What if herd immunity can't be reached with a vaccine, as too many refuse to have it?

[DelayRepay]

We have a Prime Minister who ws reluctant to impose the lockdown, reluctant to mandate wearing face coverings in shops and generally does seem keen to give people as much freedom as possible by lifting restrictions. Whether you think he's handled things well or not, I do not think he is keen to force anyone into taking steps that they do not wish to take. For this reason, I cannot see forced vaccination even being an option, politically.

In practice, there won't be enough to go around initially, so they will start with the most vulnerable and I think they have also said healthcare workers will be prioritised. It will be a long time before there's enough surplus vaccination to start worrying about people who'd rather not have it, and by that point some will have changed their minds because they'll have seen others vaccinated without ill effects. Personally, I think if they do prioritise healthcare workers, and the Doctors I know choose to have it, that will give me much more confidence to have it myself.

I have a question (and sorry if this is the wrong thread!) - If someone is vaccinated, and comes into contact with a Covid carrier, could they still 'catch' Covid and potentially spread it to others until the vaccine does its stuff? Or does the vaccine mean you're safe and could spend a day working on a Covid ward without any PPE, then go home to your family safe in the knowledge that you won't infected (obviously you would change clothes and wash!)

 

[Bantamzen]

There's a lot of talk of a vaccine, or in some cases 'the' vaccine on here. So may I take a few moments to pour some very cold water over all of this. Regardless of what politicians and their advisers like to chirp, even the most advanced of trials are only starting to enter the larger scale testing. These will take months to complete, and evaluate. Then and only then will they then move into the stages of certification, which is a process which also may take months. Nobody is, or should be rushing it. One small mistake in any of these stages and you literally put hundreds of millions of lives at stake. Its important to remember that these stages in development are essential and will not be fast-tracked.

And all of this assumes that any vaccine makes it through, and of course actually proves to have a reasonably decent level of effectiveness. Its worth remembering that there are those in the scientific community being a lot more cautious about any potential vaccine, armed with the knowledge that this family of viruses are notoriously difficult to fight with vaccines. The real hope may still lie inside the incredible immune systems inside ourselves, not in a petri dish.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Oxford vaccine could be ready first and is not being "rushed"; their work started many years ago on other coronaviruses, which meant they had a headstart. There is a thread about it on this forum.

I would, unless I tested positive for some kind of immunity if we were able to test for that, be willing to have that one as soon as it became available, less for my own benefit and more because the more of us have it the more chance it'll all just go away and we'll be able to abolish all the distancing measures. Hopefully sufficient others would.

I have a question (and sorry if this is the wrong thread!) - If someone is vaccinated, and comes into contact with a Covid carrier, could they still 'catch' Covid and potentially spread it to others until the vaccine does its stuff? Or does the vaccine mean you're safe and could spend a day working on a Covid ward without any PPE, then go home to your family safe in the knowledge that you won't infected (obviously you would change clothes and wash!)

The latter is the ideal, the former is a possibility.

 

[AdamWW]

I don’t understand why some people seem so keen to mandate a vaccine. If one is worried about getting Covid then get vaccinated, then surely it doesn’t matter what others choose to do or not do, either way you’re protected. Or am I missing something obvious?

Yes - I think you're missing the fact that some people may not be able to be vaccinated or it may not work well for them (e.g. because of age) and they have to rely on enough other people being vaccinated to prevent transmission.

Also that a vaccine may not be 100% effective. Making up a number, an 80% effective vaccine might be enough to prevent transmission (i.e. R<1) if enough people have it, and thus everyone has a near zero change of being infected. But if just a few have the vaccine, it's 80%.

We have a Prime Minister who ws reluctant to impose the lockdown, reluctant to mandate wearing face coverings in shops and generally does seem keen to give people as much freedom as possible by lifting restrictions. Whether you think he's handled things well or not, I do not think he is keen to force anyone into taking steps that they do not wish to take. For this reason, I cannot see forced vaccination even being an option, politically.

I have a question (and sorry if this is the wrong thread!) - If someone is vaccinated, and comes into contact with a Covid carrier, could they still 'catch' Covid and potentially spread it to others until the vaccine does its stuff? Or does the vaccine mean you're safe and could spend a day working on a Covid ward without any PPE, then go home to your family safe in the knowledge that you won't infected (obviously you would change clothes and wash!)

That's how I read the intentions of the government, but plenty of people here have come to a different conclusion.

As for how a vaccine works - I think the answer is, it depends. From (the little) I've read, vaccines can be "disease modifying", i.e. you don't get ill, or get less severely ill, but can still pass it on. Good, but not what we really want. Or it can be "epidemic modifying", where it reduces or prevents your chances of transmission. This is relevant to the thread because the first time of vaccine isn't going to give herd immunity.

There's a lot of talk of a vaccine, or in some cases 'the' vaccine on here. So may I take a few moments to pour some very cold water over all of this. Regardless of what politicians and their advisers like to chirp, even the most advanced of trials are only starting to enter the larger scale testing. These will take months to complete, and evaluate. Then and only then will they then move into the stages of certification, which is a process which also may take months. Nobody is, or should be rushing it. One small mistake in any of these stages and you literally put hundreds of millions of lives at stake. Its important to remember that these stages in development are essential and will not be fast-tracked.

I'm wary of a "rushed" vaccine and would want to know more about how it was tested before having one, but can you give an example of what sort of small mistake in any stage could risk hundreds of millions of lives?

If it turns out that the vaccine is damaging the health of a significant proportion of those given it, what small mistake in how the trials are conducted would hide that?

I thought the need for time was much more to do with it taking time for enough people to become exposed to see if it works or not, rather than the need for painstaking checking of the test protocols and interpretation of results. But I'm very happy to be corrected.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'm wary of a "rushed" vaccine and would want to know more about how it was tested before having one, but can you give an example of what sort of small mistake in any stage could risk hundreds of millions of lives?

If it turns out that the vaccine is damaging the health of a significant proportion of those given it, what small mistake in how the trials are conducted would hide that?

I thought the need for time was much more to do with it taking time for enough people to become exposed to see if it works or not, rather than the need for painstaking checking of the test protocols and interpretation of results. But I'm very happy to be corrected.

I don't have a specific example, because thankfully it is very rare for mistakes to get out (I've linked a CDC page below that does list some that caused concern, including some that were recalled early on although there are probably more). However the reaction to this particular virus is like no other (Spanish Flu is often cited, but those were very different times so the reasons for spread & the response aren't really comparable), and both the political & media pressure is so much greater, as demonstrated by country after country talking about having a virus by.... <insert month here>….

Historical Safety Concerns | Vaccine Safety | CDC

Read more about past vaccine safety concerns, how they have been resolved, and what we have learned.

www.cdc.gov

This is the real danger, with so much pressure from politicians and the public to get one out there, and of course the potential profits, this is probably the most dangerous scenario in viral research ever. We've already seen the dangers of rushing to treat chronic cases with ventilators when its now starting to emerge that in many cases these actually made things worse, so we cannot afford to allow the desire to get one out there to allow any short cuts to be made. Because even small errors in development, manufacturing, distribution and control could result in a worse scenario than the original pandemic.

 

[AdamWW]

I don't have a specific example, because thankfully it is very rare for mistakes to get out (I've linked a CDC page below that does list some that caused concern, including some that were recalled early on although there are probably more). However the reaction to this particular virus is like no other (Spanish Flu is often cited, but those were very different times so the reasons for spread & the response aren't really comparable), and both the political & media pressure is so much greater, as demonstrated by country after country talking about having a virus by.... <insert month here>….

Historical Safety Concerns | Vaccine Safety | CDC

Read more about past vaccine safety concerns, how they have been resolved, and what we have learned.

www.cdc.gov

This is the real danger, with so much pressure from politicians and the public to get one out there, and of course the potential profits, this is probably the most dangerous scenario in viral research ever. We've already seen the dangers of rushing to treat chronic cases with ventilators when its now starting to emerge that in many cases these actually made things worse, so we cannot afford to allow the desire to get one out there to allow any short cuts to be made. Because even small errors in development, manufacturing, distribution and control could result in a worse scenario than the original pandemic.

Thanks. Will have a read.

 

[talldave]

I don’t understand why some people seem so keen to mandate a vaccine. If one is worried about getting Covid then get vaccinated, then surely it doesn’t matter what others choose to do or not do, either way you’re protected. Or am I missing something obvious?

I think you're missing the point that Covid appears to have caused large numbers of people to stop thinking rationally. They've been dragged into a cycle of hysteria and fear and respond to rational debate with phrases like "the greater good" and "you're killing people" without the faintest idea what they mean.

They can't explain why the virus suddenly became lethal in shops last Friday and can't explain why they weren't muzzled up for the previous 4 months. But they weren't apparently killing people for those 4 months?

They also can't see there's no difference between a non-mask wearer and a mask wearer who pulls theirs mask down to make themselves heard. In fact if you tried to make them realise that the non-mask wearer would probably spread less infection, their head would explode.

They had also never realised that around 1700 people die every day, so when they're ranting that 10 or 20 people have died of Covid, they won't discuss the other 1680-90 and slip back to the "you're killing people" mantra.

It's all very tedious.

 

[AdamWW]

I think you're missing the point that Covid appears to have caused large numbers of people to stop thinking rationally. They've been dragged into a cycle of hysteria and fear and respond to rational debate with phrases like "the greater good" and "you're killing people" without the faintest idea what they mean.

They can't explain why the virus suddenly became lethal in shops last Friday and can't explain why they weren't muzzled up for the previous 4 months. But they weren't apparently killing people for those 4 months?

They also can't see there's no difference between a non-mask wearer and a mask wearer who pulls theirs mask down to make themselves heard. In fact if you tried to make them realise that the non-mask wearer would probably spread less infection, their head would explode.

They had also never realised that around 1700 people die every day, so when they're ranting that 10 or 20 people have died of Covid, they won't discuss the other 1680-90 and slip back to the "you're killing people" mantra.

It's all very tedious.

Who is wearing muzzles in shops?

And why would they?

All I've seen is face coverings of various types and the odd face shield.

Also - if you think my explanation above of why people might want a vaccine mandated is irrational, can you point out the flaws in my reasoning?

 

[talldave]

Who is wearing muzzles in shops?

And why would they?

All I've seen is face coverings of various types and the odd face shield.

Also - if you think my explanation above of why people might want a vaccine mandated is irrational, can you point out the flaws in my reasoning?

I use muzzle in the sense of something that suppresses the wearer's ability to communicate. If you don't understand what I mean you need to take up Costa watching - where you watch the hilarious antics of mask wearers struggling to communicate their order from behind a mask through thick perspex. After multiple attempts, they get their order, move to a table a few feet from where they placed their order and remove their mask. It's farcical and hilarious.

I didn't see anything that justified anyone having the right to decide that anyone other than themselves be vaccinated.

 

[AdamWW]

I didn't see anything that justified anyone having the right to decide that anyone other than themselves be vaccinated.

No and I wasn't suggesting anyone has the "right".

But - and apologies if I'm wrong- you seemed to be saying that anybody who wanted other people to be vaccinated was being irrational because if they have the vaccine themselves it doesn't matter what other people do.

And that is not true for the reasons I gave.

 

[Scrotnig]

The Oxford vaccine could be ready first and is not being "rushed"; their work started many years ago on other coronaviruses, which meant they had a headstart. There is a thread about it on this forum.

I would take theirs in a heartbeat, without hesitation.

A number of reasons:

1. The reason you mentioned, which everyone forgets or doesn't even know.
2. The project's lead, Prof Sarah Gilbert, happily gave it to her own two adult children (with their consent obviously!) back in April. No parent would do that if they had any doubts whatsoever about safety.
3. Prof Sarah Gilbert has spoken more common sense about this whole situation than anyone else I have heard. She's totally got her head screwed on and knows exactly what she's talking about.

The only thing to be established with the Oxford vaccine is if it works, and if it does, how well.

 

[talldave]

No and I wasn't suggesting anyone has the "right".

But - and apologies if I'm wrong- you seemed to be saying that anybody who wanted other people to be vaccinated was being irrational because if they have the vaccine themselves it doesn't matter what other people do.

And that is not true for the reasons I gave.

No, I was simply pointing out that a lot of people appear to have lost the plot over Covid and can't even explain their own actions. I don't think the Facebook Furloughs understand the first thing about vaccination, but if Karen puts up a catchy pro-vaccine post with some love hearts on it, they'll be down the clinic as fast as their hazchem garb will allow.

 

[al78]

I think you're missing the point that Covid appears to have caused large numbers of people to stop thinking rationally. They've been dragged into a cycle of hysteria and fear and respond to rational debate with phrases like "the greater good" and "you're killing people" without the faintest idea what they mean.

They can't explain why the virus suddenly became lethal in shops last Friday and can't explain why they weren't muzzled up for the previous 4 months. But they weren't apparently killing people for those 4 months?

They also can't see there's no difference between a non-mask wearer and a mask wearer who pulls theirs mask down to make themselves heard. In fact if you tried to make them realise that the non-mask wearer would probably spread less infection, their head would explode.

They had also never realised that around 1700 people die every day, so when they're ranting that 10 or 20 people have died of Covid, they won't discuss the other 1680-90 and slip back to the "you're killing people" mantra.

It's all very tedious.

Unfortunately trying to counter irrationality with irrationality on the other side of the fence isn't convincing, even when I agree with your core point.

People who keep whittering on about xxxx people die of yyyy every year need to take a course in exponential growth and what that means in the case of disease propagation without countermeasures, because it seems their brain is only capable of linear thinking. Repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it sound.

 

[AdamWW]

People who keep whittering on about xxxx people die of yyyy every year need to take a course in exponential growth and what that means in the case of disease propagation without countermeasures, because it seems their brain is only capable of linear thinking. Repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it sound.

Quite.

 

[talldave]

Unfortunately trying to counter irrationality with irrationality on the other side of the fence isn't convincing, even when I agree with your core point.

People who keep whittering on about xxxx people die of yyyy every year need to take a course in exponential growth and what that means in the case of disease propagation without countermeasures, because it seems their brain is only capable of linear thinking. Repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it sound.

OK, so I'll stop wittering about death rates and witter instead about masks. If it's now necessary to wear a mask in the supermarket (as long as I don't work there), how come infection levels dropped over the 3-4 months that we shopped there without masks?

 

[AdamWW]

OK, so I'll stop wittering about death rates and witter instead about masks. If it's now necessary to wear a mask in the supermarket (as long as I don't work there), how come infection levels dropped over the 3-4 months that we shopped there without masks?

Are you being serious?

Just in case you are:
Many things affect transmission rates.
In our previous existance without masks, we were doing enough to keep transmission rates low enough that infections dropped.
That proves absolutely nothing about whether masks do or don't help.

There's a good chance that infection rates will go up as we relax restrictions. If they do, no doubt people will blame it on masks, but actually there will be very little way of knowing if without them they would have gone up less, more,or the same.

 

[talldave]

Are you being serious?

Just in case you are:
Many things affect transmission rates.
In our previous existance without masks, we were doing enough to keep transmission rates low enough that infections dropped.
That proves absolutely nothing about whether masks do or don't help.

There's a good chance that infection rates will go up as we relax restrictions. If they do, no doubt people will blame it on masks, but actually there will be very little way of knowing if without them they would have gone up less, more,or the same.

So no facts then, just a bunch of waffle?

 

[Bletchleyite]

OK, so I'll stop wittering about death rates and witter instead about masks. If it's now necessary to wear a mask in the supermarket (as long as I don't work there), how come infection levels dropped over the 3-4 months that we shopped there without masks?

Because of other social distancing measures. Each thing adds or takes a bit of transmission. Nothing is a panacea.

 

[talldave]

Because of other social distancing measures. Each thing adds or takes a bit of transmission. Nothing is a panacea.

Thanks for a more pragmatic answer!

I guess as I'm still using a supermarket with stickers and tape all over the floor the distancing hasn't changed, so masks seems like an additional pointless burden.

The fact that the WHO changed their mask stance under political pressure undermines the credibility.

The fact that 99.9% of those with face coverings touch them increases infection risk, undermining their credibility.

The fact that staff aren't wearing them undermines the credibility of the requirement (not that I want to impose it on them).

The fact that the requirement has no associated measureable criteria, and thus no exit strategy, undermines the credibility.

I just don't see any positives. Fortunately it looks to me as if a lot of Londoners agree with me. Give it time and compliance will drop....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks for a more pragmatic answer!

I guess as I'm still using a supermarket with stickers and tape all over the floor the distancing hasn't changed, so masks seems like an additional pointless burden.

The problem we have at the moment is that we've not quite reopened everything, but at the present we have a constant level of cases. I'm sure you would agree with me that it would be nice if we could reopen everything at least in some form and so save more jobs.

We therefore need a measure that will allow cases to return to a decline despite our present level of measures, so we can then relax a few more.

To me it's at least worth a go.

 

[talldave]

The problem we have at the moment is that we've not quite reopened everything, but at the present we have a constant level of cases. I'm sure you would agree with me that it would be nice if we could reopen everything at least in some form and so save more jobs.

We therefore need a measure that will allow cases to return to a decline despite our present level of measures, so we can then relax a few more.

To me it's at least worth a go.

I'm not sure about gyms and nightclubs are a nightmare.

But it can also backfire. My partner observed that an interior design/furnishings business that implemented a masks, gloves and temperature check regime has gone bust. A local business in the same field scrapped temperature checks within a couple of days because of walkouts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure about gyms and nightclubs are a nightmare.

But it can also backfire. My partner observed that an interior design/furnishings business that implemented a masks, gloves and temperature check regime has gone bust. A local business in the same field scrapped temperature checks within a couple of days because of walkouts.

I do wholly understand the issue of masks causing people not to want to shop, because I don't like wearing one either. But I don't see any reason why anyone would have an issue with the totally non-invasive measure of just pointing an infrared thermometer at your head for 5 seconds.

Anyone requiring gloves is a fool because sanitisation of hands is a better measure unless you are going to give each person a box of gloves so they can change them repeatedly plus instruction on how to properly change them. I can only assume there are some people who incorrectly think it transmits through the skin, which it does not.

 

[AdamWW]

I do wholly understand the issue of masks causing people not to want to shop, because I don't like wearing one either. But I don't see any reason why anyone would have an issue with the totally non-invasive measure of just pointing an infrared thermometer at your head for 5 seconds.

Perhaps because they don't want to be refused entry to somewhere because of a bad reading.

Thanks for a more pragmatic answer!

Well I'm confused.

I was much less concise than Bletchleyite, but I thought my "waffle" said essentially the same thing.

 

[talldave]

Well I'm confused.

I was much less concise than Bletchleyite, but I thought my "waffle" said essentially the same thing.

You appeared condescending and didn't appear to answer my question. Less is often more.

It's not just you, it's rife everywhere. People who appear to support every word the government utter seem to think they're superior to those of us who challenge decisions taken irrationally. I supported lockdown even though it cost me my job because it had a measurable objective. What we have now is UK government(s) apparently trying to eliminate the virus (which those of us with brains know is impossible) whilst not actually giving any objective at all. But when I challenge and question, I'm treated like a second class citizen. The way rules are being imposed without debate in the Commons or House of Lords makes me wonder if I'm in North Korea.

 

[AdamWW]

You appeared condescending and didn't appear to answer my question. Less is often more.

It's not just you, it's rife everywhere. People who appear to support every word the government utter seem to think they're superior to those of us who challenge decisions taken irrationally. I supported lockdown even though it cost me my job because it had a measurable objective. What we have now is UK government(s) apparently trying to eliminate the virus (which those of us with brains know is impossible) whilst not actually giving any objective at all. But when I challenge and question, I'm treated like a second class citizen. The way rules are being imposed without debate in the Commons or House of Lords makes me wonder if I'm in North Korea.

Apologies if it came across as condescending. It wasn't the intention.

Yes there's a lot to be said for brevity and I'm not very good at it. But I thought I did answer the question.

I would say that challenging is a good thing - but there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding and I try to explain things where I can, and in turn I will challenge when people say things here that I think are wrong.

I don't see any evidence that the UK government is pursuing a policy of elimination (if they are, then I think they're going about it the wrong way). They say they want to avoid an increase in infections that overwhelms the health service and - from how they are acting - I have no reason to question that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You appeared condescending and didn't appear to answer my question. Less is often more.

It's not just you, it's rife everywhere. People who appear to support every word the government utter seem to think they're superior to those of us who challenge decisions taken irrationally. I supported lockdown even though it cost me my job because it had a measurable objective. What we have now is UK government(s) apparently trying to eliminate the virus (which those of us with brains know is impossible) whilst not actually giving any objective at all. But when I challenge and question, I'm treated like a second class citizen. The way rules are being imposed without debate in the Commons or House of Lords makes me wonder if I'm in North Korea.

England is not following an elimination path, it's very obviously following the "hammer and dance" - the lockdown being the hammer, and the present situation of roughly level cases the dance. It doesn't however have an exit strategy other than a vaccine or treatment.

Scotland and Wales do seem to be pursuing elimination and are very close to achieving it.

 

[island]

Out of interest, the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 states that

"Regulations under section 45B or 45C may not include provision requiring a person to undergo medical treatment."

The act does allow the relevant minister (i.e. Hancock) or magistrates to prevent the spread of disease through isolation and other tactics, which is what we've done. Amending this act would likely be blocked in court.

No it wouldn’t. Primary legislation cannot be “blocked in court” in the UK; google “parliamentary sovereignty”.

The most a court could do is declare the legislation incompatible with the Human Rights Act, which even if it did happen, only serves as a request that Parliament reconsider.

 

[bramling]

The problem we have at the moment is that we've not quite reopened everything, but at the present we have a constant level of cases. I'm sure you would agree with me that it would be nice if we could reopen everything at least in some form and so save more jobs.

We therefore need a measure that will allow cases to return to a decline despite our present level of measures, so we can then relax a few more.

To me it's at least worth a go.

This is what causes me a big problem. Having spent several months adapting my routines to be careful about touching the face without having used soap or hand sanitiser first, now we have a measure which drives a coach and horses through all this. I completely object to the notion that a practice which carries well expressed risks is just “worth a go”, especially in the completely blanket fashion we now have.

 

[bramling]

England is not following an elimination path, it's very obviously following the "hammer and dance" - the lockdown being the hammer, and the present situation of roughly level cases the dance. It doesn't however have an exit strategy other than a vaccine or treatment.

Scotland and Wales do seem to be pursuing elimination and are very close to achieving it.

Scotland must derive some benefit from having a low population density. I suspect Wales may find their cases rise rather more quickly than Scotland, especially in the more populous areas (eg South Wales).

 

[Silverlinky]

England is not following an elimination path, it's very obviously following the "hammer and dance" - the lockdown being the hammer, and the present situation of roughly level cases the dance. It doesn't however have an exit strategy other than a vaccine or treatment.

Scotland and Wales do seem to be pursuing elimination and are very close to achieving it.

The current raw data figures suggest Scotland is doing well, Wales not so well!

Since July 1st Scotland has reported 299 new Coronavirus cases, Wales in the same period has reported 1,416...England's figure is 15,112 for comparison.

Englands population of over 55,000,000 is more than 17 times the amount of Wales population (3,113,000), yet the new case rate for the month of July is 10.67 times the Welsh figure.....so actually the are more new cases per head in Wales than there are in England at the moment.

As for death figures...only 33 in Wales since July 1st, and 1,928 in England.....(Scotland just 6).....