Vaccine Progress, Approval, and Deployment

[Bald Rick]

Hire some football stadiums, and carry out mass jabbings, using the NHS and Armed Forces members

Train Amazon drivers; the whole country will be done by Friday.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Train Amazon drivers; the whole country will be done by Friday.

Aldi checkout employees would be more efficient I reckon - the whole country could be done in a few hours!

 

[LAX54]

Aldi checkout employees would be more efficient I reckon - the whole country could be done in a few hours!

Aldi checkout emplyees used to amaze me, before they had tills that scanned up the cost, they simply looked at the prduct and knew the prices ! the speed of the checkouts were amazing !

 

[The Ham]

Train Amazon drivers; the whole country will be done by Friday.

Unless you've got Prime and yours could be with you within 18 hours if you order in the next 36 minutes.

 

[21C101]

There are a few things we could and should have done in repsonse to this pandemic but haven't. We're told that it's a national (and global) emergency, the gravest threat to humanity in living memory, but when it comes to implementing relatively simple common sense actions the attitude of "nah that's too much hassle" seems to prevail....

The problem is that it is not remotely the greatest threat to humanity in living memory.

TB, Polio, Hitler, Stalin, Imperial Japan, atomic bombs being dropped on cities, devastating hong kong flu in 60s are all in living memory.

It is only because of our modern risk averse culture and the decline in belief in God making the prospect of death more terrifying that lockdowns, social distancing and other disruption of normal life has occurred.

If it really was the biggest threat to human life in living memory then there would be no need to pass laws ordering people to stay at home.

 

[6862]

The problem is that it is not remotely the greatest threat to humanity in living memory.

TB, Polio, Hitler, Stalin, Imperial Japan, atomic bombs being dropped on cities, devastating hong kong flu in 60s are all in living memory.

It is only because of our modern risk averse culture and the decline in belief in God making the prospect of death more terrifying that lockdowns, social distancing and other disruption of normal life has occurred.

If it really was the biggest threat to human life in living memory then there would be no need to pass laws ordering people to stay at home.

Very true words indeed.

 

[Wychwood93]

Very true words indeed.

Agreed. We have become a strange world during the course of my lifetime - I was born in '52, a year before rationing from WW2 finally finished and I am now in a world where we have the onerous restrictions that we have now, a variant of house arrest. Also the world of Sainsbury's selling a 'gingerbread person'.

 

[Richard Scott]

The problem is that it is not remotely the greatest threat to humanity in living memory.

TB, Polio, Hitler, Stalin, Imperial Japan, atomic bombs being dropped on cities, devastating hong kong flu in 60s are all in living memory.

It is only because of our modern risk averse culture and the decline in belief in God making the prospect of death more terrifying that lockdowns, social distancing and other disruption of normal life has occurred.

If it really was the biggest threat to human life in living memory then there would be no need to pass laws ordering people to stay at home.

Exactly but politicians and social media believe it is the biggest threat and are not prepared to deviate from that. As you point out if it were that bad we wouldn't venture out so laws would be unnecessary.

 

[Jozhua]

Exactly. They've had months to put in place the whole supply chain.

Next thing we'll find out is "they only make [Insert component] in China, and we're waiting behind 56 countries for the next batch".

As for labs, yes this should take priority over testing.

This maddens me. If we had a modicome of manufacturing capability in the UK, then we could perhaps respond to this stuff.

Heck, if someone asked me tomorrow to go and move boxes of vials or whatever I'd go and help. I'm sure a lot of other people would too.

The maddening thing with this pandemic is we have a load of people being told to sit round, waiting for politicians to slowly cobble together some shambolic plan for normality.

Do the vials get cleaned and reused, or do they have to have a brand new one for each set of doses?

I don't know. It may be one of those things that cannot be reused for safety purposes. Many medical products are destroyed after use, so they cannot be re-used.

There used to be horror stories of school vaccinations that had to run blood tests on the entire school a few months later because they had re-used the needles. Modern needles destroy themselves during use and have to be thrown away.

Hire some football stadiums, and carry out mass jabbings, using the NHS and Armed Forces members

I agree - to begin with, pharmacies have offered to distribute the vaccine. That would be a massive start.

There are a few things we could and should have done in repsonse to this pandemic but haven't. We're told that it's a national (and global) emergency, the gravest threat to humanity in living memory, but when it comes to implementing relatively simple common sense actions the attitude of "nah that's too much hassle" seems to prevail....

Tell me about it!

It seems like a lot is lazy and last minute.

I get the issue right now is "fill and finish" but they could have looked at these issues earlier. Some are saying that the reason enough doses aren't available, is that it can't be guaranteed they have the capability to use them on time, so they aren't being made. (there is a limited shelf life)

Plus, I'd of thought once the initial slow and steady phase is over, even if you have a limited amount, getting them to the public as fast as possible has to be a priority. If you have 500,000 doses, better to deliver them in one week at the beginning of the month, instead of over four.

Aldi checkout employees would be more efficient I reckon - the whole country could be done in a few hours!

Hahahha true, but you'd be expected to pull the needle out your arm after.

 

[DustyBin]

The problem is that it is not remotely the greatest threat to humanity in living memory.

TB, Polio, Hitler, Stalin, Imperial Japan, atomic bombs being dropped on cities, devastating hong kong flu in 60s are all in living memory.

It is only because of our modern risk averse culture and the decline in belief in God making the prospect of death more terrifying that lockdowns, social distancing and other disruption of normal life has occurred.

If it really was the biggest threat to human life in living memory then there would be no need to pass laws ordering people to stay at home.

No of course it isn’t. As I keep saying to people, turn off the news and look around you, does it look like we’re in the midst of a deadly pandemic?

 

[yorksrob]

This maddens me. If we had a modicome of manufacturing capability in the UK, then we could perhaps respond to this stuff.

Heck, if someone asked me tomorrow to go and move boxes of vials or whatever I'd go and help. I'm sure a lot of other people would too.

The maddening thing with this pandemic is we have a load of people being told to sit round, waiting for politicians to slowly cobble together some shambolic plan for normality.

Indeed. It would be totally unacceptable for the country to have to ensure a single minute of lockdown, as a result of not having put in place a small amount of manufacturing capability.

 

[LAX54]

No of course it isn’t. As I keep saying to people, turn off the news and look around you, does it look like we’re in the midst of a deadly pandemic?

I know of one person who has had it 'confirmed' and a few who 'think' they had it, I know of no one personally that has passed away from it, however this does not mean it is not serious, as it is, but I am still unsure of the corrrect figures, as the daily ones just list eveyone that has been confirmed with c19 be they really ill, or unaware they have it

 

[WelshBluebird]

No of course it isn’t. As I keep saying to people, turn off the news and look around you, does it look like we’re in the midst of a deadly pandemic?

Given I know quite a lot of people who have had it, a fair few of those who ended up in hospital, a small number of people who are still suffering the effects weeks or months on and a more than a couple of people who have passed away due to it, yes it does look like we are in a deadly pandemic.

Of course, the issue we have with this kind of crisis (and it is often the same when people think back to things like the millennium bug too) is that what we are seeing includes the effects of us trying to mitigate risk. If we did not do any lockdowns, did not social distance and basically just pretended like it didn't exist, then many many more people would have died (either directly from COVID, or indirectly through hospital capacity being taken up), so trying to claim it isn't serious because inidividual people may not know many people who have died is pretty disingenuous.

My dad thought similar to what it sounds like you do - that all of this was overexaggerated etc etc. He was asked to shield last March because he had cancer a year or so before and the treatment had got him added to the list of people who were recommended to shield - he thought that was rubbish and there was no need for him to worry or act any different to normal. Then one of his bosses got it from a colleague, the colleague died and the boss was ill in hospital for several weeks and still isn't 100%. The mum of an old school friend of mine got it and has since passed away. At least 2 people on his street have been in hospital because of it. He now doesn't think this is being exaggerated.

 

[roversfan2001]

If we did not do any lockdowns, did not social distance and basically just pretended like it didn't exist, then many many more people would have died (either directly from COVID, or indirectly through hospital capacity being taken up)

I don't necessarily think this is as entirely straightforward as you make out; the correlation between strictness of restrictions and deaths per capita when comparing countries is non-existent.

 

[DustyBin]

Given I know quite a lot of people who have had it, a fair few of those who ended up in hospital, a small number of people who are still suffering the effects weeks or months on and a more than a couple of people who have passed away due to it, yes it does look like we are in a deadly pandemic.

Of course, the issue we have with this kind of crisis (and it is often the same when people think back to things like the millennium bug too) is that what we are seeing includes the effects of us trying to mitigate risk. If we did not do any lockdowns, did not social distance and basically just pretended like it didn't exist, then many many more people would have died (either directly from COVID, or indirectly through hospital capacity being taken up), so trying to claim it isn't serious because inidividual people may not know many people who have died is pretty disingenuous.

My dad thought similar to what it sounds like you do - that all of this was overexaggerated etc etc. He was asked to shield last March because he had cancer a year or so before and the treatment had got him added to the list of people who were recommended to shield - he thought that was rubbish and there was no need for him to worry or act any different to normal. Then one of his bosses got it from a colleague, the colleague died and the boss was ill in hospital for several weeks and still isn't 100%. The mum of an old school friend of mine got it and has since passed away. At least 2 people on his street have been in hospital because of it. He now doesn't think this is being exaggerated.

I can’t agree with you I’m afraid. Whilst it can be serious for a small number of those who get it, I struggle to see a deadly pandemic. Indeed, twenty years ago the death kind of death rate we are seeing was quite normal. The virus has in effect managed to undo the advances made over the past couple of decades or so when it comes to helping people live longer. That is of course regrettable, I wouldn’t argue otherwise, but it’s not worth turning society on its head over in my opinion. We’re trying to fight nature and we can’t always win. My point wasn’t being made disingenuously based on my own anecdotal observations, it was being made based on the fact that for the overwhelming majority there is little or no risk.

In regard to the effectiveness of lockdowns and other restrictions, how do you know this? The data suggests they simply delay the inevitable. In other words, we can influence the shape of the graph but not the total area below the line, at least not to a significant degree. I’d argue that our last minute decision to pursue an untested and unproven lockdown strategy is what led to the mess in which we now find ourselves.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Indeed, twenty years ago the death kind of death rate we are seeing was quite normal. The virus has in effect managed to undo the advances made over the past couple of decades or so when it comes to helping people live longer.

The people I know who have died are in the 60's without any other immediate health concerns.
Continue this fiction of it only killing off people who were going to die soon anyway if you want - but it is just that, a fiction.
Sure - it mostly only kills those much older with existing issues - but it doesn't just kill those.

I don't necessarily think this is as entirely straightforward as you make out; the correlation between strictness of restrictions and deaths per capita when comparing countries is non-existent.

So if we took away social distancing etc, continued with large scale events etc, and basically acted like it doesn't exist - are you seriously claiming the death toll wouldn't be much higher (again, not just of people who die directly because of the virus, but also people who end up dying because of other things because hospital capacity is taken up by COVID patients - we are already close to that line in some hospitals as we are, it doesn't take a genius to work out what it would look like if we didn't do anything).

 

[Domh245]

The people I know who have died are in the 60's without any other immediate health concerns.
Continue this fiction of it only killing off people who were going to die soon anyway if you want - but it is just that, a fiction.

Nigh on 66,000 people in their 60s have died in the UK in the first 52 weeks of 2020 and only 7,500 of them had covid. People die of all sorts all the time, it's a sad fact of life

 

[37424]

The people I know who have died are in the 60's without any other immediate health concerns.
Continue this fiction of it only killing off people who were going to die soon anyway if you want - but it is just that, a fiction.
Sure - it mostly only kills those much older with existing issues - but it doesn't just kill those.


So if we took away social distancing etc, continued with large scale events etc, and basically acted like it doesn't exist - are you seriously claiming the death toll wouldn't be much higher (again, not just of people who die directly because of the virus, but also people who end up dying because of other things because hospital capacity is taken up by COVID patients - we are already close to that line in some hospitals as we are, it doesn't take a genius to work out what it would look like if we didn't do anything).

Indeed and lets not forget the primary reason for the lockdown is to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed that's its primary reason above all else, because if it does then not only does the death toll go up from covid because people don't get treated but the death toll goes up for other illnesses as well because they don't get treated either.

Of course the vaccine won't be the light at the end of the tunnel for quite a few people in the highly vulnerable group either, I just been told there is no point in me having the vaccine until I finish a particular treatment I'm having which won't be until the end of April, and even then its debatable as to how well it will work for me.

 

[35B]

I can’t agree with you I’m afraid. Whilst it can be serious for a small number of those who get it, I struggle to see a deadly pandemic. Indeed, twenty years ago the death kind of death rate we are seeing was quite normal. The virus has in effect managed to undo the advances made over the past couple of decades or so when it comes to helping people live longer. That is of course regrettable, I wouldn’t argue otherwise, but it’s not worth turning society on its head over in my opinion. We’re trying to fight nature and we can’t always win. My point wasn’t being made disingenuously based on my own anecdotal observations, it was being made based on the fact that for the overwhelming majority there is little or no risk.

In regard to the effectiveness of lockdowns and other restrictions, how do you know this? The data suggests they simply delay the inevitable. In other words, we can influence the shape of the graph but not the total area below the line, at least not to a significant degree. I’d argue that our last minute decision to pursue an untested and unproven lockdown strategy is what led to the mess in which we now find ourselves.

I agree, the government's last minute decision did help lead to the mess; the exponential spread at the time meant that a week's delay in imposing lockdown allowed for much broader spread. If we compare with other places - I suggest New Zealand or Isle of Man - it's apparent that an elimination strategy did work remarkably effectively by breaking the spread of the virus*. At the time, I would have opposed that approach; the longer things bounce along the bottom, the more inclined I am to think they may have made the right call.

Meanwhile, I observe the impact of the large numbers of people being brought into hospitals and draw the conclusion that there comes a point when it doesn't matter what percentage of people infected are hospitalised/die/suffer long term consequences, but that the scale of the outbreak is such that it endangers all because a vital part of what permits normal life is grinding to a halt. If I travel, I implicitly rely on there being A&E facilities if I fall/am in a road accident/get food poisoning/whatever; that underwriting is no longer true. Worse, if I have another condition, my chances of accessing care for it are reducing as hospitals' capacity for treating anything is swallowed by the demand imposed by Covid. These are not costs of lockdown, but costs of allowing an epidemic to spread such that the urgent (emergency Covid care) crowds out the important (e.g. planned cancer operations). Following Maslow, my basic needs are food, drink, shelter and health. Covid is now threatening health as some hospitals can no longer deal with their routine work. Other needs (in school education, social interaction, leisure trips) are higher up that hierarchy of needs, and as a result more dispensable to protect the core needs of all.

We can debate till the cows come home what capacity the NHS should have, and whether it is or was used effectively, and that debate is important. But, right now, government needs to work with what it has, not what we might like it to have.

* - yes, I do realise that there are significant differences of size and integration between them and the UK which may have made such a policy impossibly difficult in practice.

 

[Yew]

When discussing this, I think it's worth separating actions that are available initially, and actions that work once the virus in in endemic circulation in the general population.

 

[brad465]

Seems like Nationalism/British exceptionalism is affecting the vaccine rollout in a worrying way:

https://twitter.com/PaulWilliamsLAB/status/1347110494881116160

Some local patients have turned down an offer this weekend of getting a Covid vaccine when they found out it was the Pfizer one. “I’ll wait for the English one”. People at risk of death in the depths of a pandemic. A lesson that Nationalism has consequences.

 

[DustyBin]

The people I know who have died are in the 60's without any other immediate health concerns.
Continue this fiction of it only killing off people who were going to die soon anyway if you want - but it is just that, a fiction.
Sure - it mostly only kills those much older with existing issues - but it doesn't just kill those.

Who said it only kills people who were going to die soon anyway? I certainly didn't. But it does overwhelmingly affect the elderly and those with serious underlying health conditions as you've acknowledged. Many of these people have been kept alive by medical advances made over the last two or three decades which is great, but occasionally nature will find a way around our interventions. In 1990 the average life expectancy was 75, in 2020 it was 81. The average age of death from/with Covid-19 is 83. Of course there are outlying cases where younger and seemingly healthy people die, and whilst these are personal tragedies, they are statistically insignificant. We shouldn't, in my opinion, be wrecking our economy and society for years to come in response.

So if we took away social distancing etc, continued with large scale events etc, and basically acted like it doesn't exist - are you seriously claiming the death toll wouldn't be much higher (again, not just of people who die directly because of the virus, but also people who end up dying because of other things because hospital capacity is taken up by COVID patients - we are already close to that line in some hospitals as we are, it doesn't take a genius to work out what it would look like if we didn't do anything).

Large scale events are one thing, but we've introduced restrictions on peoples day to day lives that are very likely to be achieving nothing. I can forgive the decision to go into the first lockdown as we didn't know what we were dealing with and it was easier and safer to follow the crowd, what I can't forgive though is the refusal to backtrack once it became apparent that this wasn't anything like SARS or Ebola (for example). The majority of restrictions should have been dropped by May last year but we continued to pursue the fantasy of 'zero covid'. As @roversfan2001 has correctly pointed out, there doesn't appear to be any correlation between the severity of restrictions and death rates around the world. I can actually understand why that may be diffcult to believe, but the statistics clearly show that it is the case.

 

[Dent]

Seems like Nationalism/British exceptionalism is affecting the vaccine rollout in a worrying way:

https://twitter.com/PaulWilliamsLAB/status/1347110494881116160

Unsubstantiated anecdotes like this should be treated with caution. Even if one person did say they would prefer the Oxford vaccine, we don't know whether it really was anything to do with nationalism.

 

[Darandio]

Unsubstantiated anecdotes like this should be treated with caution. Even if one person did say they would prefer the Oxford vaccine, we don't know whether it really was anythign to do with nationalism.

Indeed. However, my response is you do not get a choice, you take what was offered or get to the back of the queue.

 

[RichJF]

Seems like Nationalism/British exceptionalism is affecting the vaccine rollout in a worrying way:

https://twitter.com/PaulWilliamsLAB/status/1347110494881116160

I'll have the Pfizer one if there's any left when my time to be vaccinated comes...at the end of the year probably!

In all honesty, as long as one of the vaccines gives you a high chance of survival & you're happy to have a jab, then take whichever one you get at this stage!

 

[DustyBin]

I agree, the government's last minute decision did help lead to the mess; the exponential spread at the time meant that a week's delay in imposing lockdown allowed for much broader spread. If we compare with other places - I suggest New Zealand or Isle of Man - it's apparent that an elimination strategy did work remarkably effectively by breaking the spread of the virus*. At the time, I would have opposed that approach; the longer things bounce along the bottom, the more inclined I am to think they may have made the right call.

Meanwhile, I observe the impact of the large numbers of people being brought into hospitals and draw the conclusion that there comes a point when it doesn't matter what percentage of people infected are hospitalised/die/suffer long term consequences, but that the scale of the outbreak is such that it endangers all because a vital part of what permits normal life is grinding to a halt. If I travel, I implicitly rely on there being A&E facilities if I fall/am in a road accident/get food poisoning/whatever; that underwriting is no longer true. Worse, if I have another condition, my chances of accessing care for it are reducing as hospitals' capacity for treating anything is swallowed by the demand imposed by Covid. These are not costs of lockdown, but costs of allowing an epidemic to spread such that the urgent (emergency Covid care) crowds out the important (e.g. planned cancer operations). Following Maslow, my basic needs are food, drink, shelter and health. Covid is now threatening health as some hospitals can no longer deal with their routine work. Other needs (in school education, social interaction, leisure trips) are higher up that hierarchy of needs, and as a result more dispensable to protect the core needs of all.

We can debate till the cows come home what capacity the NHS should have, and whether it is or was used effectively, and that debate is important. But, right now, government needs to work with what it has, not what we might like it to have.

* - yes, I do realise that there are significant differences of size and integration between them and the UK which may have made such a policy impossibly difficult in practice.

That's a fair post and I appreciate your acknowledgement of why the New Zealand approach was never a realistic option for us. It looks like our fundamental disagreement is that I think we should have let the virus spread over summer rather than continuing to supress it, as in doing so we stored up problems for winter, whereas you think supression is the best strategy(?).

In regard to the NHS my frustration is that it's needlessly hamstrung. You're right in that it can only work with what it has, but self-harming at a time like this and then saying it needs protecting via a lockdown is wrong. We are where we are but this has to be last time, and front line staff need to be at work not self-isolating uneccessarily.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

I note the increasing campaigns calling for all NHS workers and Teachers to be vaccinated asap to protect them, indeed on last night's Question Time there was a call for the Government to guarantee that schools will not reopen and teachers won't be asked to go back to the classroom until they had all been vaccinated.

Unless I am missing something, I can't quite see the logic in this.

Firstly let me say that if an NHS worker or teacher falls in to one of the categories already in line to get the vaccine very soon, due to their age or underlying conditions, then they should certainly get it in line, probably sooner rather than later.

But for everyone else:

a) There is currently no evidence that being vaccinated reduces the rate of transmission and there is no evidence that someone vaccinated cannot still carry the virus and transmit it to somebody else.
b) The current guidance is still that, even if you have been vaccinated, you are required to self isolate if you are a close contact or display symptoms.
c) For the vast majority of the population under the age of 60 then the risks posed by the virus are minute.

With those 3 points in mind, vaccinating all NHS workers and teachers in the younger age brackets who are currently not in line to get the vaccine just yet, will not necessarily reduce the chance of transmission, will not necessarily reduce the chance of those people carrying the virus and infecting others, and will not reduce the number of workers who are absent because they are self isolating. All we know the vaccine does is reduce the chance of someone who gets infected becoming seriously ill and ending up in hospital. But as the chances of someone younger without underlying conditions getting seriously ill and ending up in hospital anyway are very very small, surely it is more sensible to keep vaccinating to the already published priority groups rather than certain professions jumping the queue where the actual benefits of doing so wouldn't necessarily be seen?


On a separate note there has also been much mention, especially on BBC reports where they have visited hospitals, and also mentioned on Question Time last night that the average age of those in hospital and intensive care especially is much younger this time round. Question Time last night said the average age of those in intensive care was between 50 and 60.

If that is the case then will vaccinating the older groups realise the benefits that we expect to be able to reduce restrictions in late February / March? Will we have to wait till the 50 / 60 age groups get their vaccine before the pressure on hospitals reduce? In which case we'll be waiting till a lot later this summer before we can stop "protecting the NHS" with lockdowns.

The cynic in me thinks that be mentioning the age of those in hospital so much they are already buttering us up for an extension of restrictions till later in the year to ensure the NHS isn't overwhelmed by 50 - 60 year olds.

 

[yorksrob]

I note the increasing campaigns calling for all NHS workers and Teachers to be vaccinated asap to protect them, indeed on last night's Question Time there was a call for the Government to guarantee that schools will not reopen and teachers won't be asked to go back to the classroom until they had all been vaccinated.

Unless I am missing something, I can't quite see the logic in this.

Firstly let me say that if an NHS worker or teacher falls in to one of the categories already in line to get the vaccine very soon, due to their age or underlying conditions, then they should certainly get it in line, probably sooner rather than later.

But for everyone else:

a) There is currently no evidence that being vaccinated reduces the rate of transmission and there is no evidence that someone vaccinated cannot still carry the virus and transmit it to somebody else.
b) The current guidance is still that, even if you have been vaccinated, you are required to self isolate if you are a close contact or display symptoms.
c) For the vast majority of the population under the age of 60 then the risks posed by the virus are minute.

With those 3 points in mind, vaccinating all NHS workers and teachers in the younger age brackets who are currently not in line to get the vaccine just yet, will not necessarily reduce the chance of transmission, will not necessarily reduce the chance of those people carrying the virus and infecting others, and will not reduce the number of workers who are absent because they are self isolating. All we know the vaccine does is reduce the chance of someone who gets infected becoming seriously ill and ending up in hospital. But as the chances of someone younger without underlying conditions getting seriously ill and ending up in hospital anyway are very very small, surely it is more sensible to keep vaccinating to the already published priority groups rather than certain professions jumping the queue where the actual benefits of doing so wouldn't necessarily be seen?


On a separate note there has also been much mention, especially on BBC reports where they have visited hospitals, and also mentioned on Question Time last night that the average age of those in hospital and intensive care especially is much younger this time round. Question Time last night said the average age of those in intensive care was between 50 and 60.

If that is the case then will vaccinating the older groups realise the benefits that we expect to be able to reduce restrictions in late February / March? Will we have to wait till the 50 / 60 age groups get their vaccine before the pressure on hospitals reduce? In which case we'll be waiting till a lot later this summer before we can stop "protecting the NHS" with lockdowns.

The cynic in me thinks that be mentioning the age of those in hospital so much they are already buttering us up for an extension of restrictions till later in the year to ensure the NHS isn't overwhelmed by 50 - 60 year olds.

We keep on getting useless statistics from these people. Just saying that the "majority of people in intensive care are between age 50 and 60" is valueless in itself. They need to try and find out why this is. Options could be:

• The new strain is medically more likely to affect 50 - 60 year olds. I think this is unlikely, however if it were the case, they would become the priority for vaccination.
• 50 - 60 year olds are more likely to be in harms way due to not being retired, in which case we need to make it easier for them to stay out of harms way until they are vaccinated.

None of this will happen of course - it will just be an excuse for more lockdown, as indeed every permutation of everything that could happen is.

 

[DustyBin]

On a separate note there has also been much mention, especially on BBC reports where they have visited hospitals, and also mentioned on Question Time last night that the average age of those in hospital and intensive care especially is much younger this time round. Question Time last night said the average age of those in intensive care was between 50 and 60.

If that is the case then will vaccinating the older groups realise the benefits that we expect to be able to reduce restrictions in late February / March? Will we have to wait till the 50 / 60 age groups get their vaccine before the pressure on hospitals reduce? In which case we'll be waiting till a lot later this summer before we can stop "protecting the NHS" with lockdowns.

The cynic in me thinks that be mentioning the age of those in hospital so much they are already buttering us up for an extension of restrictions till later in the year to ensure the NHS isn't overwhelmed by 50 - 60 year olds.

I picked up on this as well, blatant fear mongering. I strongly suspect that very few older people are now being admitted to ICU's which will obviously lower the average age. They won't mention that though as it's all about the narrative....

 

[Class 317]

Just heard on radio that Hancock thinks a vaccine may be required every 6 months or annually. It didn't give any details as just a quick news update on absolute radio.

If that's the case it could get interesting reaching heard immunity. It will be interesting if more details come out as to why he thinks that.