C19, 21% still had symptoms* after 5 weeks and half of those (ie 10% of the total) still had some after 12 weeks. The average (median) length of time for symptoms to persist was 40 days.
*'Symptom' defined as any occurrence of the following symptoms: fatigue, cough, headache, loss of taste, loss of smell, myalgia, sore throat, fever, shortness of breath, nausea/vomiting, diarrhoea, abdominal pain.
The data do not give any age stratification, I'm afraid.
C19's infection fatality rate (IFR) reduces dramatically with age. If you're 15-19 the chance of dying from C19 is <5 in a million (England, as at mid Feb) and 20 in a million if they catch it (with or without symptoms). I couldn't find data on admissions to hospital by age.
Both the studies linked below look at post-Covid symptoms (PCS) in populations discharged from hospital (some from ICUs) aged (roughly) 50-80.
The Lancet published a study on "post-Covid" (NB ex-Wuhan hospitalised 47-65 year olds), showing some people who survive the virus are left with long-term side effects. Here's another UK study - 47k people discharged from hospital (average age 65). The study observed: "Compared with the general population, individuals in hospital with COVD-19 were more likely to be aged ≥ 50 years, male, living in a deprived area, a former smoker, and overweight or obese. Individuals with COVID-19 were also more likely to be comorbid than the general population, with a higher prevalence of prior hospitalisation and all measured pre-existing conditions (most notably hypertension, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), respiratory disease and diabetes)."
I suggest that the main and laudable reason youth want to avoid catching this virus is that they don't want to transmit it to older people, for instance older relatives with whom they share a household.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

You need to read around a bit. It's been confirmed that some areas with high percentages vaccinated are also a month ahead, as well as the very obvious factors.

I was only asking if there is an obvious reason for a 3% vaccination rate in that particular area? If there is then what is it, and is 3% because of the lack of vulnerable people and a very low % of older or at risk groups.

I don't need to read around a bit at this point, I guess I need to know what areas of which city you are talking about, then the reading, if I was to do any would be relevant! No point in me looking up uptake in Kemptown in Brighton if you are talking about Bootle on Merseyside is there? So where are you talking about, and where did you get the 3% figure from?

 

[Craig the cyclist]

It's a mistake calling it blinkered. You sound like a person that thinks herd immunity will appear at around 60 or 70%. Me and mjr and others are people that worry that herd immunity may not appear till around 90% or may even be impossible. Especially as the virus spreads quite a lot in 14 and 15 year olds who in general cannot be vaccinated for a long time.

If you're so confident you should merely be reading a lot of stuff coming out on Israel, because the 60% for herd immunity test is coming up in March. And what will happen? You'll get your evidence very soon if that's the case and if it's not you'll have to eat humble pie and start to worry like the rest of us (well not like the rest of us as you've probably already had your vaccine but people know what I mean).

From what I wrote, how have you decided that I am 60-70%er? That is genuinely intriguing. My point is that herd immunity is the thing that will win the day, so for mjr to say it is a "mistake" is simply wrong. Whatever the number turns out to be, and it varies quite significantly from disease to disease, is largely irrelevant, what is relevant is that herd immunity is not a 'mistake', it is actually the solution.

I can't help but think you are picking an argument with the wrong person here, we agree. I only challenged your 3% figure to see where you were talking about! mjr's response is the one you should be picking up on, not mine.

 

[marinyork]

You pointed out Long Covid as risk about which the parent of a teenager should be concerned. Did I get that right?

I suggest that the main and laudable reason youth want to avoid catching this virus is that they don't want to transmit it to older people, for instance older relatives with whom they share a household.

Everyone should be bothered about long covid. Everyone should be bothered about hospitalisations. An 18-29 year old is 630x less likely to die than an 85 year old, but they aren't 630x less likely to be hospitalised or get long covid. Hospitalisation and long covid and those two knock-on effects on others are things that people below 50 should be worried about. You say all this but there's someone else on the forum who's young son has got long covid. I know one person who has long covid. I'm not really amused in the slightest by what you say because I've had a post-viral syndrome myself.

The thing about those of us younger that care for those who are CEVs, or those in their 70s or 80s or 90s is that if those people get knocked out, hospitalised or long covid then the state picks up the pieces and it comes at an enormous cost. My mother's getting puzzled calls from physio over-run trying to work out why she's asking for physio, well if I get knocked out between now and June when I get my vaccine, they'll find out and she'll be straight in a nursing home. There are millions in this situation and even the last year if you look at the extra work done outside the state it's large and substantial and hidden. There's no firewall. Things open up in society and what level of protection is there?

There are a few developments that may stop some of the arguments. The pfizer vaccine's storage conditions may be about to change and with a more plentiful supply of it anything that makes things easier, including on 2nd jabs is very welcome. The over 50s is nearly finished in the county which I think mjr lives in, so he may actually get his vaccine in March or early April. So people can then stop arguing about what thrown under the bus means, but there are millions more of us. And the JCVI have announced their next groups 10, 11 and 12 and I'm group 11. The other vaccines and more supply will come on stream, so we can all argue about whether the NHS does 7 million jabs a week.

 

[Ajax Bay]

It's a mistake calling it blinkered. You sound like a person that thinks herd immunity will appear at around 60 or 70%. Me and @mjr and others are people that worry that herd immunity may not appear till around 90% or may even be impossible. Especially as the virus spreads quite a lot in 14 and 15 year olds who in general cannot be vaccinated for a long time.
. . . Israel, . . . the 60% for herd immunity test is coming up in March. And what will happen? You'll get your evidence very soon if that's the case and if it's not you'll have to eat humble pie and start to worry like the rest of us. . .

It's quite possible with whatever variant is dominant, herd immunity may be impossible.
Telepathetically reckoning that @Craig the cyclist thinks "that herd immunity will appear at around 60 or 70%". You're making it up, or making irrational inferences with strawman opportunities.
Who has suggested 60% as the level of population with antibodies (and therefore resistance to infection) as the 'herd immunity' measure for this disease? By all means check my previous posts.
"the virus spreads quite a lot in 14 and 15 year olds" Does it? 'Quite a lot': please quantify. Compared to 20-39s? Edit: See this JAMA paper (44% less likely to catch it).
By the time we get round to vaccinating 14 and 15 year olds the recently started 'teenage' vaccine efficacy study report will be in and secondary school age teenagers can be vaccinated in the first few weeks of the autumn term. Before the effort switches to booster jabs for the over 70s (and the rest in JCVI Gps 1-4) in October.
What is this 'humble pie' thing? Is that what people who "worry" eat for lunch? Speaking of which . . .

 

[marinyork]

By the time we get round to vaccinating 14 and 15 year olds the recently started 'teenage' vaccine efficacy study report will be in and secondary school age teenagers can be vaccinated in the first few weeks of the autumn term. Before the effort switches to booster jabs for the over 70s (and the rest in JCVI Gps 1-4) in October.
What is this 'humble pie' thing? Is that what people who "worry" eat for lunch? Speaking of which . . .

I am aware that studies are underway, unlike you I even remember that we've talked about this several times before.

Autumn may well be too late, that's the point. Whilst ever sizeable transmission routes are open such as secondary schools, the rest of society has to be very careful.

You're probably miffed because you also think the same as craig, well as I said before you'll find out very soon if it's right. And I can add up the numbers. I personally wouldn't want to live in Manaus.

 

[Ajax Bay]

Everyone should be bothered about long covid. Everyone should be bothered about hospitalisations. An 18-29 year old is 630x less likely to die than an 85 year old, but they aren't 630x less likely to be hospitalised or get long covid. Hospitalisation and long covid and those two knock-on effects on others are things that people below 50 should be worried about. You say all this but there's someone else on the forum who's young son has got long covid. I know one person who has long covid. I'm not really amused in the slightest by what you say because I've had a post-viral syndrome myself.

Everyone should be bothered about long covid. Bothered, yes.
Everyone should be bothered about hospitalisations. Bothered, yes. I have looked back I can't find where I implied 'unbotheration' by either.
Hospitalisation and long covid and those two knock-on effects on others are things that people below 50 should be worried about. Think those under 50 should, like their elders, behave to minimise their chances of catching C19, balanced against their responsibilities to others, in particular their families/households. They should not 'worry' about it, though.
You say all this but there's someone else on the forum who's young son has got long covid. What is the 'all this' that you are railing against? I hope the young man gets better. Do you think post-Covid syndrome should not be mentioned? I only looked at it because you said 'what about long covid?'.
I know one person who has long covid. I hope they get better and their symptoms improve
I'm not really amused in the slightest by what you say because I've had a post-viral syndrome myself. I'm not trying to amuse you and I hope your pvs is much reduced. My recommendation would be for you to go for a fun ride - I had an excellent one yesterday, in the Devon sunshine.
The '@Maggot' thing. I have zero idea what you are on about. Should I take this as a form of endearment?

 

[mjr]

Herd immunity is not a mistake, it's what will save the day. When enough people have immunity the r rate will drop and the virus will be kept at bay. Why are you so blinkered?

You flaming sophist! The herd immunity mistake was the plan proposed back last Feb/March that we don't try to flatten the curves long enough for a vaccine to be developed and deployed, but instead let cases infect as many people as fast as the NHS could cope with, so enough of the survivors develop antibodies that herd immunity appears.

I am not blinkered: herd immunity may be a route out of it, but there are many unknowns. The mistake of relying on herd immunity, however, is not one we do need to make. If it happens early then wonderful, but let's not assume.

No-one wants the virus to 'rip through' the under 50s, [...]

So why do you think Johnson plans to lift all restrictions before they are vaccinated, then?

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Mod note:

Re 'Maggot'.

Please drop this, it's not helpful, it's OT and a thread ban is beckoning.

Thank you.

 

[Ajax Bay]

So why do you think Johnson plans to lift all restrictions before they are vaccinated, then?

It's good to have a plan, and share it. If the country had to wait to lift restrictions (various) till everyone had been offered a vaccine, we'd be into October. I cannot believe you advocate that approach but maybe that reveals my lack of imagi=nation. Having a conditional, stepped approach (varied from home nation to home nation) to removal of restrictions with month plus gaps between each substantive step means that the virus will not, apocalyptically, "rip through the under 50s" - there'll be much less of it about: by late Apr nearly 2/3rds of the population will have antibodies and therefore resistance to infection.
The UK's 4 tests for whether to reduce restrictions, "no earlier than" the dates quoted are:
1. Vaccine programme continuing at pace. "We will offer the vaccine to the over-50s by the middle of April, and all of the adult population by the end of July."
2. Evidence that the vaccines are working and that we are seeing a reduction in infection, hospitalisation and of course, death.
3. Infection rates are not rising.
4. Variants, i.e. that we are managing to keep variants under control.

1. Vaccine. By 8 Mar all the JCVI Groups 5 and 6 will have received a jab (been offered), and all over 50s by late April. The 40-49s (see new JCVI age-tiered recommendations) will start getting vaccinated in late April and on into May and June. July will allow another 12M doses (>11M first ones) - that assumes a pedestrian 400k per day - to complete the vaccination (first dose) of all adults.
2. Effectiveness. Data (Pfizer) on single dose effectiveness is promising and by 8 Mar there will be more; comfortably satisfying that 'test'.
3. Infections/Hospitalisations. Infection rates are not rising, and nationally they are going to be falling on 8 Mar. The number of cases drives demand on NHS hospitals but with the 88% most vulnerable vaccinated - effective after 21 days (8 Mar) - that should mean drastically reduced numbers with C19 in hospital, on which I've earlier shared a projection of them being below 5000 by the end of April (in 64 days time). Currently there are 15,485 in hospital and that figure has dropped by about 600 a day for the last 10 days.
4. Variants. I understand that the number of the B.1.351 variant cases seems to have been contained. So it's reasonable to say that the UK is managing to keep variants under control. Edit: Of course this may change: the point of having it as a 'test'.
HM Government (for England and much the same by the devolved administrations) "plans to lift all restrictions before [those under 50s] are vaccinated" because the country has to get going again, the cases are falling, hospitalisations and deaths are dropping fast and that drop is likely to continue, the vaccinations are rolling out, and the vaccines are (and are likely to remain) effective. The risk of dying from C19 for adults 20-49 in 2020 was 60 per million - less than for several other reasons for death in that age group.
Sorry for using 'deaths' but data on hospitalisations of 20-49s is not accessible. To compare, in 45-49 year old males in 2019, the rate of suicide was 255 per million.

 

[marinyork]

Think those under 50 should, like their elders, behave to minimise their chances of catching C19, balanced against their responsibilities to others, in particular their families/households. They should not 'worry' about it, though.

I don't make the distinction other than how the JCVI and politicians have divided society. In terms of deaths it's really over 60s/70s and particularly over 80s. In terms of worrying about hospitalisation someone in their 20s/30s/40s has a lot in common with someone in their 50s.

I welcome the JCVI lists 10, 11 and 12 as it finally after about a year of waiting (there were hints and u turns), gives people some certainty in their lives. Even though several reactions were it sucks to be age X said to me by people in each of the three categories. It sucks even more to be 16 or 17 as we have a licenced Pfizer vaccine. The rationale has been given as speed, without some of the sillier stuff said 2-3 weeks ago by senior NHS bods and politicians.

A few posters have an issue with some of the step 3 and 4 stuff and think it won't happen on time. My problem is really step 2 and gaps, so steps 3 and 4 if left unchanged should really more be July/August than May/June.

My recommendation would be for you to go for a fun ride - I had an excellent one yesterday, in the Devon sunshine.

It's city boundaries only, although how this week has unfolded it doesn't seem quite as far away 12th April, when I can get into Derbyshire.