PHE release updated date an hour after the announcement that shows vaccines are at least 71% effective after 1 dose
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread
- Thread starter GingerBeerMan
- Start date
nicko31
Well-known member
I thought vaccines were only 33% effective after 1 dose against the delta, it said 26-40% in the Whitty slides today
nicko31
Well-known member
71% against hospitalisation but still only 33% protection. You can still get it, still spread it and still get long covid
Will be interesting to see at what daily infection rate the government deems acceptable to ease all restrictions...
71 percent against hospitalisation after 1 jab blows a hole in the argument to extend.
We have restrictions to not overwhelm the NHS
Stuff that’s still banned was the main target for vaccine passports.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,014
what you thought was what you were fed by speculations, based on estimates and models. now the real world evidence is in.
nicko31
Well-known member
On May 17 the government broke their own rules at stage 3. Delay was a HARD choice and would be deeply unpopular. It was rainy and cold for 2 weeks and this fueled indoor mixing
From that moment a delay became probable
Johnson said today we were increasing at a rate of 64% per week, that would put us back at the January peak in a month which would have consequences
Delay today was an EASY choice
That is his style throughout the pandemic, he wants to constantly please but that I'm afraid doesn't make good governance
Weststander
Well-known member
The modelling Warwick uni has produced shows there will be 100 k cases a day by Monday, is that why there is a risk change? If that is what it’s been based on that’s laughable.
64 percent? Incorrect and already out of date I’m afraid.
But using the modelling presented, it would actually be 250k cases a day with our vaccination programme and in the middle of the summer.
Do you not look at those numbers and think hmmmm, they might be slightly off?
Easy for who? Landlords?
nicko31
Well-known member
Cases, going back there comes with unknown risk.
Hopefully by July 19 daily case numbers will be falling.
nicko31
Well-known member
I'm not familar with the Warwick modelling, the 64% was quoted by Johnson. Maybe he is looking at ONS stuff..
Weststander
Well-known member
My thinking, but I’m open to be corrected, is that case numbers in themselves aren’t critical.
Down the line the UK and further afield double-vax programmes should leave us in a good place. But then, for example, the Omega Variant might arrive because quite rightly we’re allowed to travel and do so.
As long as there’s no significant strain on the NHS, I would hope that normal life would prevail.
I don’t think we should obsess with Long Covid in the scenario of a vax’d public. We will never get perfection.
We need to look at this in the wider context:
- Hospitality businesses, livelihoods, former employees could go bankrupt in colossal numbers.
- Travel industry - ditto.
- The NHS became the National Covid Service. Life saving early diagnoses of cancers were missed.
- Teenagers and young adults need to be allowed to have a life.
- The last 15 months has caused a mental health crisis.
A balance must be struck. Not tunnel vision for Covid.
Last edited:
Case numbers have rocketed in the last week......or, er, not.......
crodonilson
He/Him
They will have to be, if numbers are still growing exponentially we will be in a very bad place and it is likely the next dangerous new variant will come from our shores again. I can't see how in good conscience the government will be able to sign off the end of all restrictions on 19 July if all of the key metrics on cases, hospitalisations and deaths are worse than they are too. Let's hope people take this sensibily now and ease back on meeting up particularly indoors with members outside their household bubble and we begin to see cases stabilise and fall before 19/07.
Weststander
Well-known member
One positive, 8 weeks into the Delta Variant hitting the UK, there’s still no evidence of a notable rise in the death rate.
Touch wood.
A matter of hours after the official announcement and you're pushing your further extension agenda already.
I guess it comes down to how you define "rocket" but I'd certainly suggest we are in that territory, and cases HAVE shot up since last week.
The rolling 7-day average cases per day is currently 7,439. A week ago, it was 5,114, so a rise of 45%.
R is still well above one (likely around 1.55 currently) meaning exponential growth, and each day is considerably higher than the same day the previous week, eg today:7,439 v 5,683 last Monday). You have to go back to May 18th for the last time a day decreased when compared to the same day in the previous week.
However, there are glimmers of hope because although we are still seeing strong growth in cases, it does look as though the rate of that growth has slowed ever so slightly over the last few days. So, it's still growing, but perhaps not quite so fast as it was. Fingers crossed that trend continues...
Kinda agree on cases, but they are still the earliest and best indicator we get at what's coming down the track.
Right now, around 5% of cases "convert" to hospitalisations, and that's remained pretty constant over recent weeks. The good news is this is far lower than we have seen previously.
Chris Hopson, CEO of NHS Providers suggested these five questions were key when we were still considering 21st June, but I think they're still relevant now:
Q1. Do we need to wait for more evidence on hospitalisation and mortality rates – both in “front of wave” areas and to check “middle of wave” areas will behave in same way? If so, what evidence and how much more of it do we need? And how much longer will that take?
Q2. If full vaccine protection requires a double dose and a period of protection build up (2-3 weeks), how much, and which sections, of the population do we want to have passed this milestone before we ease restrictions? Should we set a data driven target here?
Q3. Relaxing restrictions will lead to higher levels of mortality. What level of risk are we prepared to accept here, recognising this is a deeply uncomfortable debate and one that we are totally unused, as a society, to having? Comparison with flu worth remembering here we live with and “accept” a certain level of annual mortality due to flu, without debate. But COVID-19 is a new disease that requires us to balance prevention of harm and mortality with other harms and detriments. We need a more honest & open debate on these trade offs.
Q4. Given current pressures on NHS, increases in COVID-19 hospitalisations will likely lead to delay in treatment for other patients, for example slowing down care backlog recovery. Are we ready to accept this trade off and how do we measure whether it is the right one?
Q5. How do we balance the risks and benefits here? And if we need to strike a balance between two extremes of “delay all as precaution” and “go ahead in full as planned” what should that balance look like? Which restrictions being eased carry more and which carry less risk?
Q2. If full vaccine protection requires a double dose and a period of protection build up (2-3 weeks), how much, and which sections, of the population do we want to have passed this milestone before we ease restrictions? Should we set a data driven target here?
Q3. Relaxing restrictions will lead to higher levels of mortality. What level of risk are we prepared to accept here, recognising this is a deeply uncomfortable debate and one that we are totally unused, as a society, to having? Comparison with flu worth remembering here we live with and “accept” a certain level of annual mortality due to flu, without debate. But COVID-19 is a new disease that requires us to balance prevention of harm and mortality with other harms and detriments. We need a more honest & open debate on these trade offs.
Q4. Given current pressures on NHS, increases in COVID-19 hospitalisations will likely lead to delay in treatment for other patients, for example slowing down care backlog recovery. Are we ready to accept this trade off and how do we measure whether it is the right one?
Q5. How do we balance the risks and benefits here? And if we need to strike a balance between two extremes of “delay all as precaution” and “go ahead in full as planned” what should that balance look like? Which restrictions being eased carry more and which carry less risk?