Our total reliance on a vaccine and putting life on hold until it's rolled out

[yorkie]

Following the original thread from 5 months ago ( https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/reliance-on-this-covid-19-vaccine.203619/ ) it has become clear that we are completely reliant on a vaccine, at least with our current strategy.

As a forum member pointed out to me on Monday, this has now been confirmed by Matt Hancock:

Covid-19 Update - Hansard - UK Parliament

Hansard record of the item : 'Covid-19 Update' on Monday 19 October 2020.

hansard.parliament.uk

While, of course, no vaccine technology is certain, we must be prepared to deploy a vaccine as soon as one is safely available.

There are three vaccine trials under way in the UK: the AstraZeneca trial, which is frequently discussed; the Imperial College trial; and a trial of the Novavax vaccine. The period of the trial is dependent on the clinical results and on the data. Of course, of those three, the AstraZeneca trial is the most advanced and is in phase 3 trials. We are closely in contact with all of them to ensure that they get the support they need

We are doing everything in our power to suppress the virus, support the economy, support education and support the NHS until a vaccine is available. That is the right strategy, charting a path that allows for the greatest economic and social freedom while protecting life.

So if the vaccine is delayed, it remains yet to be seen whether or not the current strategy will persist. But the longer it goes on for, they will become more and more reluctant to change course.

Whether this is a sensible course or not is highly debatable; a forum member sent me a link to an interview with two US public health experts about the USA's response to Covid-19, and raises some very good points; a key extract related to the above point is:

We Need a Radically Different Approach to the Pandemic and Our Economy as a Whole

We talk to two public health experts about America's COVID-19 response and how poor households have borne a disproportionate share of the pandemic's hardship. We need to urgently fight for a more just society.

jacobinmag.com

I don’t think it’s wise or warranted to keep society locked down until vaccines become available.

This quote is from Katherine Yih, an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School.

Other pertinent points from the interview include:

... It is the country’s poor and working-class households, particularly those with children, who have borne a disproportionate share of the burden. ...

...Progressives need to reject the unquestioning lockdown approach, which is simply inappropriate unless and until hospitals and other health care facilities are in danger of being overwhelmed. We need to be scrupulous about protecting the elderly and other high-risk groups. Others should be permitted to go about their business and keep society functioning...

...I think the lockdown is the worst assault on the working class in half a century, and especially on the urban working class. In effect, we are protecting low-risk college students and young professionals who can work from home at the expense of older, high-risk, working-class people that have no choice but to work, leading to more deaths overall. There have been studies, for example in Toronto, that show that lockdowns have primarily protected high-income, low-minority neighborhoods, but not low-income or high-minority neighborhoods...

...Yes, the discussion of COVID-19 policy has become polarized into two camps, with most liberals advocating some form of lockdown and people on the Right arguing to open up..

(in the USA they must have a different meaning of the term "liberal" as most people in the UK who I know who describe themselves as "liberal" are against lockdowns)

 

[Bletchleyite]

(in the USA they must have a different meaning of the term "liberal" as most people in the UK who I know who describe themselves as "liberal" are against lockdowns)

The term "liberal" basically seems to have two meanings - it can mean its literal "loving of freedom", which is more a centre-right trait (also "libertarian"), or it can mean as per the Liberal Democrats which are a centre-left social democratic party. I wonder if it's even worth using it because of that.

 

[big_rig]

My hope is that the powers that be know this is all nonsense, and that they will try and use the first 'vaccine' (I put it in inverted commas because it evidently will not mean that nobody ever gets or dies of covid again if they have it, which seems to be the common (mid)understanding) as a 'circuit breaker' to jolt society out of the hypochondriac state it is in, even if it isn't much different from a placebo.

We live in strange times and it may be wishful thinking but I could see a scenario in which, like how quickly people have become solely occupied with the need to focus on covid and ignore other health and economic issues, even a near placebo vaccine could make covid a distant memory and have it lumped in with other respiratory illnesses that we just have to deal with once the most vulnerable etc have had their injection. This is of course essentially the position of our scientific advisors in March this year - don't shut the world down, take common sense precautions if unwell etc.

Whether they think this or they actually believe what they say in the case of Hancock saying nothing changes until the 'real' vaccine comes in is a different matter but it's my hope at least..

 

[yorkie]

The term "liberal" basically seems to have two meanings - it can mean its literal "loving of freedom", which is more a centre-right trait (also "libertarian"), or it can mean as per the Liberal Democrats which are a centre-left social democratic party. I wonder if it's even worth using it because of that.

Understood, I don't want this thread to be a debate on that point but thanks for the explanation as this can be a cause of confusion.

The key points here is that, regardless of right vs left, libertarian vs authoritarian, locking down disproportionately affects:

• younger people
• disadvantaged people
• people in lower income jobs
• people in public-facing jobs
• mental wellbeing
• people in smaller homes
• people in higher density housing
  etc...

Locking society down until a vaccine has been rolled out is ostensibly to benefit older/wealthier people; they are blunt instruments akin to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, which could cause major societal and economic problems for years to come.

The vaccine is currently expected to start being rolled out from January if we're lucky, but it's unclear how rapid progress will be. And let's not forget, young people are expected to catch the virus - just not yet; they have to lose their livelihoods and mental wellbeing first.

Coronavirus vaccine head: Less than half of the UK population could get vaccinated

The head of the country's vaccine taskforce says the idea of vaccinating the whole population is "misguided".

news.sky.com

The head of the immunisation programme told the Financial Times: "People keep talking about 'time to vaccinate the whole population' but that is misguided.

"There is going to be no vaccination of people under 18.

"It's an adult-only vaccine for people over 50 focusing on health workers and care home workers and the vulnerable."

My hope is that the powers that be know this is all nonsense...

I can assure you that the powers that be intend to remain on the current course regardless, even if millions are out of work, even if the mental wellbeing of many young/poorer people is shattered, even if we risk economic collapse and/or hyperinflation. Even an increase in suicides would not make them change course. Literally nothing else matters other than keeping deaths with Covid down. Everything else is insignificant to them.

The majority of people do not agree with it, however those that want this course are incredibly vocal (and have lots of spare time to fill out ludicrously worded YouGov polls) and create the illusion of being the majority; that vocal minority will continue to be listened to above everyone else for the foreseeable future.

 

[Yew]

I think we have to have a open discussion about the actual timelines for a safe effective vaccine, and an unsensationalised discussion about the actual other options; this is much less deadly than we thought back in March, and it seems to be much more difficult to suppress than we hoped.

If we could suppress by following the same actions in early September, maybe it would be manageable, but I think it's clear that a socially acceptable level of restrictions cannot keep this thing in check, and we have to choose between suppressing a virus, and having a functional society.

Borises list of promises ("turn the tide in six weeks", "send COVID packing by may", "vaccine by September, "significant normality by November") seem to have a 100% failure rate, so I'm reluctant to trust anything he says about vaccines, especially as we don't know if they will give strong sterilising immunity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think we have to have a open discussion about the actual timelines for a safe effective vaccine, and an unsensationalised discussion about the actual other options; this is much less deadly than we thought back in March, and it seems to be much more difficult to suppress than we hoped.

I do agree - unsensationalised on both sides. A good start would be the repeal of the relevant parts of the Acts that permit Regulations to be put in place, with all future measures subject to Parliamentary debate. Emergency measures are no longer needed; there is time to watch the curves so they can be determined a couple of weeks in advance so as to allow for due process.

 

[cactustwirly]

There are no current vaccines for any other Coronaviruses available. What makes Covid any different?

I seriously doubt a vaccine is the answer

 

[Yew]

I find articles like this particularly concerning

If you're pinning your hopes on a Covid vaccine, here's a dose of realism | David Salisbury

A targeted immunisation programme may offer some protection, but it will not deliver ‘life as normal’

www.theguardian.com

Adherence to recommendations for any Covid-19 interventions – social distancing, lockdowns, home working, cancelled holidays or vaccinations – depend on trust. If politicians are telling us that the present impositions on our lives are only going to last until we have vaccines, then the reality is that a false hope is being promulgated.

Vaccines are probably the most powerful public health intervention available to us. But unless their benefits are communicated with realism, confidence in all recommendations will be put at risk.

While hope and optimism are much needed in these dark times, it is important to be transparent. We need to communicate the clear message that although targeted vaccination may offer some protection, it will not simply deliver “life as we used to know it”.

It almost feels like there is a subset of people who simply don't want life to return to normal under any circumstances.

Borises list of promises ("turn the tide in six weeks", "send COVID packing by may", "vaccine by September, "significant normality by November") seem to have a 100% failure rate, so I'm reluctant to trust anything he says about vaccines, especially as we don't know if they will give strong sterilising immunity.

The article above also says:

The UK’s deputy chief medical officer, Prof Jonathan Van-Tam, reportedly told MPs a vaccine developed by Oxford University and AstraZeneca could be ready for deployment in January, while Sir Jeremy Farrar, Sage scientific advisory group member and a director of the Wellcome Trust, has said at least one of a portfolio of UK vaccines could be ready by spring.

I'm willing to bet that will be added to my list of broken promises above. If it wasn't so serious it would be funny how this vaccine always seems to be three to six months away...

 

[yorkie]

There are no current vaccines for any other Coronaviruses available. What makes Covid any different?

I seriously doubt a vaccine is the answer

To be fair, it's not economical to develop a vaccine for a virus strain that we already have a lot of immunity for (whether you call that "herd immunity" or not) and for which the symptoms are mild.

A colleague of mine was seriously ill with a rhinovirus but we already have a lot of immunity to rhinoviruses and the proportion of people who are seriously ill is low enough that it's not worth developing vaccines for them.

It almost feels like there is a subset of people who simply don't want life to return to normal under any circumstances.

Oh there are, absolutely.

 

[kristiang85]

To be fair, it's not economical to develop a vaccine for a virus strain that we already have a lot of immunity for (whether you call that "herd immunity" or not) and for which the symptoms are mild.

And as this virus is showing signs of already going endemic, I'm not sure the current costs are justifiable either. Most of the identified common cold coronaviruses in circulation can be attributed to a big spike epidemic in the past, but they've now settled into society. As this one will do. It can still be dangerous, but so are other regular viruses - I read recently 8% of winter deaths in care homes pre-2020 are attributable to 'the common cold'.

I agree with @big_rig above that I think the most realistic endgame is a vaccine of sorts being released, and then the government can extricate themselves out of this mess by saying the vaccine is here so the restrictions can ease. Then they can hope people don't do too much digging.

 

[big_rig]

I find articles like this particularly concerning

If you're pinning your hopes on a Covid vaccine, here's a dose of realism | David Salisbury

A targeted immunisation programme may offer some protection, but it will not deliver ‘life as normal’

www.theguardian.com

It almost feels like there is a subset of people who simply don't want life to return to normal under any circumstances.



The article above also says:


I'm willing to bet that will be added to my list of broken promises above. If it wasn't so serious it would be funny how this vaccine always seems to be three to six months away...

I found that article quite interesting, as well as being seriously concerning - the author clearly wants the vaccine to eliminate covid, and is irritated that the Government seemingly doesn't. I hope they stick to their guns and choose the first one to come out the blocks as an off-ramp. As you say though there is the fear that vaccines become like driverless cars, or other tech fixed - always another six months away! Except in this case the consequences are infinitely more grave.

I think you are also right about the people who don't want things to return to normal, ever. I get the feeling a lot of people who have found themselves in positions of influence now on account of having studied fields which essentially nobody has really cared about before and left alone (epidemiology has never impacted my life in any day to day sense previously, now it is banning things left right and centre) will be very difficult to prise from their newfound positions of power, even though they are basically making it all up as they go along at this stage. The prospect of going back to being sidelined in academia and not listened to anymore cannot be that appealing on a base level to some.

 

[WelshBluebird]

There are no current vaccines for any other Coronaviruses available. What makes Covid any different?

I seriously doubt a vaccine is the answer

Compare the amount of time, money and effort being thrown into this vaccine compared to other Coronaviruses. There is your answer.
Note - I am not saying this means we will get a vaccine. But it does answer why this situation may well turn out differently.

 

[Nicholas43]

I'm 77. I don't want on-off brutal regional shut-downs of businesses in the hope that effective vaccine(s) will be available in 2021. I would like evidence-based advice on how I can avoid exposure to SARS-CoV-2 while allowing young people to get on with their lives. For example, I'd happily stay away from crowded bars, but continue to take long walks in the woods with one or two family or friends.

 

[philosopher]

It almost feels like there is a subset of people who simply don't want life to return to normal under any circumstances.

This is what worries me the most. There seem to be some people, likely a minority though who want life to permanently changed as a result of all this, probably because they personally benefit from it in some way.

I would be Ok with all these measures if I knew the aim was to return life to normal as soon as possible (e.g when there is no risk of an overwhelmed NHS due to Covid). At least then all the sacrifices of this year would be sort of worth if. However if life is never going to return to normal then you start to wonder what is the point of complying with all these restrictions.

 

[hwl]

There are no current vaccines for any other Coronaviruses available. What makes Covid any different?

I seriously doubt a vaccine is the answer

The group at Oxford were in early stage testing for a MERS vaccine when this all kicked off, they quickly used the same approach they took for MERS for their Covid vaccine.

 

[adc82140]

The issue seems to be not whether a vaccine is actually effective, but more get something that's safe out that may help a little, but is really an offramp for the government. They can then wind down the testing and blame the strains on the NHS on seasonal demand (which is what it is).

 

[STINT47]

A few of the problems with waiting for a vaccine include

One may never be developed.
It may not be very effective.
A significant minority may not take it.
The virus may mutate
The economy is tanking
Thousands are dying from other diseases

If a vaccine doesn't come, comes late or doesn't work then we've gone through all this for no real gain.

Assuming we dont all sit at home on 80% pay for ever more.

 

[WelshBluebird]

It almost feels like there is a subset of people who simply don't want life to return to normal under any circumstances.

This is what worries me the most. There seem to be some people, likely a minority though who want life to permanently changed as a result of all this, probably because they personally benefit from it in some way.

I would be Ok with all these measures if I knew the aim was to return life to normal as soon possible (e.g when there is no risk of an overwhelmed NHS due to Covid). At least then all the sacrifices of this year would be sort of worth if. However if life is never going to return to normal then you start to wonder what is the point of complying with all these restrictions.

I'd like to question what do we mean by getting back to normal?
In terms of leisure etc I agree with you.
But in terms of work - if people are able to work just as effectively remotely (appreciate this is often industry, company and individual dependent) then why shouldn't they be pushing for that change to remain?
And in terms of traffic - I can't be the only person who thinks the increase in air quality and the reduction in air pollution during lockdown was a good thing.

 

[Yew]

As you say though there is the fear that vaccines become like driverless cars, or other tech fixed

I think it's interesting that you mention driverless cars, as they're another area where they must be 'perfectly' safe to be acceptable, not just 'as safe on average as a normal driver'

I'd like to question what do we mean by getting back to normal?
In terms of leisure etc I agree with you.
But in terms of work - if people are able to work just as effectively remotely (appreciate this is often industry dependent) then why shouldn't they be pushing for that change to remain?
And in terms of traffic - I can't be the only person who thinks the increase in air quality and the reduction in air pollution during lockdown was a good thing.

I'm going to suggest the best measure in my view is that all of the governmental restrictions on our lives introduced to 'fight' COVID have been repealed.

 

[JB_B]

There are no current vaccines for any other Coronaviruses available.

That is simply false. There are a number of vaccines licensed for use against various coronavirus infections in animals ( e.g against FIPV -cats,CCV - dogs, TGEV - pigs, BCoV - cows )

 

[hwl]

if I knew the aim was to return life to normal as soon possible (e.g when there is no risk of an overwhelmed NHS due to Covid)

Define " normal" - That assumes back to normal or life as it was before is possible.
Some change has already happened, some is yet to come.
e.g.
The growth in internet shopping in 2020 (measured post shops reopening to remove the lockdown peak) is equivalent to about the previous 4 years growth - that genii isn't going back into the bottle so physical retail will be smaller than it was before, that will probably mean many fewer stores in lots of areas.
More home working for some.
A larger NHS (/PHE etc) budget so everyone is paying more tax.
globally companies are looking at hiking automation levels again which is generally not good for low /medium skilled employment

These all have knock on effects which then cause other changes.

 

[Yew]

I'd suggest that this "what is normal" debate is for another thread.

 

[philosopher]

I'd like to question what do we mean by getting back to normal?
In terms of leisure etc I agree with you.
But in terms of work - if people are able to work just as effectively remotely (appreciate this is often industry dependent) then why shouldn't they be pushing for that change to remain?
And in terms of traffic - I can't be the only person who thinks the increase in air quality and the reduction in air pollution during lockdown was a good thing.

With regards to work, I personally feel I am considerably less productive working remotely, also I live alone so working from home has social isolation issues for me. Due to these two issues if working from home is to become the new norm, I suspect I will ultimately change to a job that can’t be worked from home. Working from home also creates issues for those industries reliant of office workers. I think the key point here is that while this does have winners, it also has losers too.

In terms of pollution, electric cars would also reduce air pollution.

 

[bramling]

Following the original thread from 5 months ago ( https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/reliance-on-this-covid-19-vaccine.203619/ ) it has become clear that we are completely reliant on a vaccine, at least with our current strategy.

As a forum member pointed out to me on Monday, this has now been confirmed by Matt Hancock:

Covid-19 Update - Hansard - UK Parliament

Hansard record of the item : 'Covid-19 Update' on Monday 19 October 2020.

hansard.parliament.uk

So if the vaccine is delayed, it remains yet to be seen whether or not the current strategy will persist. But the longer it goes on for, they will become more and more reluctant to change course.

Whether this is a sensible course or not is highly debatable; a forum member sent me a link to an interview with two US public health experts about the USA's response to Covid-19, and raises some very good points; a key extract related to the above point is:

We Need a Radically Different Approach to the Pandemic and Our Economy as a Whole

We talk to two public health experts about America's COVID-19 response and how poor households have borne a disproportionate share of the pandemic's hardship. We need to urgently fight for a more just society.

jacobinmag.com

This quote is from Katherine Yih, an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School.

Other pertinent points from the interview include:




(in the USA they must have a different meaning of the term "liberal" as most people in the UK who I know who describe themselves as "liberal" are against lockdowns)

I agree. Gambling on a vaccine is not a strategy we should be taking lightly, and personally I don’t think we should be doing it at all.

At the very least such a strategy should have been subject to the usual mechanism of parliamentary debate and scrutiny, as it’s probably the most serious and far-reaching policy decision made in most of our lifetimes, or at least ranking equally with some of the biggest foreign policy decisions made since 1945.

 

[C J Snarzell]

The vaccine issue for me is like throwing all the eggs in one basket. Do we honestly believe there will be a suitable vaccine?

Chris Whitty once commented months ago about vaccine trials ready for the winter of 2021/22.

This is at least a year away, and so far we have suffered seven months of this draconian madness. Can this Country honestly survive or comply with all this chaos for maybe another 18 months with no guarantee of a solution?

I'm actually hoping that if this goes on long enough we might start seeing mass rebellion nation wide, possibly civil unrest. It is not something I would like to see, because of the effect it will have on policing and social impacts in local communities, but something has to give sooner or later.

The government are clearly fixated on the virus - while jobs, the economy, mental health, other illnesses are being relagated to second place. The news about Greater Manchester going into Tier 3 has simply got peoples backs up even more.

I was quite content to follow rules back in March but I'm now at the stage of self preservation and looking after my own mental health has to take priority.

For the sake of my own sanity - I will be visiting my parents once a fortnight at their respective addresses (they divorced 30 years ago) but I intend to be sensible and sit outside in the garden with my jacket and brew a good distance away from them.

The government says you cannot do garden visits under Tier 3 - it's like being backed into a corner with your hands tied behind your back now. Well, for my own health & wellbeing, the government can go take a hike with one or two of their no-no's.

If other forum members disagree with me here, then fair enough, but I am starting to get really disillusioned by all these Covid 'dos & don'ts' which seem to change more frequently than the weather.

CJ

 

[philosopher]

The vaccine issue for me is like throwing all the eggs in one basket. Do we honestly believe there will be a suitable vaccine?

Chris Whitty once commented months ago about vaccine trials ready for the winter of 2021/22.

This is at least a year away, and so far we have suffered seven months of this draconian madness. Can this Country honestly survive or comply with all this chaos for maybe another 18 months with no guarantee of a solution?

I'm actually hoping that if this goes on long enough we might start seeing mass rebellion nation wide, possibly civil unrest. It is not something I would like to see, because of the effect it will have on policing and social impacts in local communities, but something has to give sooner or later.

I think for the next few months civil unrest is unlikely, I think it far easier for people to ignore the restrictions rather than protest against them, particularly given the odds of getting caught are very low.

However if a vaccine is only given to the vulnerable, as that article from the Guardian alluded to, then I think for a lot young people that might be when it tips from non compliance to rebellion / protest.

 

[yorksrob]

I think it's interesting that you mention driverless cars, as they're another area where they must be 'perfectly' safe to be acceptable, not just 'as safe on average as a normal driver'


I'm going to suggest the best measure in my view is that all of the governmental restrictions on our lives introduced to 'fight' COVID have been repealed.

I agree with your second point. If some people decide to work from home more often, or some people decide to live their lives differently, then that is normality. So long as we aren't compelled to do so through draconian means.

 

[jfollows]

I find it frustrating that there appears to be a lack of evidence on who is getting the virus, and how it's being spread, since July or so. Is it "young" people who are getting it, and passing it on to "old" people? Under what circumstances and in what environments is this thing being spread?

I feel that better knowledge would better inform a response. So there's going to be a vaccine, so it's going to get partial take-up, so it's going to be partially effective. Fine. But even having 15% of a population additionally immune to the virus in some way can have a significant effect. But if it's the "young" who are getting infected, they're the ones who should be getting the vaccine, not "old" people like me (almost 60). I'm not going to get it because I don't go out and about these days, and I'm happy not to.

Giving the vaccine to the "vulnerable" may not be the correct approach. The people who need it are the people most likely to benefit from it, and if it means that "young" people don't get the virus in the first place and then don't pass it on to "old" people who die from it, that might be better than targetting the "old" people in the first place.

It's not simple. But I am frustrated by the lack of evidence at the moment - I need to do more research I think.

 

[Bikeman78]

I think we have to have a open discussion about the actual timelines for a safe effective vaccine, and an unsensationalised discussion about the actual other options; this is much less deadly than we thought back in March, and it seems to be much more difficult to suppress than we hoped.

If we could suppress by following the same actions in early September, maybe it would be manageable, but I think it's clear that a socially acceptable level of restrictions cannot keep this thing in check, and we have to choose between suppressing a virus, and having a functional society.

I'm inclined to agree. There is no magical middle way whereby people have a life but Covid does not spread. Some of my friends seem content to work from home and do very little else for as long as it takes but that doesn't work for everyone.

 

[Class 33]

It has been extremely annoying after we had got the daily deaths down to very low figures and there was some hope on the horizon of all these restrictions being lifted by Christmas, that we've now got this blasted second wave and daily cases, deaths, hospital admissions have all shot right up and are still continuing to do so. The government aren't going to lift these seemingly never-ending social distancing and face mask restrictions/laws anytime soon whilst these numbers are still continuing to increase. There is just no end in sight again at the moment, as there was back in March and April.

Once we do finally reach the peak and all the stats start falling, then there is some hope on the horizon. It may well take at least a few months though from that peak to get those down to very low numbers again. But once the deaths are down to very low numbers again, then that should be the time that all these restrictions should be lifted at a fast rate, and we can start getting back to normal again. I'm prepared that these restrictions are going to continue until as late as the end of March 2021 when the law that requires the government to make these restrictions will then expire, unless this is extended again.

But come 31st March and if Coronavirus is still about but there's still no vaccine, then we just have to see the end of all this social distancing, face mask, local lockdowns, etc then, so that we can get back to normal, albeit having to still live with Coronavirus. By then we would have put up with these restrictions for 12 long months. We just can't continue with all this madness indefinitely until when or if a vaccine is found. This is all wearing people down. It's ruining the economy, and people's livelihoods and mental health.