Friends who 'don't do' the lockdown

[Mike4]

I genuinely do not see the risk of vaccinated people socialising outdoors, or even indoors. The US CDC agrees with me. It is possible that the paranoia is overdone.

Until the South African variant arrives here and negates most of the good results achieved by all those OxAZ vaccinations.

Given the OxAZ is only 10% effective against the SA variant, I can see plenty of risk associated with socialising indoors once SA gets here, as it surely will.

Looking on the bright side, SA has a similar infectivity to the Kent variant, so perhaps it won't achieve domination when it turns up. That'll be for another variant yet to evolve.

Maybe the US CDC is disregarding the OxAZ vaccine, since it is not approved for use in the US. It would be a shame if the UK's favourite vaccine was found to ultimately be inadequate and everyone needs to be revaccinated here.

Yes, and more specifically it would shatter many governments' whole strategies on coronavirus into tiny pieces, or smaller. Its not just OxAZ at risk.

Relying wholly on vaccination to get us "back to normal" seems rather short sighted to me. The wheels will come off sooner or later given the probable delay between the next vaccine-resistant new variant getting established, and a new vaccine designed, tested and fully rolled out in response.

[Julian]

I genuinely do not see the risk of vaccinated people socialising outdoors, or even indoors. The US CDC agrees with me. It is possible that the paranoia is overdone.

Until the South African variant arrives here and negates most of the good results achieved by all those OxAZ vaccinations.

Given the OxAZ is only 10% effective against the SA variant, I can see plenty of risk associated with socialising indoors once SA gets here, as it surely will.

Looking on the bright side, SA has a similar infectivity to the Kent variant, so perhaps it won't achieve domination when it turns up. That'll be for another variant yet to evolve.

Fortunately I gather that the Covid vaccines can be tweaked fairly easily to deal with mutations so I do not think that the situation is as dire as some are making out. As for 1nvest, it seems that either he is living on another planet, he has a very short memory caused by his obsession or as I said earlier, he is twisting 'facts' to suit his own argument.

Dod

Whilst, as I understand it, the short time to tweak certain vaccines for a new variant is correct for the mRNA vaccines, and for the viral vector vaccines albeit maybe taking a couple of months longer due to the different manufacturing process, I still worry about the practicalities. Being parochial and just looking at the U.K. we got something of a head start due to risk-funding a large number of winners and then approving Pfizer, AZ and Moderna very quickly but even so we have seen concerns about supplies in April and let’s call it some “robust conversations” with the EU regarding vaccine supplies (I don’t like calling it a “war”). Supply is constrained and I suspect will remain constrained relative to demand for quite a while. I do worry how rapidly we could roll out a booster shot towards the end of this year when numerous other countries will quite justifiably be requiring considerable supplies for their initial vaccination roll outs which I certainly hope will be running at pace by then.

One ray of hope I see is that although the only data I have seen does claim that the AZ vaccine is only 10% effective against the SA variant that figure was for mild to moderate disease. There is simply no data yet, or at least none that I have seen, for AZ efficacy against the SA strain re hospitalisation and death. Many experts say there are immunological reasons to believe that the AZ vaccine will still protect against severe disease arising from the SA strain but I would really like to see some real life human data to back up that prediction. The problem is that I don’t see where that data will come from. South Africa has sold all of its AZ stockpile to other African countries and running any targeted clinical trial to try and answer the question would, I am pretty sure, be deemed unethical. I suppose if the SA variant did become prevalent in the U.K. then we would get the data here but I really wouldn’t want that ending up being the case.

My guess is that a booster program will be rolled out at the end of this year. Even if it has to go slowly due to constrained supply if it works through the population in decreasing order of vulnerability that’s still going to save lives if the theoretical predictions about efficacy of the current vaccines against the SA variant turn out to be wrong for even one of the vaccines that we are using.

- Julian

[Mike4]

I do worry how rapidly we could roll out a booster shot towards the end of this year when numerous other countries will quite justifiably be requiring considerable supplies for their initial vaccination roll outs which I certainly hope will be running at pace by then.

Me too. Designing another vaccine to combat a new variant strikes me as the quick and easy bit. Rolling it out and getting it jabbed into say, 40m people here is gonna be the slow bit, even if we can make it ourselves.

[servodude]

I do worry how rapidly we could roll out a booster shot towards the end of this year when numerous other countries will quite justifiably be requiring considerable supplies for their initial vaccination roll outs which I certainly hope will be running at pace by then.

Me too. Designing another vaccine to combat a new variant strikes me as the quick and easy bit. Rolling it out and getting it jabbed into say, 40m people here is gonna be the slow bit, even if we can make it ourselves.

They should put a chip in the vaccine so that it could update itself in the field

[Dod101]

I do worry how rapidly we could roll out a booster shot towards the end of this year when numerous other countries will quite justifiably be requiring considerable supplies for their initial vaccination roll outs which I certainly hope will be running at pace by then.

Me too. Designing another vaccine to combat a new variant strikes me as the quick and easy bit. Rolling it out and getting it jabbed into say, 40m people here is gonna be the slow bit, even if we can make it ourselves.

Golly Mike does every cloud have rain in it through your eyes? What a way to see the world.

This is Easter weekend. Traditionally we welcome new life (in fact I saw some tiny probably 24 hour old lambs yesterday; quite early for my part of the world). We have a highly successful vaccine programme. Our Covid numbers are well down. Let's look at the positive side. Look what we have done with the current programme of vaccines. We have vaccinated not far short of 40 million in just 3 months.

Dod

[Mike4]

Golly Mike does every cloud have rain in it through your eyes? What a way to see the world.

This is Easter weekend. Traditionally we welcome new life (in fact I saw some tiny probably 24 hour old lambs yesterday; quite early for my part of the world). We have a highly successful vaccine programme. Our Covid numbers are well down. Let's look at the positive side. Look what we have done with the current programme of vaccines. We have vaccinated not far short of 40 million in just 3 months.

Dod

For a diet of relentless Good News regardless of what is actually happening, I suggest listening to Matt Hancock!

For a technical discussion of coronavirus, come to this coronavirus discussion board here. It's what its for, even if you don't like the issues being discussed

[Arborbridge]

[

The big difference here is vaccinations. An indoor game of bridge between four people who have been fully vaccinated is a trivial risk. An outdoor party with people who have been vaccinated is a trivial risk. The US CDC has stated that vaccinated people can socialise indoors without limit. Why aren't the UK health authorities telling us that? Paranoia?

To my mind the government has to continue with its phased schedule for easing, assuming the numbers continue to look very good.

Paranoia? no caution. Boris was once bitten and twice shy - he knows he relaxed too soon previously.
Having stupidly given that hostage to fortune "this will be the last lockdowm" he does not want to lose it now.
And his aim is, as you say, to continue to with the phased schedule if the numbers look good. From a scientific POV it is perfectly rtiona to have sufficient time lapses between relaxing episodes to see how the numbers are reacting.

This isn't helped by goons crowding on to beaches saying "we've had enough!" as in some pictures I saw yesterday from Cardiff, with not a mask in sight. If they behave like that (justified by "we are young, we don't get it" ) then they are almost bringing on the third wave. In that case they haven't "had enough" for they will get more lockdowns. Is that what they want, perhaps? More furlough cash to extend their holidays?

Arb.

[Dod101]

Golly Mike does every cloud have rain in it through your eyes? What a way to see the world.

This is Easter weekend. Traditionally we welcome new life (in fact I saw some tiny probably 24 hour old lambs yesterday; quite early for my part of the world). We have a highly successful vaccine programme. Our Covid numbers are well down. Let's look at the positive side. Look what we have done with the current programme of vaccines. We have vaccinated not far short of 40 million in just 3 months.

Dod

For a diet of relentless Good News regardless of what is actually happening, I suggest listening to Matt Hancock!

For a technical discussion of coronavirus, come to this coronavirus discussion board here. It's what its for, even if you don't like the issues being discussed

For a technical discussion on coronavirus I usually listen to the experts. Is there another Mike4 who is the boiler engineer?

Dod

[Mike4]

Golly Mike does every cloud have rain in it through your eyes? What a way to see the world.

This is Easter weekend. Traditionally we welcome new life (in fact I saw some tiny probably 24 hour old lambs yesterday; quite early for my part of the world). We have a highly successful vaccine programme. Our Covid numbers are well down. Let's look at the positive side. Look what we have done with the current programme of vaccines. We have vaccinated not far short of 40 million in just 3 months.

Dod

For a diet of relentless Good News regardless of what is actually happening, I suggest listening to Matt Hancock!

For a technical discussion of coronavirus, come to this coronavirus discussion board here. It's what its for, even if you don't like the issues being discussed

For a technical discussion on coronavirus I usually listen to the experts. Is there another Mike4 who is the boiler engineer?

Dod

So do I. Then I comment on here and discuss what the experts are saying. Then you pop up demanding only Good News stories. You trying to police what I say on here is getting rather wearing. DO give it a rest.

[Lootman]

I comment on here and discuss what the experts are saying. Then you pop up demanding only Good News stories.

Or perhaps you comment on here on what some experts are saying, typically those whose views align with your own? We all exhibit confirmation bias like that to some extent. Although some more than others, and I do think you have a rather gloomy and pessimistic take on the subject. The "experts" that I read are more positive than your "experts".

Dod is correct in that none of us here are experts in this field. That is not to say that every opinion expressed here is worthless. But it does seem to me that people exhibit on this topic some of the traits that they exhibit on other topics as well. And their submissions are selective. Some here even admit to shutting out some sources since they have decided such sources are unreliable (i.e. offer views contrary to their own).

Most of the virus news in 2021 has been positive, in the UK anyway. During WW2 a key strategy was to keep peoples' spirits up. I suspect that is a good idea here as well, which is why "Gloomy Gus" paranoia doesn't play well even if the intention is good.

[XFool]

I comment on here and discuss what the experts are saying. Then you pop up demanding only Good News stories.

Or perhaps you comment on here on what some experts are saying, typically those whose views align with your own? We all exhibit confirmation bias like that to some extent. Although some more than others, and I do think you have a rather gloomy and pessimistic take on the subject. The "experts" that I read are more positive than your "experts".

Who are your "experts"? (Bet they are American!)

is correct in that none of us here are experts in this field. That is not to say that every opinion expressed here is worthless. But it does seem to me that people exhibit on this topic some of the traits that they exhibit on other topics as well. And their submissions are selective. Some here even admit to shutting out some sources since they have decided such sources are unreliable (i.e. offer views contrary to their own).

Fair enough, possibly. But, OTOH, there are always "experts" with "contrary" views (or even contrary views...) on anything you want. Personally, I think a little discrimination is called for, especially in these Internet days.

[Lootman]

I comment on here and discuss what the experts are saying. Then you pop up demanding only Good News stories.

Or perhaps you comment on here on what some experts are saying, typically those whose views align with your own? We all exhibit confirmation bias like that to some extent. Although some more than others, and I do think you have a rather gloomy and pessimistic take on the subject. The "experts" that I read are more positive than your "experts".

Who are your "experts"?

The most recent example I cited was the CDC which is advising that fully vaccinated people can meet indoors without masks. And that they can travel. The UK equivalent is not telling us that at all.

is correct in that none of us here are experts in this field. That is not to say that every opinion expressed here is worthless. But it does seem to me that people exhibit on this topic some of the traits that they exhibit on other topics as well. And their submissions are selective. Some here even admit to shutting out some sources since they have decided such sources are unreliable (i.e. offer views contrary to their own).

there are always "experts" with "contrary" views (or even contrary views...) on anything you want. Personally, I think a little discrimination is called for, especially in these Internet days.

Yes but that "discrimination" tends to be based on one's personal biases, and therein lies the problem I was referring to.

[XFool]

Or perhaps you comment on here on what some experts are saying, typically those whose views align with your own? We all exhibit confirmation bias like that to some extent. Although some more than others, and I do think you have a rather gloomy and pessimistic take on the subject. The "experts" that I read are more positive than your "experts".

Who are your "experts"?

The most recent example I cited was the CDC which is advising that fully vaccinated people can meet indoors without masks. And that they can travel. The UK equivalent is not telling us that at all.

I can't explain the thinking of the (American) CDC, but just one small difference between here and there is, AFAIK, the US vaccination regime followed the manufacturer's recommendations (you illustrated this yourself), whereas the UK took another course. Now I do not know the significance of that difference in approach here, but it is just one difference.

is correct in that none of us here are experts in this field. That is not to say that every opinion expressed here is worthless. But it does seem to me that people exhibit on this topic some of the traits that they exhibit on other topics as well. And their submissions are selective. Some here even admit to shutting out some sources since they have decided such sources are unreliable (i.e. offer views contrary to their own).

there are always "experts" with "contrary" views (or even contrary views...) on anything you want. Personally, I think a little discrimination is called for, especially in these Internet days.

Yes but that "discrimination" tends to be based on one's personal biases, and therein lies the problem I was referring to.

OK. This is a complex (I think) and interesting matter...

Your approach seems to me to be based on a symmetry of position: On the one hand, on the other hand.
In many situations in life this 'relative' approach is indeed the case, indeed there is no way of establishing correctness on one side or the other. Nobody is 'wrong' because nobody can be wrong. "Homosexual relationships are natural and good."; "Homosexual relationships are unnatural and an abomination."

But: "The Earth is in the shape of a globe"; "The Earth is flat and they have been deceiving us for years." Here I believe the symmetry is broken, either one or the other of those views is just flat(!) wrong. One view is rationally refutable - the other view can only be held, and is so held, by choosing to give up on rationality. The truth here seems to me absolute, not relative.

Now, you will say those two examples are simple extremes, that most things are more complex, not as black and white. I agree! I gave them simply as clear, artificially simple, illustrative examples. I fully realise many/most 'real life' cases are more complicated and messy (though I also think you don't think I do...).

I think what I am saying is I just don't accept all "views" and opinions are of equivalent value - in the case of real world events. WRT the pandemic, we had quite a few "contrary" (even contrary...) opinions strongly pushed and publicised during the pandemic year. We can look back a them now and see how they faired, in the face of reality. Mostly, they didn't.

But, as ever, many of those really committed to whatever ideological thinking motivated their original "contrary" approach will be in denial.

Of course, none of this exactly explains how to go about deciding between "contrary" views in the first place, so the arguments(whoops!) debates can continue.