That may be the case regarding comparing positive tests with March/April, however the fact that hospital admissions and deaths are rising at an alarming rate suggests otherwise.
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
That may be the case regarding comparing positive tests with March/April, however the fact that hospital admissions and deaths are rising at an alarming rate suggests otherwise.
feck me it only changed a day or so ago
What a farce.
They need to be straightforward about it now. Don't tell students to go back to college. Don't reopen the schools on Monday. Opening the schools and then closing them down a week or so later does nothing to help the students/pupils or the case numbers.
Go back to the advice that encourages people to work from home, and to avoid going into other people's houses etc to work for any reason other than an emergency.
Do anything they can to buy a bit a time to get hospital admissions and case numbers down and the vaccine rollout running.
The number is more complicated than 52%. This is the key data for Pfizer: after day 14, protection kicked in and cases for the vaccinated group flatlined while they continued on the same growth curve for unvaccinated cases. So between day 14 and day 21 it is reasonable to say that you are almost as well protected as between days 24 and 31.
The problem is everyone in the Pfizer trial got dose 2 on day 21, and we have very firm evidence that the second dose significantly boosted the immune response primarily through providing longer term immunity. We don’t know how long immunity will last after the second dose, but we know from this chart that it lasted for at least 2 months after it. We have no knowledge of how long immunity will last after dose 1, and good reason to expect it will decline to some degree in between doses over a longer time scale. It is entirely possible that by the time people get their second dose, 4 months later, protection will be significantly lower than 52%. No one has the data on that, not Pfizer, not PHE, not Boris. It doesn’t exist.
The problem is everyone in the Pfizer trial got dose 2 on day 21, and we have very firm evidence that the second dose significantly boosted the immune response primarily through providing longer term immunity. We don’t know how long immunity will last after the second dose, but we know from this chart that it lasted for at least 2 months after it. We have no knowledge of how long immunity will last after dose 1, and good reason to expect it will decline to some degree in between doses over a longer time scale.
It is entirely possible that by the time people get their second dose, 4 months later, protection will be significantly lower than 52%. It is completely plausible that 1 month after the first dose, protection starts to decline significantly. No one has the data on that, not Pfizer, not PHE, not Boris. It doesn’t exist.
Something is puzzling me. We’re all used to a two week lag between cases rising and hospitalisations/deaths increasing. In Ireland this week we’ve seen a huge surge in both at the same time. Is this happening anywhere else? Any theories as to why?
Isn’t there a big backlog of registered positive cases which have accumulated over several weeks which have yet to be reported?
So it seems pretty likely schools will be back in for 2 weeks or so and then close.
Would it not of made more sense to of kept schools closed for 2-3 weeks bar keyworker kids. Than bringing schools back, allowing 2 weeks of infection when rates are very likely to be higher currently than they've ever been in this country and that's not even including the effects of Christmas/New Year..
When you think how badly some Countries like America have handled the virus and the UK per capita is still significantly worse.
Would it not of made more sense to of kept schools closed for 2-3 weeks bar keyworker kids. Than bringing schools back, allowing 2 weeks of infection when rates are very likely to be higher currently than they've ever been in this country and that's not even including the effects of Christmas/New Year..
When you think how badly some Countries like America have handled the virus and the UK per capita is still significantly worse.
I thought the reporting of cases was known to be jammed up and inaccurate?
People waiting longer to get tested due to Christmas maybe? That along with the delays in results may explain a bit of it.
I think that's exactly the problem with the schools. I think they will close whether by national order, or just because too many pupils/staff have been sent home as bubbles get told to isolate.
The same lack of foresight (or is it intentional?) may also see some students return to their colleges before they inevitably get locked in their halls of residence or student house. They need to tell them now, not to travel in the next two weeks (a rolling two weeks, because I don't see how any numbers will change before the end of they month - no matter what we do now).
They could also tell the colleges to start preparing for a term with no students on site. Practical subjects will need time to reschedule learning - maybe even into the summer.
Just give staff at schools and colleges time to plan, and don't penalise/criticise them for it.
But the effectiveness of the vaccine has not been tested with these longer gaps. For example if the effectiveness drops to 50% or less, even we vaccinate twice as many people the net outcome will not be an improvement in immunity.
Opening schools to then inevitably close them a couple of weeks later is typical of how these cnuts have handled the pandemic.
To me it seems the pharma companies themselves are not recommending to take this approach. It is our incompetent UK government not "following the science" yet again.
Thanks for that.The number is more complicated than 52%. This is the key data for Pfizer: after day 14, protection kicked in and cases for the vaccinated group flatlined while they continued on the same growth curve for unvaccinated cases. So between day 14 and day 21 it is reasonable to say that you are almost as well protected as between days 24 and 31.
The problem is everyone in the Pfizer trial got dose 2 on day 21, and we have very firm evidence that the second dose significantly boosted the immune response primarily through providing longer term immunity. We don’t know how long immunity will last after the second dose, but we know from this chart that it lasted for at least 2 months after it. We have no knowledge of how long immunity will last after dose 1, and good reason to expect it will decline to some degree in between doses over a longer time scale. It is entirely possible that by the time people get their second dose, 4 months later, protection will be significantly lower than 52%. No one has the data on that, not Pfizer, not PHE, not Boris. It doesn’t exist.
Given that the majority of the effect is given by the first jab and after that all who do become infected are asymptomatic or have minimal symptoms it does seem to make sense when the UK is in such crisis. In an ideal world this isn't how we would roll vaccines out but we aren't in an ideal world.
Can someone explain to me how schools are safe (30-60+ households mixing with no social distancing especially in Primary) whereas 2 or more households mixing in their own home, or in a pub / restaurant with social distancing in place, is not?
Or how schools are safe in the rest of the UK but not in London?
I'm confused. Or is this just Boris and his “loveable buffoon” act again?
Despite this being a very new vaccine and the producers of the vaccine not recommending this approach?
Fauci in the USA publically stated he would not take this approach over there. Have our public health standards dropped below the USA?
Can you quantify the "majority of the effect" coming from the first jab? What tests have been done at these intervals? Very little, if any, I suspect, because it is such a new vaccine.
The testing backlog happened in the last week. The week before that it was supposed to be functioning ok. And, with a two week lag, those are the cases we’re seeing in hospital now.
EDIT: Looking back, there was a surge in cases in the week before last. Not a patch on what we’re seeing now. God help the hospitals in another week’s time.
Fairly sure the backlog is only from last week or so.
It is probably too save face on yet another U turn. They will be waiting until the inevitable national lockdown before closing schools nationwide. It seems they value political point scoring over lives.
The fact we are already in a national lockdown in all but name, shows they are playing silly games. All areas are in tier 3 or tier 4 now anyway.
What's the difference between Tier 4 and national lockdown for a same area?
I'm not sure it comes down to it being safer in schools than mixing at home. I think the big thing is what's essential. For me, it's pretty essential that kids get educated, it's not really essential for me to socialise in pubs, or see my mates indoors, or visit my mam in her home.
I'm sure when schools re opened the advisor's said it may mean a tradeoff in other freedoms so things have been pretty consistent.
Schools have been very slow to react though in my opinion. Private schools put remote learning in place very quickly from what I hear from people I know who's kids attend. My youngest goes to the local comp and they have been slow to put measures in place. When she went back in September face masks were not compulsory until October time.
I suspect you’re right - he’s repeatedly said that another National Lockdown would be devastating for the economy so, instead, he can have a local (honest) approach but with everyone except the Isle of Nowhere in Tier 5
But that’s not what he’s saying - he’s saying it’s safe. So, if you believe him then, common sense dictates that socialising with other households (up to 30-60+) in other environments must also be safe so a commonsense approach is to ignore those rules as they make no logical sense. It’s irresponsible of him.
Also, whether education is more essential than socialising with friends or family is debatable. The latter has been deemed essential to humans since their inception whereas organised education is a much more recent phenomenon. For that matter, the first school in the UK was around 900 years ago, whereas the first public house was around 300 years before that, so which was deemed more essential?
Its a complete clusterfeck.
On one hand, you have Boris & Co saying no further restrictions, YET, but they are coming.
Then you have the Scientists sayings thngs are so bad, we're going to change the vaccine regime and go against what the developers are saying.
So either they're THAT BAD, or NOT THAT BAD, YET. From my perspective, its better to go into a March style lockdown now, for 8 weeks, and pump out the AZ/Oxford Vaccine as much as possible, and then start opening into T3 in early March. T2 April.
Literally what they did with pubs back in November.
Because of it, I got paid exactly the same as I did during furlough and got exposed to covid just before Christmas. To say I was fuming is an understatement.
Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science (British Medical Journal)
https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/371/bmj.m4425.full.pdf
https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/371/bmj.m4425.full.pdf
The perspective of somebody whose revenues won't be directly impacted by a new full lockdown?
*Schools may well be safe for most children*
Forget about the staff and parents/Grandparents Boris?
One thing to bare in mind, the same parent does not always pick up the kids. Sometimes its both, sometimes it's another family member or multiple. Plenty of grandparents.
Also, bubbles were non existant in the christmas term. Some tried but due to staff shortage we had staff covering in year 1 in morning, year 6 in the afternoon. Year 3 at a different school the following morning.
The example above was an extreme case but also she wasn't young either, 50+ with health problems.
Forget about the staff and parents/Grandparents Boris?
One thing to bare in mind, the same parent does not always pick up the kids. Sometimes its both, sometimes it's another family member or multiple. Plenty of grandparents.
Also, bubbles were non existant in the christmas term. Some tried but due to staff shortage we had staff covering in year 1 in morning, year 6 in the afternoon. Year 3 at a different school the following morning.
The example above was an extreme case but also she wasn't young either, 50+ with health problems.
My business launch has been put back by almost a year already because of it, so my earnings have been hampered this year. But, there is support for businesses from Government here
I wish you all the best in your future endeavours.
I just hope the necessary will be made to support logistically and financially the NHS so that a series of full lockdowns in 2021 will be avoided.
The biggest hope is the relative success of the vaccination campaign which has just started (1M in the UK against 0.1M in Germany and 500 people in France)
I'm just saying there is a reason they are doing it.
They're trying to get as many people as possible immunised NOW
Schools are safe unless we say they are not safe.
People should stay at home unless we say they should get back to work.
We are following the science unless we are not following the science.
Schools that want to shut down will be sued into not shutting down until we tell them to shut down.
... doublethink
People should stay at home unless we say they should get back to work.
We are following the science unless we are not following the science.
Schools that want to shut down will be sued into not shutting down until we tell them to shut down.
... doublethink
As much as it pains me as I want a bit more of my life back, this is by far the best option I think, and its clear that's the approach we need to take. It'll probably happen, just much later than it should.
Yeah. And early December and late December are very different. Do you think people have the same desire to get tested if unwell around Christmas and New Years as they do at the start of the month?
Like I said, it shows a trend perhaps at a high level. Nothing else. So excuse your sarcasm.
I didn’t say that the wider statistics don’t show a terrible situation. Simply commented about that one statistic.
Defo it'll happen too late, and then we will be in this mess with lockdown/tiers until late May/early June, v similar to LY.
I think the bit that bothers me most is that I don't believe it be much later. It'll only be a week or two later. It'll let case numbers, hospitalisations, deaths rise rapidly again in areas where things had started to stabilise or improve. As well as overloading the system in some regions.
I don't know if it's overoptimism or pure intellectual dishonesty. In March the R rate came down reasonably quickly once the lockdown started. Now we've got significantly more things open (schools, colleges, but also some workplaces and other activities) and we're up against what's reckoned to be a more transmissible version and yet we're supposed to see a similar fall in infections. Throw in colder weather than we had in March/April which will mean people spend more time indoors and I don't see any reason to expect a rapid change in hospitalisations/deaths/cases during January (unless it's upwards).
Cynically, I think they just want to cling on to some of their public statements about priorities - like telling Greenwich schools to go back before Christmas. Then telling just about every borough except Greenwich not to restart, then finally telling Greenwich not to restart. Pathetic posturing in a crisis, that means they end up doing everything as if it's impossible to see things even a week in advance. Before finally announcing that we've all been very naughty and let the R rate go up again, so they have to do something.