Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[jfgw]

(*) It seems to me that it's meaningless to quote a specific figure for herd immunity in isolation. 70% of the population with immunity from vaccines? Is that 70% regardless of whether those people were vaccinated with a vaccine that offers 50% protection against the prevalent strain vs one that offers 95% protection? I would say clearly not. Any figure for what percentage of the population needs to have immunity in order to reach overall herd immunity must surely be a function of the level of immunity in that percentage of the population with immunity? And the level of immunity isn't a constant across that group of people with immunity either, people will have had different vaccines with different efficacy characteristics and others will have acquired their immunity via natural infection. And it is not only the levels of efficacy but potentially immunity from different sources will have different decay characteristics. So essentially any figure bandied about, e.g. 80%, must be in the context of an assumed immunity profile for those with immunity i.e. that figure is in fact a function of a given immunity (efficacy) profile where that immunity profile is in itself an extremely complex variable (not in the sqrt(-1) sense!). I assume it's also affected by the transmission properties of a particular virus so is also specific to a specific virus. The simple percentage numbers we see all over the place must, I think, hide an extremely complex calculation that epidemiologists are presumably doing in the background that we don't get to see.

The complexity would be in the range of different levels of protection. If it were simply that, say, 70% of the population had a vaccine that was 70% effective and everyone-else was 100% susceptible, the level of immunity would simply be 70% x 70% = 49%.

Back in March 2020, we were told that the strategy was herd immunity (through infection). This seems to have been part of the policy ever since, even after effective vaccines received emergency approval. I do not know of a reliable estimate of the number of people who have been infected but these data suggest that it could be quite high:

The estimated share of the population with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the week beginning 7th June 2021 ranges from 79.1% (Scotland) to 88.7% (Wales) https://www.statista.com/chart/23961/uk-share-with-covid-antibodies/. While this is among over-16s in the community, I suggest that the figures are similar for the whole of the population.

Only about 60% of the UK population had received at least one vaccine dose.

Infection + vaccine + vaccine is claimed to confer more immunity than just vaccine + vaccine, and I think it most likely that vaccine + vaccine + infection will also confer a high level of immunity. Add another jab in the Autumn* and, hopefully, any new variants will have even less of a harvest.


Julian F. G. W.


*While I would probably accept a third jab if offered, I would prefer these jabs to be offered to other countries while there is a shortage. New production facilities should come online after that and allow additional jabs (hopefully tailored to newer variants) to be offered in the new year.

[XFool]

Data predicts 2m UK summer Covid cases with 10m isolating

The Guardian

Guardian analysis prompts health warnings as Javid says England entering ‘uncharted territory’

"Two million people could contract Covid this summer, potentially meaning up to 10 million must isolate in just six weeks, Guardian analysis shows, prompting warnings over risks to health and disruption to the economy."

[servodude]

Data predicts 2m UK summer Covid cases with 10m isolating

The Guardian

Guardian analysis prompts health warnings as Javid says England entering ‘uncharted territory’

"Two million people could contract Covid this summer, potentially meaning up to 10 million must isolate in just six weeks, Guardian analysis shows, prompting warnings over risks to health and disruption to the economy."

If the numbers are right are the isolation instructions working - or is this "more" more infectious this time around

-sd

[Julian]

Data predicts 2m UK summer Covid cases with 10m isolating

The Guardian

Guardian analysis prompts health warnings as Javid says England entering ‘uncharted territory’

"Two million people could contract Covid this summer, potentially meaning up to 10 million must isolate in just six weeks, Guardian analysis shows, prompting warnings over risks to health and disruption to the economy."

If the numbers are right are the isolation instructions working - or is this "more" more infectious this time around

-sd

A manager of a restaurant chain, I forget the name, was interviewed on BBC2 Newsnight this evening. She said that they currently have 78 people off work because contact tracing, presumably a combination of human contact tracers and the app, have told them to self isolate. Of those, 4 were actually testing positive at the moment. I’m a few beers down right now so I won”t make a fool of myself by trying to draw any conclusions from that, I simply throw it out as a topical anecdote that might be of interest re your question.

- Julian

[servodude]

Data predicts 2m UK summer Covid cases with 10m isolating

The Guardian

Guardian analysis prompts health warnings as Javid says England entering ‘uncharted territory’

"Two million people could contract Covid this summer, potentially meaning up to 10 million must isolate in just six weeks, Guardian analysis shows, prompting warnings over risks to health and disruption to the economy."

If the numbers are right are the isolation instructions working - or is this "more" more infectious this time around

-sd

A manager of a restaurant chain, I forget the name, was interviewed on BBC2 Newsnight this evening. She said that they currently have 78 people off work because contact tracing, presumably a combination of human contact tracers and the app, have told them to self isolate. Of those, 4 were actually testing positive at the moment. I’m a few beers down right now so I won”t make a fool of myself by trying to draw any conclusions from that, I simply throw it out as a topical anecdote that might be of interest re your question.

- Julian

I think it will be one of those cases where the principle makes sense but the practical numbers are way beyond what might have been intuited

As a back of a fag packet calc 2M cases having only 10M contacts suggests that there's a lot of transfer that won't be considered (an average of 5 new contacts seems way too low )
- so the continued geometric growth makes sense from that point of view

but from a policy perspective
- a scheme that will likely result in asking nicely that a quarter (??) of your working population stay at home seems like theatre more than prophylaxis

- sd

[XFool]

‘Living with the virus’ makes no sense. Only half of the UK is fully vaccinated
Anthony Costello

The Guardian

We’re heading towards 100,0000 Covid cases a day, yet ministers laud ‘freedom day’. It seems no one is accountable

[gryffron]

‘Living with the virus’ makes no sense. Only half of the UK is fully vaccinated Anthony Costello The Guardian
We’re heading towards 100,0000 Covid cases a day, yet ministers laud ‘freedom day’. It seems no one is accountable

But if not now, then when? Other threads here point out that vaccination rates are tailing off, and vaccine take-up amongst younger age groups is much less than amongst the older cohort. So if this is the case, when do you, and the doubters, think we will ever achieve sufficient levels of vaccination to unlock?

The way I see this is, yes, of course there are going to be problems if we unlock now. Of course case rates will soar. But exactly those same problems will occur if we unlock in one months time. And in two months schools and universities will all be going back, so it will be even worse then.

Gryff

[servodude]

‘Living with the virus’ makes no sense. Only half of the UK is fully vaccinated Anthony Costello The Guardian
We’re heading towards 100,0000 Covid cases a day, yet ministers laud ‘freedom day’. It seems no one is accountable

But if not now, then when? Other threads here point out that vaccination rates are tailing off, and vaccine take-up amongst younger age groups is much less than amongst the older cohort. So if this is the case, when do you, and the doubters, think we will ever achieve sufficient levels of vaccination to unlock?

The way I see this is, yes, of course there are going to be problems if we unlock now. Of course case rates will soar. But exactly those same problems will occur if we unlock in one months time. And in two months schools and universities will all be going back, so it will be even worse then.

Gryff

Has everyone that wants to be vaccinated had the time for their shots to work?
That would seem a practical and fair point at which to decide to try opening up

If vax rates are tailing off then it would imply there's capacity
- so a message that there was to be a push for coverage before "freedom" day would probably help (but would need to be given at the appropriate point in time - which is a while ago)

As the graphs stand at the moment it looks like there's a good chance of hospitals taking another hammering by the autumn (it looks like ~1.5-2% recorded cases are translating to admissions - second wave this was ~6-7% and while that's much improved we will be talking about huge numbers soon)
- it might really encourage take up if it were decided to prioritise the vaccinated (and ineligible) for any required COVID treatment post opening up?

- sd

[Mike4]

But if not now, then when?

When the vaccination progamme has bee completed, Shirley.

[redsturgeon]

‘Living with the virus’ makes no sense. Only half of the UK is fully vaccinated Anthony Costello The Guardian
We’re heading towards 100,0000 Covid cases a day, yet ministers laud ‘freedom day’. It seems no one is accountable

But if not now, then when? Other threads here point out that vaccination rates are tailing off, and vaccine take-up amongst younger age groups is much less than amongst the older cohort. So if this is the case, when do you, and the doubters, think we will ever achieve sufficient levels of vaccination to unlock?

The way I see this is, yes, of course there are going to be problems if we unlock now. Of course case rates will soar. But exactly those same problems will occur if we unlock in one months time. And in two months schools and universities will all be going back, so it will be even worse then.

Gryff

Has everyone that wants to be vaccinated had the time for their shots to work?
That would seem a practical and fair point at which to decide to try opening up

If vax rates are tailing off then it would imply there's capacity
- so a message that there was to be a push for coverage before "freedom" day would probably help (but would need to be given at the appropriate point in time - which is a while ago)

As the graphs stand at the moment it looks like there's a good chance of hospitals taking another hammering by the autumn (it looks like ~1.5-2% recorded cases are translating to admissions - second wave this was ~6-7% and while that's much improved we will be talking about huge numbers soon)
- it might really encourage take up if it were decided to prioritise the vaccinated (and ineligible) for any required COVID treatment post opening up?

- sd

Exactly the issue. My daughter is 23 and works in hospitality. She had her first jab four weeks ago as soon as she could. Her next jab is not due until four weeks from now so she will not be fully protected until five weeks after "freedom" day. So freedom for her is having to face hundreds of unmasked, non socially distanced public a day with an increased chance of catching covid (hopefully a mild dose) but also a non trivial chance of long covid too. There are many hundreds of thousands in her position too.

John

[gryffron]

But if not now, then when?

When the vaccination programme has been completed, Shirley.

But it will never be "completed" will it?
There are people just turning 18. Others who have just changed their minds, or suddenly realised it is necessary to go abroad/clubbing/whatever.
And then there will be booster jabs. And possibly the next round for the next variant.
And so it will go on...

Gryff

[XFool]

When the vaccination programme has been completed, Shirley.

But it will never be "completed" will it?
There are people just turning 18. Others who have just changed their minds, or suddenly realised it is necessary to go abroad/clubbing/whatever.
And then there will be booster jabs. And possibly the next round for the next variant.
And so it will go on...

So, not unlike the Rotavirus, Pneumococcal, MenB, MMR, Flu, HPV, MenA vaccinations?

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/nhs-vaccinations-and-when-to-have-them/

BTW. GP surgery rang me up earlier for an appointment on 16th July for the Shingles vaccination.

[zico]

But it will never be "completed" will it?
There are people just turning 18. Others who have just changed their minds, or suddenly realised it is necessary to go abroad/clubbing/whatever.
And then there will be booster jabs. And possibly the next round for the next variant.
And so it will go on...
Gryff

We're currently at 50% of the population who have received a second dose (as at 9th July). 50% is a half-built wall of vaccinations.
Sure, we'll never get to 100% (in fact, nowhere near if we don't vaccinate children), but we can at least get all adults double vaccinated before opening up.
The "if not now, when?" argument is a strange argument to gain traction, because it has a simple answer - when it's safer.
"I want to go diving with sharks"
"Well sir, your shark-cage is only 50% complete"
"I can't wait any longer. If not now, when?"
"OK sir, if you pay the full cost in advance, you can use it now"

I'm certainly amongst the more cautious on these boards about opening up, but I do accept the argument that illness and deaths for several thousand of our fellow citizens is a price worth paying to get back to normal.
However, that's not what's on offer at the moment. It's about causing illness and deaths for several thousand people to get back to normal 1-2 months earlier. That's not acceptable to me.
We've already endured many months of far harsher lockdown due to the government's repeated inability to make tough decisions on lockdowns, with their delays leading to more deaths and longer lockdowns than would have occurred otherwise.
It would be criminal in my view to risk so much extra suffering and deaths simply to jump the gun by a month or two.

[zico]

Well, maybe in effect 19th July could be seen as HMG starting its mass vaccination program for the under 18s using the only "vaccine" it currently has available to it - natural infection. The virus has already been circulating strongly in the under 18s but presumably with all restrictions removed, including stuff such as music festivals etc open, the rate of spread in the under 18s might increase. I also note the announcement today about the removal of requirements next month for under 18s to self-isolate if they have come into contact with an infected person. Again, this should increase transmission amongst the young. We also shouldn't forget the young adults in maybe the 18 - 24 year age group and even the 2 or 3 5-year age bands above that. Vaccine uptake amongst those lower age groups seems to be plateauing at a much lower level than for older people, it might end up well below 75% uptake, so opening up nightclubs and packing pubs more densely will presumably allow the virus to get to more of those younger unvaccinated people.

So maybe this is the overall strategy. Give the more vulnerable section of the population their immunity via vaccines so that you don't get a load of people dying along the way as collateral damage if the virus had been allowed to let rip before the vaccines were available and then, once the vaccines have not only given that section of the community immunity but also pretty good protection against all of severe illness, hospitalisation and death, then allow or even actively enable the less vulnerable section of the population to get their immunity via natural infection.

The big risk in the strategy is will the vaccine protection remain as strong as hoped for the more at risk (and as a healthy 62 year old I still count myself in that category) once the virus becomes prevalent, and also will the incidence of severe illness and above remain acceptably low amongst the young as the virus seeks out all the unvaccinated amongst them?

Hi Julian. Thanks for a well-considered and thoughtful post. I just want to pick up on one important assumption you're implicitly making, which is that immunity is of equal benefit whether acquired from vaccinations or infection.
This appears not to be true, based on the study I've quoted below. In particular, vaccinations are better at dealing with variants, whereas infection creates antibodies only for that specific infection. This is likely to be very important for the UK, given our new policy of allowing (encouraging?) large-scale infections in unvaccinated people.

I've posted a link below to a short and readable summary of experimental findings, but to summarise it seems that vaccinated-immunity is very likely to be better than infection-immunity. Of course, how much more is the $64,000 question that hasn't yet been answered (as far as I'm aware).

Below is a few quotes from the report. Analysis was based on double-jabbed people using the Moderna mRNA vaccine.

These findings suggest that natural immunity and vaccine-generated immunity to SARS-CoV-2 will differ in how they recognize new viral variants. What’s more, antibodies acquired with the help of a vaccine may be more likely to target new SARS-CoV-2 variants potently, even when the variants carry new mutations in the RBD.

It’s not entirely clear why these differences in vaccine- and infection-elicited antibody responses exist. In both cases, RBD-directed antibodies are acquired from the immune system’s recognition and response to viral spike proteins. The Seattle team suggests these differences may arise because the vaccine presents the viral protein in slightly different conformations.

Also, it’s possible that mRNA delivery may change the way antigens are presented to the immune system, leading to differences in the antibodies that get produced. A third difference is that natural infection only exposes the body to the virus in the respiratory tract (unless the illness is very severe), while the vaccine is delivered to muscle, where the immune system may have an even better chance of seeing it and responding vigorously.

Whatever the underlying reasons turn out to be, it’s important to consider that humans are routinely infected and re-infected with other common coronaviruses, which are responsible for the common cold. It’s not at all unusual to catch a cold from seasonal coronaviruses year after year. That’s at least in part because those viruses tend to evolve to escape acquired immunity, much as SARS-CoV-2 is now in the process of doing.

The good news so far is that, unlike the situation for the common cold, we have now developed multiple COVID-19 vaccines. The evidence continues to suggest that acquired immunity from vaccines still offers substantial protection against the new variants now circulating around the globe.

https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/2 ... infection/

[dealtn]

We're currently at 50% of the population who have received a second dose (as at 9th July). 50% is a half-built wall of vaccinations.
Sure, we'll never get to 100% (in fact, nowhere near if we don't vaccinate children), but we can at least get all adults double vaccinated before opening up.
The "if not now, when?" argument is a strange argument to gain traction, because it has a simple answer - when it's safer.
"I want to go diving with sharks"
"Well sir, your shark-cage is only 50% complete"
"I can't wait any longer. If not now, when?"
"OK sir, if you pay the full cost in advance, you can use it now"

Shouldn't your analogy be

""Well sir, your shark-cage is only 100% complete but some people don't have theirs built yet"
"That's Ok I can't wait any longer. I'm happy to swim with sharks on that basis but the others should wait until theirs are built, not sure why they haven't asked for theirs to be done yet?"
"OK sir you can use it now, Yes I am not sure why others that want to return to the water haven't bothered organising their shark cages yet"

[redsturgeon]

We're currently at 50% of the population who have received a second dose (as at 9th July). 50% is a half-built wall of vaccinations.
Sure, we'll never get to 100% (in fact, nowhere near if we don't vaccinate children), but we can at least get all adults double vaccinated before opening up.
The "if not now, when?" argument is a strange argument to gain traction, because it has a simple answer - when it's safer.
"I want to go diving with sharks"
"Well sir, your shark-cage is only 50% complete"
"I can't wait any longer. If not now, when?"
"OK sir, if you pay the full cost in advance, you can use it now"

Shouldn't your analogy be

""Well sir, your shark-cage is only 100% complete but some people don't have theirs built yet"
"That's Ok I can't wait any longer. I'm happy to swim with sharks on that basis but the others should wait until theirs are built, not sure why they haven't asked for theirs to be done yet?"
"OK sir you can use it now, Yes I am not sure why others that want to return to the water haven't bothered organising their shark cages yet"

Isn't it more like
""Well sir, your shark-cage is only 100% complete but some people don't have theirs built yet"
"That's Ok I can't wait any longer. I'm happy to swim with sharks on that basis but the others should wait until theirs are built, not sure why they haven't asked for theirs to be done yet?"
"Well sir that because we built yours first so you can go swimming but we'll get around to the others soon. Oh by the way those people swimming around with no cages or with half built cages, they'll be serving food for you and keeping the experience great for you...hopefully they won't get bitten but if they do, their young so it won't hurt much...maybe."

[88V8]

It would be criminal in my view to risk so much extra suffering and deaths simply to jump the gun by a month or two.

But it's going to happen.
And not just the deaths one can see but the hidden deaths due to the NHS being once again busier than is needful.
There was an interview on Times Radio the other day... can't find it... with the head of NHS Providers (I think) where he mentioned not only the usual issues, but the fact that many staff are owed holiday, plus the isolating from getting pinged.
He was very clear that unlocking was premature, and will be a setback in dealing with the backlog.

I shall be interested to see whether our GP comes out from behind the phone....

The problem with waiting another month or two is that we would be into autumn when it's going to get worse again. At least this way those who want to take the risk will be able to do so, for a while. Yes, they are also risking other peoples' health, but never mind, eh.

Those of us who wish to be more cautious can avoid crowded indoor spaces, stay away from places frequented by the young and stupid, and continue selectively with masks.
And I shall.

V8

[dealtn]

We're currently at 50% of the population who have received a second dose (as at 9th July). 50% is a half-built wall of vaccinations.
Sure, we'll never get to 100% (in fact, nowhere near if we don't vaccinate children), but we can at least get all adults double vaccinated before opening up.
The "if not now, when?" argument is a strange argument to gain traction, because it has a simple answer - when it's safer.
"I want to go diving with sharks"
"Well sir, your shark-cage is only 50% complete"
"I can't wait any longer. If not now, when?"
"OK sir, if you pay the full cost in advance, you can use it now"

Shouldn't your analogy be

""Well sir, your shark-cage is only 100% complete but some people don't have theirs built yet"
"That's Ok I can't wait any longer. I'm happy to swim with sharks on that basis but the others should wait until theirs are built, not sure why they haven't asked for theirs to be done yet?"
"OK sir you can use it now, Yes I am not sure why others that want to return to the water haven't bothered organising their shark cages yet"

Isn't it more like
""Well sir, your shark-cage is only 100% complete but some people don't have theirs built yet"
"That's Ok I can't wait any longer. I'm happy to swim with sharks on that basis but the others should wait until theirs are built, not sure why they haven't asked for theirs to be done yet?"
"Well sir that because we built yours first so you can go swimming but we'll get around to the others soon. Oh by the way those people swimming around with no cages or with half built cages, they'll be serving food for you and keeping the experience great for you...hopefully they won't get bitten but if they do, their young so it won't hurt much...maybe."

I hear what you are saying, but it's also true that for the last month or so the numbers coming forward for vaccination has fallen considerably despite capacity being large and all adults encouraged to book appointments. The time waiting in a queue waiting for your age group to become available passed some while ago.

Those with "no cage" have had the opportunity to get at least half, if not a whole one.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55274833

[zico]

We're currently at 50% of the population who have received a second dose (as at 9th July). 50% is a half-built wall of vaccinations.
Sure, we'll never get to 100% (in fact, nowhere near if we don't vaccinate children), but we can at least get all adults double vaccinated before opening up.
The "if not now, when?" argument is a strange argument to gain traction, because it has a simple answer - when it's safer.
"I want to go diving with sharks"
"Well sir, your shark-cage is only 50% complete"
"I can't wait any longer. If not now, when?"
"OK sir, if you pay the full cost in advance, you can use it now"

Shouldn't your analogy be

""Well sir, your shark-cage is only 100% complete but some people don't have theirs built yet"
"That's Ok I can't wait any longer. I'm happy to swim with sharks on that basis but the others should wait until theirs are built, not sure why they haven't asked for theirs to be done yet?"
"OK sir you can use it now, Yes I am not sure why others that want to return to the water haven't bothered organising their shark cages yet"

"Actually sir, you can't just go in on your own, it's everyone or nobody. Either you wait until others have had their cages built, or everyone goes in now. If everyone goes in now, there'll be lots of blood in the water, so the sharks will become more aggressive and your shark-cage may be only 90% effective, so you're more at risk too".
"Yes, but other people are much more at risk than me, so that's a risk I'm happy to take".

Fair point about people refusing vaccinations, I'd make them mandatory, or at the very least give incentives to improve take-up.
But people under-18 aren't refusing vaccinations, they aren't being allowed them, except in very exceptional circumstances.

[Mike4]

But people under-18 aren't refusing vaccinations, they aren't being allowed them, except in very exceptional circumstances.

Yet there still there seems to be a widespread belief that because to government have excluded under 18s from vaccination, they don't get Covid.

Even on here someone recently said my arithmetic showing that only 50% of the population has been fully vaccinated was wrong because under 18's don't qualify for vaccination, as if that somehow made them immune from infection.