COVID Vaccine !
- Thread starter kingrollo
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Craig the cyclist
Über Member
And bearing in mind what has happened since even the quarantine hotels have come in to being, how do you think the public in the UK would have taken to that level of restriction?
Can I assume also, that your approach will now be to ban any travel inbound to the UK from any country that is showing a new variant immediately a case comes to light? No matter where, and even if it means UK citizens cannot return home?*
*Just to be clear, that isn't a trick question, I would absolutely do that, but...................
Can I assume also, that your approach will now be to ban any travel inbound to the UK from any country that is showing a new variant immediately a case comes to light? No matter where, and even if it means UK citizens cannot return home?*
*Just to be clear, that isn't a trick question, I would absolutely do that, but...................
Craig the cyclist
Über Member
I am just trying, massively unsuccesfully, to get you or @Julia9054 to stop telling us how bad the whole thing is going and explain how you would do it. Neither have you have any idea what you would do, apart from 'not what this bunch of idiots are doing', or 'what Australia did'.
Julia was very clear that she would do something different, but has no idea what as she isn't qualified to tell us (I only wondered about a plan that she would do, she doesn't have to be qualified, no-one has a degree in Covid 19 planning). Or maybe she is just another arm-chair critic of something that, because of it's very nature, is being made up as it goes along. "Vaccinate younger people" is as far as she has got, but has left herself plenty of room for being able to criticise. If the plan drops to 30s she can say it's not low enough, 25, still not low enough, 20, what about college students? Ok 18... what about 6th formers? 16.....what about school children? 12....where is the evidence for injecting children, where are the safety trials?
See, impossible for the people organising all this to win. And when I have asked for the alternative from Julia or yourself I get nothing at all apart from' what Australia did'. I asked you what you would do if a new variant emerged and you said 'what Australia did', but what if the variant was in, oh I don't know, let's say Kent. How would you stop international flights from Kent?
No ideas on how to fix and plan forward, just constant sniping that what has happened has been wrong.
Julia was very clear that she would do something different, but has no idea what as she isn't qualified to tell us (I only wondered about a plan that she would do, she doesn't have to be qualified, no-one has a degree in Covid 19 planning). Or maybe she is just another arm-chair critic of something that, because of it's very nature, is being made up as it goes along. "Vaccinate younger people" is as far as she has got, but has left herself plenty of room for being able to criticise. If the plan drops to 30s she can say it's not low enough, 25, still not low enough, 20, what about college students? Ok 18... what about 6th formers? 16.....what about school children? 12....where is the evidence for injecting children, where are the safety trials?
See, impossible for the people organising all this to win. And when I have asked for the alternative from Julia or yourself I get nothing at all apart from' what Australia did'. I asked you what you would do if a new variant emerged and you said 'what Australia did', but what if the variant was in, oh I don't know, let's say Kent. How would you stop international flights from Kent?
No ideas on how to fix and plan forward, just constant sniping that what has happened has been wrong.
classic33
Leg End Member
Nor have you. You just repeat that the experts have got it in hand, and that the current way is the best way.
Ireland started with a profession based system, then changed partway through.
They also have a system whereby if you intend to travel there, you are required to have a negative test result before entering, no older than 72 hours. Don't have that, and you've very little chance of actually starting travelling to the country. Orders from higher up, to any carrier of passengers operating in the country.
Don't have that, and you're found, there's a €1,000 fine. Another €1,000 fine if you fail to isolate upon entering.
Julia9054
Guru
- Location
- Knaresborough
My last comment on this subject since you seem to be getting yourself massively worked up and I fear for your blood pressure.
I would concentrate vaccination resources on local containment. There are people who specialise in logistics and resource management who can work out the details of how. Is this your area of expertise - you still haven't said.
It is a balance between how easily and quickly an intervention can be implemented, how popular that intervention sounds to the voting public and how effective that intervention actually would be.
Unlike you it would seem, I have no confidence that the government has that balance right.
Australia is 175% self sufficient in food production.
Uk is 50-60% self-sufficient overall and 16% self sufficient in fruit and veg
90 % of the Kenyan gerrn bean crop is air freighted to the UK.
Closing borders as Australia did would precipitate an almost immediate food crisis.
lane
Veteran
I wasn't actually suggesting we closed the borders. What I was suggesting we should have done is - two or three weeks before we did red list India - when a number of scientists were calling for it - ban completely travel from India with serious penalties for breaching the ban. Certainly not implement a ban a week after announcing it so fights to the UK could increase. This wouldn't have been a magic bullet and the variant would come into the UK. But the extra delay would have been most beneficial in allowing more people to be vaccinated.
midlife
Guru
I think its already been mentioned that vaccination is not the way to contain local outbreaks with exponential rise in cases.
It just doesn't happen fast enough to stop transmission, the immune system takes time to kick into gear and even after 2 doses there is still significant transmission. It's valid to vaccinate locally those older and vulnerable who haven't stepped forward yet to cut hospitalisation and deaths.
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
Sorry I missed all yesterday's fun on this thread. My excuse (were one needed) was: up at 5, train at 6 to Penzance and rode the 200+km back, in a small group and to bed by midnight. (Plan at bottom)
Would be interested to hear from @midlife the source for 'one dose doesn't reduce transmission'. My understanding is that the recent SPI-M modelling have made 'clear' and more positive assumptions in that respect in their latest work.
@Craig the cyclist asks for a plan.
I think the '12 week gap' was considered reasonable because getting more people vaccinated with just one dose was more likely to save lives, and I think that's been proven. I note that, around the world, the gap seems to have been extended generally, though not to 12 weeks. Why 12 weeks (not 8 or 16)? I'd observe that directing a 12 week gap allowed the UK to vaccinate (first dose) the more vulnerable half of its population at speed, without having to slow progress because the second doses would need rolling out. All those in JCVI 1-9 (the first phase, 32M) received their first dose by 11 Apr, and only 7M second doses had been expended by then. From then all the '12 week gap' second doses have consumed most of the supply.
By now (or in the next few days, too soon to muck around with second jab appointments) all those in JCVI 1-6 will have received their second jab, leaving under the 50-64 crowd with one jab in their deltoid.
I mused (here) back in January about the 12 week gap and whether direction might shift (increase) as it did on 30 Dec 2020 (JCVI). The problem is not medical but political. The government has told its electorate that the gap will be 12 weeks, and the political cost (see @Julia9054 post which started the current chat) is unattractive.
However, I reckon the government could play the B.1.617.2 variant card and use that to justify a slight change of policy.
From 23 May for 5 weeks the current plan is to give 12M doses as second jabs (and these are all for 64 and under): yes, many have appointments. The last 5 weeks have seen necessarily glacial progress in first jabs: maybe 5M in 5 weeks.
A possible alternative plan (and I appreciate there is resistance within the NHS to changing things) @Craig the cyclist is this:
1) Explain revision the policy clearly (blame new variant, hold out carrot of 'not earlier than 21 June' date)
2) Continue with all second dose appointments for the next 10 days (cumulative second doses = 23M)
3) Postpone all second doses (with appointments already or not) to 16 weeks, wef 10 days time.
4) Accelerate the rate of giving first jabs (assumes no increase in supply/rate) using the 10M doses 'freed up'. This amount would vaccinate (first dose) all those over 27 (by 21 June
) roughly. If a way could be found to weight those supplies on the areas which have high case levels, excellent, but this will be more presentational than based on science (as @midlife made clear).
5) Increased community/leader involvement to maximise vaccine uptake in those areas.
6) Provide new appointments effective delayed by 4 weeks, for all those affected.
I suspect that the supply of Pfizer (for under 40s) would make this difficult to implement, or at least lead to organisational complication and associated friction. Perhaps recognise the male/female ORs for CSVT and reserve the available Pfizer/Moderna for female under 40s.
Would be interested to hear from @midlife the source for 'one dose doesn't reduce transmission'. My understanding is that the recent SPI-M modelling have made 'clear' and more positive assumptions in that respect in their latest work.
@Craig the cyclist asks for a plan.
I think the '12 week gap' was considered reasonable because getting more people vaccinated with just one dose was more likely to save lives, and I think that's been proven. I note that, around the world, the gap seems to have been extended generally, though not to 12 weeks. Why 12 weeks (not 8 or 16)? I'd observe that directing a 12 week gap allowed the UK to vaccinate (first dose) the more vulnerable half of its population at speed, without having to slow progress because the second doses would need rolling out. All those in JCVI 1-9 (the first phase, 32M) received their first dose by 11 Apr, and only 7M second doses had been expended by then. From then all the '12 week gap' second doses have consumed most of the supply.
By now (or in the next few days, too soon to muck around with second jab appointments) all those in JCVI 1-6 will have received their second jab, leaving under the 50-64 crowd with one jab in their deltoid.
I mused (here) back in January about the 12 week gap and whether direction might shift (increase) as it did on 30 Dec 2020 (JCVI). The problem is not medical but political. The government has told its electorate that the gap will be 12 weeks, and the political cost (see @Julia9054 post which started the current chat) is unattractive.
However, I reckon the government could play the B.1.617.2 variant card and use that to justify a slight change of policy.
From 23 May for 5 weeks the current plan is to give 12M doses as second jabs (and these are all for 64 and under): yes, many have appointments. The last 5 weeks have seen necessarily glacial progress in first jabs: maybe 5M in 5 weeks.
A possible alternative plan (and I appreciate there is resistance within the NHS to changing things) @Craig the cyclist is this:
1) Explain revision the policy clearly (blame new variant, hold out carrot of 'not earlier than 21 June' date)
2) Continue with all second dose appointments for the next 10 days (cumulative second doses = 23M)
3) Postpone all second doses (with appointments already or not) to 16 weeks, wef 10 days time.
4) Accelerate the rate of giving first jabs (assumes no increase in supply/rate) using the 10M doses 'freed up'. This amount would vaccinate (first dose) all those over 27 (by 21 June
) roughly. If a way could be found to weight those supplies on the areas which have high case levels, excellent, but this will be more presentational than based on science (as @midlife made clear).5) Increased community/leader involvement to maximise vaccine uptake in those areas.
6) Provide new appointments effective delayed by 4 weeks, for all those affected.
I suspect that the supply of Pfizer (for under 40s) would make this difficult to implement, or at least lead to organisational complication and associated friction. Perhaps recognise the male/female ORs for CSVT and reserve the available Pfizer/Moderna for female under 40s.
Last edited:
midlife
Guru
Where did I say that one dose does not reduce transmission?
Are you quoting from this post?
Are you quoting from this post?
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
Yes
You said: "First jab doesn't do a whole lot to reduce transmission, that effect kicks in two weeks after second jab is how I read it."
The SPI-M modelling has used 'accepted' assumptions on this, based on science (recent): the protective effect kicks in two weeks after first jab and the second jab enhances and prolongs such effect "is how I read it".
This variance in understanding is why I asked what you were drawing on for your reading. Massive respect for your insights so concerned I misunderstand.
You said: "First jab doesn't do a whole lot to reduce transmission, that effect kicks in two weeks after second jab is how I read it."
The SPI-M modelling has used 'accepted' assumptions on this, based on science (recent): the protective effect kicks in two weeks after first jab and the second jab enhances and prolongs such effect "is how I read it".
This variance in understanding is why I asked what you were drawing on for your reading. Massive respect for your insights so concerned I misunderstand.
midlife
Guru
I was listening to an expert on Radio 4 on the way home from work on Friday. Talking about why surge vaccination in Bolton would nto be the best way to tackle the outbreak in the first instance. And why the government is still planning to vaccinate older / vulnerable people before the youngest cohorts. Sorry if it came across differently.
Bazzer
Setting the controls for the heart of the sun.
- Location
- On the edge of reality
Found out the other day, child 1 had her second at the beginning of the month which was around the 8 week stage.
Mrs B gets her second on Tuesday. She has been getting repeated texts asking, for example, whether she needs support at the vaccination centre. Which seems odd as she didn't collapse etc., at the first jab and has no underlying health conditions which could be affected by the vaccine.
Mrs B gets her second on Tuesday. She has been getting repeated texts asking, for example, whether she needs support at the vaccination centre. Which seems odd as she didn't collapse etc., at the first jab and has no underlying health conditions which could be affected by the vaccine.
