More self inflicted woes -

[Confused52]

54 minutes ago, asperity said:

It would have been sensible if the government had stuck to its original 5 day relaxation plan. What did they think would happen when they announced that Christmas was going to be cancelled for millions of people?

I really don't think that is right. Over the last 14 days the cases per 100,000 in London has gone from 25 to 72. That is equivalent to an R of around 2. Something had to be done when they found out the cause was not just people breaking the rules.

[asperity]

38 minutes ago, Confused52 said:

I really don't think that is right. Over the last 14 days the cases per 100,000 in London has gone from 25 to 72. That is equivalent to an R of around 2. Something had to be done when they found out the cause was not just people breaking the rules.

I was addressing the point Obs made about the mass exodus of people from the now tier 4 areas to the rest of the country which isn't exactly confining the problem. On the other hand if the government had just left things as they were the majority of people may have stayed put. I have heard that mainline trains leaving the SE are standing room only, not exactly "social distancing". Anyway as a clinical experiment it might be interesting to see the result of this new bureaucratic mess.

[asperity]

In other news vaccinations expected to reach half a million this week. Quick back of an envelope calculation:

65/0.5=130 weeks

130/52=2.5 years. Going well isn't it? Mind you the vaccine apparently doesn't give any immunity to the virus or stop transmission, but I'm sure the scientists and politicians have a plan 🤔.

[Confused52]

49 minutes ago, asperity said:

Mind you the vaccine apparently doesn't give any immunity to the virus or stop transmission, but I'm sure the scientists and politicians have a plan 🤔.

Please explain that bit to us. The Pfizer vaccine was shown to prevent 95% of people tested from catching it. Why is that not demonstrating immunity? Stopping transmission is a big ask but the tests were not designed to show reduction in transmission, it wasn't in the specification for approval!

[Observer II]

The sensible majority had given up on Xmas in any event, they seem much more cautious than the Gov.  This was down to BoJo trying be liked for giving the smaltz brigade a festive week.  Most Governments still don't get it, and flounder behind the curve, as they've done from the beginning.      😷

[Bill]

I like using analogies to help me get my head around complex issues like this.

My thinking is that the virus is rather like fire. You could catch a few sparks that would over a few days develop into a bigger fire until hopefully the antibodies build up and start doing their job. Just how bad that fire gets (the viral load) depends on the strength of the immune system and how quickly it responds. So, if we see it this way, it’s easier to understand that it’s not something that suddenly switches on and off like an electric fire but more like a pile of old wood that burns and then dies off.  

Given the lungs are the main part infected, the virus will spread in the air like smoke on our breath. The degree of virus transmission will depend on just how big the fire gets, and this will grow, peak, and then decline. A vaccination dampens down the firewood and stops the fire from fully developing. People may still be infectious but less so than with an uncontrolled burn.

 

Bill 😊.

[Observer II]

Assuming vaccination provides lasting immunity and is delivered to the critical numbers of people to create herd immunity, it just means less people will be adversely affected by infection, not that infection risk ceases.  The virus can still spread on surfaces and clothing etc; so precautions still apply.   In the face of a January spike in cases, we've got the powers that be, handwringing over whether kids should go back to school after the holidays.  Well the simple rule of thumb is that crowding folk into any enclosed environment poses a risk of spread;  so schools and Universities should be switched to remote learning from home,  and all centres of essential collective gathering, like hospitals and care homes, should be subject to test screening prior to access.    😷

[Confused52]

5 minutes ago, Observer II said:

Assuming vaccination provides lasting immunity and is delivered to the critical numbers of people to create herd immunity, it just means less people will be adversely affected by infection, not that infection risk ceases.  The virus can still spread on surfaces and clothing etc; so precautions still apply.   In the face of a January spike in cases, we've got the powers that be, handwringing over whether kids should go back to school after the holidays.  Well the simple rule of thumb is that crowding folk into any enclosed environment poses a risk of spread;  so schools and Universities should be switched to remote learning from home,  and all centres of essential collective gathering, like hospitals and care homes, should be subject to test screening prior to access.    😷

Try not to put so many arguable points in a single post please.

Assuming vaccination provides lasting immunity and is delivered to the critical numbers of people to create herd immunity, it just means less people will be adversely affected by infection, not that infection risk ceases." If herd immunity is achieved the the susceptible population is small enough to ensure that R cannot exceed 1 so the infection cannot spread. That is what herd immunity is all about. The vaccination is to be given to those who are at risk of serious consequences. And although it cannot stop people getting it at all it will reduce the severity. I expect that means that the viral load and hence the infectivity of those who still get it will reduce. So infection risk WILL reduce, exactly the opposite of your assertion.

Surfaces become affected by virus spreading in droplets from people, if people on average have less virus then that risk too will reduce. Remember that if the vaccine has reduced the severely susceptible population than the risk level flowing from surface contamination will be reduced too. However it cannot be eliminated, but that remains true of many diseases.

Schools and Universities do indeed pose a particular risk since it is very likely that a larger number of those people present as asymptomatic whilst infectious than the general population, it is the nature of young people to behave like that. Your demands as ever go beyond what is practicable and reasonable. Doing medical training in practical skills is probably impossible other than in person.

Your final point on testing is already in hand as I understand it.

[asperity]

A big question is, if the government is serious about stopping movement of the virus, why have they created internal borders in the country but not stopped people coming into the country from all around the world with no restrictions?

https://www.heathrow.com/arrivals

https://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/flight-information/arrivals/

https://www.airport-gatwick.com/london-lgw-arrivals

[Confused52]

15 minutes ago, asperity said:

A big question is, if the government is serious about stopping movement of the virus, why have they created internal borders in the country but not stopped people coming into the country from all around the world with no restrictions?

https://www.heathrow.com/arrivals

https://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/flight-information/arrivals/

https://www.airport-gatwick.com/london-lgw-arrivals

My understanding is that the UK Government which alone administers England has placed no border restrictions in addition to those which already existed as a result of the new strain. All the new restriction on Borders are being make by foreign Governments and the Devolved Administrations. Mostly for political purposes I suspect. Collectively they put restrictions on the UK faster than they responded to the original outbreak in Wuhan by a wide margin!

[Bill]

Quote

Collectively they put restrictions on the UK faster than they responded to the original outbreak in Wuhan by a wide margin!

Well I'd hope they would, otherwise they've learnt nothing.

It's probably not long now before this is the dominant strain throughout the UK so we're going to have to accept tighter restrictions everywhere and speed up vaccine deployment.

I don't think it'll take quite as long as Asp suggests but we should be doing it as fast as its produced, not the other way around. From what I've seen on telly, they seem to making the jab into a bit of a performance, unlike my last flu jab where I didn't even sit down and was out in less than a minute.

 

Bill

[Observer II]

I'm afraid I deal in black and whites, so find your shades of grey difficult Con.   The fact of the matter is, that the imposition of draconian restrictions puts the brake on viral spread, this will then allow vaccination to get us ahead of the curve in order to gradually release the break.   As long as we have folk bleating about the economic effects of lockdowns or in downright opposition to restriction of freedoms or acceptance of vaccination, we're just going to carry on playing ping pong with the virus.    😷

[asperity]

1 hour ago, Confused52 said:

My understanding is that the UK Government which alone administers England has placed no border restrictions in addition to those which already existed as a result of the new strain. All the new restriction on Borders are being make by foreign Governments and the Devolved Administrations. Mostly for political purposes I suspect. Collectively they put restrictions on the UK faster than they responded to the original outbreak in Wuhan by a wide margin!

You've missed my point which is that the Government has placed de facto internal borders - e.g you can't go from a Tier 4 area to a Tier 3 area to a Tier 2 area to a Tier 1 area, but you can fly into the country from just about anywhere with no restriction on where you want to go. Organised chaos. And all this is being done without presenting evidence to the people or allowing Parliamentary scrutiny. Meanwhile the leader of the opposition is presenting something about devolution!!

[asperity]

6 minutes ago, Observer II said:

I'm afraid I deal in black and whites, so find your shades of grey difficult Con.   The fact of the matter is, that the imposition of draconian restrictions puts the brake on viral spread, this will then allow vaccination to get us ahead of the curve in order to gradually release the break.   As long as we have folk bleating about the economic effects of lockdowns or in downright opposition to restriction of freedoms or acceptance of vaccination, we're just going to carry on playing ping pong with the virus.    😷

I presume you haven't found yourself unemployed with no income or prospects, or haven't found the business you spent years building up taken away from you with no redress. If you had you might be "bleating" a bit yourself rather than being selfishly unsympathetic to the plight of others.

[asperity]

9 minutes ago, Observer II said:

I'm afraid I deal in black and whites, so find your shades of grey difficult Con.   The fact of the matter is, that the imposition of draconian restrictions puts the brake on viral spread, this will then allow vaccination to get us ahead of the curve in order to gradually release the break.   As long as we have folk bleating about the economic effects of lockdowns or in downright opposition to restriction of freedoms or acceptance of vaccination, we're just going to carry on playing ping pong with the virus.    😷

There is no evidence that lockdowns have any beneficial effects. This latest one seems to have been done on little to know evidence and with, again, no assessment of it's effects on human lives.

[Confused52]

29 minutes ago, Bill said:

Well I'd hope they would, otherwise they've learnt nothing.

It's probably not long now before this is the dominant strain throughout the UK so we're going to have to accept tighter restrictions everywhere and speed up vaccine deployment.

I don't think it'll take quite as long as Asp suggests but we should be doing it as fast as its produced, not the other way around. From what I've seen on telly, they seem to making the jab into a bit of a performance, unlike my last flu jab where I didn't even sit down and was out in less than a minute.

 

Bill

The WHO still frowns upon closing borders. I fear that they cannot stop it in any case and they will have to open the borders sooner rather than later. We will have to wait for the real tests from Porton Down because everything is still based on statististical inference from a change in the Ct number for PCR tests which later get sequenced for the new variant.

Of course you are right that vaccine rollout will not take as long as Asp says but then he is probably trying to wind Obs up anyway. I am afraid that the fast rollout they are looking for which is all done by end March requires the number of first doses to get to about 22 million by end Feb so the new year has to get to at least 21 million in two months. That colossal rate probably absolutely require all hands to the pumps and the Oxford vaccine. I heard somewhere that they were submitting more data to the MHRA today. As a standard vaccine the rollout is quicker and they already had 5million doses ready to go a few weeks back and by now there will be more because the Government paid for the plant to produce it. Keep watching and look for the step change.

[Observer II]

Asp. Fact - after each lockdown, the R factor has reduced;  it has then climbed following relaxations.   As for the economic casualties, that's the whole point in Gov spending £billions on their welfare;  £billions that we all will be paying back in taxes for the foreseeable future.   😷

[Bill]

Quote

There is no evidence that lockdowns have any beneficial effects.

That's getting pretty close to what the denidiots say Asp so be careful  

I'd say lockdowns work, but all these partial ones just seem to be prolonging the current situation.

Theoretically, if every single person in the country obeyed a full two week lockdown, then the virus should cease to exist and we could carry on as normal for a while. 

 

Bill

[Confused52]

30 minutes ago, asperity said:

There is no evidence that lockdowns have any beneficial effects. This latest one seems to have been done on little to know evidence and with, again, no assessment of it's effects on human lives.

What would you class as a beneficial effect in that context. The last national lockdown gave a reduction of around 0.4 in R compared to the situation ahead of Tier 3 imposition in Warrington. The R number is currently up at about 1.4 but will fall from Christmas Eve. The schools being closed will knock at least another .4 off R.

[Bill]

Quote

 little to know evidence and with, again, no assessment of it's effects on human lives.

It’s all too easy to come to that conclusion but I’d bet there are currently hundreds if not thousands of professionals all across the country, involved in working on the numbers and the impacts.

We only see the final outcome and apportion blame on individuals.

 

Bill  

[Evil Sid]

Just out of curiosity.

People from the UK cannot go to most places in Europe, however people from Europe can come to the UK.

If they come to the UK how do they then get back if they are not allowed to from the UK?......🤔

[asperity]

Lockdowns only have the effect of kicking the can down the road, which is why I say they have no beneficial effects. The malignant effects of more deaths by untreated diseases, undiagnosed diseases and suicides have yet to come to the fore.

"Denidiot" Bill? Is that the new name for anyone who questions the self-styled experts, like Niel "Pantsdown" Ferguson of the  perpetually wrong models and yet who is still in the group advising the government? There are plenty of experts out there who don't agree, with good reason, with the governments policies but who aren't listened to because the government has already decided which experts it wants to hear. I think we need more "Denidiots" and for their input to be listened to, then perhaps we will stop being led from crisis to crisis.

[asperity]

57 minutes ago, Observer II said:

Asp. Fact - after each lockdown, the R factor has reduced;  it has then climbed following relaxations.   As for the economic casualties, that's the whole point in Gov spending £billions on their welfare;  £billions that we all will be paying back in taxes for the foreseeable future.   😷

Money cannot replace the loss of a business that someone has made their life's work, or deal with the human effects of unnecessary job loss. Still unsympathetic towards your fellow man I see Obs.

[Observer II]

Survival trumps sympathy everytime;   job losses, largely non-essential and easily resurected in time; are much preferable to life losses.   The life losses in cancer patients etc; are the result of the virus over-stretching medical resources, not the need to end the pandemic.     😷

[asperity]

12 minutes ago, Observer II said:

Survival trumps sympathy everytime;   job losses, largely non-essential and easily resurected in time; are much preferable to life losses.   The life losses in cancer patients etc; are the result of the virus over-stretching medical resources, not the need to end the pandemic.     😷

Unbelieveable Obs. You would rather see people die from non-covid causes than see the government give up its war on a mostly non fatal virus.