When will restrictions finally end?

[henairs]

Absolutely sick and tired of the sight and sound of Whitty with his constant doom mongering and saying tougher measures are needed. I switched on BBC Breakfast this morning at 7:30 to see who was the government minister being interviewed today, but instead today it was bloody Whitty! I turned it straight off! A quick glance of a news website today and I see he is saying we need to lockdown till APRIL and tougher measures are needed to protect the NHS!!! We can't have another 3 months of lockdown and even tougher measures for crying out loud! Fed up all this "Protect the NHS" business. Whilst the NHS is in a bad state right now due to this darn virus, there is more to this country than just the NHS! What about the devastating damage all these lockdowns and restrictions are doing to thousands of businesses up and down the country?? What about the devastating effect all these lockdowns and restrictions are doing to MILLION'S of people mental health?? Why are these matters just brushed aside as if they just don't care about them?

Agree with you about Whitty, a very miserable man indeed. Years of underfunding to the NHS hasn't helped. What money they do get often gets creamed off by Trust management. Therefore leaving little for
frontline services. The front line staff at ground level are the true hero's not the pompous posturing Whitty. What I most worry about is that the bloke ends up with a new year sort of honour out of this misery and not the workers who are making things happen as best they can.
Whitty deserves to be switched off, we need uplift not mass depression.

 

[kez19]

Mark Harper, chairman of the Covid Recovery Group (aka the Conservative lockdown rebels), has called for a clear exit strategy, the criteria on which government will judge whether lockdown is required, and a provisional end date to lockdown of the 8th March, if we hit the required target for vaccination. While I doubt that he'll be listened to, that date could see at least some changes, and I'd definitely expect the tone of the debate to significantly change then (if not earlier).

At least there is some fightback, I wonder if anyone in Scotland will throw this to Nicola Sturgeon? I am surprised that in briefings be Downing Street or up north that none of them have provided an exit strategy other than saying months ie easter to then push it back again and again but yet isn't it strange why none of these journalists don't ask these very questions? (OK this is part media there) but still why haven't they got balls to ask?

 

[43096]

Nothing whatsoever to do with what you state above about "my approval". Just a recognition of what once was viewed as the norm and how matters now stand in this century.

I suspect one of the longer term effects of this pandemic will be less tolerance of people struggling in to work whilst filled up with assorted coughs, colds, flu etc. Large numbers have worked from home for almost 10 months now, so the expectation would be you'd do the same if you're carrying a lurgy in future. That can only be a good thing and would cut the transmission of annual winter viruses.

 

[devon_metro]

At least there is some fightback, I wonder if anyone in Scotland will throw this to Nicola Sturgeon? I am surprised that in briefings be Downing Street or up north that none of them have provided an exit strategy other than saying months ie easter to then push it back again and again but yet isn't it strange why none of these journalists don't ask these very questions? (OK this is part media there) but still why haven't they got balls to ask?

There is no effective form of opposition in Scotland (ironic that the oposition in England comes from within the governing party). The SNP are all yes men/women (not a reference to independence) who wouldn't dare disagree with the glorious leader. Then the Scottish Greens can always be relied upon to support restrictions. If the media dare criticise Sturgeon at the daily show, she shoots them down and then the independence supporting twitter army are set loose on said journalist. Lockdown in Scotland will end when Nicola says so...

 

[takno]

There is no effective form of opposition in Scotland (ironic that the oposition in England comes from within the governing party). The SNP are all yes men/women (not a reference to independence) who wouldn't dare disagree with the glorious leader. Then the Scottish Greens can always be relied upon to support restrictions. If the media dare criticise Sturgeon at the daily show, she shoots them down and then the independence supporting twitter army are set loose on said journalist. Lockdown in Scotland will end when Nicola says so...

Richard Leonard has been showing some actual signs of life, asking for evidence, timescales and plans that go further than "wait for next week and then make everything worse". I've been almost impressed. The LibDem and Conservative leaders have been similarly forceful. Apart from the SNP and whatever is left of the Greens, the whole parliament has been pushing as hard as it can. Obviously they can't appear reckless, but demanding some evidence, and rigour in planning rather than the current hand-wringing abuse of power is working quite well for them.

What we don't have in Scotland anymore is much of any press to report on this.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

I advise anyone that is hoping for social/physical distancing to be relaxed in the somewhat near future not to look at tomorrow's Daily Mail headline.

"Are we going for the 3M rule?" complete with the opening lines of "Leading members of the Sage scientific advisory panel want the measure raised from 'one metre plus' to 'two meters plus'. In practice this would change the limit to three meters - nearly 10ft".

https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1348760152686661635

 

[devon_metro]

Richard Leonard has been showing some actual signs of life, asking for evidence, timescales and plans that go further than "wait for next week and then make everything worse". I've been almost impressed. The LibDem and Conservative leaders have been similarly forceful. Apart from the SNP and whatever is left of the Greens, the whole parliament has been pushing as hard as it can. Obviously they can't appear reckless, but demanding some evidence, and rigour in planning rather than the current hand-wringing abuse of power is working quite well for them.

What we don't have in Scotland anymore is much of any press to report on this.

Let's hope so. I think the next looming crisis may be the vaccine roll out. Scotland had a good start but seems to be slipping, now at 3% of population versus 3.5% of England. There's been a lot of talk of mass vaccination centres in England, but I haven't heard much from Jeanne Freeman. Let's hope it doesn't turn into a fiasco as it will impact us all with a longer lockdown.

 

[takno]

Let's hope so. I think the next looming crisis may be the vaccine roll out. Scotland had a good start but seems to be slipping, now at 3% of population versus 3.5% of England. There's been a lot of talk of mass vaccination centres in England, but I haven't heard much from Jeanne Freeman. Let's hope it doesn't turn into a fiasco as it will impact us all with a longer lockdown.

Our lockdown will be a pointless unjustifiable month longer than England's whatever happens. Don't see the point rushing the vaccinations tbh.

 

[Yew]

There are a couple of reasons that young people need to have the vaccine:

- not everyone can (or will) have the vaccine who should have it, and so by giving out to everyone else they get protection

- by vaccinating everyone you reduce further the number who need to go into hospital, whilst it may cost (say) £0.5bn to vaccinate everyone that's a small amount compared to what it would cost for a few hundred thousand people to spend a week in intensive care.

- if my boss found out that I was off work I'll with Covid-19 having not had a vaccine when offered they would not be best pleased, in a similar vein there are many companies who pay for their staff to have a flu vaccine as it's cheaper than having start taking time off. Likewise those who are on zero hour contacts or are there own bosses or any other job where if they don't work they don't get paid is very much in their interest to get the vaccine.

- whilst the risk of dying for younger heathy people is low it's not zero and anyway there may be some undiagnosed illnesses, also being vaccinated reduces that further risk further. If we had to pay for it then it's probably not worth doing, however it's provided by the NHS and so there's little disbenefit in getting it.

None of these things stand for any respiratory virus currently, and once the vulnerable have been vaccinated, I don't see why we should do any different.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Our lockdown will be a pointless unjustifiable month longer than England's whatever happens. Don't see the point rushing the vaccinations tbh.

It'll be so we can try to eliminate the virus and have a better hope of a "good summer", or some fantasy codswallop like that.

I'm far from a Tory, but Ruth Davidson certainly knows how to wind Nicola Sturgeon up.

 

[Ediswan]

I suspect one of the longer term effects of this pandemic will be less tolerance of people struggling in to work whilst filled up with assorted coughs, colds, flu etc.

Hopefully, and this would not be new. One winter in the early 1980s Rank Xerox in Uxbridge had a sign behind the front desk saying roughly "If you are ill, turn round and go home". I did not work there. The sign was so large you could read it driving past the building.

 

[Scotrail12]

I'm not so convinced that Sturgeon would extend the lockdown further than England - she has an election in May plus there is only so much money left. I also just think many people would end up going to England anyway (I certainly would) as nobody actually believes in elimination except for a few wacko scientists. I imagine most pro lockdown opinion goes when the vulnerable are vaccinated as no other argument holds water.

We didn't have a full lockdown when England did either in Nov.

 

[devon_metro]

Our lockdown will be a pointless unjustifiable month longer than England's whatever happens. Don't see the point rushing the vaccinations tbh.

Very true. No doubt they'll publish some guidelines to exit lockdown to placate parliament, then proceed and ignore it (a la Edinburgh level reviews). Incidently the area I live - in the middle of the capital - recorded 0 cases in the last 7 days.

 

[kez19]

There is no effective form of opposition in Scotland (ironic that the oposition in England comes from within the governing party). The SNP are all yes men/women (not a reference to independence) who wouldn't dare disagree with the glorious leader. Then the Scottish Greens can always be relied upon to support restrictions. If the media dare criticise Sturgeon at the daily show, she shoots them down and then the independence supporting twitter army are set loose on said journalist. Lockdown in Scotland will end when Nicola says so...

I totally agree with you there.

The opposition up north are wagging the dogs tail to her anyway, feels like there is no opposition at all.

As for Scottish Greens, basically the Garden Party of the SNP anyway, they just back whatever is said anyway but had the opportunity to hold Swinney to account but chose not too (but thats a different story).

In terms of media isn't it time that no matter even for her to fight back than just stand back and let her get away with it?, I see when it comes to Johnson to a degree the media will either bite or just do the same but will happily on the other give him a kick in but Sturgeon not a whimper.

I be surprised if anything in relation to Salmond at the moment, maybe it is he that'll end the lockdown if she doesn't give up (i'm no supporter of SNP let alone these 2 but I think something is heading her way and she can't keep up this whole charade so maybe Salmond will be the one to give the blow to her? (literally).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jan 2021 ==

I advise anyone that is hoping for social/physical distancing to be relaxed in the somewhat near future not to look at tomorrow's Daily Mail headline.

"Are we going for the 3M rule?" complete with the opening lines of "Leading members of the Sage scientific advisory panel want the measure raised from 'one metre plus' to 'two meters plus'. In practice this would change the limit to three meters - nearly 10ft".

https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1348760152686661635

I wonder if they have given themselves a practice of 3m? Oh wait nevermind they'll not be doing it but its another one of those ideas thats thrown into the public whilst they themselves aren't doing it either!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jan 2021 ==

Let's hope so. I think the next looming crisis may be the vaccine roll out. Scotland had a good start but seems to be slipping, now at 3% of population versus 3.5% of England. There's been a lot of talk of mass vaccination centres in England, but I haven't heard much from Jeanne Freeman. Let's hope it doesn't turn into a fiasco as it will impact us all with a longer lockdown.

Possibly Jeane Freeman will be helping out at ASDA if not heard anything soon , maybe we be better asking Sturgeon herself as the buck stops with her or the other one John Swinney?

 

[Gadget88]

I'm not so convinced that Sturgeon would extend the lockdown further than England - she has an election in May plus there is only so much money left. I also just think many people would end up going to England anyway (I certainly would) as nobody actually believes in elimination except for a few wacko scientists. I imagine most pro lockdown opinion goes when the vulnerable are vaccinated as no other argument holds water.

We didn't have a full lockdown when England did either in Nov.

I’ve yet to see any politician say they will relax things once the at risk groups get the vaccine. But my question is will the government or media hype up infections if deaths/hospitalisations are low. Are they going to accept this level or push for everybody to get the vaccine?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jan 2021 ==

I advise anyone that is hoping for social/physical distancing to be relaxed in the somewhat near future not to look at tomorrow's Daily Mail headline.

"Are we going for the 3M rule?" complete with the opening lines of "Leading members of the Sage scientific advisory panel want the measure raised from 'one metre plus' to 'two meters plus'. In practice this would change the limit to three meters - nearly 10ft".

https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1348760152686661635

That’s the pub industry finished then

 

[brad465]

I advise anyone that is hoping for social/physical distancing to be relaxed in the somewhat near future not to look at tomorrow's Daily Mail headline.

"Are we going for the 3M rule?" complete with the opening lines of "Leading members of the Sage scientific advisory panel want the measure raised from 'one metre plus' to 'two meters plus'. In practice this would change the limit to three meters - nearly 10ft".

https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1348760152686661635

They'd have to make it pretty clear that this should not apply if just walking straight past someone else, otherwise we're going to see a surge in deaths from being run over.

That’s the pub industry finished then

If something is going to finish the pub industry it's this lockdown and any level restrictions that they stay shut, however having a 3m rule would probably prolong how long they're closed for. That said mid-2020 the hospitality industry was very vocal about the difference in profitability between 1m+ and 2m and may have helped actually bring about that change, so they'd have to be at least as vocal and persuasive this time.

 

[Yew]

They'd have to make it pretty clear that this should not apply if just walking straight past someone else, otherwise we're going to see a surge in deaths from being run over.

If something is going to finish the pub industry it's this lockdown and any level restrictions that they stay shut, however having a 3m rule would probably prolong how long they're closed for. That said mid-2020 the hospitality industry was very vocal about the difference in profitability between 1m+ and 2m and may have helped actually bring about that change, so they'd have to be at least as vocal and persuasive this time.

I think it's pretty clear that there is no consideration of the country we're going to come back too after all of this.

 

[Cdd89]

One thing that occurred to me is that a lot of these restrictions have spawned cottage industries of sorts: PCR testing, mask manufacturers, plastic screens, COVID-Secure advisors, and also strengthened existing ones: active transport (bike shops), delivery services, home entertainment, etc. Just as an example, i remember walking past a bike shop with a scare story about how the underground and trains were riddled with viruses and “not to risk it”. It might be overoptimistic to assume they will all casually accept their lucrative businesses coming to an end.

 

[brad465]

I think it's pretty clear that there is no consideration of the country we're going to come back too after all of this.

Yes I expect at some point there will be a time known as "The Great Vindication"

Whatever one thinks of Andy Burnham, he has actually thought about the post-Covid landscape: on Question Time latish last year on a question about the arts' industry, he said if when we come out of all this large areas of hospitality, the arts (and maybe other businesses?) have gone..."Covid's won".

 

[The Ham]

It was the hospital data to 3 January (latest ONS figures). I believe case numbers were higher than those reported today (though I don't have the age distribution to hand).

Interesting point on employers and vaccinations. I'm not sure any employer could sanction an employee if they refused to have the vaccine? I'm sure the vast majority of people will have the vaccine but it does raise ethical questions, particularly if countries/companies introduce restrictions on unvaccinated people.

It's unlikely that a company could bring in sanctions against someone just because they didn't have the vaccine. However it could add fuel to the fire if said member of staff was lacking in other areas.

Did you ever find any hospitalisation stats? I've seen you quote the ICU stats a couple of times, but nothing to justify the claim that hospitalisations, or more importantly total current patient numbers follow the same profile. I'm also seeing limited evidence from the stats provided that ICU occupation is making that much of a difference to the younger patients going in - most aren't actually receiving any intensive treatment. I mean if you were offered a 5% improvement in your prognosis you personally would take it, but in the context of the fatality rates that everybody is so worried about it's a bit of a rounding error.

To be brutally clear, lockdown is very, very bad, and if the justification for keeping it going over another extended period is to prevent the "collapse" of the NHS, we should probably investigate what that looks like. Would the typical outcome for Covid patients be a great deal worse if they were dumped in a nightingale with limited staff support and a decent supply of Oxygen and HPAP machines?

The issue is more to do with other care that the NHS provides, for instance if ICU is full what do you do with a RTA patient or are you going to require them not to use ambulances to get to hospital so that they aren't overloaded as well?

That's before you consider that you could have a Covid-19 patient that needs other medical care. If they are to be left with limited resources, would you also limit their other care?

I also suspect that generally medical staff wouldn't be willing to let it happen.

I suspect one of the longer term effects of this pandemic will be less tolerance of people struggling in to work whilst filled up with assorted coughs, colds, flu etc. Large numbers have worked from home for almost 10 months now, so the expectation would be you'd do the same if you're carrying a lurgy in future. That can only be a good thing and would cut the transmission of annual winter viruses.

Indeed.

None of these things stand for any respiratory virus currently, and once the vulnerable have been vaccinated, I don't see why we should do any different.

However fairly large numbers of people who aren't at risk of dying from respiratory viruses are vaccinated (just look at the numbers of school children who get the flu vaccine every year now) to provide protection to others.

Likewise is not that uncommon for companies to pay for the flu vaccine to reduce the number of staff off sick, again that's mostly going to be people that are at a low risk from dying.

If we do that for a vaccine which typically gives us a 50:50 chance of protection, then it's likely that we'll do it for something which gives us a higher level of protection (at least a 60:40 level of protection but possibly up to 95:5) against catching it (with rates of death likely to be lower still) and against a virus with a typically higher chance of death (even if that death isn't ours but rather someone we love).

As I highlighted before the main reason that government want it is because of the cost saving to them (and therefore us through taxes) of not having to treat people with Covid-19 vs providing the vaccine to everyone.

 

[C J Snarzell]

Agree with you about Whitty, a very miserable man indeed. Years of underfunding to the NHS hasn't helped. What money they do get often gets creamed off by Trust management. Therefore leaving little for
frontline services. The front line staff at ground level are the true hero's not the pompous posturing Whitty. What I most worry about is that the bloke ends up with a new year sort of honour out of this misery and not the workers who are making things happen as best they can.
Whitty deserves to be switched off, we need uplift not mass depression.

Chris Whitty should have been a life coach. It is fair to say there is something very creepy about him.

CJ

 

[Bantamzen]

There are a couple of reasons that young people need to have the vaccine:

- not everyone can (or will) have the vaccine who should have it, and so by giving out to everyone else they get protection

- by vaccinating everyone you reduce further the number who need to go into hospital, whilst it may cost (say) £0.5bn to vaccinate everyone that's a small amount compared to what it would cost for a few hundred thousand people to spend a week in intensive care.

- if my boss found out that I was off work I'll with Covid-19 having not had a vaccine when offered they would not be best pleased, in a similar vein there are many companies who pay for their staff to have a flu vaccine as it's cheaper than having start taking time off. Likewise those who are on zero hour contacts or are there own bosses or any other job where if they don't work they don't get paid is very much in their interest to get the vaccine.

- whilst the risk of dying for younger heathy people is low it's not zero and anyway there may be some undiagnosed illnesses, also being vaccinated reduces that further risk further. If we had to pay for it then it's probably not worth doing, however it's provided by the NHS and so there's little disbenefit in getting it.

Let's be absolutely clear, there must never be a situation where younger are forced or guilted into vaccinations by employers, especially when the benefits of such a vaccine would be minimal to them. The vaccines are about protecting those that need it most, and that must remain the focus now and in the future. We do not know yet if those receiving the vaccines now will need boosters, and if they do then stocks must be ringfenced for them. Only when this becomes clearer should the vaccines be offered to those outside the 50/60+ age groups, and even then it should still be prioritised to those most likely to suffer the worst side effects. Basically what you are proposing is passporting the vaccine, that must never happen.

I advise anyone that is hoping for social/physical distancing to be relaxed in the somewhat near future not to look at tomorrow's Daily Mail headline.

"Are we going for the 3M rule?" complete with the opening lines of "Leading members of the Sage scientific advisory panel want the measure raised from 'one metre plus' to 'two meters plus'. In practice this would change the limit to three meters - nearly 10ft".

https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1348760152686661635

SAGE would probably like to seal us into our own homes Wuhan style if they could, indeed they've pretty much said as such. However what SAGE wants, and what SAGE gets are going to have to be increasingly disconnected with actual policies, especially come March when the Chancellor will have some very bad news for us all.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The thread title is somewhat generalised in its terminology, as all four areas of the UK seem not always to sing from the same hymn sheet in their application of the applied strictures.

Has anyone any thoughts on how the larger European countries are now putting their own restrictions into force, in order that the UK areas can be considered in comparison to theirs. As a keen follower of the Rugby Union code, it seems that the French government has now issued their views on the major European club competitions in which UK clubs participate.

 

[The Ham]

Let's be absolutely clear, there must never be a situation where younger are forced or guilted into vaccinations by employers, especially when the benefits of such a vaccine would be minimal to them. The vaccines are about protecting those that need it most, and that must remain the focus now and in the future. We do not know yet if those receiving the vaccines now will need boosters, and if they do then stocks must be ringfenced for them. Only when this becomes clearer should the vaccines be offered to those outside the 50/60+ age groups, and even then it should still be prioritised to those most likely to suffer the worst side effects. Basically what you are proposing is passporting the vaccine, that must never happen

I agree that people shouldn't be forced or guilted into having a vaccine, however the only way to ensure that we protect those who need protecting most is by everyone having the vaccine this year (as planned), otherwise you are voting for restrictions to continue.

As without everyone having some protection then there will still be many who need protecting, but can't have the vaccine, who would still be very much at risk. There will also be the potential that hospitals could be rather full, even if those under 50 need to go to hospital at a rate of 1/100 then (bearing in mind that if the vaccine gives no protection then neither will having already had the virus) if we see 250,000 cases a week then we'd need to have 2,500 to 5,000 hospital beds to treat them (assuming a week to 2 week stay). That would require more funding for the NHS, for something which we don't know if we need it (as we may have enough protection and it's arguable better to assume that we all get protection and gain the benefits from that, including reduced restrictions and then work towards given another round of vaccines towards the end of this year - remembering that everyone should have had the vaccine by the autumn, so even if we've got to give boosters within 12 months everyone done by now is more than achievable between then and Christmas).

That's before you consider any side effects from having Covid-19, which even if long Covid is over hyped, could still cause some to need support for some time (it's not uncommon to hear of people with fatigue issues mouths after the infection).

If it's discovered that further boosters are required to keep the immunity going then we're going to have to massively increase vaccine production capacity worldwide. However it may well be that (assuming that case numbers in the UK get low enough, which should happen this year of everyone is vaccinated) that getting boosters may only be something that we would only need to do in advance of going to high risk areas or towards the end of junior school or in areas where there's been cases.

 

[Bantamzen]

I agree that people shouldn't be forced or guilted into having a vaccine, however the only way to ensure that we protect those who need protecting most is by everyone having the vaccine this year (as planned), otherwise you are voting for restrictions to continue.

Firstly it is not planned for everyone to have it this year. The government have prioritised those most vulnerable, and once they have been covered and only then will they look at offering vaccines for the remaining adult population. Secondly the vaccines are the protection, they may not stop spread but just reduce it. So by your logic even having the vaccine will not allow restrictions.

Thankfully the strategy has been shifting away from the flawed elimination one to focusing on protection, meaning vaccines & treatments for those that need them. The whole population won't need them however as the vast majority will only suffer minor or no ill effects of the virus. That's not so say they shouldn't be there if needed, but restrictions cannot last as long as it would take to vaccinate the entire population especially if booster doses are needed for some in the future.

That's before you consider any side effects from having Covid-19, which even if long Covid is over hyped, could still cause some to need support for some time (it's not uncommon to hear of people with fatigue issues mouths after the infection).

Well we are fast approaching a year in, and "long covid" still seems to be vague in it's definition I think it is safe to assume that what we are seeing is the same kind of after effects that some people suffer from many other viral infections, rather than some terrifying new after effect that some would have us believe.

 

[Gadget88]

I agree that people shouldn't be forced or guilted into having a vaccine, however the only way to ensure that we protect those who need protecting most is by everyone having the vaccine this year (as planned), otherwise you are voting for restrictions to continue.

As without everyone having some protection then there will still be many who need protecting, but can't have the vaccine, who would still be very much at risk. There will also be the potential that hospitals could be rather full, even if those under 50 need to go to hospital at a rate of 1/100 then (bearing in mind that if the vaccine gives no protection then neither will having already had the virus) if we see 250,000 cases a week then we'd need to have 2,500 to 5,000 hospital beds to treat them (assuming a week to 2 week stay). That would require more funding for the NHS, for something which we don't know if we need it (as we may have enough protection and it's arguable better to assume that we all get protection and gain the benefits from that, including reduced restrictions and then work towards given another round of vaccines towards the end of this year - remembering that everyone should have had the vaccine by the autumn, so even if we've got to give boosters within 12 months everyone done by now is more than achievable between then and Christmas).

That's before you consider any side effects from having Covid-19, which even if long Covid is over hyped, could still cause some to need support for some time (it's not uncommon to hear of people with fatigue issues mouths after the infection).

If it's discovered that further boosters are required to keep the immunity going then we're going to have to massively increase vaccine production capacity worldwide. However it may well be that (assuming that case numbers in the UK get low enough, which should happen this year of everyone is vaccinated) that getting boosters may only be something that we would only need to do in advance of going to high risk areas or towards the end of junior school or in areas where there's been cases.

How many times does this need to be said. You are never going to vaccinate 65 million people in the UK for example some have allergies. Only 80% need vaccinated or less to reach Herd immunity. You see the logistical challenge trying to roll out these vaccines already how are you going to pay for it? And how are going to deliver it? I’m afraid to are living on another planet if you think 65 million people will come forward for a vaccine each year what are you going to do drag someone out the house if they refuse? Some sort of China state?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2021 ==

Also boosters would likely be for high risk groups but let’s be clear why would you vaccinate the younger groups if immunity wears off after a year anyway? Maybe to bring numbers down that would be all. By the next year you would be like an unvaccinated person anyway but I think the idea is numbers would hopefully be very low.

 

[hwl]

Firstly it is not planned for everyone to have it this year. The government have prioritised those most vulnerable, and once they have been covered and only then will they look at offering vaccines for the remaining adult population. Secondly the vaccines are the protection, they may not stop spread but just reduce it. So by your logic even having the vaccine will not allow restrictions.

Thankfully the strategy has been shifting away from the flawed elimination one to focusing on protection, meaning vaccines & treatments for those that need them. The whole population won't need them however as the vast majority will only suffer minor or no ill effects of the virus. That's not so say they shouldn't be there if needed, but restrictions cannot last as long as it would take to vaccinate the entire population especially if booster doses are needed for some in the future.


Well we are fast approaching a year in, and "long covid" still seems to be vague in it's definition I think it is safe to assume that what we are seeing is the same kind of after effects that some people suffer from many other viral infections, rather than some terrifying new after effect that some would have us believe.

The vaccination strategy for the younger adult age groups will depend on what the transmission reduction numbers are for the vaccines. Sensible transmission reduction numbers will see a big push to get large numbers vaccinated to keep overall case, hospitalisation and death numbers low (including in those for whom the vaccine doesn't prevent infection worked). If you leave complete adult age groups unvaccinated e.g. under 40s then there will be continual transmission and plenty of sources to transmit the infection to others who are more vulnerable. You need sensible levels of vaccination in all adults to benefit from herd effects.

How many times does this need to be said. You are never going to vaccinate 65 million people in the UK for example some have allergies. Only 80% need vaccinated or less to reach Herd immunity. You see the logistical challenge trying to roll out these vaccines already how are you going to pay for it? And how are going to deliver it? I’m afraid to are living on another planet if you think 65 million people will come forward for a vaccine each year what are you going to do drag someone out the house if they refuse? Some sort of China state?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2021 ==

Also boosters would likely be for high risk groups but let’s be clear why would you vaccinate the younger groups if immunity wears off after a year anyway? Maybe to bring numbers down that would be all. By the next year you would be like an unvaccinated person anyway but I think the idea is numbers would hopefully be very low.

Only 78% of the population is over 18 hence you aren't going to get to 80% with just adults. (US is looking at 12+ certification for Moderna vaccine). Getting high enough vaccinated for herd type benefits will be tough with just adults and the anti-vax groups which suggests about 65% in reality with just adults and non-take up levels (both genuine medical reasons or anti-vax beliefs).

 

[Yew]

hwl, I feel like you're thinking in longer timescales than we are?

 

[Watershed]

Hearing rumours that the Government will make an announcement (likely tomorrow) regarding the use of face coverings in workplaces. Unclear whether it will 'just' be guidance or actually put into law.

 

[Yew]

However fairly large numbers of people who aren't at risk of dying from respiratory viruses are vaccinated (just look at the numbers of school children who get the flu vaccine every year now) to provide protection to others.

Likewise is not that uncommon for companies to pay for the flu vaccine to reduce the number of staff off sick, again that's mostly going to be people that are at a low risk from dying.

If we do that for a vaccine which typically gives us a 50:50 chance of protection, then it's likely that we'll do it for something which gives us a higher level of protection (at least a 60:40 level of protection but possibly up to 95:5) against catching it (with rates of death likely to be lower still) and against a virus with a typically higher chance of death (even if that death isn't ours but rather someone we love).

As I highlighted before the main reason that government want it is because of the cost saving to them (and therefore us through taxes) of not having to treat people with Covid-19 vs providing the vaccine to everyone.

But how do long term government savings relate to easing restrictions. Maybe it would be worthwhile for more widespread vaccination, but once the risk is lower than a bad flu year, surely there's no point in continuing restrictions?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2021 ==

Hearing rumours that the Government will make an announcement (likely tomorrow) regarding the use of face coverings in workplaces. Unclear whether it will 'just' be guidance or actually put into law.

Apparently rumours of throwing virgins into volcanos are unfounded.