Responsible or Irresponsible Tier 3 Cruising?

[Alan de Enfield]

From today's papers :

 

People must be told to keep social distancing and wearing face coverings even after they have had a Covid vaccine, SAGE has warned.

In a paper produced by the Government's scientific advisers, experts said officials should make sure immunised Britons understand they have to keep following the rules.

Although people who receive the vaccine should be protected from severe disease from two to three weeks after getting the jab, they could still spread the illness.

And until there is a 'high degree of coverage' which protects most of those at risk of death, social distancing must carry on as normal, the scientists said.

The paper was produced by SPI-B, a sub-group of SAGE that focuses on people's behaviour and how it might affect the coronavirus outbreak.

They said they were fairly confident that 'some of those who have been vaccinated will show a reduction in personal protective behaviours'.  

Surges in infections could follow, they warned, which would be dangerous for others who hadn't yet been vaccinated.

 

[roland elsdon]

31 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

From today's papers :

 

People must be told to keep social distancing and wearing face coverings even after they have had a Covid vaccine, SAGE has warned.

In a paper produced by the Government's scientific advisers, experts said officials should make sure immunised Britons understand they have to keep following the rules.

Although people who receive the vaccine should be protected from severe disease from two to three weeks after getting the jab, they could still spread the illness.

And until there is a 'high degree of coverage' which protects most of those at risk of death, social distancing must carry on as normal, the scientists said.

The paper was produced by SPI-B, a sub-group of SAGE that focuses on people's behaviour and how it might affect the coronavirus outbreak.

They said they were fairly confident that 'some of those who have been vaccinated will show a reduction in personal protective behaviours'.  

Surges in infections could follow, they warned, which would be dangerous for others who hadn't yet been vaccinated.

 

Suspect this wont be  too much of a problem until the vaccine starts to be given to younger groups.

My 92 year old mother has not had it yet, and even when she has she isnt planning on heading out to a rave.

 

However when it is given to my age group and the one above it who are still active and mobile , there will be issues.

The other issue will be the time from vaccination to immunity factor. Vulnerable 60 plus people are going to have to be very cautious once top tiers are ‘ safe’ and  everyone else is covid fatigued.

[Dr Bob]

32 minutes ago, roland elsdon said:

Suspect this wont be  too much of a problem until the vaccine starts to be given to younger groups.

My 92 year old mother has not had it yet, and even when she has she isnt planning on heading out to a rave.

 

However when it is given to my age group and the one above it who are still active and mobile , there will be issues.

The other issue will be the time from vaccination to immunity factor. Vulnerable 60 plus people are going to have to be very cautious once top tiers are ‘ safe’ and  everyone else is covid fatigued.

I agree. I think there will be quite a few however in their 60's and 70's who get the vaccine in the next 2-3 months thinking they are invincible and mixing again. Just reading replies to this thread, it is obvious that certain peeps don't understand that the vaccine doesnt stop the virus getting into your body and potentially making you infectious. Lots of peeps in this age group can be stubborn!

[Arthur Marshall]

8 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

I agree. I think there will be quite a few however in their 60's and 70's who get the vaccine in the next 2-3 months thinking they are invincible and mixing again. Just reading replies to this thread, it is obvious that certain peeps don't understand that the vaccine doesnt stop the virus getting into your body and potentially making you infectious. Lots of peeps in this age group can be stubborn!

As most vaccines seem to be about 70% effective in real life, that still gives you a fair chance of getting seriously ill. I do wonder if the hype about the new variants is an attempt to reinforce advice about continuing sensible behaviour post-vaccination, although as it seems more and more likely that there won't be enough vaccine to go round for years anyway, it's all a bit moot.

[Mike Todd]

14 hours ago, Jerra said:

The masks and social distancing don't totally prevent the aerosols being discharged merely reduce them and the chance of breathing them in.     Speaking causes aerosols to come out of the body you don't have to cough or sneeze.   Coughs and sneezes will spread the aerosols further.   These droplets are so small that once out of the body they circulate in the sir for a long time.

 

Then there are those like a certain poster on this forum who think that once X number have been vaccinated he can do as he likes, there might also be a tendency for those who have been vaccinated to get more careless in their social distancing, hand washing and mask wearing thinking they are safe and forgetting they could still be spreading the disease.

Hence why the government messaging has significantly shifted from yesterday.

 

BTW, getting back to the original thread, I noticed that the latest video uploaded yesterday does make it clear that it was filmed before the lockdown - I don't think they felt the need to say that before.

[Dr Bob]

47 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

As most vaccines seem to be about 70% effective in real life, that still gives you a fair chance of getting seriously ill. I do wonder if the hype about the new variants is an attempt to reinforce advice about continuing sensible behaviour post-vaccination, although as it seems more and more likely that there won't be enough vaccine to go round for years anyway, it's all a bit moot.

I am not so sure that is right.

For this new vaccine, when they quote 73% effective or wotever, what do they really mean? My understanding is that there is a 73% chance of you getting ill with the virus.

However maybe in this 73% of cases, say half of the peeps will have significant virus in their body but the persons antibodies are stopping it reproducing so not getting ill BUT it is still  there and can be expelled in breathing and infect others. We just dont know if that 'half of peeps' is correct. Is it 0% or 100% or somewhere in between. We will have to wait and see.

The second thing though although 73% of peeps dont get ill, perhaps the other 27% who do get ill, dont get it so badly ie the presence of antibodies arent good enough to stop the virus reproducing but enough to stop them having to go to hospital. I am therefore not sure that 'that still gives you a fair chance of getting seriously ill' will be the case. I dont know - and I guess the experts are looking closely at this - but I sincerely hope that once you have the vacine (and waited 20 days or so) that you will have a very low chance of being seriously ill.

The kicker to all of this though, is that from what I have read, a lot of the peeps who have died from multiple organ failure caused by a explosion in the imune system due to covid, have been susceptible due to a defect in their genes. Anyone with the noted defects could therefore be very at risk unless the vacine protects against that.

 

I will really be interested to hear the government figures on vaccinations as long they include a number of other vectors such as

- number of peeps vacinated more than 20 days ago who display symptons of the virus

- number of peeps vaccinated more than 20 days ago who test positive with the virus

- number of peeps entering hospital for treatment of the virus after vaccination (20 days)

- number of peeps who die after vaccination - but only if the virus was the main cause (not easy to define but we need to avoid counting the 95 year olds who were going to die anyway).

The chance of that happening is a likely as @mrsmelly buying an ecofan.

[Richard10002]

50 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

For this new vaccine, when they quote 73% effective or wotever, what do they really mean? My understanding is that there is a 73% chance of you getting ill with the virus.

However maybe in this 73% of cases, say half of the peeps will have significant virus in their body but the persons antibodies are stopping it reproducing so not getting ill BUT it is still  there and can be expelled in breathing and infect others. We just dont know if that 'half of peeps' is correct. Is it 0% or 100% or somewhere in between. We will have to wait and see.

The second thing though although 73% of peeps dont get ill, perhaps the other 27% who do get ill, dont get it so badly ie the presence of antibodies arent good enough to stop the virus reproducing but enough to stop them having to go to hospital. I am therefore not sure that 'that still gives you a fair chance of getting seriously ill' will be the case. I dont know - and I guess the experts are looking closely at this - but I sincerely hope that once you have the vacine (and waited 20 days or so) that you will have a very low chance of being seriously ill.

 

alias posted this to some similar queries of mine a few days ago in a different thread. I found it very useful and it explained a lot.

 

"Did you see this JCVI document containing their conclusions both on likely efficacy levels, and some comment on protection from serious illness in the absence of immunity? 

 

https://app.box.com/s/uwwn2dv4o2d0ena726gf4403f3p2acnu "

 

My perception now is that efficacy means the %age that become immune to the virus - they don't get infected, and dont spread it as a consequence of being infected. For those who fall into the "not immune" %age, most have a strong chance of not falling seriously ill, needing hospital, if they become infected.

 

For example... the Pfizer vaccine appears to be 89% effective from about 10 days after the first dose, and 92% effective after the second dose. Thus, 10 days from the first dose, 89% are immune, wont be infected, and wont spread it. 11% are open to being infected, can spread the virus, but shouldn't become seriously ill.

 

I'm sure that' still too simple but, unless efficiency means an "immune and can't become infected" result, herd immunity isnt possible, (or is it?).

 

[Arthur Marshall]

Herd immunity is, and always was, a nonsense. Viruses mutate - with luck, out of existence, but they still mutate. So what are you going to get immune to? You might eradicate it by total vaccination, but if you think rich countries are going to bother to pay for poor ones to be done you don't live in the real world. Yes, we did smallpox, but it wouldn't happen now, partly because so much more international movement stirs the pot quicker, and partly due to the rise of nationalism and accompanying bad faith - we are running out of vaccine because the manufacturing was contracted out to India, who have understandably welched on the contracts and are going to keep it all for themselves. Just like a lot of people were suggesting we do, when they thought we were going to make it all here (the charity begins at home/slash foreign aid brigade).

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Herd immunity is, and always was, a nonsense. Viruses mutate - with luck, out of existence, but they still mutate. 

If herd immunity is a nonsense can you explain two things.

 

First why do doctors say it is possible.  Second measles is a virus and has been kept suppressed by vaccination which has created herd immunity for decades.

 

In the UK in 1941 there were 1,145 deaths a bad year but hundreds every year in the 40s if not quite that high.

 

in 2000 there was a single death with 0 in 2003 and 2000 to 2017 a total of 14.   If that isn't herd immunity caused by a vaccine against a virus what is it?

Edited January 9, 2021 by Jerra

[Arthur Marshall]

2 minutes ago, Jerra said:

If herd immunity is a nonsense can you explain two things.

 

First why do doctors say it is possible.  Second measles is a virus and has been kept suppressed by vaccination which has created herd immunity for decades.

 

In the UK in 1941 there were 1,145 deaths a bad year but hundreds every year in the 40s if not quite that high.

 

in 2000 there was a single death with 0 in 2003 and 2000 to 2017 a total of 14.   If that isn't herd immunity caused by a vaccine against a virus what is it?

Measles?  If there was herd immunity, you wouldn't need vaccination. Herd immunity is when everyone is immune, so you don't need a vaccine.  That's why it's called immunity (I like to explain these things fully). We got rid of smallpox and polio, I think,, in a sense, and that's all because there were worldwide immunisation projects until the disease died out because nobody could catch it and pass it on.  That's why you don't have a smallpox jab, and you do have a measles jab. See? 

But neither of them had anything to do with herd immunity, because we aren't immune to those diseases, we just killed them off because nobody caught them because just about everybody, everywhere, got vaccinated. If someone let the virus out of the labs where they are kept, you'd get ill. Because you aint immune. And that's why they store the viruses - so that if and when they resurface, we can make vaccines, because THERE IS NO HERD IMMUNITY.

As to why doctors say it's possible, it's because some do, almost all don't. A doctor said the MMR jab caused autism*.  Amazingly, doctors can be wrong.  Sometimes, they think a political stance is more important that the truth. Might be worth checking what these people are a doctor of, too.  And where they got their credentials.  My son's a doctor. He knows an awful lot about films and music.

But all that disease eradication was in a period when the countries of the world were prepared to work together and the rich ones funded the stuff. They aren't now, so it can't be done. And unless you can eradicate a disease worldwide, it aint gone. And even if you do, and it's gone, you're not immune, just safe.

 

 

*It doesn't, by the way.  He just made sure there were measles outbreaks all over England a year or two ago, mostly in universities where these things spread. We do know how to treat it better these days, so fewer die.

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Measles?  If there was herd immunity, you wouldn't need vaccination.

Which part of her immunity being created by the vaccine did you miss?

 

Herd immunity is simply having sufficient people immune to the disease causing agent that it doesn't spread rapidly or even at all.   It doesn't matter how that immunity is achieved.

 

But then you seem to know better than the medics and scientists who happily accept and talk about herd immunity.

 

What is herd immunity?

When most of a population is immune to an infectious disease, this provides indirect protection—or herd immunity (also called herd protection)—to those who are not immune to the disease.

For example, if 80% of a population is immune to a virus, four out of every five people who encounter someone with the disease won’t get sick (and won’t spread the disease any further). In this way, the spread of infectious diseases is kept under control. Depending how contagious an infection is, usually 50% to 90% of a population needs immunity to achieve herd immunity.

How have we achieved herd immunity for other infectious diseases?

Measles, mumps, polio, and chickenpox are examples of infectious diseases that were once very common but are now rare in the U.S. because vaccines helped to establish herd immunity. We sometimes see outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases in communities with lower vaccine coverage because they don’t have herd protection.

 

Taken from:

 

https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/achieving-herd-immunity-with-covid19.html

[Richard10002]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Measles?  If there was herd immunity, you wouldn't need vaccination.

Chicken and Egg methinks

 

You need vaccination to maintain herd immunity. If you stopped vaccinating, you would have a whole load of kids growing up together and, if one got it, it would spread. Continue vaccinating and it is unlikely that any of them will get it and, if one did, the others wouldnt.

 

Same with Covid 19....

[pete.i]

Surely moderators this junk should be somewhere where we don't have to read the drivel such as the Virtual Pub????

[PD1964]

? Moderators on here moderating? I’ll probably get a warning and a ban for that remark?

[Arthur Marshall]

As I said, check your sources. A profit making American college doesn't convince me. But, as pete.i above says, this is not worth continuing.

[Jerra]

35 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

As I said, check your sources. A profit making American college doesn't convince me. But, as pete.i above says, this is not worth continuing.

Will Oxford University do or is it a profit making English University?

 

What is herd immunity?

When a high percentage of the population is vaccinated, it is difficult for infectious diseases to spread, because there are not many people who can be infected. For example, if someone with measles is surrounded by people who are vaccinated against measles, the disease cannot easily be passed on to anyone, and it will quickly disappear again. This is called ‘herd immunity’, 'community immunity' or 'herd protection', and it gives protection to vulnerable people such as newborn babies, elderly people and those who are too sick to be vaccinated.

Herd immunity does not protect against all vaccine-preventable diseases. The best example of this is tetanus, which is caught from bacteria in the environment, not from other people who have the disease. No matter how many people around you are vaccinated against tetanus, it will not protect you from tetanus.

How does herd immunity work?

Herd immunity only works if most people in the population are vaccinated (for example, 19 out of every 20 people need to be vaccinated against measles to protect people who are not vaccinated). If people are not vaccinated, herd immunity is not guaranteed to protect them. Vaccination rates are high in the UK as a whole, but this hides the fact that rates are much lower in some parts of the UK and in some communities. 

 

N.B.   I haven't said herd immunity will work under all circumstances but it is the main reason for vaccination programmes.

[Arthur Marshall]

3 hours ago, Jerra said:

Will Oxford University do or is it a profit making English University?

N.B.   I haven't said herd immunity will work under all circumstances but it is the main reason for vaccination programmes.

I think it probably will. OK, I admit my error in thinking that "herd immunity" meant a genuine immunity of the herd, and I should have looked up the definition.  The way it's used, though, by a lot of people, seems to be as an argument against vaccination, rather than for it, in that they think if enough people catch it and become immune (which we don't know they do), it'll die out on its own. Which, of course, is not what you were saying.

But, in the meantime, I was wrong in my understanding of the phrase, and I apologise if I caused any offence in my various comments.

[Jerra]

18 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think it probably will. OK, I admit my error in thinking that "herd immunity" meant a genuine immunity of the herd, and I should have looked up the definition.  The way it's used, though, by a lot of people, seems to be as an argument against vaccination, rather than for it, in that they think if enough people catch it and become immune (which we don't know they do), it'll die out on its own. Which, of course, is not what you were saying.

But, in the meantime, I was wrong in my understanding of the phrase, and I apologise if I caused any offence in my various comments.

You might have noticed I have always said herd immunity achieved by vaccination.   Herd immunity does occur naturally but as far as i know not in any of the really serious diseases.

 

However many thanks for acknowledging I wasn't barking up the wrong tree whenever I have mentioned herd immunity.

 

EDIT to add Herd Immunity as suggested by Mr Smith at regular intervals is IMO a holy grail which won't be achieved without vaccination.

Edited January 9, 2021 by Jerra

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think it probably will. OK, I admit my error in thinking that "herd immunity" meant a genuine immunity of the herd, and I should have looked up the definition.  The way it's used, though, by a lot of people, seems to be as an argument against vaccination, rather than for it, in that they think if enough people catch it and become immune (which we don't know they do), it'll die out on its own. Which, of course, is not what you were saying.

But, in the meantime, I was wrong in my understanding of the phrase, and I apologise if I caused any offence in my various comments.

Good post.

[Athy]

14 hours ago, PD1964 said:

? Moderators on here moderating? I’ll probably get a warning and a ban for that remark?

Why? That is indeed what we do. But it's a bit late for The Twelve Days Of Christmas.

"Four mods a -modding......"

14 hours ago, pete.i said:

Surely moderators this junk should be somewhere where we don't have to read the drivel such as the Virtual Pub????

I wonder why you consider a discussion about something as serious as corona virus vaccination to be "drivel". Some members may think that it's interesting and important.

But rest assured, it is not yet compulsory for members to read every single topic exhaustively. If it doesn't interest you, don't read it.

[Dr Bob]

2 hours ago, Athy said:

Why? That is indeed what we do. But it's a bit late for The Twelve Days Of Christmas.

"Four mods a -modding......"

I wonder why you consider a discussion about something as serious as corona virus vaccination to be "drivel". Some members may think that it's interesting and important.

But rest assured, it is not yet compulsory for members to read every single topic exhaustively. If it doesn't interest you, don't read it.

I worry that we are all being compared to cattle!

Why herd immunity? Why not flock immunity or gaggle immunity. FFS why not shoal immunity. Let's not skate around this issue.

Edited January 10, 2021 by Dr Bob

[Alan de Enfield]

23 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

Why herd immunity? Why not flock immunity or gaggle immunity. FFS why not shoal immunity. Let's note skate around this issue.

C'mon, you are codding - right , or are you suggesting its a loads of Pollocks ?

[Dr Bob]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

C'mon, you are codding - right , or are you suggesting its a loads of Pollocks ?

Oi! Fish joke warning!

Off topic!

Edited January 10, 2021 by Dr Bob

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

Oi! Fish joke warning!

Off topic!

Please Miss - he started it, although I did think he was Skate ing on thin ice !

[Mike Todd]

12 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think it probably will. OK, I admit my error in thinking that "herd immunity" meant a genuine immunity of the herd, and I should have looked up the definition.  The way it's used, though, by a lot of people, seems to be as an argument against vaccination, rather than for it, in that they think if enough people catch it and become immune (which we don't know they do), it'll die out on its own. Which, of course, is not what you were saying.

But, in the meantime, I was wrong in my understanding of the phrase, and I apologise if I caused any offence in my various comments.

It is similar (at least mathematically) to the way atomic power units were controlled by lowering carbon rods into the pile - they gradually reduce the statistical chances of a fission event but never remove the underlying cause.