Oh OK, sorry then. What was the point you were making?
One-jab efficacy questions
- Thread starter Chris152
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
Oh OK, sorry then. What was the point you were making?
The powers that be are using Chile as an example to say that vaccines aren't the saviour they told us they would be. However as the data shows, they vaccines are not as good as the vaccines we are using, but they don't tell us that because that would not allow them to claim it is lockdown that has saved us rather than vaccines.
The cohort chosen leaves an open question on how much effect AZ will have against severe disease from SA variant, but no-one is going to test that deliberately . The fact the Oxford group's reaction on publication was to say that a booster is already under development seems to make it pretty clear what they think (and as they were involved in the study, they will have seen the data emerging in real time).
I agree with that. It may be a bit of a game of whack-a-mole until worldwide prevalence is suppressed or they find more stable bits of the protein to target. Over-promising and ostriching is not going to help.
OK yes I did misread you then, and apologies. We have obviously not been saved by vaccines rather than lockdowns, as we are only very recently seeing significant effects from vaccination. That's the exit route though (variants and where necessary boosters permitting).
Jonm
Established Member
Valid concern but we are opening indoor pubs, Restaurants, clubs and cinemas on 17 May. This can only result in an increase in infections alongside large numbers of vaccinated people, ideal conditions for a vaccine resistant strain to emerge. Similarly and probably a bigger chance is a vaccine resistant strain coming in from abroad in the future, hopefully we would have more time to develop and administer a booster In that case. I think we have to take the risk, young people have given up a lot to reduce deaths amongst the older population and they are saddled with a massive national debt.
RobinBHM
Established Member
I am not sure the "powers that be" are using the message that lockdown saved us.
They are putting out a cautious message because they dont want the public thinking the vaccine means they can ignore social distancing measures
the government are releasing lockdown slowly so they can see the data and act on that. infection rates grow exponentially so if you simply end lockdown you could create a big problem that is too late to stop.
You need to take the overall message, not extract the parts you want that fits your narrative.....which is "government are forcing lockdown on us for no reason" (although you cant explain the motivation)
Jonm
Established Member
I think that the government approach of staged removal of restrictions and monitoring the effects has a big advantage in that we find out what types of lockdown work. So far we know that keeping schools open works. We will soon know if keeping hairdressers, outdoor leisure, outdoor hospitality etc works.
In the event of a future upsurge in serious illness we can drop back to what we know works, not a complete lockdown.
If we opened up suddenly and there is a surge in severe illness then we are likely to go back to complete lockdown.
So I can see the governments point.
"we" may not have been, but hospital ICUs and capacity have benefited enormously from vaccines.
I can see where you are coming from, but it's not as simple as that is it. We are not carrying out proper controlled testing of what works, if anything. We are opening up all those things at the same time as the weather is improving so the seasonality aspect is kicking in (look at last summer) and also rolling out a massive vaccine drive. Similarly we know that large swathes of the population pick and choose the rules that suit them. We are not going to get any useful data we could use in the future. We had basically no C19 last summer, hardly any restrictions and no vaccine, if we suddenly get a big spike this summer, what on earth will you attribute that to?
you can pretty easily measure the difference - measure the prevalence of the virus at the outset and then as time goes on
the reason there was less C19 by summer last year was because of the shutdown, but the trend was easy to observe over the next 6 months where it rose and why.
In the US, we reopened bars and such briefly around june with predictable results. The death count was high. Around the holidays, people traveled to families, anyway, because they felt like they shouldn't not do that and we had a huge spike.
Since then, we've been vaccinating like crazy and the case rate is way down, but the economy here (restaurants, etc) is generally more open than it was in june last year. We have good information that younger kids don't do much virus spreading, and the high school aged kids do seem to at least contract symptomatic covid at a higher rate - not sure if they spread it as readily as adults, as we're just now getting some admission that viral load and symptomatic presence has to do with transmission after the overblown warning of asymptomatic transmission previously. It's *possible*, but being around symptomatic people is FAR more dangerous. So, the vulnerable population here is generally vaccinated, and the rest is driving the case rate, but with far less strain on hospitals and far less death.
the reason there was less C19 by summer last year was because of the shutdown, but the trend was easy to observe over the next 6 months where it rose and why.
In the US, we reopened bars and such briefly around june with predictable results. The death count was high. Around the holidays, people traveled to families, anyway, because they felt like they shouldn't not do that and we had a huge spike.
Since then, we've been vaccinating like crazy and the case rate is way down, but the economy here (restaurants, etc) is generally more open than it was in june last year. We have good information that younger kids don't do much virus spreading, and the high school aged kids do seem to at least contract symptomatic covid at a higher rate - not sure if they spread it as readily as adults, as we're just now getting some admission that viral load and symptomatic presence has to do with transmission after the overblown warning of asymptomatic transmission previously. It's *possible*, but being around symptomatic people is FAR more dangerous. So, the vulnerable population here is generally vaccinated, and the rest is driving the case rate, but with far less strain on hospitals and far less death.
And that's where we will have to disagree
When did they roll out all the imaginary vaccines before lockdowns 1 and 2 and 3 then?
They didn't, but we will disagree on lockdowns and my opinions on that get me into trouble, or rather it prompts a load of people to report me and the admins get annoyed and I get a ban lol.
While that sounds like a nice little soundbite, they aren't, India is nowhere near rich enough to carry out a GBD style lockdown.
Jonm
Established Member
There is a structure to what is opening, basically schools then things perceived to be low risk progressing to higher risk. If we do gets a spike of illness then it will depend on circumstances. We may well then know that we do not need to close, schools, hairdressers zoos, outdoor hospitality etc. If it is the vulnerable who have refused the vaccine then the answer is obvious. If it is a variant getting past the vaccine then we have a real problem. Having a staged opening does give a good indication of what works.
- Status
