Coronavirus outbreak

[matticus]

Maybe a film? It's certainly felt like an inverted version of Logan's Run at times recently, with the young being sacrificed so the old can booze indoors and go on holidays sooner.

I'll send you a postcard !

 

[mjr]

I'll send you a postcard !

Just don't lick the stamp!

 

[Ajax Bay]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: "In God we trust: all others must bring data." And ideally informative data rather than random bricktext with assumptions hidden, sources not cited and steps missing from the calculations.

Ten points for spotting that data source expiring, but minus several thousand for trolling dyslexics yet again.

Thank you for your wise advice.
May I enquire what a "trolling dyslexic" is? Are you casting yourself in that mould? I am really not sure.

 

[Ajax Bay]

Bit worrying that the UK seems to have levelled off, too, or possibly turned back upwards slightly. Next relaxation Monday might be the last for a while? . . .
Has anyone at gov.uk said exactly what the data criteria are for each step of legal unlocking? Is 0% good enough, or do cases need to be falling or below some level?

To answer your subordinate question: 'No' and very sensibly, they won't. It'll be a qualitative judgement, very much based on the data a week before each substantive step. See the third test below.
The UK Government's 4 tests for whether it is safe to reduce restrictions, "no earlier than" the dates quoted are:

• "the vaccine deployment programme continues successfully
• "evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those vaccinated
• "infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS
• "our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new Variants of Concern

"The UK government will continue to protect the public by ensuring local outbreaks are managed quickly and effectively and that we combat new dangerous variants, . . ."
Comment:
1. Vaccine. By 4 Apr 'all' the JCVI Groups 1-9 (32M) will have received a jab (except those who can't or won't accept it) and about 3M will have had their second. Depending on vaccine supply, most of the vaccines for most of April will be second doses.
2. Effectiveness. Data (Pfizer and Oxford-AZ) on single dose effectiveness against serious disease suggests that this criterion is already satisfied. Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, antibody data for the UK: 16 March 2021
3. Infections/Hospitalisations. Infection rates are now flat having fallen from 10 188 to 5 476 (7-day average) in the last 26 days (ie since the announcement on 22 Feb, to 20 Mar). This flattening may be a result of the doubled level of testing but we can't be sure. The number of cases previously drove demand on NHS hospitals but mid April with the 93% most vulnerable vaccinated - effective after 21 days (11 Apr) - that should mean much reduced numbers with C19 in hospital. A month ago I shared a projection of that metric being below 5 000 by the end of April. In fact hospitalisations have dropped about 25% a week, week on week since 22 Feb and are already down to 5407 (22 Mar). The latest ONS release on deaths notes that deaths in the week ending 12 Mar are below the 5 year average, despite COVID-19 assigned deaths still being about 14% of all deaths.
4. Variants. The various VoCs seem to have been contained at present. So it's reasonable to say that the UK is managing to keep variants under control. Of course this may change: the point of having it as a 'test'.

 

[mjr]

So stepping back to my question, there is no increase of cases that will stop it. Only if hospitalisation explodes again. Now most MPs have their jabs, they don't care how many get ill until it clogs up hospitals or it results in a new variant

But the vaccine deployment pausing due to supply trouble should delay the unlocking. I bet it doesn't, though, as that would involve gov.uk admitting a hitch in one of the few things to go well so far. Hmm.

 

[Ajax Bay]

So stepping back to my question, there is no increase of cases that will stop it. Only if hospitalisation explodes again. Now most MPs have their jabs, they don't care how many get ill until it clogs up hospitals or it results in a new variant
But the vaccine deployment pausing due to supply trouble should delay the unlocking. I bet it doesn't, though, as that would involve gov.uk admitting a hitch in one of the few things to go well so far. Hmm.

Cases I think the expectation is that any upward pressure on the number of daily cases by relaxation, in careful steps a month apart, of the restrictions will be countered by increased numbers of vaccinated people, with effective vaccine.
Vaccines The first test was whether "the vaccine deployment programme continues successfully." The specific 'success' measures are giving a first jab to all over 50s plus plus by mid April; giving second doses at the 12 week point, and vaccinating all adults by the end of July. Do you think this will not be on track (or ahead of) at any date in the future?
Vaccine supply Bumps on the road. Given the supply uncertainty, the UK is having to withhold first doses which the programme would have pushed on with (the 40-49s) to make sure there's sufficient supply of both Pfizer and Ox-AZ to give as second doses. We need to allow 10M second doses, roughly half and half Pfizer and Ox-AZ, for those who need (12 week gap) their second jab by end April. The EU generated uncertainty for the Pfizer ones is an inefficiency: I sincerely hope it's resolved. The two UK Oxford-AZ plants plus Wrexham will be able to supply the Ox-AZ ones needed, and more.
Hospitalisation is not going to 'explode'. I offered reasons why in my post.
As for your random MPs agist rant, I suspect that "most MPs [may NOT] have [had] their jabs". The average age is 50 so it's about half done and half waiting their turn.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7483/
Variants. The various VoCs seem to have been contained at present, but it remains an 'issue' for close monitoring.

 

[mjr]

Vaccines The first test was whether "the vaccine deployment programme continues successfully." The specific 'success' measures are giving a first jab to all over 50s plus plus by mid April; giving second doses at the 12 week point, and vaccinating all adults by the end of July. Do you think this will not be on track (or ahead of) at any date in the future?

How about we wait and see? And is the test vaccine
deployment continuing, or it hitting a few spot-date targets?

As for your random MPs agist rant, I suspect that "most MPs [may NOT] have [had] their jabs". The average age is 50 so it's about half done and half waiting their turn.

The average age was 51 fifteen months ago and a 35 year old is the only resignation so far, so the average age is probably over 52 and the absence of under 24s and presence of over 80s (Bill Cash, for one) means the median will be higher than the mean, so most MPs are indeed allowed the jab now. It is bizarre to argue against that based on 2019 bar charts.

 

[matticus]

"about half" vs "most"
Immovable object vs irresistable force?
Rumble in the jungle??

Who will win?!?

 

[Ajax Bay]

What do we need to achieve herd immunity?
British Society for Immunology - COVID-19 Advisory Group
"Herd immunity is when transmission of the virus within a population is markedly reduced due to the high proportion of people who are already immune. If sufficient people in the population are immune, the virus remains at low or undetectable levels, thus protecting anyone who is not yet vaccinated (e.g. infants, [vaccine hesitant]), those unable to make a good immune response themselves (e.g. people who are frail, very elderly or immuno-compromised), or those who [cannot accept] the vaccine [for medical reasons].
"Importantly, for a vaccine to confer herd immunity, it has to either stop or substantially reduce transmission. If the vaccine prevents symptoms but has little effect on infections [protective immunity], it cannot confer herd immunity (as vaccinated people will continue to get infected and continue to transmit the virus, but without getting [symptomatic] COVID-19 disease themselves).
"The proportion of the population who have to be immune, or otherwise not susceptible, in order to stop transmission depends on:

• how infectious that pathogen is (does it spread easily or not?), [drives the R0 value]
• how long someone remains infectious (is it just a few days or [weeks]?) [how many days their viral load is enough to be 'shared']
• whether people know they are infected/infectious (do they always have symptoms or not?). [affects behaviour and therefore likelihood of transmission]

"In essence, the number of people required to have immunity is deduced from a mathematical formula dependent on the R0 value for the virus. In the case of SARS-CoV-2" draws on Lancet comment:
Challenges in creating herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection by mass vaccination
"For a vaccine with 100% efficacy . . . , the level of herd immunity as a proportion of the population required to block transmission is [1 – 1 / R0], where R0 is the basic reproduction number. Given an R0 value before lockdowns in most countries of between 2·5 to 3·5, we estimate the herd immunity required is about 60–72%.
"If the proportional vaccine efficacy, ε, is considered, the simple expression for pc becomes [1 – 1 / R0] / ε. If we assume ε is 0·8 (80%), then the herd immunity required becomes 75–90% for the defined range of R0 values. For lower efficacies, the entire population would have to be immunised."

 

[Ajax Bay]

Now most MPs have their jabs, they don't care how many get ill until it clogs up hospitals or it results in a new variant

"about half" vs "most"

I was aware that the median age of UK's MPs was a most important matter that needed full attention, Matt. Yes: who will win? There's a thing. Hopefully Scotland, to help Wales.
The idea that MPs' level of 'care' about "how many get ill" will be affected by whether they have or haven't been vaccinated is a stretch for me. I think they are more likely to consider the data when scrutinising the government's decisions.

 

[matticus]

The idea that MPs' level of 'care' about "how many get ill" will be affected by whether they have or haven't been vaccinated is a stretch for me. I think they are more likely to consider the data when scrutinising the government's decisions.

... from the Commons bar.

:P

 

[PK99]

so most MPs are indeed allowed the jab now. It is bizarre to argue against that based on 2019 bar charts.

52% is not most!

If a vaccine were effective for 52% of people, would it be right to say "most" are protected?

 

[vickster]

52% is not most!

If a vaccine were effective for 52% of people, would it be right to say "most" are protected?

Only when it comes to Brexit vote is 52% most

 

[matticus]

I await the official definition of "most" as approved by the National Society of Statisticians.

 

[Unkraut]

I await the official definition of "most" as approved by the National Society of Statisticians.

Yes but what percentage of that august body need to give their approval?