Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[LinekersLegs]

 

[summerisle]

 

[LinekersLegs]

Hospitalisation chances after Covid vaccination are 0.06%: Apollo Hospital study

The hospital has released the results of an observational study of healthcare workers to evaluate the frequency of 'Break Through Infection' (infections after the vaccination) of COVID-19. | Health

www.hindustantimes.com

 

[BlueToff]

Absolute gubbins.

It'll be one or two members of SAGE, the same members hedging their bets all along with the doomsday fate.

There's no data to suggest the reopening is going to 'wreak havoc' at all.

Fed up of it.

We'll see on the 21st June date closer to the time. And these dicks know that.

 

[grandjoeblue]

Absolute gubbins.

It'll be one or two members of SAGE, the same members hedging their bets all along with the doomsday fate.

There's no data to suggest the reopening is going to 'wreak havoc' at all.

Fed up of it.

We'll see on the 21st June date closer to the time. And these dicks know that.

I don't want to attack the scientists but why mention 80,000? Its not based on anything substantial. It's well known that they don't know how much worse the spread is and whether its covered by the vaccine. The early signs seem to suggest the vaccine works. If the vaccine works 80,000 are not going to die.

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[Mrk]

One of the most frustrating parts of the whole handling of the pandemic in the UK has been these constant leaks (by all sides) when they don't fully agree with what the prevailing opinion is at the time. Just causes unnecessary angst and confusion.

 

[MikeH72]

No one is buying this tripe anymore. The media have lost.

 

[Neiler]

I said at the time that the UK made the wrong decision to announce that they were not going give the AZ vaccine to under 30s so early, given that they were not due to start vaccinating that genre for another 2 months. You disagreed with me.

Admittedly my concern at the time was that it would further undermine the reputation AZ vaccine given that there were many under 30s and other younger people still to receive their second dose of the vaccine. As it turns out, my worst fears didn't transpire, or at least not in significant numbers, but I hadn't expected a variation to emerge that proved more dangerous to the younger generations.

The country is now in a position whereby we need to be more flexible with our vaccine programme, and consideration needs to be given to treating the younger generation with a higher priority, certainly within the areas most affected by the Indian variant. There is also an argument that the younger age group are the biggest spreaders of covid, so irrespective of the Indian variant we should be prioritising their vaccination to reduce infections anyway.

But the problem we face is that, for various reasons, we don't have a stock of the alternative vaccines to give to the under 30s, an neither are we expecting to have significant stocks any time soon. Even the Pfizer supplies are being prioritised for second doses. We only have available stocks of AZ. I have no doubts in my mind that, had we not already come out and announced the AZ ban, we would now be using it to vaccinate the under 30s and surge vaccinate those areas heavily exposed to the new variant. We still may need to, even though the authorities will have to justify going back on their original decision.

Well our last debate on the matter was before the Indian variant mate. Personally I think young people are more at risk because they haven’t been vaccinated which was my thinking behind the comment quoted. I’d put that down to supply of the second dose debt in the U.K. as opposed to a specific decision on AZ and age cohort. I’d agree though if the Indian variant becomes rampant then I think we are have different variables in the risk equation and the risk assessment changes considerably, in that context it would be logical for the U.K. regulators to review their decision. But I think it’s more supply holding up the roll out to the younger cohorts as opposed to the decision on age- I think it’s under 30s in the U.K. isn’t it, it’s higher here and across Europe.

 

[LinekersLegs]

I don't want to attack the scientists but why mention 80,000? Its not based on anything substantial. It's well known that they don't know how much worse the spread is and whether its covered by the vaccine. The early signs seem to suggest the vaccine works. If the vaccine works 80,000 are not going to die.

Here are the Sage minutes, that headline to me is a sensationalist representation of this paragraph

SAGE 89 minutes: Coronavirus (COVID-19) response, 13 May 2021

www.gov.uk

If this variant were to have a 40% to 50% transmission advantage nationally compared to B.1.1.7, sensitivity analyses in the modelling of the roadmap in England (SAGE 88) indicate that it is likely that progressing with Step 3 alone (with no other local, regional, or national changes to measures) would lead to a substantial resurgence of hospitalisations (similar to, or larger than, previous peaks). Progressing with both Steps 3 and 4 at the earliest dates could lead to a much larger peak. Smaller transmission advantage would lead to smaller peaks.

Modeling is very dependent on inputs - rubbish in, rubbish out and as you say we lack hard data on a lot of it.

Hospitalization rates would likely depend a lot of how protective one dose vs two doses is

 

[grandjoeblue]

Here are the Sage minutes, that headline to me is a sensationalist representation of this paragraph

SAGE 89 minutes: Coronavirus (COVID-19) response, 13 May 2021

www.gov.uk

Modeling is very dependent on inputs - rubbish in, rubbish out and as you say we lack hard data on a lot of it.

Hospitalization rates would likely depend a lot of how protective one dose vs two doses is

This part is the problem for me:

would lead to a substantial resurgence of hospitalisations (similar to, or larger than, previous peaks)..

If the vaccines work, how can this be possible considering in England well over 80% of over 60s have had 2 doses? Surely this is only possible if the vaccines are ineffective?

I just hope they are wrong on this one.

 

[peteblue]

Nice one Davek....

 

[peteblue]

Here are the Sage minutes, that headline to me is a sensationalist representation of this paragraph

SAGE 89 minutes: Coronavirus (COVID-19) response, 13 May 2021

www.gov.uk

Modeling is very dependent on inputs - rubbish in, rubbish out and as you say we lack hard data on a lot of it.

Hospitalization rates would likely depend a lot of how protective one dose vs two doses is

London letting the side down here.....

 

[Neiler]

Here are the Sage minutes, that headline to me is a sensationalist representation of this paragraph

SAGE 89 minutes: Coronavirus (COVID-19) response, 13 May 2021

www.gov.uk

Modeling is very dependent on inputs - rubbish in, rubbish out and as you say we lack hard data on a lot of it.

Hospitalization rates would likely depend a lot of how protective one dose vs two doses is

Throw in the varience in protection after 1 dose, going from memory isn’t the range between 59-89% in clinical trials.

 

[LinekersLegs]

This part is the problem for me:

would lead to a substantial resurgence of hospitalisations (similar to, or larger than, previous peaks)..

If the vaccines work, how can this be possible considering in England well over 80% of over 60s have had 2 doses? Surely this is only possible if the vaccines are ineffective?

I just hope they are wrong on this one.

I’d assume it would be a combo of that 20% over 60s not having full protection, adding in some % of those fully vaccinated that are hospitalized (as no vaccine is 100 %) plus the hospitalization of younger unvaccinated/paritally vaccinated.

They may also be adding in (but not explicitly mentioning) an increase in disease severity,

As far as I’m aware they don’t publish the parameters/assumptions they use in the models so hard to know how realistic it is and in any case the data is very fluid so any model is going to undergo a lot of revisions as we get more data.