Vaccine Progress, Approval, and Deployment

[TravelDream]

Yes, plenty of research out there, too much to quote. And efficacy varies by what it is preventing - infection, symptomatic disease, hospitalisation, death. And it varies by age group. And vaccine type. But very very broadly, one dose gives something between 60-80% efficacy, 2 doses 80-99%.

This is true, but isn't quite the full story.

There are a lot of numbers put out there on efficacy and people often pick and choose their favourite numbers. First, as you say, what is efficacy? Is it symptomatic infection? Death? Asymptomatic infection? Hospitalisation? Transmission? They are all different and could give radically different numbers.
Generally, most studies talk about 'symptomatic infection' which means the people they refer to have symptoms and then test positive for Covid. Most don't look at asymptomatic Covid where people are Covid positive, but have no symptoms - though a couple have.

First, the phase three trials. They are highly controlled studies and they all talk about symptomatic infection. That means people received two doses of the vaccine (some real and some placebos). Then they were asked to take Covid tests if they had any symptoms of infection. Those who had the vaccine and those who had the placebo were then compared. Headline numbers were:
Pfizer: 95% https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-r...iontech-announce-publication-results-landmark
Moderna: 94.1% https://investors.modernatx.com/new...-primary-efficacy-analysis-phase-3-cove-study
Oxford/ AZ: 70.4% https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-c...analysis-results-published-in-the-lancet.html
There are lots of numbers in these articles. The only true comparable though is the headline figure.
All three provided 100% protection against death and 'serious infection', but serious infection was defined differently by each company so, again, is not totally comparable.
The phase three trials did NOT check for efficacy after one dose.


There have then been many 'real-world' studies. These are not as controlled as phase three trials, but the large numbers involved make them pretty accurate.
These numbers have generally been even better than the phase three trials and several have looked at single-doses.
- Like this one in the BMJ from the UK. It showed that a single dose of Oxford-AZ was up to 73% effective against symptomatic infection whilst the Pfizer vaccine was up to 61% effective. https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1088
- Or this study from the Korean Government. It showed that a single dose of Oxford-AZ in the over 60s was up to 86.0% effective against symptomatic infection whilst the Pfizer vaccine was up to 89.7% effective.

S.Korea says AstraZeneca, Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines 87% effective after first shot

One dose of COVID-19 vaccines from AstraZeneca Plc (AZN.L) and Pfizer (PFE.N) was 86.6% effective in preventing infections among people aged 60 and older, real world data released by South Korea showed on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

Why the different numbers? Well, first, the numbers aren't that different and all show the vaccines are highly effective. There are a whole range of factors involved which mean no two studies are likely to give the exact same numbers. In layman's terms, these real-world studies could almost be described as carefully constructed and very educated back of a fag packet type stuff.


The real worry with this new Indian variant is that it appears to make vaccines a little less effective, especially in relation to first doses.
This data comes from Public Health England and was published in the BMJ.
Do note though this is a preprint paper meaning it is preliminary data, hasn't be subject to peer review and is subject to change.
B.1.617.2 is the Indian variant and B.1.1.7. the Kent variant.

A preprint paper released by Public Health England on 22 May showed that between 5 April and 16 May the Pfizer vaccine was 88% effective, two weeks after the second dose, against the B.1.617.2 variant and 93% against B.1.1.7, known as the UK or Kent variant.1 The AstraZeneca vaccine was 60% effective against B.1.617.2 at two weeks after the second dose and 66% against the Kent variant.

But both vaccines were only 33% effective against symptomatic disease from B.1.617.2 three weeks after the first dose, whereas they were 50% effective against B.1.1.7.

Covid-19: Single vaccine dose is 33% effective against variant from India, data show

The UK government has been urged to speed up giving two doses of the covid-19 vaccine after data showed a single dose was only 33% effective against the B.1.617.2 variant first detected in India, which continues to see a rapid growth in cases in the UK. A preprint paper released by Public...

www.bmj.com

The worry about the single-dose strategy is why the government has started to bring forward second doses among the elderly and most vulnerable.

 

[Richard Scott]

Whilst the risk of death for the majority of the under 50 cohort is typically low there's always going to be some who are at much higher risk.

However that's assuming that they've opted for the vaccine, the MMR "issues" impacted on children born in the mid 1990's, who will be in their mid 20's now and their their parents who are likely to be mid 40's. As such there's a risk that if they've been put off vaccines we could see some lower uptake rates from those who've been able to have them for a few weeks and who are likely to be able to book them in the next few weeks.

So we should continue with restrictions forever then, is that what you're saying? There are always some unfortunate people who are more at risk than others in any situation but we cannot accept that as being a reason for restrictions to continue. As noted earlier if people aren't taking the vaccine that's their choice and everyone else's life should not be on hold because of this.

 

[The Ham]

So we should continue with restrictions forever then, is that what you're saying? There are always some unfortunate people who are more at risk than others in any situation but we cannot accept that as being a reason for restrictions to continue. As noted earlier if people aren't taking the vaccine that's their choice and everyone else's life should not be on hold because of this.

No I'm not saying that we should continue with restrictions for ever, rather where we have people that we know who are vaccine hesitate we should be encouraging them to have the vaccine even if they are in the lower age groups.

If we look at what happened in December with the Kent Variant where the number of cases went up rather rapidly and what's happening with the latest variant of concern where whilst numbers are going up it's much more limited even though there's far fewer restrictions on what we can do.

That's down to having fewer cases in general and those with the new variant not being able to pass it on as easily to others (even though it's more transmissionable), whilst the weather (so being outside more) will be helping both can also be explained by the fact that at least 50% of the population has had at least two weeks since their first vaccine (given that circa 25% are under 18's that's fairly good going, however we can't be complaisant and everyone should, if they are able, have the vaccine - clearly there'll be some who can't and some who won't, and neither should be forced to have it, but those who won't should be at least challenged as to why they won't).

 

[LAX54]

This maybe the wrong thread, but a question... the 'BLUE' disposable masks that many wear, and many wear wrongly lol, are they described as surgical masks?
Only reason I ask, they were talking to a Doctor on Breakfast this morning saying that the PPE they get, is wrong, they are given surgical masks, and said as everyone knows they do not protect you from airborne particles etc, they then went on to show staff all wearing the blue style mask.

 

[ainsworth74]

This maybe the wrong thread, but a question... the 'BLUE' disposable masks that many wear, and many wear wrongly lol, are they described as surgical masks?
Only reason I ask, they were talking to a Doctor on Breakfast this morning saying that the PPE they get, is wrong, they are given surgical masks, and said as everyone knows they do not protect you from airborne particles etc, they then went on to show staff all wearing the blue style mask.

Yes those masks are, in theory, to protect people around you not yourself (I believe they do confer some protection to the wearer in general but not much, if any, when it comes to Covid). N95s are the the ones which offer protection to the wearer rather than just some to those around them:



(image shows N95)

But this is somewhat off-topic so perhaps a new thread if you have more questions about types of masks

 

[LAX54]

Yes those masks are, in theory, to protect people around you not yourself (I believe they do confer some protection to the wearer in general but not much, if any, when it comes to Covid). N95s are the the ones which offer protection to the wearer rather than those around them:

View attachment 97451

(image shows N95)

But this is somewhat off-topic so perhaps a new thread if you have more questions about types of masks

Thanks for the answer, did not want to start a new thread (the old one was closed), it just caught my attention on TV this morning, and knew someone on here would know the answer

 

[Richard Scott]

No I'm not saying that we should continue with restrictions for ever, rather where we have people that we know who are vaccine hesitate we should be encouraging them to have the vaccine even if they are in the lower age groups.

If we look at what happened in December with the Kent Variant where the number of cases went up rather rapidly and what's happening with the latest variant of concern where whilst numbers are going up it's much more limited even though there's far fewer restrictions on what we can do.

That's down to having fewer cases in general and those with the new variant not being able to pass it on as easily to others (even though it's more transmissionable), whilst the weather (so being outside more) will be helping both can also be explained by the fact that at least 50% of the population has had at least two weeks since their first vaccine (given that circa 25% are under 18's that's fairly good going, however we can't be complaisant and everyone should, if they are able, have the vaccine - clearly there'll be some who can't and some who won't, and neither should be forced to have it, but those who won't should be at least challenged as to why they won't).

We have many vaccinated now so variants aren't an issue. Also those who've had other variants will have immunity to current variants so unlikely to become hospitalised due to contracting the virus. Afraid your argument for continuing restrictions is a non starter.

 

[35B]

We have many vaccinated now so variants aren't an issue. Also those who've had other variants will have immunity to current variants so unlikely to become hospitalised due to contracting the virus. Afraid your argument for continuing restrictions is a non starter.

That's a very bold assertion - what are your scientific credentials to be so affirmative that we have reached effective herd immunity level?

 

[Richard Scott]

That's a very bold assertion - what are your scientific credentials to be so affirmative that we have reached effective herd immunity level?

Didn't mention herd immunity. Why do we need to reach this when the vulnerable have had or had opportunity to have vaccine? There will always be a few who are at risk but that is not a reason for continuing restrictions. The remaining unvaccinated are either through choice or younger (with almost no likelihood of there being a serious outcome if they did contract it). Seems to me you're happy for restrictions to continue based on fact that a few people are at risk.

 

[Djgr]

My daughter's University starts mass vaccination of their students on Tuesday.

 

[WM Bus]

Vaccine van is in Ward End today outside the Library.
Huge queues at Ward End vaccine bus as all over 18s urged to get jab - Birmingham Live (birminghammail.co.uk)

 

[jumble]

Can you really not see why being arbitrarily imprisoned at a moments notice would bother anyone?

Or even worse being imprisoned for no reason what so ever because you enjoyed breakfast at Spoons someone came in at Lunchtime long after you were gone and was tested positive .....
I can only assume that anyone who is in favour of this is either Furloughed or retired

 

[Class 317]

Or even worse being imprisoned for no reason what so ever because you enjoyed breakfast at Spoons someone came in at Lunchtime long after you were gone and was tested positive .....
I can only assume that anyone who is in favour of this is either Furloughed or retired

This is not true and cannot happen.

The NHS app does not tell you to self isolate because of check in's. Only the contact tracing function has this capability.

The venue check in function only sends a warning message you have been at an a venue with covid cases. I had one a few weeks ago which advised me to be tested if I show symptoms and avoid contact with the vulnerable.

Did not cause me any hardship.

 

[The Ham]

We have many vaccinated now so variants aren't an issue. Also those who've had other variants will have immunity to current variants so unlikely to become hospitalised due to contracting the virus. Afraid your argument for continuing restrictions is a non starter.

I believe that my wording may not have been clear, I wasn't suggesting that we should continue restrictions beyond what's planned in the roadmap (so a few weeks until the 27th).

What I was saying was that we do need to continue to get vaccinated of we are not.

The main restrictions beyond the 27th are to do with international travel and even if we opened that up fully there would still be loads of places either they wouldn't let us in and/or would be unwise to travel to (anyone fancy a trip to India right now?!?!).

Whilst that does impact on many, generally only with regards to their holidays (which are important), and whilst many do enjoy foreign travel not doing it isn't likely to have the same implications as many of the impacts from the lockdowns.

As such, until we get to 70% plus of the population vaccinated, ideally with many of those with two doses (which is likely to be September) then there's a reasonable argument for keeping some restrictions on international travel.

Especially given that, unless you've got school aged children, even if the current travel restrictions were fully lifted on the 27th then holiday costs would be significant and there's likely to be a lot of children around for most of the time between now and mid September anyway. Both factors could put people off traveling much during that time anyway.

 

[Chris125]

Didn't mention herd immunity. Why do we need to reach this when the vulnerable have had or had opportunity to have vaccine? There will always be a few who are at risk but that is not a reason for continuing restrictions. The remaining unvaccinated are either through choice or younger (with almost no likelihood of there being a serious outcome if they did contract it). Seems to me you're happy for restrictions to continue based on fact that a few people are at risk.

There's a simple reason we need restrictions now, and could conceivably retain them till late summer - hospitalisations.

The NHS backlog is already vast and hospitals are under strain from people who delayed seeking treatment. With cases growing exponentially - doubling every two weeks - and 5% hospitalised we could see 1000 admissions daily as soon as early July if things don't improve.

We've also discovered today that the new variant may be 2.6x more likely to put someone in hospital than the Kent variant.

 

[roversfan2001]

There's a simple reason we need restrictions now, and could conceivably retain them till late summer - hospitalisations.

The NHS backlog is already vast and hospital are now under pressure from people who delayed seeking treatment. With cases growing exponentially - doubling every two weeks - and 5% hospitalised we could see 1000 hospitalised daily as soon as early July.

We've also discovered today that the new variant may be 2.6x more likely to put someone in hospital than the Kent variant.

So because the NHS backlog is huge because of lockdowns, we need to keep restrictions? Do you not understand how completely flawed your logic is? Stop clutching at straws and finding any excuse to keep us locked up.

 

[Chris125]

So because the NHS backlog is huge because of lockdowns, we need to keep restrictions? Do you not understand how completely flawed your logic is? Stop clutching at straws and finding any excuse to keep us locked up.

There's a backlog because people avoided a healthcare system dealing with thousands of daily Covid admissions. Repeating that will have exactly the same result, more people with delayed treatment, an even bigger backlog.

Forcing the NHS to deal with another wave of Covid patients will just make things worse.

 

[Richard Scott]

There's a simple reason we need restrictions now, and could conceivably retain them till late summer - hospitalisations.

The NHS backlog is already vast and hospitals are under strain from people who delayed seeking treatment. With cases growing exponentially - doubling every two weeks - and 5% hospitalised we could see 1000 admissions daily as soon as early July if things don't improve.

We've also discovered today that the new variant may be 2.6x more likely to put someone in hospital than the Kent variant.

No cases are not growing exponentially and see the good old 'maybe' word; we've seen all this before and not ever seen any 'maybes' come true yet. So what anyway, almost all who get it now will have no Ill effects from it as they're younger and majority of older are vaccinated. Ironically the backlog in the NHS has been caused by all the unnecessary pussyfooting around with this virus.

 

[roversfan2001]

There's a backlog because people avoided a healthcare system dealing with thousands of daily Covid admissions. Repeating that will have exactly the same result, more people with delayed treatment, an even bigger backlog.

Forcing the NHS to deal with another wave of Covid patients will just make things worse.

You’re missing a key point. There won’t be another wave and anyone who thinks there will be is essentially an anti-vaxxer as they clearly don’t think they work.

 

[Chris125]

No cases are not growing exponentially and see the good old 'maybe' word; we've seen all this before and not ever seen any 'maybes' come true yet. So what anyway, almost all who get it now will have no Ill effects from it as they're younger and majority of older are vaccinated. Ironically the backlog in the NHS has been caused by all the unnecessary pussyfooting around with this virus.

Cases *are* growing exponentially, that's undeniable I'm afraid - doubling every 14 days: https://twitter.com/BristOliver/status/1400515879176126465

I said 'could' because the exact timing is uncertain - in the coming weeks some factors could increase R (Delta becoming a larger share of overall cases) while others like half term, better weather and more vaccines will reduce it. The overall trend is undeniable however, and has been clear for many weeks.

So what anyway, almost all who get it now will have no Ill effects from it as they're younger and majority of older are vaccinated. Ironically the backlog in the NHS has been caused by all the unnecessary pussyfooting around with this virus.

Young people still get hospitalised, and more people in hospital with Covid means less room for others. More backlog means more delayed treatments, delayed treatments ultimately kill people - individuals who might never catch the virus!


This is what ultra-optimist right-wing libertarian Brexiteer Andrew Lilico said a few days back to people expressing a similar opinion:

Younger people say this now. Will they think that if they need oxygen in hospital but hospitals are swamped with cases so no hospital assistance or oxygen is available, & they end up dying in their relatives' cars in a hospital car-park when with treatment they'd have been fine?

But the scenario I describe is *precisely* the scenario that policymakers are concerned about & that the models say is a realistic possibility. I didn't just make it up for fun. *That's* what policymakers want not to happen. *That's* why they are still debating delaying Step 4.

I really want to emphasize this. I am all on board for us saying "We think an exit wave with more hospitalisations than in Jan shld be accepted & even if we end up treating people in field hospitals that's a price worth paying". What isn't ok is to pretend that couldn't happen.

..though even he is concerned by today's news.

 

[Richard Scott]

Cases *are* growing exponentially, that's a basic fact I'm afraid - doubling every 14 days: https://twitter.com/BristOliver/status/1400515879176126465

I said 'could' because the exact timing is uncertain - in the coming weeks some factors could increase R (Delta becoming a larger share of overall cases) while others like half term, better weather and more vaccines will reduce it. The overall trend is undeniable however, and has been clear for many weeks.



Young people still get hospitalised, and more people in hospital with Covid means less room for others. More backlog means more delayed treatments, delayed treatments ultimately kill people - individuals who might never catch the virus!


This is what ultra-optimist right-wing libertarian Brexiteer Andrew Lilico said a few days back to people expressing a similar opinion:

Younger people say this now. Will they think that if they need oxygen in hospital but hospitals are swamped with cases so no hospital assistance or oxygen is available, & they end up dying in their relatives' cars in a hospital car-park when with treatment they'd have been fine?

But the scenario I describe is *precisely* the scenario that policymakers are concerned about & that the models say is a realistic possibility. I didn't just make it up for fun. *That's* what policymakers want not to happen. *That's* why they are still debating delaying Step 4.

I really want to emphasize this. I am all on board for us saying "We think an exit wave with more hospitalisations than in Jan shld be accepted & even if we end up treating people in field hospitals that's a price worth paying". What isn't ok is to pretend that couldn't happen.

..though even he is concerned by today's news.

Cases are not growing exponentially, rate of growth has slowed. Young people may get admitted to hospital but bet you could almost count cases on one hand for every region so not going to overwhelm NHS. Afraid you're clutching at straws like some of the others and not convincing me of need for continual restrictions with a few cases here and there that may need hospitalisation.

 

[Chris125]

You’re missing a key point. There won’t be another wave and anyone who thinks there will be is essentially an anti-vaxxer as they clearly don’t think they work.

Vaccines work... but only in the people vaccinated! Millions upon millions of people who could get ill enough to need hospital care remain totally unvaccinated, and even one dose isn't enough with this variant sadly.

Cases are not growing exponentially, rate of growth has slowed. Young people may get admitted to hospital but bet you could almost count cases on one hand for every region so not going to overwhelm NHS. Afraid you're clutching at straws like some of the others and not convincing me of need for continual restrictions with a few cases here and there that may need hospitalisation.

I've literally showed you the 7 day case average plotted on a graph with a doubling rate of every 14 days. Delta's growth rate this week - 0.92 - is virtually unchanged from last weeks. That's exponential growth.

As for admissions, look at page 10 of the Technical Report - 5.1% of Delta cases involve a visit to A&E (479 out of 9427).

 

[Bald Rick]

Or even worse being imprisoned for no reason what so ever because you enjoyed breakfast at Spoons someone came in at Lunchtime long after you were gone and was tested positive .....
I can only assume that anyone who is in favour of this is either Furloughed or retired

I find it pretty difficult to believe anyone has enjoyed a breakfast at Wethersp**ns. If they did then they deserve what they get.

 

[farleigh]

Vaccines work... but only in the people vaccinated! Millions upon millions of people who could get ill enough to need hospital care remain totally unvaccinated, and even one dose isn't enough with this variant sadly.



I've literally showed you the 7 day case average plotted on a graph with a doubling rate of every 14 days. Delta's growth rate this week - 0.92 - is virtually unchanged from last weeks. That's exponential growth.

As for admissions, look at page 10 of the Technical Report - 5.1% of Delta cases involve a visit to A&E (479 out of 9427).

I do not think you understand exponentials very well

 

[yorkie]

Vaccines work... but only in the people vaccinated! Millions upon millions of people who could get ill enough to need hospital care remain totally unvaccinated...

Not really; the chances of someone who is not yet eligible for vaccination becoming seriously ill is extremely low.

and even one dose isn't enough with this variant sadly.

This really is nonsense; you appear to be suggesting that "this" (?) variant causes more severe symptoms than any previous variant, which is something you appear to have made up.

Anyone who has not yet had two doses of the vaccine is not likely to be particularly susceptible to severe symptoms and for any such person, one dose of the vaccine should provide very good protection against severe symptoms.

I've literally showed you the 7 day case average plotted on a graph with a doubling rate of every 14 days. Delta's growth rate this week - 0.92 - is virtually unchanged from last weeks. That's exponential growth.

The percentage of cases that are the latest, fittest variant, is obviously going to increase exponentially as it is fitter than the previous variants. The virus is adapting for humans. This does not mean that growth in cases is increasing exponentially, if that is what you are suggesting.

As for admissions, look at page 10 of the Technical Report - 5.1% of Delta cases involve a visit to A&E (479 out of 9427).

The rate for delta is actually lower than alpha and beta.

Of course, in reality, the percentage of actual infections that require a visit to A&E will be miniscule, given huge proportions of infections are asymptomatic and/or untested.

There's a backlog because people avoided a healthcare system dealing with thousands of daily Covid admissions...

I see you are being disingenuous again; in reality oeople avoided a healthcare system for two reasons: 1) some GPs refused to see people face to face; and 2) some people feared catching the virus if they saw their GP

On shift with a GP seeing 'tsunami of patients'

Dr Dean Eggitt, a GP in Doncaster, opened his doors to the BBC to show the pressures facing practices.

www.bbc.co.uk

GPs have told the BBC that they are facing a "tsunami of patients" as we start to emerge from lockdown...

Forcing the NHS to deal with another wave of Covid patients will just make things worse.

We could listen to your scaremongering and vaccine efficacy denials, or we could listen to Tim Spector, who said this is a "ripple" not a "wave"

Tim takes a look at what is causing COVID numbers to rise again in the UK and explains why he doesn’t believe this is the start of a 3rd wave.

Hmm, a tough choice that.

....(even though it's more transmissionable)....

You state this as if it's fact, but do any virologists of any note state it is "more transmissable"?

The virologists I listen to say the virus is adapting for human populations and the variants have improved fitness. People who say they are "more transmissable" tend to be so-called experts in other areas, who like to talk about virology matters as if they are experts.

48:23 do you think all quotes from scientists
48:25 should include their specialty for
48:26 example the new variant is extremely
48:28 transmissible according to
48:29 astrophysicist jay moon
48:34 great um i do have to say i have i
48:37 do love the fact that the majority of
48:39 people who are
48:40 commenting on transmissibility and
48:43 virology
48:44 are not for virologists they're social
48:47 scientists are economists they're
48:51 bioinformaticians there are various
48:54 other people
48:55 but they are not the members of the
48:57 virology community and certainly not
48:59 members of the corona virology
49:02 community which i think you know
49:05 but why focus on the details

So because the NHS backlog is huge because of lockdowns, we need to keep restrictions? Do you not understand how completely flawed your logic is? Stop clutching at straws and finding any excuse to keep us locked up.

I don't think those who call for more restrictions have any concept of logic; if they did they would not call for more restrictions.

 

[Chris125]

Not really; the chances of someone who is not yet eligible for vaccination becoming seriously ill is extremely low.

Of course? The people visiting hospital are a small percentage of the people infected, but that number is growing quickly.

This really is nonsense; you appear to be suggesting that "this" (?) variant causes more severe symptoms than any previous variant, which is something you appear to have made up.

I wish it was, it's early data but a clear concern: India Covid variant may increase risk of hospital admission, early data suggests

An analysis of 38,805 sequenced cases in England revealed that the Delta variant was associated with a 2.61 times higher risk of hospitalisation within 14 days of specimen date than the Alpha variant. There was a 1.67 times higher risk of A&E care within 14 days. These figures take into account factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, area of residence and vaccination status.

Data from Scotland supported the findings, also pointing to a more than twofold higher risk of hospitalisation for those infected with the Delta variant compared with the Alpha variant.

Anyone who has not yet had two doses of the vaccine is not likely to be particularly susceptible to severe symptoms and for any such person, one dose of the vaccine should provide very good protection against severe symptoms.

I was responding to posts about restrictions and lockdowns, for which the issue is pressure on the NHS caused by hospitalisations - even relatively minor ones without an overnight stay.

The percentage of cases that are the latest, fittest variant, is obviously going to increase exponentially as it is fitter than the previous variants. The virus is adapting for humans. This does not mean that growth in cases is increasing exponentially, if that is what you are suggesting.

Most cases are now Delta, and that's now driving a doubling of cases.

Of course, in reality, the percentage of actual infections that require a visit to A&E will be miniscule, given huge proportions of infections are asymptomatic and/or untested.

True, but how many extra admissions a day can the NHS cope with given the stress it's under? That's the issue.

 

[yorkie]

Of course? The people visiting hospital are a small percentage of the people infected, but that number is growing quickly.

The number of people in hospital has fallen, has it not? Do you have evidence to the contrary?

I wish it was, it's early data but a clear concern: India Covid variant may increase risk of hospital admission, early data suggests

They said the same thing over the so-called 'Kent' variant, and had to backtrack.

Most cases are now Delta, and that's now driving a doubling of cases.

I see no evidence of a doubling of cases, but cases are largely irrelevant now that we have broken the link between cases and severe illness and deaths.

Your attempts at scaremongering don't work with me.

 

[Chris125]

The number of people in hospital has fallen, has it not? Do you have evidence to the contrary?

I was referring to the number of infections, apologies if that wasn't clear though hospitalisations have been rising in the NW:

@JoshBiostats told me to look at this, and he may have a point. First of all, the last two months of cases in the NW. Usual method gives R=1.54. But that's OK, because people keep telling me cases don't matter, it's only hospitalizations.

They said the same thing over the so-called 'Kent' variant, and had to backtrack.

Others said the Kent variant wasn't more transmissible so it goes both ways of course - we can only hope it fades away with more data, not so much out of concern for the UK but countries with far fewer vaccines.

I see no evidence of a doubling of cases, but cases are largely irrelevant now that we have broken the link between cases and severe illness and deaths.

As mentioned before the primary concern right now is hospitalisations, even relatively minor ones, and that link is harder to break unfortunately - hence the concern about reduced in efficacy for the first dose.

Your attempts at scaremongering don't work with me.

Your entitled to your opinion but I'm genuinely a covid 'optimist' and so are the scientists and statisticians whose opinions I've trusted for the last 6 months. That they've become so concerned, especially after today, is a real worry.

Even Andrew Lilico, who I think you'd find much common ground with, sounds slightly put out by the latest data...[/url]

 

[big_rig]

Right. So how many otherwise healthy under 30s have been hospitalised so far over the last year? The exact number please. In a population of 66 odd million it is approximately 0%. That’s the only group who haven’t been vaccinated yet, and they are being done as we speak. So unless you’re an anti vaxxer and don’t think vaccines work what is there to get het up about?

 

[The Ham]

Vaccines work... but only in the people vaccinated! Millions upon millions of people who could get ill enough to need hospital care remain totally unvaccinated, and even one dose isn't enough with this variant sadly.



I've literally showed you the 7 day case average plotted on a graph with a doubling rate of every 14 days. Delta's growth rate this week - 0.92 - is virtually unchanged from last weeks. That's exponential growth.

As for admissions, look at page 10 of the Technical Report - 5.1% of Delta cases involve a visit to A&E (479 out of 9427).

Government 7 day average shows a ~35% increase and a ~50% increase over the 7 day average 14 days ago.

What that's something to monitor and people may be advised to be cautious and definitely encouraged to get vaccinated as soon as they can, that's very different to needing to be fearful.