#COVID19 | Page 888 | Vital Football

#COVID19

in_the_top_one said:
The "good days" of vaccination rates that high have been few and far between but should start to come back (and be surpassed) in the next few weeks.

There are two points being discussed here: greater risk in some groups, and prioritisation.
I don't think it is fair to say that scientists and public health professionals have a lack of curiosity about increased risk in some areas. There is huge curiosity about that and many articles. There isn't a simple answer that had emerged yet. Here is an article from ages ago - ie last September. https://www.gmjournal.co.uk/what-is...oportionate-impact-of-covid-19-on-bame-groups

Prioritisation is more of a political choice to make. Personally, I agree with Pope that vaccinating key workers in essential public systems is a good idea. However, there are downsides too. It would take longer to organise when the difference in time saved would be quite small for most (and during that time more clinically vulnerable people would be waiting longer). Also, it opens a massive can of worms where the government is publicly choosing who to protect first. Arguments would ensue, maybe even court cases. Everyone understands the age system and you can't argue that the biggest predictor of risk is age. It is a sensible system to use and easily defended.


I'm increasingly disappointed about schools going back next week. It seems like too great a risk at the moment, especially when we are so close to Easter. We have an opportunity now to get numbers low. Everything is going on the right direction but I can see schools pushing R>1 and infections getting out of control again. Hope I'm wrong, but the truth is that nobody knows for sure and that means we should err on the side of caution.
Click to expand...

Its the secondary schools that makes me nervous but lets see.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
I did not misread the data, as if backs up something I posted from the ONS the other day.

My point was general, with a firm eye on Jonathan Van Tam's comments dismissing the idea of prioritisation of key workers on the basis that data shows they are at no risk of dying.

The reality is, data is showing that they are at increased risk of contracting COVID. Just because they are not dying is neither here nor there. You have to buy a ticket to win the raffle.

I have been surprised, as I said, by the lack of curiosity. If frontline workers are at increased risk contracting but not necessarily of dying, why is that? Because, if there isn't a reason for it, maybe that is because there isn't a reason; and that there is no mystical protective factor.

Same as the BME groups. Why are they at increased risk of dying? Is it merely because they are at increased risk of contracting? Is it genetic? Behavioural? No one seems interested in any of it beyond one bare fact.
Click to expand...

I mean people are interested and it's the usual socioeconomic factors most suspect. Similarly the reasons why teachers are less prone to die is that they are on average in their late 30s, white, female and lower middle class...

Death isn't really here nor there either, that's an odd thing to say.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
I mean people are interested and it's the usual socioeconomic factors most suspect. Similarly the reasons why teachers are less prone to die is that they are on average in their late 30s, white, female and lower middle class...

Death isn't really here nor there either, that's an odd thing to say.
Click to expand...

To die of COVID you need to get it. If you are at increased risk of getting it, you are at increased risk of dying.

When you know 100% that someone works in an environment that increases the risk of getting it, It doesn't matter whether the data actually shows those deaths yet or not. It isn't that frontline workers ar being protected somehow by magical fairies. It is a great thing that these workers have not been dying in great numbers, even though everything we know about the virus says they should. I am surprised that scientists are willing to blow raspberries at fate.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
To die of COVID you need to get it. If you are at increased risk of getting it, you are at increased risk of dying.

When you know 100% that someone works in an environment that increases the risk of getting it, It doesn't matter whether the data actually shows those deaths yet or not. It isn't that frontline workers ar being protected somehow by magical fairies. It is a great thing that these workers have not been dying in great numbers, even though everything we know about the virus says they should. I am surprised that scientists are willing to blow raspberries at fate.
Click to expand...

I'm possibly missing your point, we know middle class, young, white, females are less likely to die and that's what the average teacher is. Why would we prioritise someone unlikely to die over a group more likely to?
 
I think what Pope is trying to say is along the lines of this:

BAME: chances of getting it = 20%, chances of dying when got it = 80%

Teachers: chances of getting it = 80%, chances of dying when got it = 20%

So no overall difference.

I've obviously simplified the figures and just used BAME as an example
 
Calvin Plummer said:
I'm possibly missing your point, we know middle class, young, white, females are less likely to die and that's what the average teacher is. Why would we prioritise someone unlikely to die over a group more likely to?
Click to expand...
Well, because it disrupts vital services if they get it.

But, the point I am making there though is that you have groups that you know should be in danger, and are in danger based on how the virus acts.

Thankfully, those numbers haven't come through yet. Are you doing to wait for them to do so or just assume they won't, regardless it what we know about how it spreads?

FWIW, I agree with you- teachers are more likely to be middle class, in their 30s or 40s and relatively healthy, careful and disciplined. That is probably what is keeping death rates low.

Perhaps extrapolate that to your sheet metal workers and look at what they are doing differently both in and out of work
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Well, because it disrupts vital services if they get it.

But, the point I am making there though is that you have groups that you know should be in danger, and are in danger based on how the virus acts.

Thankfully, those numbers haven't come through yet. Are you doing to wait for them to do so or just assume they won't, regardless it what we know about how it spreads?

FWIW, I agree with you- teachers are more likely to be middle class, in their 30s or 40s and relatively healthy, careful and disciplined. That is probably what is keeping death rates low.

Perhaps extrapolate that to your sheet metal workers and look at what they are doing differently both in and out of work
Click to expand...

Ultimately we still should prioritise those most vulnerable to dying. I would personally have put teachers, factory workers etc above 40s but generally a white middle class woman in her 30s is at very very low risk of dying. Any teacher 40 or above will be vaccinated shortly.

There is definitely a conversation to be bad about why the poor die based on lifestyle and socioeconomic factors but it's not one this government wants to have.
 
JC21 said:
I think what Pope is trying to say is along the lines of this:

BAME: chances of getting it = 20%, chances of dying when got it = 80%

Teachers: chances of getting it = 80%, chances of dying when got it = 20%

So no overall difference.

I've obviously simplified the figures and just used BAME as an example
Click to expand...

This is essentially a discussion about over 40s v teachers under 40. The reality is white women in their 30s don't die from this without underlying health conditions and they'd be vaccinated anyway.
 
Looks like the lockdown is over on the East coast, seem to be loads of none natives about, no sign of any police activity checking where all the people on the sea front have come from. This is just a repeat of last time, but at least then people had been told they could travel to take their daily exercise, but as far as I am aware none essential travel is still not allowed that is unless you deem travel to Skegness to eat an ice cream on the sea front to be essential.
Unless the rules are enforced we are in danger in blowing it again before we even begin to officially ease lockdown. Why can't people just stick with it for a few more weeks.
 
WTF is Labour doing? They're now trying to emulate the Tories.

And before you start CP. I want Starmer to be successful.

I want a end of the tories in power. But I will not vote for red tories.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
This is essentially a discussion about over 40s v teachers under 40. The reality is white women in their 30s don't die from this without underlying health conditions and they'd be vaccinated anyway.
Click to expand...
Not really.

The media tend to present it that way, and I was disappointed to see Jonathan Van Tam so dismissive in presenting it that way.

But now that we know the vaccines limit transmission and ability to catch COVID, the strongest argument by far is that we want police out on the beat and teachers teaching in the classroom rather than sick with COVID or sat at home following self isolating rules.

How high is the death toll for the 40's? A lot of stats out there actually categorise 18-64s and then 65-75, etc. You already need to vaccinate 4000 people in their 50s to prevent one death.

The scientists have already decided that those in their 40's face a small enough chance of death that it wasn't worth even thinking about them until nearly March.

The message is that we are talking about the low priority groups; groups where the risk of death starts low and gets lower.

So the most compelling argument is that, if the risk of death is already very low, giving earlier priority to people who you consider vital for running public services makes perfect sense.

We aren't talking about delaying the 40's. We are talking about adding around 1.5m (at most) if you include all school staff, all police and all prison officers to the 7m or so scheduled in the 40's group. That means, vaccinating 8.5m in group 10 rather than 7m.

If anything that might delay the 30's getting it by a few days or a week. It might mean that people in their 40's sign in to swiftqueue and find the next available appointment is on Thursday rather than Monday. How many people is it likely to kill? In comparison to the strain on police forces from self isolation?
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Not really.

The media tend to present it that way, and I was disappointed to see Jonathan Van Tam so dismissive in presenting it that way.

But now that we know the vaccines limit transmission and ability to catch COVID, the strongest argument by far is that we want police out on the beat and teachers teaching in the classroom rather than sick with COVID or sat at home following self isolating rules.

How high is the death toll for the 40's? A lot of stats out there actually categorise 18-64s and then 65-75, etc. You already need to vaccinate 4000 people in their 50s to prevent one death.

The scientists have already decided that those in their 40's face a small enough chance of death that it wasn't worth even thinking about them until nearly March.

The message is that we are talking about the low priority groups; groups where the risk of death starts low and gets lower.

So the most compelling argument is that, if the risk of death is already very low, giving earlier priority to people who you consider vital for running public services makes perfect sense.

We aren't talking about delaying the 40's. We are talking about adding around 1.5m (at most) if you include all school staff, all police and all prison officers to the 7m or so scheduled in the 40's group. That means, vaccinating 8.5m in group 10 rather than 7m.

If anything that might delay the 30's getting it by a few days or a week. It might mean that people in their 40's sign in to swiftqueue and find the next available appointment is on Thursday rather than Monday. How many people is it likely to kill? In comparison to the strain on police forces from self isolation?
Click to expand...

The risk of death is 300% higher between 30-39 and 40-49. So substantial.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
The risk of death is 300% higher between 30-39 and 40-49. So substantial.
Click to expand...
And what is that risk?

That stat could be 0.1%-0.3%.

How many have died in their 40's, and how serious is the death rate for that age group? Is it so serious that adding 1.5m to the 7m already taking the vaccine in that group is likely to result in several deaths?
 
seasider red said:
Looks like the lockdown is over on the East coast, seem to be loads of none natives about, no sign of any police activity checking where all the people on the sea front have come from. This is just a repeat of last time, but at least then people had been told they could travel to take their daily exercise, but as far as I am aware none essential travel is still not allowed that is unless you deem travel to Skegness to eat an ice cream on the sea front to be essential.
Unless the rules are enforced we are in danger in blowing it again before we even begin to officially ease lockdown. Why can't people just stick with it for a few more weeks.
Click to expand...

Been over in london for at least a week. Was standing room only again on the tube. Think people have been going nuts, bit of sunshine and everyone out. Hard to blame people but i do think there is something of a risk coming out too early.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Not really.

The media tend to present it that way, and I was disappointed to see Jonathan Van Tam so dismissive in presenting it that way.

But now that we know the vaccines limit transmission and ability to catch COVID, the strongest argument by far is that we want police out on the beat and teachers teaching in the classroom rather than sick with COVID or sat at home following self isolating rules.

How high is the death toll for the 40's? A lot of stats out there actually categorise 18-64s and then 65-75, etc. You already need to vaccinate 4000 people in their 50s to prevent one death.

The scientists have already decided that those in their 40's face a small enough chance of death that it wasn't worth even thinking about them until nearly March.

The message is that we are talking about the low priority groups; groups where the risk of death starts low and gets lower.

So the most compelling argument is that, if the risk of death is already very low, giving earlier priority to people who you consider vital for running public services makes perfect sense.

We aren't talking about delaying the 40's. We are talking about adding around 1.5m (at most) if you include all school staff, all police and all prison officers to the 7m or so scheduled in the 40's group. That means, vaccinating 8.5m in group 10 rather than 7m.

If anything that might delay the 30's getting it by a few days or a week. It might mean that people in their 40's sign in to swiftqueue and find the next available appointment is on Thursday rather than Monday. How many people is it likely to kill? In comparison to the strain on police forces from self isolation?
Click to expand...
I do agree with lots of this but it does sound chippy to say "scientists decided ... it wasn't even worth thinking about them until March". It's just prioritisation, that doesn't equal no thought. The opposite, in fact.


On another topic, the brexit agitators wanting full reopening ASAP are trying to claim that 'the scientists' are moving the goalposts to recommend low infection rates rather than saving lives. Both of those things should a always have been part of the same conversation because they are both important. We know how deadly this virus can be and the chances of escape mutations (leading to vaccine tolerant strains) is high if infection rates are high. There will be no protection at all for huge swathes of the population throughout spring and summer but it will seem like the pandemic is over. Dangerous times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.