#COVID19 | Page 874 | Vital Football

#COVID19

jbacsta said:
Strange? You were the one banging on about public money being spent defending cases like this. I have suggested a way in which the money can be saved to be used for the greater public good.
Click to expand...
The whole point of this is to ensure that public funds are used for the greater public good.
If MPs say "all is fine", or simply refuse to answer questions in the house of commons, where should we turn next?
 
Had my first AstraZeneca jab today, very quick, friendly and efficient.

At 69, Pope would have you believe I'm itching to get back into the pub and clamouring for a rushed opening up of society.

While it does feel quite liberating to have a vaccination (psychologically, light at the end of the tunnel), I'm in no rush to get out and about again.

And I would have been quite happy to wait another couple of weeks so teachers could be vaccinated. If you insist on opening all schools (fully opening - they've been open all along, just without so many kids), it's a no-brainer to vaccinate all teachers first.
 
if teachers twice as likely to catch than agricultural workers, thats seems quite low, seeing as we don't generally meet many folk at all :)

Wheres the rest of that report? Id like to see the results of shop workers and catering etc. It just seems common sense tho, the more close contact with people you have the more likley you are to pick it up, so its simply a numbers game' therefore actually a small shopkeeper may be low risk and a big supermarket worker in the city may be high risk doing the same job.

Im probabaly in the majority viewpoint, I dont get the rush or over importance placed on kids and schools, another few weeks would just make sense.
 
Plans to ease Covid lockdown earlier were axed after Sage warning

Proposals for a major easing of lockdown before Easter were dropped after scientists warned the Government that it could lead to an extra 55,000 deaths, it emerged on Monday.

Boris Johnson revealed his reopening plan on Monday, expressing hope it would be a "one-way road to freedom" with no more lockdowns.

Under an initial scenario, outdoor pubs and restaurants, outdoor attractions and non-essential shops would have reopened in time for the Easter Bank Holiday weekend – but this was subsequently delayed until April 12.

Papers released by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) showed that plans to reopen such venues by the end of March were modelled by scientists but pushed back after experts said they could fuel thousands more deaths and overwhelm hospitals.



OK what I need is for someone to explain to me where the 55k extra deaths will come from considering that 90% of the group of people that have died so far have now been immunised?
Is the data they use for modelling done without any vaccination efficacy info, which a lot came out yesterday, ergo it's out of date?
Something does not seem right here, unless...

This is all for political capital, and when the data shows that we are ahead of the schedule, Boris can ride in on his noble steed, set us all free and be a hero to the masses.
 
Strett said:
Plans to ease Covid lockdown earlier were axed after Sage warning

Proposals for a major easing of lockdown before Easter were dropped after scientists warned the Government that it could lead to an extra 55,000 deaths, it emerged on Monday.

Boris Johnson revealed his reopening plan on Monday, expressing hope it would be a "one-way road to freedom" with no more lockdowns.

Under an initial scenario, outdoor pubs and restaurants, outdoor attractions and non-essential shops would have reopened in time for the Easter Bank Holiday weekend – but this was subsequently delayed until April 12.

Papers released by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) showed that plans to reopen such venues by the end of March were modelled by scientists but pushed back after experts said they could fuel thousands more deaths and overwhelm hospitals.



OK what I need is for someone to explain to me where the 55k extra deaths will come from considering that 90% of the group of people that have died so far have now been immunised?
Is the data they use for modelling done without any vaccination efficacy info, which a lot came out yesterday, ergo it's out of date?
Something does not seem right here, unless...

This is all for political capital, and when the data shows that we are ahead of the schedule, Boris can ride in on his noble steed, set us all free and be a hero to the masses.
Click to expand...


I know you love the vaccine but it’s not 100% a cure for everything.
 
Handjob saying he had.nothing to do with giving his pub landlord mate a contract.

Does he think we are as stupid as he is?

How did his mate even know there was a contract to go for? Stinks.

Maybe trump did have at least one point, we have a swamp in westminister and it needs to be drained
 
Strett said:
Plans to ease Covid lockdown earlier were axed after Sage warning

Proposals for a major easing of lockdown before Easter were dropped after scientists warned the Government that it could lead to an extra 55,000 deaths, it emerged on Monday.

Boris Johnson revealed his reopening plan on Monday, expressing hope it would be a "one-way road to freedom" with no more lockdowns.

Under an initial scenario, outdoor pubs and restaurants, outdoor attractions and non-essential shops would have reopened in time for the Easter Bank Holiday weekend – but this was subsequently delayed until April 12.

Papers released by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) showed that plans to reopen such venues by the end of March were modelled by scientists but pushed back after experts said they could fuel thousands more deaths and overwhelm hospitals.



OK what I need is for someone to explain to me where the 55k extra deaths will come from considering that 90% of the group of people that have died so far have now been immunised?
Is the data they use for modelling done without any vaccination efficacy info, which a lot came out yesterday, ergo it's out of date?
Something does not seem right here, unless...

This is all for political capital, and when the data shows that we are ahead of the schedule, Boris can ride in on his noble steed, set us all free and be a hero to the masses.
Click to expand...
If the papers have been released by SAGE, go have a look at them. All SAGE meetings and their results are public:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...oadmap-scenarios-for-england-18-february-2021

https://assets.publishing.service.g...Unlocking__Roadmap_Scenarios_for_England_.pdf

Extended scenarios for England for lifting non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) as set out by the Cabinet Office were explored. Detailed/specific policy changes cannot be modelled. Instead, the increase in transmissibility from successive easing of NPIs was translated as per Table 1, accounting for the considerable uncertainty in transmissibility associated with each step in our estimates of R. Vaccine roll out schedules (Table 3) were pre-specified. Current levels of transmissibility are based on our latest estimates for England at Reff (including immunity) =0.75 (translating to Rexcl_immunity =1.10 with an estimated 32% of the population currently protected via prior infection- and/or vaccine-induced immunity). Table 4 shows vaccine efficacy assumptions against severe disease, symptomatic disease and infection after each dose (Pfizer and AstraZeneca). Four sensitivity analyses were performed, using 1) slower vaccine roll out; 2) pessimistic vaccine efficacy; 3) lower adherence to NPI measures retained after full lifting (i.e. return to a higher baseline transmissibility) and 4) including seasonality in SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility. We assumed an age-dependent vaccine uptake (Table 5). Summary
1. Due to eligibility and vaccine hesitancy, vaccination alone will not be sufficient to keep the epidemic under control. NPIs must be lifted slowly and cautiously to minimise the number of deaths and prevent high hospital occupancy, with some baseline NPIs remaining in place (and adhered to) throughout 2021 and beyond.
2. It is critical to achieve and maintain high vaccine uptake and roll out before easing NPIs.
3. Assuming optimistic vaccine efficacy, even if 3.2M vaccine doses/week are given up to 12 July (3.9M thereafter), only 46% of the population will be protected against disease (due to vaccination or recovery from infection) at the date of full NPI lifting in scenario 1 (26 April 2021), 60% in scenario 4 (2 August), and 65% in scenario 5a (16 July) (Fig 1A).
4. Relaxing too quickly (scenario 1) will result in peak hospital occupancy considerably higher than the current wave and substantial additional deaths (Fig 1E-F). This holds regardless of vaccine efficacy, roll out, adherence to baseline NPIs, and impact of seasonality.
5. Scenario 4 will still result in a substantial additional number of deaths (58,200, 95%CrI 31,000 - 95,300) by June 2022 in our main analysis.
6. Scenarios 5a and 5b where NPIs return to Tier-1 like restrictions on 27th April and 11th May 2021, and are fully lifted on 16th July 2021, result in a smaller but prolonged wave of hospitalisations compared to the current wave, and lead to an additional 55,000 (95%CrI:33,200 - 81,200) and 54,800 (95%CrI: 32,600 - 82,900) deaths, respectively.
7. Our results are highly dependent on the assumed (optimistic) vaccine efficacy, uptake, and rollout speed. Due to the uncertainty surrounding these assumptions, it is critical to rapidly assess the true effectiveness of vaccination within the population as it may be lower than clinical efficacy reported in trial settings. Our results also assume no loss of infection- or vaccineinduced immunity on the time horizon of the analysis. Characterising the duration of vaccineimmunity will be critically important.
8. With a lower vaccine efficacy, all scenarios would lead to a third wave of hospitalisations larger than or comparable in magnitude to the current wave (Fig 3-A2).
9. A return to higher transmissibility levels after NPIs are lifted will also lead to a third wave of hospitalisations comparable in magnitude to the current wave (Fig 3-A1). Therefore, whilst the impact of Test Trace Isolate (TTI), mask wearing, hand hygiene, and COVID security on R is difficult to quantify, it will be vital to emphasise the importance of normalising and ensuring adherence to all measures even after “full lifting” is achieved.
10. Assessing the impact of each relaxation before committing to the next phase is critical. Impact of waning immunity and other VOC is particularly difficult to assess at present.
Click to expand...

Instead of conspiracy theories about political capital, try and understand what it is SAGE are saying. When media reports "Scientists say it could lead to x amount of deaths", that is a highly conditional statement, dependent on lots of factors. I haven't fully read this document because MORNING but I assume 55,000 is a kind of worst case scenario.
 
Strett said:
The vaccines ARE the cure if the current problem is thousands dying. The efficacy after just one dose is superb.
Click to expand...

It is but it doesn’t stop all deaths, you asked where the deaths are coming from, it’s the unvaccinated & sadly even those that are vaccinated might die
 
Strett said:
The vaccines will stop 99% of all deaths from Covid.
Click to expand...
Where are you getting this number from? Is it what Van Tam said in December?

Do you believe him because its what you would like to believe, and not believe other scientists because it isn't what you want to believe, or are you deliberately using an old quote to support your argument in the face of new evidence.

When he said that vaccine will stop 99% of deaths, does he mean compared to never developing a vaccine ever? What's the time frame? Over 10 years, or 2 months, because the meaning of what he said changes significantly depending on the time frame.
 
i am a tree said:
Where are you getting this number from? Is it what Van Tam said in December?

Do you believe him because its what you would like to believe, and not believe other scientists because it isn't what you want to believe, or are you deliberately using an old quote to support your argument in the face of new evidence.

When he said that vaccine will stop 99% of deaths, does he mean compared to never developing a vaccine ever? What's the time frame? Over 10 years, or 2 months, because the meaning of what he said changes significantly depending on the time frame.
Click to expand...

I've edited from 99 to 97.9%.

It's logic. Last night Whitty stated that after one dose of the AZ or the Pfizer, hospital admissions drop by up to 94%.
Admittedly, this is using the limited data available, but real-world data seems better than the controlled data; but when you also look at the age demograph of mortality from Covid, 97.9% are above 50 years of age.

What won't please CP, is the Oxford vaccine he's been ragging on is actually superior after one dose than the Pfizer one (94% compared to 85%) ;-)
 
Strett said:
I've edited from 99 to 97.9%.

It's logic. Last night Whitty stated that after one dose of the AZ or the Pfizer, hospital admissions drop by up to 94%.
Admittedly, this is using the limited data available, but real-world data seems better than the controlled data; but when you also look at the age demograph of mortality from Covid, 97.9% are above 50 years of age.

What won't please CP, is the Oxford vaccine he's been ragging on is actually superior after one dose than the Pfizer one (94% compared to 85%) ;-)
Click to expand...
Sorry to be a pest but what does 'up to 94%' mean in this case?
You have to be aware of when unscientific language is being used and how that can be manipulated to make you think something untrue.
remember, 10% is in the set of things that are 'up to 94%' as is 0%.
The reason I talk about time frame here is important. Does it take a month or two to reach the point where the vaccines have had their effect on hospitalizations, or is there no delay between administering the vaccine to a group and the 'up to 94%' effect to happen? Remember that if there is a delay, it explains the advice not to be easing lockdown too much in March.

My guess would be that if we are seeing up to 94% in reduction of hospital admissions now, then getting enough people vaccinated and then accounting for a delay in seeing the results of those vaccinations probably takes us to at least June
 
i am a tree said:
Sorry to be a pest but what does 'up to 94%' mean in this case?
You have to be aware of when unscientific language is being used and how that can be manipulated to make you think something untrue.
remember, 10% is in the set of things that are 'up to 94%' as is 0%.
The reason I talk about time frame here is important. Does it take a month or two to reach the point where the vaccines have had their effect on hospitalizations, or is there no delay between administering the vaccine to a group and the 'up to 94%' effect to happen? Remember that if there is a delay, it explains the advice not to be easing lockdown too much in March.

My guess would be that if we are seeing up to 94% in reduction of hospital admissions now, then getting enough people vaccinated and then accounting for a delay in seeing the results of those vaccinations probably takes us to at least June
Click to expand...

It was data released yesterday from NHS Scotland...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ive-linked-to-big-drop-in-hospital-admissions
 
Strett said:
It was data released yesterday from NHS Scotland...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ive-linked-to-big-drop-in-hospital-admissions
Click to expand...
The study showed an apparent rise in the number of hospital admissions among people given one dose of the Pfizer vaccine after 21 days. The numbers were very small and there was uncertainty over their significance, said the researchers.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to be super negative here, I'm just trying to get my head around the Imperial College report and where these 55,000 extra deaths are coming from.
Don't be taken in by news stories and headlines, because very often the people who are reporting the science don't fully understand what conclusions you can draw from the numbers.

Take this report. The numbers its using appear to very direct. What I mean is 'we gave a small group this vaccine and hospitalizations among that group declined by between 85 and 94%'. The ICL report takes into account unvaccinated people and how that will effect the continued spread over time of the virus and possible difficulties in eliminating the virus enough that vaccinated people aren't vulnerable after certain amount of time.

Even this Public Health Scotland report says that there was a slight bump 21 days after vaccination, so this would have investigated and the reasons for it must be added to any modelling that is done.
 
I like this new roadmap. Its not without issues but apparently Boris has finally learned some lessons (I think the absence of Cummings might have helped significantly) from what happened last year. That's to his credit, because I wouldn't have expected it from him.
Obviously its far too late given the number of deaths in the UK, but the future looks positive once these next few months are done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.