Covid - coming out of Lockdown 3 - no politics, less opinion and more facts and information.

[monkeysarefun]

5 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Can't blame that on us. She's Albanian....

No way! Her hair would be really really white and she wouldn't be able to go out into the sun.

Edited April 8, 2021 by monkeysarefun

[brianusa]

To be quite frank, the whole covid thing is a right PITA!  It happens and not a lot can be done about it. After a year of isolation there are those who would choose to disrupt the whole recovery process.  Wise men have figured out ways of hopefully keeping us safe in record time with three vaccines to choose from, they have told us things to avoid which sadly a lot ignore.  Already many have died from covid and if this trend continues, many more will.  So the figures creep up again threatening the advance made thus far.  We have had a brief spell where we could visit friends and eat in restaurants which might disappear if the covid figures rise once more.  There is a mini minded group, invariably younger who flout the rules either through ignorance or bloody-mindedness and if this continues, we will never get back to what we may consider 'normal'!  There are already too many who will never make normal again.

     Brian.

Edited April 8, 2021 by brianusa

[woodenhead]

2 hours ago, monkeysarefun said:

No way! Her hair would be really really white and she wouldn't be able to go out into the sun.

Or she has a very good make up artist to disguise her.

 

Heard she was a bit of a man eater, maybe it's literal.

[woodenhead]

I've heard in Guernsey that they have these things called night clubs  where people congregate and even hug

[Rods_of_Revolution]

10 hours ago, Neil said:

 

I'm surprised that there has been resistance to the notion of vaccine passports for pubs, non essential shops and other smaller venues or events. I would have thought that one of the obstacles to a return to something near normal would be public confidence, for every single person at an illegal rave, party of wedding reception there must be hundreds, possibly thousands, who would be extremely wary of returning to busy public spaces. Knowing that you would be mixing only with people who have a very low likelihood of having Covid would boost confidence.

 

Also I need to point out that the vaccine alone won't save lives and avoid hospitalisation, responsible behaviour guided by the best scientific advice is also required. For some time passports may be a part of that. I have a 'friend' who is stubbornly anti vaccine and careless in his behaviour; I won't be mixing with him anytime soon but Joe public who don't know of his idiocy may in the future inadvertently be in close proximity if he's not required to prove his status.

 

I think you're under estimating public confidence. Everytime I see a popular public space it's packed, with little regard to social distancing, and almost every venue with outdoor facilities is fully booked for the reopening. Most people are chomping at the bit to go and do things that have been illegal for most of the last year. My experience with most of those who were frightened of the virus, is that since being vaccinated they're no longer worried, even if they have only had the first dose; so the psychological effect on the feeling of safety seems to be significant.

 

You say that the vaccine alone won't save lives, but the government are saying that the vaccine alone has saved over 10,000 lives, plus it wouldn't be much of a vaccine if it required other measures to have any effect. If you're vaccinated then why would you worry about other unvaccinated people, as surely your vaccine protects you?

 

The only scenario where someone may be worried is if they can't take a vaccine and they're worried about catching Coronavirus from someone who isn't vaccinated. But even then, with heard immunity and the majority of people vaccinated, the risk from Coronavirus would drop to be on par with the hundreds of other viruses and bacteria which can also be fatal to those who cannot be vaccinated.

 

The above is in addition to my previous point about there being little to no scientific evidence that a vaccine passport would even work. Where are the studies? Where are the estimates of lives saved and hospitalisations reduced under different types of vaccine passport? You say that we should be guided by the best scientific advice, yet I see very little scientific basis for vaccine passports.

 

This is before we even consider the social, ethical and philosophical issues surrounding such a system.

 

Regarding people taking the vaccine. I know several people who are waiting until 2023 when the safety and efficacy trials conclude and the vaccine is or isn't approved for market in the UK before they take it. Every other vaccine they have taken has been approved for market, so I don't personally see it as an unreasonable position to take. These are people who have the standard vaccines like the flu jab, as well as giving their kids the MMR vaccine, so they're not against vaccines. They just rather wait until the safety and efficacy trials conclude and the vaccine is fully approved, rather than the temporary emergency authorisation that it currently has. 

 

 

[Hobby]

The point with a vaccine passport is to restrict an event to people who have had the vaccine so are less likely to have Covid or pass it on, and even if they do the outcome will be a lot less drastic than for those who haven't had it at all. Why do you need scientific proof of that, you can work it out for yourself, if you don't believe that then by default you don't believe in the vaccine either.

 

In that final paragraph you mention some people you know who won't have the vaccine, I am beginning to wonder from your posts whether you are one of them, if not I'd be interested to hear why, with all your doubting, why you have bothered to have it!

[hayfield]

6 hours ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

 

Regarding people taking the vaccine. I know several people who are waiting until 2023 when the safety and efficacy trials conclude and the vaccine is or isn't approved for market in the UK before they take it. Every other vaccine they have taken has been approved for market, so I don't personally see it as an unreasonable position to take. These are people who have the standard vaccines like the flu jab, as well as giving their kids the MMR vaccine, so they're not against vaccines. They just rather wait until the safety and efficacy trials conclude and the vaccine is fully approved, rather than the temporary emergency authorisation that it currently has. 

 

 

 

Many of us have doubts about certain things, heights, flying etc.  My wife hated injections and her farther sometimes fainted whilst being injected.

 

However firstly with last years flu jab, then with covid the fear of catching covid in both cases overcame her fear of injections. But where did they get the idea that covid vaccines authorised for use is not approved ? The Oxford vaccine was 5 years into the making, fully approved all be it in a timely manner (which in its self is further ground breaking) and now has been proved in use to be safe

 

The low platelet effect is the same risk as long hall flights !!  and is one of the major factors in serious covid disease. In fact I think you are far more likely to catch low platelets from the covid virus than the vaccine. Or just as likely to develop low platelets within normal society anyway. I do not bet, but in things like this I weigh up the odds. I am certain if a person is that worried talking to a doctor about which vaccine is available is the route to go, especially as its confirmed that the vaccine rollout has been so successful in reducing deaths from covid

[boxbrownie]

12 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

While there were valid arguments for & against Brexit, some seem to be blind in 1 direction & keep banging on like a stuck record about how bad it was to leave.

It is irrelevant at this time & in this discussion so it is best ignored. This thread is supposed to be about Covid & the lockdown.

I agree completely I was a bit baffled by Admiles comment.

 

 

[boxbrownie]

7 hours ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

My experience with most of those who were frightened of the virus, is that since being vaccinated they're no longer worried, even if they have only had the first dose; so the psychological effect on the feeling of safety seems to be significant. 

 

 

A bit strange, our experience has been completely the opposite, I’d say 80% of our friends down here are in the older/vulnerable groups and although having had the first jab (and some recently the second) they are still resolutely determined to be extra careful and always comment upon if they have to go shopping the younger population (as us old gits call them) seem to not even realise there are rules in place, and several have actually seen quite intimidating “bust ups” in Morrison’s and Sainsbury’s stores with staff trying to convince younger family groups to obey the rules.

 

As for the holiday makers already coming here.....I’ve commented upon that already.

[Nick C]

7 hours ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

The above is in addition to my previous point about there being little to no scientific evidence that a vaccine passport would even work. Where are the studies? Where are the estimates of lives saved and hospitalisations reduced under different types of vaccine passport? You say that we should be guided by the best scientific advice, yet I see very little scientific basis for vaccine passports.

 

You're still missing the point of the 'vaccine passport'. it's got nothing to do with saving lives (that's what the vaccine is for), it is about enabling certain social facilities to open sooner than they would otherwise be able to. Purely a short-term measure to get parts of the economy moving and to ease the social pressure that many are feeling - especially those who are particularly vulnerable and may have not left their homes for over a year. It won't help in any way with the selfish people who ignore the rules and don't care about anyone else.

[AY Mod]

7 hours ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

Most people are chomping at the bit to go and do things that have been illegal for most of the last year.

 

It may be 'most' people that you know, it's certainly not the case with the majority of people I know so I think your argument is flawed by extension from a limited sample of people - as may be mine. Any inclination is skewed by age/risk groups.

 

7 hours ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

My experience with most of those who were frightened of the virus, is that since being vaccinated they're no longer worried,

 

Again it may be 'most' people you know. The majority of people I know accept there is still a risk, thankfully being statistically and evidentially reduced, and continue with precautionary measures to maintain the risk at a minimum. Again the attitude to precautionary measures is skewed by age and risk groups.

 

7 hours ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

Where are the studies? Where are the estimates of lives saved and hospitalisations reduced under different types of vaccine passport?

 

You said it before and it was addressed, repeating it doesn't re-validate the argument.

 

Turning that around where is your evidence about the assertions you make about 'most' people?

 

7 hours ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

I know several people who are waiting until 2023 when the safety and efficacy trials conclude and the vaccine is or isn't approved for market in the UK before they take it.

 

Personally I feel that people adopting that mindset drag out the impact of restrictions as incidences will continue to bubble up and potentially cause local outbreaks. Also, this increases the risk of further mutations and pressures on the capabilities of any vaccines.

 

7 hours ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

They just rather wait until the safety and efficacy trials conclude and the vaccine is fully approved,

 

You've spoken about others; are you also talking about yourself in the third person? Have you been vaccinated or will you be vaccinated when it is offered? That may be a personal question but I think it's relevant so that other readers can understand whether you are 'anti-vax' and why you are making a choice which impacts on the considerations or behaviour of others.

 

Personally I want to see as many people as possible not contract the virus and as much of a return to economical normality as soon as is possible (in practical terms) and anything which goes against that fundamental concern sets me on edge.

 

[Reorte]

59 minutes ago, Hobby said:

The point with a vaccine passport is to restrict an event to people who have had the vaccine so are less likely to have Covid or pass it on, and even if they do the outcome will be a lot less drastic than for those who haven't had it at all. Why do you need scientific proof of that, you can work it out for yourself, if you don't believe that then by default you don't believe in the vaccine either.

 

That's why there's an argument for them during the vaccination roll-out, particularly when the people most at risk still have little protection, but also why it seems questionable for the time they might appear, particularly in a country where the number of people refusing vaccination is low. And if it is all about risk then really the people with sound medical reasons for not being vaccinated shouldn't be able to have an exception.

 

There are three factors to consider IMO - what's the R rate at the time, what are the total number of cases at the time, and what's the risk (both of catching it in the first place and of a severe outcome). On the first, there's a case if they change it from positive to negative (or allow it to stay negative with other changes, such as allowing various events). On the second, that number needs to be low to begin with regardless (even with a negative R rate if you're starting from a high place that's still a lot more infections, so the case there is to stay shut anyway). On the third if the risk from infection is low enough anyway (there's never zero risk in anything) then the odd person slipping through is something we'll have to live with, like we do with all sorts of other diseases.

[Hibelroad]

Regarding vaccine passports or certification I had my second dose this week ( jumped the queue due to being classed as clinically extremely vulnerable) so I am quite happy to carry some form of documentation if required. However I will continue to avoid crowds or close contact as I know the risks still exist. I am still in contact with a large number of former work colleagues across the age range and they are all in favour of vaccination, I think the anti vaxxers are a small but noisy minority. As regards those who say they cannot be vaccinated who are they? I know expectant mothers are being delayed but if clinically vulnerable are getting doses there must be very few medical conditions which prevent vaccination. 

[Andy Hayter]

39 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

That's why there's an argument for them during the vaccination roll-out, particularly when the people most at risk still have little protection, but also why it seems questionable for the time they might appear, particularly in a country where the number of people refusing vaccination is low. And if it is all about risk then really the people with sound medical reasons for not being vaccinated shouldn't be able to have an exception.

 

There are three factors to consider IMO - what's the R rate at the time, what are the total number of cases at the time, and what's the risk (both of catching it in the first place and of a severe outcome). On the first, there's a case if they change it from positive to negative (or allow it to stay negative with other changes, such as allowing various events). On the second, that number needs to be low to begin with regardless (even with a negative R rate if you're starting from a high place that's still a lot more infections, so the case there is to stay shut anyway). On the third if the risk from infection is low enough anyway (there's never zero risk in anything) then the odd person slipping through is something we'll have to live with, like we do with all sorts of other diseases.

 

Once you get down to low numbers of infected persons, R rates become useless.  Single cases can impact greatly on the number.   Incidentally R can never be negative.  Any number less than 1 equates to the rate of spread declining.  

 

Given that you clearly don't understand the R rate, proposing it as the basis for changes seems suspect.  To be fair very few people really do understand the R rate - me included - because it is a lot more than just the number of new cases compared with the past.  It relies on other factors, some of which are assumptions (read for that educated guesses) and some of which you might not consider as part of a measure of virus spread rate.  That is why R is generally displayed as a range, because different assumptions give different results.  It is also important to recognise that R measures the past and not now.

 

Frankly it is such an esoteric number that outside of the circle of epidemiologists it has little real value.  

[Hobby]

1 hour ago, Nick C said:

You're still missing the point of the 'vaccine passport'. it's got nothing to do with saving lives (that's what the vaccine is for), it is about enabling certain social facilities to open sooner than they would otherwise be able to. 

 

I'm not completely in agreement there, Nick, though you may feel I am being picky! The passport, will, by default, save lives as it's a measure to reduce the spread of Covid, and the less that catch it, the less who die from it!

[Pete the Elaner]

6 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

Incidentally R can never be negative.  Any number less than 1 equates to the rate of spread declining.  

 

 

I am pretty sure by negative, Reorte meant lower than 1. The logarithm of a number between 1 & 0 is negative. 

[Reorte]

18 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

Once you get down to low numbers of infected persons, R rates become useless.  Single cases can impact greatly on the number.   Incidentally R can never be negative.  Any number less than 1 equates to the rate of spread declining.  

 

Given that you clearly don't understand the R rate, proposing it as the basis for changes seems suspect.  To be fair very few people really do understand the R rate - me included - because it is a lot more than just the number of new cases compared with the past.  It relies on other factors, some of which are assumptions (read for that educated guesses) and some of which you might not consider as part of a measure of virus spread rate.  That is why R is generally displayed as a range, because different assumptions give different results.  It is also important to recognise that R measures the past and not now.

 

Frankly it is such an esoteric number that outside of the circle of epidemiologists it has little real value.  

"Given that you don't understand the R rate" - I suggest that you refrain from personal sneers like that just because you disagree with what someone is saying. I understand it perfectly well.

 

When the numbers are so low that a few cases can shift it either way then you're in a situation where there's not actually much of a problem.

 

It's displayed as a range because like any measurement of absolutely anything there's an uncertainty attached to it.

 

Of course the numbers are historic, you can't measure (but you can estimate) what the future will be. That's what you've got to work with, that's the data which tells you, as close as is possible, the current state of play, whether we're in an improving or worsening situation, whether measures are effective or more needs to be done.

 

It is not "such an esoteric number that outside of the circle of epidemiologists it has little real value," it's the measure of the key, vastly important factor of whether the pandemic is spreading or declining. Whilst strictly speaking yes, it's the number of people it's passed on to (on average) that's very closely related to the change in the total number of cases. Uncertainties about the real number of cases (tests don't get them all), sample dates, smoothing out the lumps and bumps in the measured numbers (e.g. the weekend effect) mean that you need to estimate it rather than measure it directly, but it's by no means esoteric.

Edited April 9, 2021 by Reorte

[Reorte]

4 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

I am pretty sure by negative, Reorte meant lower than 1. The logarithm of a number between 1 & 0 is negative. 

OK fair point, less than 1 if you're not taking the log of it. Negative as in the log is, that it's indicating negative growth. I'll hold my hands up to that one!

 

I suppose it could be negative if some people can go around sucking the virus out of others without catching it but I'm not aware of the existence of that superpower

[Pete the Elaner]

26 minutes ago, Hibelroad said:

Regarding vaccine passports or certification I had my second dose this week ( jumped the queue due to being classed as clinically extremely vulnerable) so I am quite happy to carry some form of documentation if required. However I will continue to avoid crowds or close contact as I know the risks still exist. I am still in contact with a large number of former work colleagues across the age range and they are all in favour of vaccination, I think the anti vaxxers are a small but noisy minority. As regards those who say they cannot be vaccinated who are they? I know expectant mothers are being delayed but if clinically vulnerable are getting doses there must be very few medical conditions which prevent vaccination. 

No need to apologise for being in the 'more vulnerable' category. I am not considered vulnerable & am quite happy for others who are to be vaccinated ahead of me.

Another factor is that the body takes a few weeks to develop its maximum (not full) immunity, but in the mean time, there are still millions of others, like me, waiting patiently for our first jab. We can still catch the virus from those vaccinated because it is believed to only reduce, not eliminate, transmission (a vaccinated immune system reacts more efficiently & quickly to exposure, not immediately).

[john new]

8 hours ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

 

I think you're under estimating public confidence. Everytime I see a popular public space it's packed, with little regard to social distancing, and almost every venue with outdoor facilities is fully booked for the reopening. Most people are chomping at the bit to go and do things that have been illegal for most of the last year. My experience with most of those who were frightened of the virus, is that since being vaccinated they're no longer worried, even if they have only had the first dose; so the psychological effect on the feeling of safety seems to be significant.

 

You say that the vaccine alone won't save lives, but the government are saying that the vaccine alone has saved over 10,000 lives, plus it wouldn't be much of a vaccine if it required other measures to have any effect. If you're vaccinated then why would you worry about other unvaccinated people, as surely your vaccine protects you?

 

The only scenario where someone may be worried is if they can't take a vaccine and they're worried about catching Coronavirus from someone who isn't vaccinated. But even then, with heard immunity and the majority of people vaccinated, the risk from Coronavirus would drop to be on par with the hundreds of other viruses and bacteria which can also be fatal to those who cannot be vaccinated.

 

The above is in addition to my previous point about there being little to no scientific evidence that a vaccine passport would even work. Where are the studies? Where are the estimates of lives saved and hospitalisations reduced under different types of vaccine passport? You say that we should be guided by the best scientific advice, yet I see very little scientific basis for vaccine passports.

 

This is before we even consider the social, ethical and philosophical issues surrounding such a system.

 

Regarding people taking the vaccine. I know several people who are waiting until 2023 when the safety and efficacy trials conclude and the vaccine is or isn't approved for market in the UK before they take it. Every other vaccine they have taken has been approved for market, so I don't personally see it as an unreasonable position to take. These are people who have the standard vaccines like the flu jab, as well as giving their kids the MMR vaccine, so they're not against vaccines. They just rather wait until the safety and efficacy trials conclude and the vaccine is fully approved, rather than the temporary emergency authorisation that it currently has. 

 

 

There are many who, from my perspective, seem overly going-ho, example, the lack of social distancing in the street and public open spaces is worrying. There are several things I will continue to avoid/minimise for a while yet and the idea of vaccine passports for events might reduce my avoidance. The problem with them is the perception about civil liberties (I don’t support that for the same reasons Neil posted a few pages back) and that the getting to the XYZ passport protected event’s route will be in the open with the problems of the first sentence.

 

At some point the risk of catching COVID will drop to a similar risk to catching flu, very serious to some, hence the flu jab programme, but a disease that has previously been broadly accepted by most as an acceptable risk. Will COVID have changed our attitude to both for the long term? IF we get to vaccine passports what disease should be recorded on them, just COVID, COVID + FLU, C+F+? Etc.
 

Edited April 9, 2021 by john new
Typos Errant comma and duplicated word

[eastglosmog]

In the paper this morning it says that only about 1 in 1000 cases of Coronavirus is caught outdoors and 1 in 10,000 from an infected surface.

[AY Mod]

Just now, eastglosmog said:

In the paper this morning it says that only about 1 in 1000 cases of Coronavirus is caught outdoors and 1 in 10,000 from an infected surface.

 

Which paper please and what's their source?

[Rods_of_Revolution]

3 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

Which paper please and what's their source?

 

The 1 in 10000 for surfrace spread is based on a CDC brief: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/science-and-research/surface-transmission.html

 

Refereneces are in included at the bottom of the page.

 

The 1 in 1000 for outdoor transmission has been reported several places and is based on HPSC data, which suggest only 0.1% of cases were caught outdoors. Whilst it's difficult to actually know where any particular case was caught, it's possible to generalise from the data, which is what has been done.

 

Irish Times: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/outdoor-transmission-accounts-for-0-1-of-state-s-covid-19-cases-1.4529036

[eastglosmog]

38 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Which paper please and what's their source?

Andy

Was in The Times this morning.  They quote data from the Republic of Ireland published in The Irish Times for the 1 in 1,000 figure and the American Center for Disease Control and Prevention for the 1 in 10,000 figure.  Figures are said to tally with other research around the world.

[woodenhead]

Which comes back to why we are able to travel about from Monday and we can sit outside at the pub - being outside is not a strict vector for transmission, it is what we are doing whilst outside that may increase rates of transmission.

 

The surface transmission was looked at in Germany in 2020, they took samples across a town that had odd transmissions and they found Covid was not living on surfaces and was not a primary vector of transmission.