Vaccine Progress, Approval, and Deployment

[NorthOxonian]

Hospitalisations is new entrants to hospitals, not the number of people in hospitals.

Oh, in that case you're probably right. Hopefully we'll be able to tell in the coming days.

 

[HSTEd]

Oh, in that case you're probably right. Hopefully we'll be able to tell in the coming days.

I went and looked it up, number of patients in hospital is falling about the rate as last time.

We do have a bunch of drugs that are supposed to speed recovery now ofcourse which might explain that.

 

[DorkingMain]

The effects of vaccination probably won't really show until March. It's very hard to separate the good effects of vaccination and the good effects of lockdown, but generally vaccines take 2-3 weeks to kick in. Illness progressing to hospitalisation also often takes 2-3 weeks. So we'll only see the benefits of vaccination until 4-6 weeks after the vaccination efforts really ramped up.

One positive element to the vaccination is that it should stop a post-lockdown spike that spooks everyone and makes the government think we need more restrictions (because they are incapable of nuance, as has been proven many times)

 

[35B]

Overall UK deaths seem to be falling faster than the peak, but hospitalisations seem to be falling slower.

Which I think is some evidence that the vaccinations are starting to have some impact.

But not necessarily as encouraging as all that, given that part of the problem with Covid is that it is overburdening hospitals. I'd be a lot more comfortable given the focus on high priority groups if hospitalisations were falling faster than deaths

 

[Yew]

But not necessarily as encouraging as all that, given that part of the problem with Covid is that it is overburdening hospitals. I'd be a lot more comfortable given the focus on high priority groups if hospitalisations were falling faster than deaths

Indeed, I do feel like it is a mistake to not have a more equal focus amongst groups 1-9, as groups 5-9 are those who cause the most strain on ICU, and hence a requirement for longer restrictions.

 

[Tezza1978]

It actually turned out that Vallance hadn't been in one of the briefings and had missed the discussion on some South Africa work (done by close contacts of PHE experts) that was about to be published several days later. With the additional E484K mutation it is fundamentally harder for specific antibodies to stick to that bit of the spike, the practical impact of which is "patients" having high viral loads for longer giving the new strain a transmission advantage. Hence why Hancock is still very worried byt he SA strain.

Jonathan van Tam squashed this today in the press conference - again said that the SA vaccine has no transmissibility advantage over the Kent variant and zero evidence that it will become dominant

 

[HSTEd]

But not necessarily as encouraging as all that, given that part of the problem with Covid is that it is overburdening hospitals. I'd be a lot more comfortable given the focus on high priority groups if hospitalisations were falling faster than deaths

It is still encouraging because it shows that the vaccines do work as advertised.

Jonathan van Tam squashed this today in the press conference - again said that the SA vaccine has no transmissibility advantage over the Kent variant and zero evidence that it will become dominant

It doesn't a the moment, but if the AZ vaccine only reduces the effectiveness of one variant, a transmissibility advantage will appear over time as vaccination progresses.
Whether it will be significant early enough to matter is another question.

 

[35B]

It is still encouraging because it shows that the vaccines do work as advertised.

Is it? Given the lags between infection, hospitalisation and death, that profile suggests to me that the fall is if anything due to lockdown, not vaccination. Given the timing of the vaccination campaign, I'd be expecting to see rising immunity beginning to affect case numbers rather than hospitalisations or deaths at this stage. Deaths, on the other hand, suggest the surge over Christmas beginning to work it's way through the system; what concerns me from your post is that we're not seeing the same degree of impact on hospitalisations where I'd have expected a combination of lockdown and vaccination to be leading the death rate down.

 

[HSTEd]

Is it? Given the lags between infection, hospitalisation and death, that profile suggests to me that the fall is if anything due to lockdown, not vaccination. Given the timing of the vaccination campaign, I'd be expecting to see rising immunity beginning to affect case numbers rather than hospitalisations or deaths at this stage. Deaths, on the other hand, suggest the surge over Christmas beginning to work it's way through the system; what concerns me from your post is that we're not seeing the same degree of impact on hospitalisations where I'd have expected a combination of lockdown and vaccination to be leading the death rate down.

But the average age of cases, hospitalisations and deaths are all different. (Hospitalisation median is ~63, death median is 80+)

Death rates should fall first, then hospitalisation, then case numbers.

The fact that hospital admissions are falling slower than last time but deaths are falling faster indicates a decoupling of hospitalisation and deaths, which is exactly what'd you expect given our oldest-first strategy.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

But the average age of cases, hospitalisations and deaths are all different. (Hospitalisation median is ~63, death median is 80+)

Death rates should fall first, then hospitalisation, then case numbers.

The fact that hospital admissions are falling slower than last time but deaths are falling faster indicates a decoupling of hospitalisation and deaths, which is exactly what'd you expect given our oldest-first strategy.

Below is English hospital admissions over last two months referenced to case rate which does show a slightly faster rate of decline in the older age groups whether its down to vaccine is debatable

 

[DerekC]

But the average age of cases, hospitalisations and deaths are all different. (Hospitalisation median is ~63, death median is 80+)

Death rates should fall first, then hospitalisation, then case numbers.

The fact that hospital admissions are falling slower than last time but deaths are falling faster indicates a decoupling of hospitalisation and deaths, which is exactly what'd you expect given our oldest-first strategy.

I think that's right - don't forget that a lot of deaths occur outside hospital, especially amongst the very old who would often rather die at home. I saw some figures for that the other day but I can't find them just now.

 

[Tezza1978]

It is still encouraging because it shows that the vaccines do work as advertised.


It doesn't a the moment, but if the AZ vaccine only reduces the effectiveness of one variant, a transmissibility advantage will appear over time as vaccination progresses.
Whether it will be significant early enough to matter is another question.

I think that was kind of what van Tam was getting at...by the time the Kent variant is suppressed by the vaccine and the SA variant is a significantly higher proportion, we will already be rolling out the boosters.
Seen a few scientists say that there is only so many ways the spike protein can mutate - and many potential ways actually make it less transmissible. The Valneva vaccine (a whole virus vaccine) and the other ones in development that target multiple variants or the main body of the virus (CureVac, others..) will also likely be available by autumn. I;m still pretty confident summer will be better than last year with fewer restrictions. I was pleased to see the Test and Trace stats have vastly improved which will also help keep cases even lower

Incidentally, I thought van Tam was excellent today. He is generally far less pessimistic than Whitty and Valance, is a great communicator and took a subtle swipe at the more hysterical elements of the media feeding frenzy on this. He has talked in interviews about wanting to get back to live football, pints with mates on the way to the match etc and is nothing at all like the lunatic fringe of SAGE / Independent SAGE (Sridhar, Michie, Ferguson etc )

 

[HSTEd]

Van Tam already stated that people should not expect inter-household mixing this summer.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Van Tam already stated that people should not expect inter-household mixing this summer.

Yes I noted that slip out and was slightly concerned.

 

[Mag_seven]

Van Tam already stated that people should not expect inter-household mixing this summer.

Fortunately he is a government advisor - he is not the government.

 

[yorksrob]

I think that if they don't offer something as relaxed as last summer, if not more so, the Government will suffer a crisis in compliance.

I've said previously that I believe that compliance with restrictions for the majority is dependant on them being temporary. If the vaccine roll out doesn't come in parallel with progress on getting nearer to normal, people will have their vaccines then make up their own minds what level of risk they are prepared to put up with.

 

[6862]

Van Tam already stated that people should not expect inter-household mixing this summer.

So what I was saying on another thread (and was shut down quite quickly about) regarding not seeing family for a very long time (likely not until next Christmas) is rather more likely than some on here would like to think! Yes he's only an advisor, but this tells us that keeping families apart for even longer is certainly something the government are looking at doing.

 

[yorksrob]

Realistically, the only way they could stop me seeing my family this year would be if they stopped IC travel and kept the hotels closed, even if, as last year, such meetings take place outdoors/outside of the home.

 

[bengley]

I've been to see my mum, who lives 280 miles away, multiple times throughout the last year. I won't be stopping.

 

[Domh245]

I think that's right - don't forget that a lot of deaths occur outside hospital, especially amongst the very old who would often rather die at home. I saw some figures for that the other day but I can't find them just now.

Hospitals are an order of magnitude higher than other locations. The last set of data for week ending 22/1 had 5866 covid deaths in hospitals, 1817 in care homes, and 739 in homes, hospices and all other locations

 

[philosopher]

So what I was saying on another thread (and was shut down quite quickly about) regarding not seeing family for a very long time (likely not until next Christmas) is rather more likely than some on here would like to think! Yes he's only an advisor, but this tells us that keeping families apart for even longer is certainly something the government are looking at doing.

To me not being able to see friends and family indoors from June onwards crosses a line. If by then, at a minimum gatherings of six indoors are not permitted, then I will seriously consider temporarily locating to a country with fewer restrictions.

 

[Кряква]

Van Tam already stated that people should not expect inter-household mixing this summer.

To me not being able to see friends and family indoors from June onwards crosses a line. If by then, at a minimum gatherings of six indoors are not permitted, then I will seriously consider temporarily locating to a country with fewer restrictions.

We need to stop this Britishness at some point because it's going to be our downfall.

You don't need to relocate, we collectively need to push back against all of this and stop doing it.

Otherwise, we'll end up with a brain drain style scenario and will be leaving our weaker countrymen to the wolves.

It's been a year. You probably said "oh well, I'll do this" 6 months ago. It's time - after vaccinations, we return to everyday life and leave Boris and his crew to figure out the new strategy.

 

[bengley]

Indeed, no need to relocate.

 

[Class 33]

Van Tam already stated that people should not expect inter-household mixing this summer.

Van Tam is only a government advisor, and the government doesn't have to do as he says.

Also do you remember just before Christmas when Johnson and his cabinet and maybe some government advisors like Van Tam were saying "Unfortunately big get togethers won't be possible this Christmas. Have your big get togethers at Easter instead."?. Well we're only several weeks away from Easter now! And it will be ridiculous if they now say something like "Unfortunately big get togethers this Easter(that you should have had last Christmas) will not be possible. Have your big get togethers at Christmas instead."!!!

They can't keep kicking the can down and fobbing us off with silly excuses. Though I'm not expecting life to be back to normal by Easter now. If however life is not back to normal by mid summer at the latest and there's still these silly laws/rules of social distancing, face mask wearing, "the rule of six", etc, then this will just be beyond ridiculous and insanity, and will be completely unacceptable. By early July it would then be 7 months since the vaccinations started and a very large chunk of the UK population would have been vaccinated, and those in hospital and those dieing of Coronavirus by then would be absolutely miniscule. So there is no reason atall why by then the country should not be back to normal again.

 

[35B]

Van Tam is only a government advisor, and the government doesn't have to do as he says.

Also do you remember just before Christmas when Johnson and his cabinet and maybe some government advisors like Van Tam were saying "Unfortunately big get togethers won't be possible this Christmas. Have your big get togethers at Easter instead."?. Well we're only several weeks away from Easter now! And it will be ridiculous if they now say something like "Unfortunately big get togethers this Easter(that you should have had last Christmas) will not be possible. Have your big get togethers at Christmas instead."!!!

They can't keep kicking the can down with silly excuses. Though I'm not expecting life to be back to normal by Easter now. If however life is not back to normal by mid summer at the latest and there's still these silly laws/rules of social distancing, face mask wearing, "the rule of six", etc, then this will just be beyond ridiculous and insanity, and will be completely unacceptable. By early July it would then be 7 months since the vaccinations started and a very large chunk of the UK population would have been vaccinated, and those in hospital and those dieing of Coronavirus by then would be absolutely miniscule. So there is no reason atall why by then the country should not be back to normal again.

Perhaps we should wait to see what effect the vaccines do have, and then consider how the risks look, rather than impose arbitrary timelines on what we do or do not consider acceptable. That's not about what you or I want (I have my own list of events and encounters in mind), but about raw, hard, numbers. And, unlike some, I don't assume that those implementing measures I personally dislike are doing so in bad faith, or with some kind of desire to control us - but in a serious attempt to manage the risks and consequences of a pandemic.

 

[Кряква]

Perhaps we should wait to see what effect the vaccines do have, and then consider how the risks look, rather than impose arbitrary timelines on what we do or do not consider acceptable. That's not about what you or I want (I have my own list of events and encounters in mind), but about raw, hard, numbers. And, unlike some, I don't assume that those implementing measures I personally dislike are doing so in bad faith, or with some kind of desire to control us - but in a serious attempt to manage the risks and consequences of a pandemic.

Sure.

If the vaccines work - excellent, we can go back to normal.

If the vaccines don't work - some people may wish to be careful and isolate, the rest of us can go back to normal.

"Distance indefinitely" is not a viable solution. The average IFR is around 1%. I've given up 2% of my life (more, if we assume that the mental health effects of lockdown have some level of permanence).

It's EV negative. In a few months I shall be doing as I please, I have enough funds to pay fines indefinitely. Not everyone is that fortunate hence the need for mass action.

 

[Yew]

Perhaps we should wait to see what effect the vaccines do have, and then consider how the risks look, rather than impose arbitrary timelines on what we do or do not consider acceptable. That's not about what you or I want (I have my own list of events and encounters in mind), but about raw, hard, numbers. And, unlike some, I don't assume that those implementing measures I personally dislike are doing so in bad faith, or with some kind of desire to control us - but in a serious attempt to manage the risks and consequences of a pandemic.

Any serious cost benefit analysis would find that restrictions on healthy people cause disproportionate harm. Even if the the vaccines not work as well as hoped, it's time to abandon these experimental measures and return to conventional pandemic protocols.

Sure.

If the vaccines work - excellent, we can go back to normal.

If the vaccines don't work - some people may wish to be careful and isolate, the rest of us can go back to normal.

"Distance indefinitely" is not a viable solution. The average IFR is around 1%. I've given up 2% of my life (more, if we assume that the mental health effects of lockdown have some level of permanence).

It's EV negative. In a few months I shall be doing as I please, I have enough funds to pay fines indefinitely. Not everyone is that fortunate hence the need for mass action.

0.2%, from Ioannis et al.

 

[Bantamzen]

Perhaps we should wait to see what effect the vaccines do have, and then consider how the risks look, rather than impose arbitrary timelines on what we do or do not consider acceptable. That's not about what you or I want (I have my own list of events and encounters in mind), but about raw, hard, numbers. And, unlike some, I don't assume that those implementing measures I personally dislike are doing so in bad faith, or with some kind of desire to control us - but in a serious attempt to manage the risks and consequences of a pandemic.

Well while we are on with raw, hard numbers, how many jobs can we afford to lose, how much tax revenue (that is needed for services like the NHS) can we afford to miss out on, how much more money can we borrow to pay people not to work or go to school?

Whatever you believe the decision makers are actually believing, it would be inaccurate to assume that they are all on the same page, just in the way scientists don't all agree on the best way to deal with the pandemic. There is a much bigger picture to consider, and I'm afraid we may not have time to wait for all the studies that will take place over the coming years to conclude. We know from the trials that the current vaccines do have an effect on reducing serious illnesses, hospitalisation, and deaths. Those are the key medical metrics, not how many people per 100,000 capita (or any other arbitrary figures pulled from the ether). And so if the trends now showing all medical interventions & deaths in sharp decline, I promise you deep inside the corridors of power conflicting views will be being aired, and in particular a lot of attention will be focused on the hard cost of restrictions.

This should have become apparent when public sector pay freezes were floated, wages are often the first victim when costs are too high (or perceived as such). In the coming months more & more cuts will creep in, along with tax increases & restructures. Even earlier signs last year were of a Chancellor seeming unwilling to keep extending the furlough scheme, and frankly the fact that he often referred to 2021 & beyond as going to be very difficult. He & his cabinet colleagues know the impending financial crisis we face, made all the worst by a botched Brexit. When infection rates were increasing, they had a smoke screen to hide behind, but now that is rapidly clearing and people are starting to ask the fundamental question:

"How the hell are we going to pay for all this?"

 

[yorksrob]

The vaccine rollout is indeed a watershed moment.

If they don't work as planned, it will be time to accept that science doesn't have all the answers (at least not yet), and enable people to live according to their own assessments of the risks.

 

[yorkie]

Van Tam already stated that people should not expect inter-household mixing this summer.

He can stuff it.

Perhaps we should wait to see what effect the vaccines do have, and then consider how the risks look, rather than impose arbitrary timelines on what we do or do not consider acceptable. That's not about what you or I want (I have my own list of events and encounters in mind), but about raw, hard, numbers. And, unlike some, I don't assume that those implementing measures I personally dislike are doing so in bad faith, or with some kind of desire to control us - but in a serious attempt to manage the risks and consequences of a pandemic.

Just to be clear are you proposing looking at Covid figures only, with no consideration for other factors?

We already know that vaccines reduce transmission, due to the data coming out of Israel; indeed the question for those 'in the know' has never been whether they reduce transmission, but how much they do.

"How the hell are we going to pay for all this?"

Probably through inflation at some point, though that's arguably a topic for a whole new thread. The pro-lockdown brigade don't generally care about any long term effects. It's all about Covid for them with nothing else considered.