Heading into autumn - what next?

[MikeWM]

The SNP have no business voting on matters pertaining to England, they can stay north of the border, their voice should count for nothing down here.

I don't think they will - but when you remove their MPs from the equation, it gives the Conservatives a much bigger majority over the other parties to begin with.

Sadly though with Labour looking to support passports I think it would go through regardless, unless there is a sizeable Libertarian Tory and Corbynist Labour crowd voting against them alongside the Lib Dem’s, it would be a narrow win at best

I'm not sure Labour will support 'vaccine only' passports, they may insist on a test option. Of course a cynic could say that's why the current plan is for 'vaccine only', to allow a 'compromise' to push the plan through.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I don't think they will - but when you remove their MPs from the equation, it gives the Conservatives a much bigger majority over the other parties to begin with.



I'm not sure Labour will support 'vaccine only' passports, they may insist on a test option. Of course a cynic could say that's why the current plan is for 'vaccine only', to allow a 'compromise' to push the plan through.

Personally for this vote I hope the SNP are blocked from voting on this matter, though seeing how “successful” the passports have been up in Scotland I can’t see them lasting much longer beyond this year with any luck.

I believe that would be the Corbyn wing of the Labour Party lobbying for a test option.

 

[MikeWM]

Personally for this vote I hope the SNP are blocked from voting on this matter, though seeing how “successful” the passports have been up in Scotland I can’t see them lasting much longer beyond this year with any luck.

'English votes for english laws' has thankfully been done away with (whatever one thinks of the idea, the implementation was appalling) so they won't be procedurally blocked, but they may choose not to vote anyway. They didn't on mandatory vaccinations for care home workers, for example.

I believe that would be the Corbyn wing of the Labour Party lobbying for a test option.

No, they don't like the idea at all, any more than they liked ID cards 15 years ago. (Unfortunately they rather like all the other restrictions, it seems).

It was Starmer who was going on about tests (although at one point he seemed to be going on about vaccination *and* tests, so who knows?!)

 

[brad465]

No, they don't like the idea at all, any more than they liked ID cards 15 years ago. (Unfortunately they rather like all the other restrictions, it seems).

It was Starmer who was going on about tests (although at one point he seemed to be going on about vaccination *and* tests, so who knows?!)

Yes I'm pretty sure Corbyn and co. are or at least have been opposed to them, although oddly a number of his supporters favour them (on social media at least).

 

[NorthKent1989]

'English votes for english laws' has thankfully been done away with (whatever one thinks of the idea, the implementation was appalling) so they won't be procedurally blocked, but they may choose not to vote anyway. They didn't on mandatory vaccinations for care home workers, for example.



No, they don't like the idea at all, any more than they liked ID cards 15 years ago. (Unfortunately they rather like all the other restrictions, it seems).

It was Starmer who was going on about tests (although at one point he seemed to be going on about vaccination *and* tests, so who knows?!)

Not sure I’m happy that English votes for English laws has been done away with, I’m resentful that a Scottish MP can vote on something that effects me as an Englishman, seeing as they don’t like English interference, but that’s for another thread.

Labour are pretty confused and don’t really know what they want, that’s no surprise sadly.

 

[MikeWM]

It seems that at least one member of SAGE believes that Covid rules aren’t really restrictions at all. An absolutely breathtaking example of doublethink:

Covid measures give us choice. They are not restrictions on British life

The government, ignoring the science, talks of freedom. But true liberty comes from cutting infections so people feel safe, says Sage member Stephen Reicher

www.theguardian.com

I made the rookie mistake of looking at the comments section on that one. I've never seen such a load of nonsensical rubbish gathered in one place. There appeared to be a couple of people attempting to argue rationally - I don't envy them.

 

[brad465]

So it turns out fully vaccinated people are catching and spreading covid at home to others they live with, which should really raise questions about just how much control we actually have over this virus:

Covid: Double vaccinated can still spread virus at home

Vaccinated people are catching and then spreading the virus to those they live with, UK study finds.

www.bbc.co.uk

Double jabbed people are catching Covid and passing it on to those they live with, warn experts who have studied UK household cases.
Individuals who have had two vaccine doses can be just as infectious as those who have not been jabbed.
Even if they have no or few symptoms, the chance of them transmitting the virus to other unvaccinated housemates is about two in five, or 38%.
This drops to one in four, or 25%, if housemates are also fully vaccinated.
The Lancet Infectious Diseases work shows why getting even more people vaccinated and protected is important, they say.
Unvaccinated people cannot rely on those around them being jabbed to remove their risk of getting infected, they warn.
Vaccines do an excellent job of preventing serious Covid illness and deaths, but are less good at stopping infections, particularly since the emergence of the more infectious Delta variant which is dominant in the UK.
And over time, the protection offered by vaccines wanes and needs boosting with further doses.
Since households are where most Covid transmission occurs, making sure every member who is eligible for a vaccine has had one and is up to date with their doses makes sense, say experts.
According to the study, which ran from September 2020 to September 2021 and included 440 households in London and Bolton doing PCR Covid tests:

• People who are double jabbed have a lower, but still appreciable, risk of becoming infected with the Delta variant compared with unvaccinated people
• They also appear to be just as infectious
• Vaccinated people clear the infection more quickly, but their peak viral load - when people are most infectious - is similar to that seen in unvaccinated people
• This may explain why they can still readily pass on the virus in household settings

Prof Ajit Lalvani, of Imperial College London, UK, who co-led the study, said: "The ongoing transmission we are seeing between vaccinated people makes it essential for unvaccinated people to get vaccinated to protect themselves from acquiring infection and severe Covid-19, especially as more people will be spending time inside in close proximity during the winter months.
"We found that susceptibility to infection increased already within a few months after the second vaccine dose - so those eligible for booster shots should get them promptly."
Co-lead Dr Anika Singanayagam, also from Imperial, said: "Our findings provide important insights into the effect of vaccination in the face of new variants, and specifically, why the Delta variant is continuing to cause high Covid case numbers around the world, even in countries with high vaccination rates.
"Continued public health and social measures to curb transmission - such as mask wearing, social distancing, and testing - thus remain important, even in vaccinated individuals."

Benefits to the individual getting vaccinated are still clear, but we really need to get over the concept of trying to control spread like we think we can control nature in this way. As I've said many times the other focuses need to be on mitigations like increasing healthcare capacity and maybe also limiting risk factors like obesity through healthy lifestyle promotions, not through non-clinical adaptations.

 

[Bristol Rich]

He's a bloody nuisance. I can not stand him!

We do NOT need to "go hard and early" right now atall. As you say the figures are falling at the moment, so absolutely no need for this. We don't need any of these Covid restrictions nonsense brought back all over again and the PROBLEMS it would cause again. People like him just don't care about the impacts these restrictions have had on thousands of businesses and millions of people's mental health.

As you say, he needs to go early himself.

I could not agree with you more.

Bloke is an absolute bloody nuisance. Had completely enough of him and his like now.

 

[MikeWM]

Benefits to the individual getting vaccinated are still clear, but we really need to get over the concept of trying to control spread like we think we can control nature in this way. As I've said many times the other focuses need to be on mitigations like increasing healthcare capacity and maybe also limiting risk factors like obesity through healthy lifestyle promotions, not through non-clinical adaptations.

Note that the people behind all of these kind of studies always say at the end that we have to continue to socially distance and wear masks. Presumably they mean forever.

 

[greyman42]

So it turns out fully vaccinated people are catching and spreading covid at home to others they live with, which should really raise questions about just how much control we actually have over this virus:

A bit like the Cold virus then.

Note that the people behind all of these kind of studies always say at the end that we have to continue to socially distance and wear masks. Presumably they mean forever.

You will never get a straight and honest answer from them on that one.

 

[Eyersey468]

Note that the people behind all of these kind of studies always say at the end that we have to continue to socially distance and wear masks. Presumably they mean forever.

I had noticed that too. They may be happy to antisocial distance and wear a mask for the rest of time, I am not.

 

[Bikeman78]

I made the rookie mistake of looking at the comments section on that one. I've never seen such a load of nonsensical rubbish gathered in one place. There appeared to be a couple of people attempting to argue rationally - I don't envy them.

Gave me a laugh. I do like it when people claim to be concerned on behalf of other people.

 

[Ianno87]

Note that the people behind all of these kind of studies always say at the end that we have to continue to socially distance and wear masks. Presumably they mean forever.

Because they are providing an entirely scientific response to the question they have been asked.

They were not asked to consider any other effects of such restrictions, because that is not their expertise, and they are not trying to be experts in anything else, nor making any judgement on the trade off between the benefit of restrictions in stopping virus spread versus the negative effects of those restrictions.

 

[DustyBin]

So it turns out fully vaccinated people are catching and spreading covid at home to others they live with, which should really raise questions about just how much control we actually have over this virus:

Covid: Double vaccinated can still spread virus at home

Vaccinated people are catching and then spreading the virus to those they live with, UK study finds.

www.bbc.co.uk

Benefits to the individual getting vaccinated are still clear, but we really need to get over the concept of trying to control spread like we think we can control nature in this way. As I've said many times the other focuses need to be on mitigations like increasing healthcare capacity and maybe also limiting risk factors like obesity through healthy lifestyle promotions, not through non-clinical adaptations.

I had my say on this in the support group discussion earlier (before this article was even published as it happens). I'm not anti-vax, but the original vaccination strategy was the right one, i.e. protect the vulnerable. By trying to persuade younger people to get jabbed on the basis that they'd be protected from infection and transmission is now back firing as the vaccines don't appear to be particularly effective in this regard. Frankly it doesn't matter, but it's given ammunition to the restriction fanatics who conveniently forget what it was we originally set out to achieve (as have the government in fairness). The vaccines have done their job; we need to forget about infections, end the obsession with testing and get on with life.

Because they are providing an entirely scientific response to the question they have been asked.

They were not asked to consider any other effects of such restrictions, because that is not their expertise, and they are not trying to be experts in anything else, nor making any judgement on the trade off between the benefit of restrictions in stopping virus spread versus the negative effects of those restrictions.

Surely though for a response to be entirely scientific, there needs to be some actual science behind it!

 

[Jamiescott1]

As has been mentioned numerous times on here, go on any tfl service where masks are mandated to see what people really think.
On tfl rail to Reading, mask wearing must be less than 10%

 

[The Ham]

I had my say on this in the support group discussion earlier (before this article was even published as it happens). I'm not anti-vax, but the original vaccination strategy was the right one, i.e. protect the vulnerable. By trying to persuade younger people to get jabbed on the basis that they'd be protected from infection and transmission is now back firing as the vaccines don't appear to be particularly effective in this regard. Frankly it doesn't matter, but it's given ammunition to the restriction fanatics who conveniently forget what it was we originally set out to achieve (as have the government in fairness). The vaccines have done their job; we need to forget about infections, end the obsession with testing and get on with life.

There's a list of bullet points in the middle of that article:

• People who are double jabbed have a lower, but still appreciable, risk of becoming infected with the Delta variant compared with unvaccinated people
• They also appear to be just as infectious
• Vaccinated people clear the infection more quickly, but their peak viral load - when people are most infectious - is similar to that seen in unvaccinated people
• This may explain why they can still readily pass on the virus in household settings

The first point days that they will be less likely to get the virus.

That isn't impacted by the second point which is those who are infected will just as likely as if they weren't vaccinated pass it on.

As such, whilst they won't be stopped from passing it on if they get infected, they are less likely to get infected in the first place.

If these a group of 10 people who are exposed to someone without a vaccine and with Covid (they have a vaccine) which causes (say) 3 of them to get it and then each expose it to 10 people, then those 10 people will still have 3/10 chance of catching it if they are all vaccinated (i.e. no reduction in risk in passing it on from the person with the virus even though they have been vaccinated). This the repeats and so after 5 such infection cycles there'll be 243 cases (assuming all are vaccinated).

Now let's say that without a vaccine 4 get it then after 5 infection cycles (assuming no vaccination) there'll be 1,024 cases.

The numbers get further and further apart the more infection cycles you go through, after 10 it's 59,000 vs 1,000,000.

Therefore, even though the risk of passing it on when you've got it doesn't change (regardless of if you are vaccinated or not) the overall number of cases does change, and potential quite significantly, depending on if people are vaccinated or not.

 

[Bikeman78]

Because they are providing an entirely scientific response to the question they have been asked.

They were not asked to consider any other effects of such restrictions, because that is not their expertise, and they are not trying to be experts in anything else, nor making any judgement on the trade off between the benefit of restrictions in stopping virus spread versus the negative effects of those restrictions.

Given that Wales is doing no better than England, despite already having all the plan B measures, I'm increasingly convinced that it's all futile. Nature will run its course. Also if they keep banging on about restrictions despite the vaccine then I won't be bothering to get any boosters. I'm sure I won't be the only one.

 

[DustyBin]

There's a list of bullet points in the middle of that article:


The first point days that they will be less likely to get the virus.

That isn't impacted by the second point which is those who are infected will just as likely as if they weren't vaccinated pass it on.

As such, whilst they won't be stopped from passing it on if they get infected, they are less likely to get infected in the first place.

If these a group of 10 people who are exposed to someone without a vaccine and with Covid (they have a vaccine) which causes (say) 3 of them to get it and then each expose it to 10 people, then those 10 people will still have 3/10 chance of catching it if they are all vaccinated (i.e. no reduction in risk in passing it on from the person with the virus even though they have been vaccinated). This the repeats and so after 5 such infection cycles there'll be 243 cases (assuming all are vaccinated).

Now let's say that without a vaccine 4 get it then after 5 infection cycles (assuming no vaccination) there'll be 1,024 cases.

The numbers get further and further apart the more infection cycles you go through, after 10 it's 59,000 vs 1,000,000.

Therefore, even though the risk of passing it on when you've got it doesn't change (regardless of if you are vaccinated or not) the overall number of cases does change, and potential quite significantly, depending on if people are vaccinated or not.

I can’t fault your maths, but as per usual the article completely disregards natural immunity. How many people, who are actually going out, meeting other people etc. have absolutely no immunity be it vaccine induced or naturally acquired at this stage? I don’t know the answer incidentally, but it can’t be many (I’m sure there are official estimates). The reality is infections don’t increase exponentially in the way the maths (or SAGE models) suggest. The other point of course is whether it matters how many people are infected at a given time, providing there’s no corresponding increase in excess deaths and hospitalisations. I don’t recall us ever focusing on cold or flu infections, so why treat this (now endemic) respiratory virus any differently?

 

[43066]

The quotes about numbers of daily contacts is interesting.

Prior to the pandemic, average number of contacts per person per day was 11, which went down to 3, which is now about five. It's fascinating that he is arguing for a society with less social contact as though this is a beneficial thing. Is he asking for this to be a permanent change ? This is what the pro-restriction people never admit.

I think there is a significant cabal of people within the population generally (and also represented in SAGE) who don’t want us to ever go back to 2019 “normal” and actively want a more restrictions, less freedom.

I suppose they see COVID as the perfect chance to bring this in. I know that sounds a little far fetched conspiracy/theorist, but I honestly don’t see any other way to explain the thinking outlined in the article at a point where the virus is endemic, cases are not increasing as we were all so earnestly assured they would a few months ago, and we have excellent vaccine coverage!

That said I’m also starting to suspect that some elements of the left are becoming frustrated that they’re struggling to land any punches on the Tories at the moment. Perhaps they see continued doom mongering around Covid as the only effective way of triangulating criticism towards the government.

 

[The Ham]

I can’t fault your maths, but as per usual the article completely disregards natural immunity. How many people, who are actually going out, meeting other people etc. have absolutely no immunity be it vaccine induced or naturally acquired at this stage? I don’t know the answer incidentally, but it can’t be many (I’m sure there are official estimates). The reality is infections don’t increase exponentially in the way the maths (or SAGE models) suggest. The other point of course is whether it matters how many people are infected at a given time, providing there’s no corresponding increase in excess deaths and hospitalisations. I don’t recall us ever focusing on cold or flu infections, so why treat this (now endemic) respiratory virus any differently?

Officially 9 million have tested positive for Covid, now I know that there'll be a lot who have had it but haven't been tested, however even if you assume 3 times that number you've still to reach 1/2 the population (just over 40%). With about 15% of those eligible without a first dose, that's still (assuming everything is distributed equally, including ALL children being vaccinated at the rate of those who are eligible, so the number is likely to be higher) 4 million people who haven't been vaccinated and haven't had the vaccine.

[Edit] to put that 4 million into perspective there's typically 2.5 million people living with cancer and you wouldn't have to ask many people before you came across someone who knew someone with cancer [/Edit]

With a lower rate of transfer between people who have been vaccinated then it's likely to take some time to reach those without a vaccine and who haven't had it. However that's unlikely to be any time soon.

Of course you still run the risk, and of course the risk is very much reduced in the lower aged groups however there remains a risk, that you could end up fairly unwell (even if that doesn't result in you being in hospital or dying).

There's a balance, we shouldn't ever be forcing people to be vaccinated (there maybe times where a big inventive is required, for example NHS frontline staff being required to as a condition of contract, however even then they can opt not to it's just they also have to find alternative work - however even within that there's a debate as to if there's scope for allowing some to not be vaccinated or if there's clinical work which doesn't count as frontline so you don't lose good staff), however we also should be doing what we can to encourage those without suitable protection (be that Covid or any other illness with significant risk) to opt to take up that protection.

In some cases (flu vaccination being a good example) by giving those who wouldn't normally have an issue with it there's a slowing of the transfer. This means that those who would otherwise be at risk (even with a vaccine, and there's some who can't have vaccines as well) gain a level of protection which they otherwise wouldn't have.

It's not going to take long before the number of those with 3 doses overtakes those without any (where they are eligible).

 

[plugwash]

And in some cases (measles for example) a vaccination program can drive incidence of a virus down to negligable levels.

The big question IMO is will covid be like flu (where the vaccines can mitigate the disease but not drive it down to negligable levels) or like measels (where the disease can be driven down to negligable levels by vaccination). I don't think we will know the answer to that until we reach at least the point where vaccination of highschoolers reaches saturation.

 

[Bantamzen]

Officially 9 million have tested positive for Covid, now I know that there'll be a lot who have had it but haven't been tested, however even if you assume 3 times that number you've still to reach 1/2 the population (just over 40%). With about 15% of those eligible without a first dose, that's still (assuming everything is distributed equally, including ALL children being vaccinated at the rate of those who are eligible, so the number is likely to be higher) 4 million people who haven't been vaccinated and haven't had the vaccine.

[Edit] to put that 4 million into perspective there's typically 2.5 million people living with cancer and you wouldn't have to ask many people before you came across someone who knew someone with cancer [/Edit]

With a lower rate of transfer between people who have been vaccinated then it's likely to take some time to reach those without a vaccine and who haven't had it. However that's unlikely to be any time soon.

Of course you still run the risk, and of course the risk is very much reduced in the lower aged groups however there remains a risk, that you could end up fairly unwell (even if that doesn't result in you being in hospital or dying).

There's a balance, we shouldn't ever be forcing people to be vaccinated (there maybe times where a big inventive is required, for example NHS frontline staff being required to as a condition of contract, however even then they can opt not to it's just they also have to find alternative work - however even within that there's a debate as to if there's scope for allowing some to not be vaccinated or if there's clinical work which doesn't count as frontline so you don't lose good staff), however we also should be doing what we can to encourage those without suitable protection (be that Covid or any other illness with significant risk) to opt to take up that protection.

In some cases (flu vaccination being a good example) by giving those who wouldn't normally have an issue with it there's a slowing of the transfer. This means that those who would otherwise be at risk (even with a vaccine, and there's some who can't have vaccines as well) gain a level of protection which they otherwise wouldn't have.

It's not going to take long before the number of those with 3 doses overtakes those without any (where they are eligible).

But you have also got to keep in mind that the data comes from a relatively small percentage of the population over a 10 day period (the generally accepted time that one might prove to be positive if infected), so your estimation of x3 could be well under the actual mark. And there's the period from the first infection, believed to be sometime in mid-December 2019 until March 2021 when the current levels of testing were first met, so a lot of cases will have passed unnoticed. I'd suspect that the number of people exposed to the virus is way higher than 27 million.

And in some cases (measles for example) a vaccination program can drive incidence of a virus down to negligable levels.

The big question IMO is will covid be like flu (where the vaccines can mitigate the disease but not drive it down to negligable levels) or like measels (where the disease can be driven down to negligable levels by vaccination). I don't think we will know the answer to that until we reach at least the point where vaccination of highschoolers reaches saturation.

We already know that the current crop of vaccines will not have the same effect on the virus as the measles one, so it will become endemic like influenza.

 

[The Ham]

But you have also got to keep in mind that the data comes from a relatively small percentage of the population over a 10 day period (the generally accepted time that one might prove to be positive if infected), so your estimation of x3 could be well under the actual mark. And there's the period from the first infection, believed to be sometime in mid-December 2019 until March 2021 when the current levels of testing were first met, so a lot of cases will have passed unnoticed. I'd suspect that the number of people exposed to the virus is way higher than 27 million.

Whilst those testing with symptoms would miss quite a few people, for some time now there's been a push for kids of people to test twice a week which will pick up most cases, even with lateral flow tests.

Also I've applied the level of those with the vaccine across everyone (as it makes the maths easier), if I exclude the younger children then it makes the number protected by the vaccine smaller and would likely result in a similar number who haven't had the virus and haven't had the vaccine even with a higher level of infections.

We already know that the current crop of vaccines will not have the same effect on the virus as the measles one, so it will become endemic like influenza.

Indeed, however part of that is likely to be due to not everywhere across the world having for to a decent level of vaccination. If we get to that point then it's likely that it could be a fairly low level problem.

Certainly not as low measles, but probably not as high as influenza (in part as the level of protection given sits between the two). Currently, with circa 13% of the UK population without any vaccine we'd certainly expect to see it more like influenza, even if the level of protection was as high as the current measles vaccines. Not least because we've still got significant cases in the population making it fairly likely to be exposed to it (something which certainly isn't the case with measles).

 

[yorksrob]

I think there is a significant cabal of people within the population generally (and also represented in SAGE) who don’t want us to ever go back to 2019 “normal” and actively want a more restrictions, less freedom.

I suppose they see COVID as the perfect chance to bring this in. I know that sounds a little far fetched conspiracy/theorist, but I honestly don’t see any other way to explain the thinking outlined in the article at a point where the virus is endemic, cases are not increasing as we were all so earnestly assured they would a few months ago, and we have excellent vaccine coverage!

That said I’m also starting to suspect that some elements of the left are becoming frustrated that they’re struggling to land any punches on the Tories at the moment. Perhaps they see continued doom mongering around Covid as the only effective way of triangulating criticism towards the government.

Yes, I'm convinced that elements of the left support naive and impractical positions on covid restrictions as a way of putting "clear red water" between themselves and the Tories. I get this impression from some of my own conversations.

 

[DustyBin]

Officially 9 million have tested positive for Covid, now I know that there'll be a lot who have had it but haven't been tested, however even if you assume 3 times that number you've still to reach 1/2 the population (just over 40%). With about 15% of those eligible without a first dose, that's still (assuming everything is distributed equally, including ALL children being vaccinated at the rate of those who are eligible, so the number is likely to be higher) 4 million people who haven't been vaccinated and haven't had the vaccine.

[Edit] to put that 4 million into perspective there's typically 2.5 million people living with cancer and you wouldn't have to ask many people before you came across someone who knew someone with cancer [/Edit]

With a lower rate of transfer between people who have been vaccinated then it's likely to take some time to reach those without a vaccine and who haven't had it. However that's unlikely to be any time soon.

Of course you still run the risk, and of course the risk is very much reduced in the lower aged groups however there remains a risk, that you could end up fairly unwell (even if that doesn't result in you being in hospital or dying).

There's a balance, we shouldn't ever be forcing people to be vaccinated (there maybe times where a big inventive is required, for example NHS frontline staff being required to as a condition of contract, however even then they can opt not to it's just they also have to find alternative work - however even within that there's a debate as to if there's scope for allowing some to not be vaccinated or if there's clinical work which doesn't count as frontline so you don't lose good staff), however we also should be doing what we can to encourage those without suitable protection (be that Covid or any other illness with significant risk) to opt to take up that protection.

In some cases (flu vaccination being a good example) by giving those who wouldn't normally have an issue with it there's a slowing of the transfer. This means that those who would otherwise be at risk (even with a vaccine, and there's some who can't have vaccines as well) gain a level of protection which they otherwise wouldn't have.

It's not going to take long before the number of those with 3 doses overtakes those without any (where they are eligible).

Again I’m not going to argue with your maths or your logic, however you’ve lost sight of my original question which was does any of this matter? Everybody will develop immunity one way or another and from this point they’ll do so without dying in large numbers or overwhelming the NHS so my assertion is that no it doesn’t. The vulnerable are as protected as they can be and everybody who wants to be vaccinated has been, or has the option. Trying to drive down infection and transmission may be desirable but it isn’t what we set out to achieve; it’s mission creep and it’s fuelling the pro-restriction fire. According to SAGE (yes I know) it’s highly likely that vaccine escape will occur at some point. Hopefully this won’t lead to an increase in serious illness, however it may well lead to high levels of infection and transmission. The danger is that by focusing too much on these metrics we find ourselves back to square one, with renewed calls for restrictions to “control the virus” etc. etc.

And in some cases (measles for example) a vaccination program can drive incidence of a virus down to negligable levels.

The big question IMO is will covid be like flu (where the vaccines can mitigate the disease but not drive it down to negligable levels) or like measels (where the disease can be driven down to negligable levels by vaccination). I don't think we will know the answer to that until we reach at least the point where vaccination of highschoolers reaches saturation.

It will remain in general circulation like cold and flu, I think that’s a certainty at this point.

 

[Eyersey468]

England's Covid R rate rises yet again to estimated 1.1 to 1.3, new figures show

The R number in England was as high as 1.2 last Friday - a sign coronavirus cases in the country were growing at their fastest rate in months - today the R rate has risen again

www.mirror.co.uk

The R number in England was as high as 1.2 last Friday - a sign coronavirus cases in the country were growing at their fastest rate in months - today the R rate has risen again

The R number in England was estimated to have risen to between 1.0 and 1.2 last Friday - showing coronavirus cases in the country were growing at their fastest rate in months.

I wish they would make their minds up, yesterday they were reporting rates as falling today they are saying they are rising. Which is it? It can't be both.

 

[initiation]

England's Covid R rate rises yet again to estimated 1.1 to 1.3, new figures show

The R number in England was as high as 1.2 last Friday - a sign coronavirus cases in the country were growing at their fastest rate in months - today the R rate has risen again

www.mirror.co.uk

I wish they would make their minds up, yesterday they were reporting rates as falling today they are saying they are rising. Which is it? It can't be both.

The ONS survey this is based on has a week lag, so it is up to 22nd October. So yes, new figures, but not current ones.

 

[plugwash]

I wish they would make their minds up, yesterday they were reporting rates as falling today they are saying they are rising. Which is it? It can't be both.

The headline government "cases by date reported" figures have been lower than the same day the previous week from the 24th to the 28th (todays figures aren't out yet)

The ONS survey data has value, but presenting it as "latest news" when the headline figures are heading in the opposite direction seems misleading at best.

 

[Eyersey468]

The ONS survey this is based on has a week lag, so it is up to 22nd October. So yes, new figures, but not current ones.

The headline government "cases by date reported" figures have been lower than the same day the previous week from the 24th to the 28th (todays figures aren't out yet)

The ONS survey data has value, but presenting it as "latest news" when the headline figures are heading in the opposite direction seems misleading at best.

Thanks

 

[yorkie]

The other issue, if Plan B is implemented, will then there be demands for tougher measures. Prof Stephen Reicher has already suggested a ‘Plan C’ is required.

Reicher is a member of so-called "Independent Sage" (a far left lobbyist group who are utterly bonkers) and believes that variants can "escape" vaccines, so I would take anything he says with a hefty pinch of salt.

If I ever met him, I'd love to have an argument with him.

Sadly the media never challenge him; instead they seem to enjoy quoting his doom mongering claims, presumably because doom mongering generates sales/clicks.

England's Covid R rate rises yet again to estimated 1.1 to 1.3, new figures show

The R number in England was as high as 1.2 last Friday - a sign coronavirus cases in the country were growing at their fastest rate in months - today the R rate has risen again

www.mirror.co.uk

I wish they would make their minds up, yesterday they were reporting rates as falling today they are saying they are rising. Which is it? It can't be both.

The Mirror headline is either deliberately being highly disingenuous or the journalist has not got a clue that rates are falling because they are incompetent.

Given the state of journalism these days, I really couldn't say which.

In reality, cases have been falling since around 20th October. But I am not sure if many journalists know how to find out this information; it involves going to this website: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases and taking a look at the cases or case rates by specimen date. That may be too difficult for some journalists to do, as it requires a little bit of initiative and intelligence, which appears to be lacking in this sector.

Oh, and it's also worth mentioning that some people (who do recognise cases are reducing, but lack the ability to look deeper into when cases started to fall) are claiming the half-term break is behind the reduction in cases. This is false, because the half-term break for the vast majority of schools is this week (week commencing 25th October) yet cases plateaued a week before that and started reducing before the end of the first half of the school term.

So if you hear anyone claiming cases are only going down due to the half term holiday, you can tell them that's false.