"Covid rising in England" - let's stop the fear mongering

[Stephen42]

Is the scientific community in unanimous agreement?

Unanimous agreement about what? The scientific community is so large that it's virtually impossible to have unanimous agreement so expect no is the answer.

Is an epidemiologist as qualified as virologists and immunologists in this area?

Typically would be more as measuring vaccine effectiveness fits within what epidemiologists study.

But levels cannot become "low" until more people have been exposed to the virus; it's really a nonsense statement designed to stoke fear. I am glad you agree the language is not ideal.

Most people have already been exposed to the virus; patterns of infection to date suggest no stable equilibirum and as such timing has a large influence. Could change in future of course, but no evidence for that yet.

Do you have a source for this? How do you measure this? How is "not fully up to date" defined? Is your proposal to keep people "fully up to date" to constantly boost, if so for how long? Is it just a case of boosting antibody levels with no long term exit strategy, or is there evidence that the T cell response is genuinely boosted in the longer term by having multiple boosters? How long should we continue boosting for and what is your exit strategy?

Antibody or T cell responses aren't good indicators for hospital admission risk. It's better to measure using vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation (refining by activity codes to avoid any incidental dilution). The previous source I quoted was doubling for more than 15 weeks compared to first two months after third booster, assuming a 4th would have similar or better effect. This peer reviewed Lancet article is based on the same approach bolding mine:

There was no evidence of reduced vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease with BA.2 compared with BA.1 (figure; appendix p 9). 25 weeks or more after two doses, vaccine effectiveness was 14·8% (95% CI 12·9–16·7 against BA.1 and 27·8% (25·9–29·7) against BA.2. Booster immunisation increased protection after a week to 70·6% (68·9–72·2) against BA.1 and 74·0% (70·8–76·9) against BA.2, waning to 37·4% (35·8–39·0) against BA.1 and 43·7% (42·3–45·1) against BA.2 at 15 or more weeks after receiving the booster dose. Protection against hospitalisation was lower in people with BA.2 than in people with BA.1 in some periods but higher for others (figure); the CIs overlapped in most periods. After a booster dose, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation peaked at 90·8% (85·1–94·3) against BA.1 and 89·1% (80·5–94·0) against BA.2 before decreasing to 80·4% (75·6–84·3) and 56·5% (38·4–69·3), respectively, after 15 or more weeks. Due to the small number of individuals involved, there was greater uncertainty around the vaccine effectiveness estimates against hospitalisation than around those against symptomatic disease.

For 4th booster UK figures aren't published yet as far as I know, this Canadian paper in the BMJ among long term care residents suggests the 4th booster increases protection against severe outcomes similarly:

13 654 residents who tested positive for omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection and 205 862 test negative controls were included. The marginal effectiveness of a fourth dose (95% of vaccine recipients received mRNA-1273 as the fourth dose) seven days or more after vaccination versus a third dose received 84 or more days previously was 19% (95% confidence interval 12% to 26%) against infection, 31% (20% to 41%) against symptomatic infection, and 40% (24% to 52%) against severe outcomes.

 

[yorkie]

Unanimous agreement about what? The scientific community is so large that it's virtually impossible to have unanimous agreement so expect no is the answer.

Exactly my point!

Typically would be more as measuring vaccine effectiveness fits within what epidemiologists study.

This is nonsense; you are basically saying a Maths/numbers person is more relevant than someone who is actually a virologist or an immunologist and who actually understands the concepts in far more detail than any numbers person can.

You are entitled to that opinion but I totally reject this.

An over-reliance on numbers people, rather than the true experts in the fields of virology and immunology, has caused all sorts of problems during the pandemic.

Most people have already been exposed to the virus; patterns of infection to date suggest no stable equilibirum and as such timing has a large influence. Could change in future of course, but no evidence for that yet.

Are you denying that we're ever going to reach endemic equilibrium with Sars-CoV-2 and that Sars-CoV-2 is destined to become the 5th endemic human Coronavirus? Surely not?

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the ultimate outcome for Sars-CoV-2 is not likely to be similar to that of OC43?

Antibody or T cell responses aren't good indicators for hospital admission risk. It's better to measure using vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation (refining by activity codes to avoid any incidental dilution). The previous source I quoted was doubling for more than 15 weeks compared to first two months after third booster, assuming a 4th would have similar or better effect. This peer reviewed Lancet article is based on the same approach bolding mine:

For 4th booster UK figures aren't published yet as far as I know, this Canadian paper in the BMJ among long term care residents suggests the 4th booster increases protection against severe outcomes similarly:

That article firstly erroneously refers to Omicron as a "strain" which is an immediate red flag for me as they are not using the correct terminology; how can I trust it? The study seems to work on "estimates" and admits that the sample size isn't great, leading to "uncertainty".

They do at least admit that "Vaccine effectiveness against severe disease is higher and retained for longer than effectiveness against mild disease" as well as that "people are increasingly likely to have COVID-19 as an incidental finding rather than as the primary reason for admission" which are absolutely key points to note.

I note you've not answered my questions in relation to boosters.

 

[Stephen42]

Exactly my point!

I'm not sure of your point, there isn't unanimous agreement about climate change or homeopathy but that doesn't mean presenting someone with a different view point on a news website for those is a good idea.

This is nonsense; you are basically saying a Maths/numbers person is more relevant than someone who is actually a virologist or an immunologist and who actually understands the concepts in far more detail than any numbers person can.

You are entitled to that opinion but I totally reject this.

An over-reliance on numbers people, rather than the true experts in the fields of virology and immunology, has caused all sorts of problems during the pandemic.

For measuring real world (as in post-trial) vaccine effectiveness yes, the most important thing isn't why a vaccine works but ensuring you measure how well it works accurately. An analogy of a timekeeper at a race track needs to understand equipment they use and how to calibrate it rather than how to build a good race car.

Are you denying that we're ever going to reach endemic equilibrium with Sars-CoV-2 and that Sars-CoV-2 is destined to become the 5th endemic human Coronavirus? Surely
not?

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the ultimate outcome for Sars-CoV-2 is not likely to be similar to that of OC43?

I said stable equilibirum which is different to endemic equilibrium. I'm not making any claims about whether it could become stable in future.

That article firstly erroneously refers to Omicron as a "strain" which is an immediate red flag for me as they are not using the correct terminology; how can I trust it? The study seems to work on "estimates" and admits that the sample size isn't great, leading to "uncertainty".

They do at least admit that "Vaccine effectiveness against severe disease is higher and retained for longer than effectiveness against mild disease" as well as that "people are increasingly likely to have COVID-19 as an incidental finding rather than as the primary reason for admission" which are absolutely key points to note.

I note you've not answered my questions in relation to boosters.

It's interesting you call it erroneously given "Unfortunately, there is no universally accepted definition for the terms “strain”, “variant”, and “isolate” in the virology community, and most virologists simply copy the usage of terms from others." from this Virology journal.

How can you trust it? Maybe find some 'true experts' who can help you interpret it, they could explain the "estimates" and "uncertainty" terminology, notation used, methodology and to what extent it can be relied on. The terminology/notation a virologist/immunologist involved in clinical trials should be able to cover it, the others an epidemiologist would have greater expertise of those concepts and be more useful. They could also go into detail on the different types of equilibrium and if your key points invalidate the claim of comparatively increased risk.

I've posted my thoughts on how I'd approach boosters before on this thread, if you want to dig that post out to comment on it happy to respond.

 

[duncanp]

Had a look at the Percentage Change In 7 Day Case Rate figures on the dashboard just now.

Cases are falling at a rate of about 40% per week at the moment, which shows that the current "wave" of cases is well any truly over. (without resorting to compulsory face nappies, social distancing, restrictions on gatherings or any of the other claptrap we have had to put up with)

There may well be another "wave" in the future, possibly when schools and universities return, but it is likely that any such wave will be small in scale and short in duration compared to previous waves.

But I think we still need to be on our guard against the locktivists and maskivists, who are probably holding a summer camp somewhere right at this moment, plotting their next move as to how they can scare one or more governments into reintroducing some level of restrictions over the winter.

 

[bramling]

Had a look at the Percentage Change In 7 Day Case Rate figures on the dashboard just now.

Cases are falling at a rate of about 40% per week at the moment, which shows that the current "wave" of cases is well any truly over. (without resorting to compulsory face nappies, social distancing, restrictions on gatherings or any of the other claptrap we have had to put up with)

There may well be another "wave" in the future, possibly when schools and universities return, but it is likely that any such wave will be small in scale and short in duration compared to previous waves.

But I think we still need to be on our guard against the locktivists and maskivists, who are probably holding a summer camp somewhere right at this moment, plotting their next move as to how they can scare one or more governments into reintroducing some level of restrictions over the winter.

Round here I do think people have, for now, moved on. Instead of what we’ve had for the last two years, the buzz words are now “more localised economy” and “post-pandemic living”.

I couldn’t help but point out that their “more localised economy” might actually turn out to be a screwed one (and more so that things already are!) when employers realise that there’s people in other parts of this country, let alone the wider world, who would be prepared to do the same work for less remuneration than people in this area expect, and quite possibly with a better attitude too.

 

[yorkie]

I'm not sure of your point, there isn't unanimous agreement about climate change or homeopathy but that doesn't mean presenting someone with a different view point on a news website for those is a good idea.

My point is exactly what I said earlier; the BBC choose to get "experts" whose views you appear to defend, but they don't ask the expert virologists or immunologists whose views don't conform to the BBC's alarmist agenda.

For measuring real world (as in post-trial) vaccine effectiveness yes, the most important thing isn't why a vaccine works but ensuring you measure how well it works accurately. An analogy of a timekeeper at a race track needs to understand equipment they use and how to calibrate it rather than how to build a good race car.

This isn't comparable to a car race; yes they are looking for something easy to measure, such as symptomatic illness (of any kind) when what really matters is actually difficult to measure (i.e. it's not anything like a car race and is about as different to that as you can get!)

I said stable equilibirum which is different to endemic equilibrium. I'm not making any claims about whether it could become stable in future.

The concept of endemic equilibrium is that a virus is ever present and it will increase in prevalence when a selective pressure occurs and then it will naturally come down without any interventions; this is the state in which we live with hundreds of common respiratory viruses. We don't know which virus types/strains/variants are going to be prevalent at any given time and we get good years and bad years in terms of deaths and serious illness. Sars-CoV-2 is destined to be the 5th human coronavirus which we live with.

It's interesting you call it erroneously given "Unfortunately, there is no universally accepted definition for the terms “strain”, “variant”, and “isolate” in the virology community, and most virologists simply copy the usage of terms from others." from this Virology journal.

A leading virologist recognises that, sadly, even some virologists do not use the terms properly:

There is one, and only one strain of SARS-CoV-2 | Virology Blog

The moment a preprint emerges describing a new patient isolate of SARS-CoV-2, with a change in the genome sequence, the world seems to explode with concern ...

www.virology.ws

There is one, and only one strain of SARS-CoV-2​

The moment a preprint emerges describing a new patient isolate of SARS-CoV-2, with a change in the genome sequence, the world seems to explode with concern about a new viral ‘strain’. I want to explain why such angst is misguided and in the process explain exactly what is a virus strain and a virus isolate.

In science, word usage matters. And sadly, even virologists often do not use their terms properly. I've written about it before.

How can you trust it? Maybe find some 'true experts' who can help you interpret it, they could explain the "estimates" and "uncertainty" terminology, notation used, methodology and to what extent it can be relied on. The terminology/notation a virologist/immunologist involved in clinical trials should be able to cover it, the others an epidemiologist would have greater expertise of those concepts and be more useful. They could also go into detail on the different types of equilibrium and if your key points invalidate the claim of comparatively increased risk.

Well that article contradicts the trusted sources I have linked to; if you have any evidence to suggest the virologists and immunologists I've quoted are wrong, then feel free to present it.

I've posted my thoughts on how I'd approach boosters before on this thread, if you want to dig that post out to comment on it happy to respond.

Then I refer you to what I have said about boosters; but don't take my word for it, read the citations I've provided. I don't see how anyone could argue there is anyone more authoritative than people like Paul Offit on this subject?

There may well be another "wave" in the future, possibly when schools and universities return, but it is likely that any such wave will be small in scale and short in duration compared to previous waves.

There will be "waves" indefinitely; the virus is here to stay and will continue to evolve and adapt for humans, just as similar viruses such as OC43 did in the past. In the longer term it's likely to only occur within the traditional Coronavirus season but that could take a long time, and so "waves" outside the usual season can be expected for the short and possibly/probably medium term, but no-one really knows exactly.

The fact that cases are going down so dramatically without interventions will really dishearten those who seek to impose restrictions

But I think we still need to be on our guard against the locktivists and maskivists, who are probably holding a summer camp somewhere right at this moment, plotting their next move as to how they can scare one or more governments into reintroducing some level of restrictions over the winter.

Absolutely; don't forget communist Susan Michie and co want masks and social distancing to last "forever". She now has a top job at the WHO, which of course has further discredited the organisation, which already had a terrible reputation.

 

[Stephen42]

My point is exactly what I said earlier; the BBC choose to get "experts" whose views you appear to defend, but they don't ask the expert virologists or immunologists whose views don't conform to the BBC's alarmist agenda.

The "experts" you question are typically from UK HSA which has many virologists and immunologists. I suspect the epidemiologists are made available as it is their area of expertise.

This isn't comparable to a race; yes they are looking for something easy to measure, such as symptomatic illness (of any kind) when what really matters is actually difficult to measure (i.e. it's not anything like a car race and is about as different to that as you can get!)

The analogy was that the measurer often needs different skills to the person involved in creating what gets measured. Measuring real world vaccine effectiveness is difficult which is even more reason to have appropriately skilled people doing the job. Virologists and immunologists will often be consulted alongisde other clinicians to help inform their work. The sources I've quoted so far have been against a variety of measures, including trying to determine the most useful measures of hospitalisations post-Omicron.

The concept of endemic equilibrium is that a virus is ever present and it will increase in prevalence when a selective pressure occurs and then it will naturally come down without any interventions; this is the state in which we live with hundreds of common respiratory viruses. We don't know which virus types/strains/variants are going to be prevalent at any given time and we get good years and bad years in terms of deaths and serious illness. Sars-CoV-2 is destined to be the 5th human coronavirus which we live with.

Again I was talking about stability of that equilibrium, I'm aware of what endemic equilibirums are.

Well that article contradicts the trusted sources I have linked to; if you have any evidence to suggest the virologists and immunologists I've quoted are wrong, then feel free to present it.

Then I refer you to what I have said about boosters; but don't take my word for it, read the citations I've provided. I don't see how anyone could argue there is anyone more authoritative than people like Paul Offit on this subject.

I have quoted evidence, you discount it through lack of familiarity with the domain rather than reading up on it from sources you trust and some terminology you disagree with. I've already discussed the citations were about T/B cells rather than measuring against severe outcomes. I doubt we will agree so perhaps better to leave it there.

 

[yorkie]

The "experts" you question are typically from UK HSA which has many virologists and immunologists. I suspect the epidemiologists are made available as it is their area of expertise.

The analogy was that the measurer often needs different skills to the person involved in creating what gets measured. Measuring real world vaccine effectiveness is difficult which is even more reason to have appropriately skilled people doing the job. Virologists and immunologists will often be consulted alongisde other clinicians to help inform their work. The sources I've quoted so far have been against a variety of measures, including trying to determine the most useful measures of hospitalisations post-Omicron.

Again I was talking about stability of that equilibrium, I'm aware of what endemic equilibirums are.

I have quoted evidence, you discount it through lack of familiarity with the domain rather than reading up on it from sources you trust and some terminology you disagree with. I've already discussed the citations were about T/B cells rather than measuring against severe outcomes. I doubt we will agree so perhaps better to leave it there.

Unfortunately epidemiologists who comment to the media have frequently been found to be commenting well outside their area of expertise and time and time again many of them have been found to have made inaccurate claims.

You've not actually addressed key questions which I've asked and instead you're just waffling in an attempt to obfuscate and deflect.

Yes I can see why you want to finish it here; I've quoted experts who are not quoted by the media because they are highly experienced professionals who do not sensationalise, and their views differ from the 'experts' who are quoted in media outlets such as the BBC, who you appear to be defending.

You are well experienced in putting together some words to defend any view; you're clearly very eloquent, but you realise that you cannot possibly argue against the experts who I've quoted and so you seek an end to the discussion.

Well, that suits me too; we can end this charade and people can look at the opinions of the sensationalist epidemiologists trotted out by the BBC and read your defence of them, and they can also look at what the experts I've quoted (who don't seek fame and aren't courted by sensationalist media outlets) and they can judge for themselves who they believe.

But one thing we can both agree on is that there is no such concept as "the" science and there are many different scientists in related fields who disagree with each other.

 

[Mikw]

Well, i went down to watch the UFC at the 02 arena the Saturday before last with a few friends.

All 3 of them have come down with Covid, i (amazingly) haven't.

We all sat together, unmasked, and all travelled there and back in the same car. The only thing that is different about us is i have had five Covid vaccine injections as i'm in the clinically vulnerable group. They've only had a mixture or 2 and 3.

 

[yorkie]

Well, i went down to watch the UFC at the 02 arena the Saturday before last with a few friends.

All 3 of them have come down with Covid, i (amazingly) haven't.

We all sat together, unmasked, and all travelled there and back in the same car. The only thing that is different about us is i have had five Covid vaccine injections as i'm in the clinically vulnerable group. They've only had a mixture or 2 and 3.

So, what's your plan? Unlimited boosters to keep antibody levels up to avoid an infection for the rest of your life?

 

[Mikw]

So, what's your plan? Unlimited boosters to keep antibody levels up to avoid an infection for the rest of your life?

Well, it wasn't my plan. But when you're in the clinically vulnerable group i get texted repeatedly when there is a booster available. It's the same with flu vaccine.

I think it's sensible for those in the clinically vulnerable group. Anyway, it's anecdotal of course in my case but i thought it was worth mentioning.

One of my friends who got it has got it bad. She works in care (where infections are so dangerous) so has lost a week's work. She is usually one of the "early" ones to get a vaccine, but hasn't been offered the booster yet.

We've already booked to go and see the women's boxing there in September, but she doesn't want to go now.

 

[DustyBin]

Well, it wasn't my plan. But when you're in the clinically vulnerable group i get texted repeatedly when there is a booster available. It's the same with flu vaccine.

I think it's sensible for those in the clinically vulnerable group. Anyway, it's anecdotal of course in my case but i thought it was worth mentioning.

One of my friends who got it has got it bad. She works in care (where infections are so dangerous) so has lost a week's work. She is usually one of the "early" ones to get a vaccine, but hasn't been offered the booster yet.

We've already booked to go and see the women's boxing there in September, but she doesn't want to go now.

Anecdotally, my wife and I haven’t had a single covid vaccine and having both had a symptomatic infection in early January (our first) we’ve not had another in either of the subsequent “waves” despite almost certainly being exposed to the virus (like you we’ve been the only pair out of a group not to develop symptoms on two occasions now). My wife is an identical twin and her sister (fully vaccinated) was in both groups so “go figure”. This genuinely isn’t intended as some kind of anti-vaxx message incidentally, but I’d really like to know why these situations occur.

In regard to your friend, I’d really try and persuade her not to be put off living life over this. I presume you’re going to watch the Savannah Marshall fight? It will almost certainly be fantastic!

 

[Cdd89]

In relation to stability of equilibrium and media reporting, there’s clearly a tendency to report on increases because that makes for good headlines.

Low case rates interrupted by a brief high peak will get far more sensationalist coverage than a steady background level of medium-high case rates, even though the former may be better overall.

 

[yorkie]

Well, it wasn't my plan. But when you're in the clinically vulnerable group i get texted repeatedly when there is a booster available. It's the same with flu vaccine.

I think it's sensible for those in the clinically vulnerable group. Anyway, it's anecdotal of course in my case but i thought it was worth mentioning.

Yes I can imagine you would be keen to mention it; I'm glad you don't appear to be suggesting that constant and indefinite boosters to boost antibody levels would be a viable solution.

One of my friends who got it has got it bad. She works in care (where infections are so dangerous) so has lost a week's work. She is usually one of the "early" ones to get a vaccine, but hasn't been offered the booster yet.

Yes and I can imagine you'd be keen to tell us this too, but for balance I will point out the vast majority of infections are very mild or asymptomatic.

I know people who have been even more ill than that with commonly circulating viruses; it happens, unfortunately.

The frequency of more severe cases will continue to reduce as our population immunity increases.

The only way out of the epidemic is for as many people as possible to reach a high level of immunity, which we already have with the pre-existing Coronaviruses.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Well, i went down to watch the UFC at the 02 arena the Saturday before last with a few friends.

All 3 of them have come down with Covid, i (amazingly) haven't.

We all sat together, unmasked, and all travelled there and back in the same car. The only thing that is different about us is i have had five Covid vaccine injections as i'm in the clinically vulnerable group. They've only had a mixture or 2 and 3.

And you know for sure they all caught it in the O2?

 

[greyman42]

One of my friends who got it has got it bad.

What do you class as bad?

We've already booked to go and see the women's boxing there in September, but she doesn't want to go now.

Why? Does she think the virus is particularly bad at this venue?

 

[102 fan]

Well, i went down to watch the UFC at the 02 arena the Saturday before last with a few friends.

All 3 of them have come down with Covid, i (amazingly) haven't.

We all sat together, unmasked, and all travelled there and back in the same car. The only thing that is different about us is i have had five Covid vaccine injections as i'm in the clinically vulnerable group. They've only had a mixture or 2 and 3.

How severe are their symptoms?

 

[Mikw]

How severe are their symptoms?

Two of them say it's like having the flu, the care worker has been hit harder and given it to her elderly mum as well.

What do you class as bad?


Why? Does she think the virus is particularly bad at this venue?

Once bitten, twice shy i guess. 17.000 shouting and singing in close proxitimity to each other for 4 hours plus, and all the congestion around the venue as well. I guess it's no surprise really.

And you know for sure they all caught it in the O2?

Reasonably. We all took it carefully the week before in order to avoid testing positive before the event as the tickets cost a lot.

And they came down with it on Wednesday. So likely i would have said. But not 100 percent certain.

Yes I can imagine you would be keen to mention it; I'm glad you don't appear to be suggesting that constant and indefinite boosters to boost antibody levels would be a viable solution.


Yes and I can imagine you'd be keen to tell us this too, but for balance I will point out the vast majority of infections are very mild or asymptomatic.

I know people who have been even more ill than that with commonly circulating viruses; it happens, unfortunately.

The frequency of more severe cases will continue to reduce as our population immunity increases.

The only way out of the epidemic is for as many people as possible to reach a high level of immunity, which we already have with the pre-existing Coronaviruses.

Yes, i'm aware that other things can hit you harder. She got Norovirus from a Chinese takeaway a few months ago. She said she feels about as rough with this as she did with that. She does have a few underlying health issues though - as do i.

I was offered the booster but she wasn't. Some conditions for some reason aren't included, even though she has one that responds very badly to any virus.

 

[Howardh]

So, what's your plan? Unlimited boosters to keep antibody levels up to avoid an infection for the rest of your life?

I'd take that. I have the annual flu jab anyway, so adding a covid booster is no issue.

 

[Richard Scott]

I'd take that. I have the annual flu jab anyway, so adding a covid booster is no issue.

Bar the cost to the NHS if everyone does the same. What service reduction would be acceptable to you to allow for this?

 

[Howardh]

Bar the cost to the NHS if everyone does the same. What service reduction would be acceptable to you to allow for this?

How much does the flu jab cost?

In any case, the more that are vaccinated, the less chance they have of filling hospital wards later and costing the NHS money that could have been saved by protecting them and keeping them out. Win-win for the jab!

 

[duncanp]

Talking of stopping fearmongering...

GOOD RIDDANCE!!

Quite appropriate really that he is taking a job among old fossils. (at the Natural History Museum)

Sir Patrick Vallance will step down as No10's chief scientific adviser

No10's chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance will resign from his £185k-a-year post in April. He will then take on the role of chairman of the Natural History Museum's Board of Trustees.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Dr Doom's reign comes to an end: Sir Patrick Vallance will step down as No10's chief scientific adviser in the spring after becoming household name during Covid​

• Government's chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance will step down in April
• Famed appearing in Covid briefings his new job is at the Natural History Museum
• Sir Patrick slammed No 10's lockdown parties, but insiders say exit is unrelated

Sir Patrick Vallance will stand down as the Government's chief scientific adviser, it was announced today.

He became a household name during Covid, appearing next to Boris Johnson and his esteemed colleague Sir Chris Whitty during tense Downing Street briefings to talk the nation through the crisis.

But the 62-year-old was also nicknamed 'Dr Doom' during the pandemic for being the face of SAGE's bleak projections.

Sir Patrick will resign from his job, which pays up to £185,000-a-year, in April.

He will then take up the role of chairman of the Natural History Museum's Board of Trustees.

Boris Johnson said: 'Sir Patrick may not have bargained for becoming a household name when he signed up for the job.

'But I am immensely grateful for his advice and expertise throughout the pandemic and beyond.'

The outgoing PM added: 'It is impossible to fully convey the impact that Sir Patrick has had as chief scientific adviser.

'He has played an instrumental role in expanding and accelerating the science super prowess of this country.

'Overseeing the development and innovative use of new technologies, responding to the global threat of climate change, boosting the life sciences and health of our nation, and ensuring our policies and decisions are informed by the latest and best scientific thinking.

'It’s our scientists and clinicians, led by Sir Patrick, Sir Chris, and their team, that oversaw the largest vaccine rollout in British history together with my government.

'He will be missed by all when he leaves next year, and I wish him the very best in all future endeavours.'

Sir Patrick, who aspired to be a dinosaur hunter growing up, said he remains 'fully committed to my role until my successor takes up the role'.

As well as playing a leading part in the Covid crisis, he was also heavily involved in the COP26 climate negotiations.

He also leads the Net Zero Innovation Board, which provides strategic oversight of Government funding of net zero innovation programmes.

Sir Patrick was first appointed to the role in 2018, replacing his friend Sir Chris who was temporarily given the position.

Before then, he was an academic and a consultant physician as well as the president of research and development at GlaxoSmithKline.

He was among the key scientists who spoke to the public about Covid during the now famous televised briefings from Government on the pandemic, often standing alongside the PM and ministers.

Although, his response to the virus has not been without controversy.

In March 2020 he was forced to defend the Government's 'herd immunity' approach to not shutting down schools in the initial wave of restrictions.

He was also criticised for presenting a now infamous chart in one of the televised briefings in October that year suggesting there could be a shocking 4,000 deaths per day by December 20 if pandemic restrictions were not imposed.

But the figures came from an outdated model based on a projection that there would be 1,000 deaths per day by the start of November.

In reality, the daily average was lower than 200, meaning the prediction was five times too high.

Sir Patrick has also defended SAGE modelling which forecasted thousands of daily deaths during the Omicron wave.

Some anti-lockdown Tory MPs labelled these projections as 'scare mongering'.

But Sir Patrick said it was his not his job to spread optimism but to give ministers the data that they needed to make decisions.

The scientist has, however, also been praised for saying Covid management must become similar to flu.

Sir Patrick was originally knighted back in 2019 but was given a higher rank earlier this summer.

Speaking outside the royal residence after picking up the Order of the Bath medal in June, he said Sir Patrick slammed the lockdown-breaking parties in Downing Street as 'very disappointing'.

He said it was 'really important at all stages that everyone stuck to the rules'.

But he said Partygate showed this 'was not the case'.

Government insiders have insisted Sir Patrick's departure is not related to his criticism of the No10 parties but instead the end of his five year contract he started in 2018.

Fellow Covid guru Sir Jonathan Van-Tam, affectionately named JVT, announced he was stepping down as deputy CMO in January, just hours after Mr Johnson apologised to the nation for boozing with others in No10's garden.

Government sources also insisted that his exit wasn't related to 'partygate', claiming that his time was 'up' because he had been 'on loan' to Whitehall since 2017.

Others saw the influenza expert's departure as a sign that the worst of Covid was over.

Sir Patrick's and Sir Jonathan's exit from Government leaves fellow Covid household name CMO Sir Chris, who was also knighted for his service to the nation, the last virus guru standing.

They are all expected to feature prominently during the official inquiry into the response to coronavirus.

 

[Class 33]

Good riddance to Vallance! Out of those "advisors", he was by far the worst.

Also this weeks Covid dashboard has been updated today. Covid cases DOWN another 34% this week! Covid cases have been FALLING for the past 3 or 4 weeks. But I don't see the likes of Sky News, ITV News(including Good Morning Britain) mentioning this ATALL! The other week ITV News thought they were being clever when they had got access to some up to date Covid stats somewhere showing cases were up 7% compared to the week before. Probably just a very temporary blip that these stats were showing Covid cases were up 7%, and it was only 7% anyway which isn't that much anyway. Yet they made a great fuss about it on their news programmes saying "Covid cases are rising again, blah, blah, blah....". It's clearly evident now that Covid cases are FALLING week on week at a VERY GOOD rate. Yet they make no mention of this on their programmes do they? They're only interested in reporting any negative news they can find on Covid, and not any of the positives!

Not only Covid cases plumetting, but Covid deaths and hospital admissions(with Covid) are plumetting week on week. And without any pointless ridiculous nuisance restrictions such as mandatory wearing of face coverings and social distancing(or social nuisancing as I prefer to call it, as these particular restrictions are/were a dam nuisance!!). So those who were recently calling for "Covid restrictions MUST return" have been well and truly proved wrong! Do we think they'll get the message now? You'd think so wouldn't you. But if/when there's a rise in Covid cases again, they'll no doubt be shouting their nonsense again that "Covid restrictions MUST return" yet again. And the press and media promoting their nonsense yet again!

Really though by the autumn, we really need to finally see the end of the Covid stats being published altogether. We were told this would happen LAST autumn, and then again "By Easter". Yet it still hasn't happened!

 

[duncanp]

Really though by the autumn, we really need to finally see the end of the Covid stats being published altogether. We were told this would happen LAST autumn, and then again "By Easter". Yet it still hasn't happened!

You may find that Liz Truss whoever the new Prime Minister is does precisely that.

People will have enough to worry about with the increase in energy bills.

But the locktivists and maskivists will no doubt be plotting their next move, no doubt citing the example of Germany, where there are compulsory FFP2 face nappies on public transport until 7th April 2023, and also

• the threat of testing and vaccinations to enter certain indoor public spaces (eg restaurants and bars)
• the threat of capacity restrictions and social distancing if the "..capacity of the healthcare system is threatened.."

I really don't think there is the remotest chance of any of that happening in England, not quite so sure about Scotland or Wales.

 

[betraveler]

no doubt citing the example of Germany, where there are compulsory FFP2 facemask on public transport until 7th April 2023

Germany does have lower Positivity Rate than countries where it is not compulsory, I think most people would want to wear one if they knew everyone else would aswell.

Better to keep it than to lose it and have to bring it back, We will have to bring it back this winter in UK Im sure

 

[VauxhallandI]

Germany does have lower Positivity Rate than countries where it is not compulsory, I think most people would want to wear one if they knew everyone else would aswell.

Better to keep it than to lose it and have to bring it back, We will have to bring it back this winter in UK Im sure

Twaddle

 

[bramling]

Germany does have lower Positivity Rate than countries where it is not compulsory, I think most people would want to wear one if they knew everyone else would aswell.

Better to keep it than to lose it and have to bring it back, We will have to bring it back this winter in UK Im sure

Perhaps people might choose to wear one in their homes as a means of keeping their face warm, in the absence of being able to afford to pay their heating bill?

I think that’s going to be a rather more salient issue for many people this winter, especially as more and more people come to realise the hyper-inflation is a consequence of the prolonged Covid response.

 

[Darandio]

Perhaps people might choose to wear one in their homes as a means of keeping their face warm, in the absence of being able to afford to pay their heating bill?

I think that’s going to be a rather more salient issue for many people this winter, especially as more and more people come to realise the hyper-inflation is a consequence of the prolonged Covid response.

Indeed. We could have gone further as well with a bit of foresight, instead of polluting the world with trillions of disposable masks we could have tied them together and made millions of blankets to keep people warm this winter. Mask vest anyone?

Alternatively, people championing countries such as Germany for their mask policies are very welcome to piss off there and not come back.

 

[Richard Scott]

R

How much does the flu jab cost?

In any case, the more that are vaccinated, the less chance they have of filling hospital wards later and costing the NHS money that could have been saved by protecting them and keeping them out. Win-win for the jab!

Rubbish, as almost everyone who has the jab won't be vulnerable to virus and wouldn't have been hospitalised. Those who are vulnerable get it anyway so more like lose-lose if everyone has it.

 

[kez19]

Good riddance to Vallance! Out of those "advisors", he was by far the worst.

Also this weeks Covid dashboard has been updated today. Covid cases DOWN another 34% this week! Covid cases have been FALLING for the past 3 or 4 weeks. But I don't see the likes of Sky News, ITV News(including Good Morning Britain) mentioning this ATALL! The other week ITV News thought they were being clever when they had got access to some up to date Covid stats somewhere showing cases were up 7% compared to the week before. Probably just a very temporary blip that these stats were showing Covid cases were up 7%, and it was only 7% anyway which isn't that much anyway. Yet they made a great fuss about it on their news programmes saying "Covid cases are rising again, blah, blah, blah....". It's clearly evident now that Covid cases are FALLING week on week at a VERY GOOD rate. Yet they make no mention of this on their programmes do they? They're only interested in reporting any negative news they can find on Covid, and not any of the positives!

Not only Covid cases plumetting, but Covid deaths and hospital admissions(with Covid) are plumetting week on week. And without any pointless ridiculous nuisance restrictions such as mandatory wearing of face coverings and social distancing(or social nuisancing as I prefer to call it, as these particular restrictions are/were a dam nuisance!!). So those who were recently calling for "Covid restrictions MUST return" have been well and truly proved wrong! Do we think they'll get the message now? You'd think so wouldn't you. But if/when there's a rise in Covid cases again, they'll no doubt be shouting their nonsense again that "Covid restrictions MUST return" yet again. And the press and media promoting their nonsense yet again!

Really though by the autumn, we really need to finally see the end of the Covid stats being published altogether. We were told this would happen LAST autumn, and then again "By Easter". Yet it still hasn't happened!

Thats been the media from the outset, its been more on negatives and demanding restrictions back etc but then again is this the new normal of media we have now?


I agree they should be reporting that cases are falling/dropping but thats not what they want to report, I wonder why? Money talks so there is that option plus have we really heard much from the media talking heads on how much profit/loss they have made out of this? The media are quick to gaslight other industries and profiteering so lets hear it - how much have the mainstream media made out of this? Surely the public must know? Media have gone for Boris and his partying mostly so lets us the public find out what the media have done over the last 2 years (they are far from innocent let alone trying to play saints out of all of this - its time to open the books on them and scrutinise them).