Does not craft his political and social commentary with the same care I assume his legal judgements were crafted (not least as usually those would be with a number of other justices).
"Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 requiring hospital admission from 22 days after the first dose was 100% (0 cases in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs 15 cases in the control group), with a lower bound of the one-sided 97·5% CI of 72·2% (appendix p 5)."
On this basis, they should lift all legally binding restrictions 22 days after all the over 50s are vaccinated. Which very roughly is Easter. I just don’t understand at all the rationale for keeping things going all the way to June, it should be a big bang opening in April.
Because even though the hospitalization rate for those younger than 50 is small, it is not zero. And a small fraction of a very big number is still a very big number.
Your thinking has been warped by a year of quite extraordinary measures. The vaccine programme is not stopping at age 50, the seasons are still marching on and the room for the virus to spread gets ever smaller given increasing immunity (both acquired and vaccine). I don’t say it lightly but the pathetic attitude of this article and your own comment makes me angry.
My attitude is pathetic? I thought it was a legitimate concern that the NHS would be overwhelmed by people being sick if the thing was allowed to let rip?
The fraction of under 50s hospitalised with covid is so tiny and the vaccine programme progressing so quickly that there is no danger at all of the nhs being “overwhelmed” if we opened up in April. Don’t forget a growing chunk of even the under 40s have already had one dose.
What analysis is this based on, or is it just a gut feeling?
The risk of hospitalisation is still quite high for 50-55 year olds but then drops substantially with each age bucket.
So the 50-64 bucket is less than half as likely to need hospital as the 75-84. The risk of hospitalisation almost halves again for the 40s. Meanwhile the mortality rate for that bucket is 95% lower than for the over 75s. The number start to get even more marginal when you get into the 30s band.
Max posted some stats recently on how many in Group 6, NHS/Carers and others under 40 had received one dose. It was a surprisingly high percentage of the age population. I know people in their late 30s who are not in group 6 who received their first dose in the last couple of days.
And that’s without considering the almost non existent case load in much of the country as we head deeper into spring. You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
Handicapping businesses and mental health into the summer is cruel.
“we are (not in any way) banning the words 'mother' or 'father'."
Advising Staff against using the words is just as daft
I know this is the Generation Gap thing, but why?
Using "Parents and Guardians" instead of "Mothers and Father's" doesn't cost anyone anything, and is a little bit kinder to the small number of people who are included by one but excluded by the other.
Nothing is being enforced or banned, but it's just good manners.
Parent and Guardian does not mean the same as Mother and Father.
Indeed, it might be shockingly contentious to say this but absolutely every human alive has a biological mother and father.
Unless God has been knocking up other women without their consent, again.
The question is, has Sumpers been radicalised (by whatever means) or has he been cunningly hiding his regressive, reactionary light under a bushel till now?
“we are (not in any way) banning the words 'mother' or 'father'."
Advising Staff against using the words is just as daft
I know this is the Generation Gap thing, but why?
Using "Parents and Guardians" instead of "Mothers and Father's" doesn't cost anyone anything, and is a little bit kinder to the small number of people who are included by one but excluded by the other.
Nothing is being enforced or banned, but it's just good manners.
Parent and Guardian does not mean the same as Mother and Father.
Indeed, it might be shockingly contentious to say this but absolutely every human alive has a biological mother and father.
In the context of schools & universities however, the relevent individuals they need to refer to are those with parental responsibility - i.e. "parents and guardians" is the correct form, whereas "mothers and fathers" is not.
Letters home from school to our kids have used the "parents and guardians" form of words ever since they were toddlers. This is not a new thing & the DM is just stirring culture wars again.
Since we seem to be sharing our personal vaccine news thought I'd share mine. Got my first dose this morning (Astra Zenica). I'm Group 6 (Unpaid Carer) in Swansea County. Feeling fine so far!
Had mine yesterday - slightly sore arm and a bit tired but that's about the extent of it
Does not craft his political and social commentary with the same care I assume his legal judgements were crafted (not least as usually those would be with a number of other justices).
Two slight tangents - is there any empirical evidence women are more likely to suffer an adverse reaction to either Pfizer of AZ than men? Just an unscientific anecdotal observation but in my circle the number of women reporting some (albeit mild) reaction to the vaccination seems greater than men but I don't profess any real evidence.
Second, I'm left with the perception on here there are a number who wish to erase the Covid experience from their minds completely - to pretend it never happened and to go back to exactly the life they were living in February 2020.
OTOH, there are those for whom it has been a revelatory experience - I've heard a number of colleagues say how much their admiration for the work of teachers has grown while one former colleague decided the life of work wasn't for her and she quit to become an artist. The last year has given me a chance to reflect and consider my life priorities - I think where I'm getting to is for all the pain, fear and the loss of thousands of people, for some Covid has been a positive experience.
Having some time to think about what's important is never a bad thing.
Regarding second paragraph: I'm concerned about those who clearly do NOT wish to erase the Covid experience from their minds. Hope of normality needs elevating into expectation.
Since we seem to be sharing our personal vaccine news thought I'd share mine. Got my first dose this morning (Astra Zenica). I'm Group 6 (Unpaid Carer) in Swansea County. Feeling fine so far!
Hurrah!
Last PBer to get vaccinated has to pay for a round at the next PB meet.
"Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 requiring hospital admission from 22 days after the first dose was 100% (0 cases in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs 15 cases in the control group), with a lower bound of the one-sided 97·5% CI of 72·2% (appendix p 5)."
On this basis, they should lift all legally binding restrictions 22 days after all the over 50s are vaccinated. Which very roughly is Easter. I just don’t understand at all the rationale for keeping things going all the way to June, it should be a big bang opening in April.
Because even though the hospitalization rate for those younger than 50 is small, it is not zero. And a small fraction of a very big number is still a very big number.
Your thinking has been warped by a year of quite extraordinary measures. The vaccine programme is not stopping at age 50, the seasons are still marching on and the room for the virus to spread gets ever smaller given increasing immunity (both acquired and vaccine). I don’t say it lightly but the pathetic attitude of this article and your own comment makes me angry.
My attitude is pathetic? I thought it was a legitimate concern that the NHS would be overwhelmed by people being sick if the thing was allowed to let rip?
The fraction of under 50s hospitalised with covid is so tiny and the vaccine programme progressing so quickly that there is no danger at all of the nhs being “overwhelmed” if we opened up in April. Don’t forget a growing chunk of even the under 40s have already had one dose.
What analysis is this based on, or is it just a gut feeling?
The risk of hospitalisation is still quite high for 50-55 year olds but then drops substantially with each age bucket.
So the 50-64 bucket is less than half as likely to need hospital as the 75-84. The risk of hospitalisation almost halves again for the 40s. Meanwhile the mortality rate for that bucket is 95% lower than for the over 75s. The number start to get even more marginal when you get into the 30s band.
Max posted some stats recently on how many in Group 6, NHS/Carers and others under 40 had received one dose. It was a surprisingly high percentage of the age population. I know people in their late 30s who are not in group 6 who received their first dose in the last couple of days.
And that’s without considering the almost non existent case load in much of the country as we head deeper into spring. You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
Handicapping businesses and mental health into the summer is cruel.
You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
That is only true if there was zero risk of hospitilisation for those who have yet to be vaccinated. Otherwise it will go up, and if there is a "big bang" reopening it will undoubtedly go up quickly given that the group with the least takeup of vaccine will be the ones interacting the most.
The question is, has Sumpers been radicalised (by whatever means) or has he been cunningly hiding his regressive, reactionary light under a bushel till now?
I'm going for radicalised by the lockdown sceptics/Covid-19 deniers.
“we are (not in any way) banning the words 'mother' or 'father'."
Advising Staff against using the words is just as daft
I know this is the Generation Gap thing, but why?
Using "Parents and Guardians" instead of "Mothers and Father's" doesn't cost anyone anything, and is a little bit kinder to the small number of people who are included by one but excluded by the other.
Nothing is being enforced or banned, but it's just good manners.
Parent and Guardian does not mean the same as Mother and Father.
Indeed, it might be shockingly contentious to say this but absolutely every human alive has a biological mother and father.
In the context of schools & universities however, the relevent individuals they need to refer to are those with parental responsibility - i.e. "parents and guardians" is the correct form, whereas "mothers and fathers" is not.
Letters home from school to our kids have used the "parents and guardians" form of words ever since they were toddlers. This is not a new thing & the DM is just stirring culture wars again.
Except in very unusual cases, there is nobody at university for whom someone has ‘parental responsibility.’ That ceases when somebody turns 18, although an exemption allows schools to continue to apply it until the following August.
I think you mean ‘next of kin,’ which is a bit different and may well not include guardians.
The question is, has Sumpers been radicalised (by whatever means) or has he been cunningly hiding his regressive, reactionary light under a bushel till now?
One thing is clear - he has started to enjoy the limelight a bit too much, to the point of regurgitating repetitive cliches to back up his politics to please the audience. And unlike many others, he cannot pretend he does so because he is stupid.
The question is, has Sumpers been radicalised (by whatever means) or has he been cunningly hiding his regressive, reactionary light under a bushel till now?
One thing is clear - he has started to enjoy the limelight a bit too much, to the point of regurgitating repetitive cliches to back up his politics to please the audience. And unlike many others, he cannot pretend he does so because he is stupid.
“we are (not in any way) banning the words 'mother' or 'father'."
Advising Staff against using the words is just as daft
I know this is the Generation Gap thing, but why?
Using "Parents and Guardians" instead of "Mothers and Father's" doesn't cost anyone anything, and is a little bit kinder to the small number of people who are included by one but excluded by the other.
Nothing is being enforced or banned, but it's just good manners.
Parent and Guardian does not mean the same as Mother and Father.
Indeed, it might be shockingly contentious to say this but absolutely every human alive has a biological mother and father.
For now. But if we always cling to the old ways nothing changes.
That's right. Extinction is the groundbreaking change we all need.
I think it foolish of him to have used the word as he did in the conversation he was having. But then it is also ripe for students living in the UK to imply that he, as an Asian brought up in South Africa, has not lived the victim of racism life.
"Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 requiring hospital admission from 22 days after the first dose was 100% (0 cases in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs 15 cases in the control group), with a lower bound of the one-sided 97·5% CI of 72·2% (appendix p 5)."
On this basis, they should lift all legally binding restrictions 22 days after all the over 50s are vaccinated. Which very roughly is Easter. I just don’t understand at all the rationale for keeping things going all the way to June, it should be a big bang opening in April.
Because even though the hospitalization rate for those younger than 50 is small, it is not zero. And a small fraction of a very big number is still a very big number.
Your thinking has been warped by a year of quite extraordinary measures. The vaccine programme is not stopping at age 50, the seasons are still marching on and the room for the virus to spread gets ever smaller given increasing immunity (both acquired and vaccine). I don’t say it lightly but the pathetic attitude of this article and your own comment makes me angry.
My attitude is pathetic? I thought it was a legitimate concern that the NHS would be overwhelmed by people being sick if the thing was allowed to let rip?
The fraction of under 50s hospitalised with covid is so tiny and the vaccine programme progressing so quickly that there is no danger at all of the nhs being “overwhelmed” if we opened up in April. Don’t forget a growing chunk of even the under 40s have already had one dose.
What analysis is this based on, or is it just a gut feeling?
The risk of hospitalisation is still quite high for 50-55 year olds but then drops substantially with each age bucket.
So the 50-64 bucket is less than half as likely to need hospital as the 75-84. The risk of hospitalisation almost halves again for the 40s. Meanwhile the mortality rate for that bucket is 95% lower than for the over 75s. The number start to get even more marginal when you get into the 30s band.
Max posted some stats recently on how many in Group 6, NHS/Carers and others under 40 had received one dose. It was a surprisingly high percentage of the age population. I know people in their late 30s who are not in group 6 who received their first dose in the last couple of days.
And that’s without considering the almost non existent case load in much of the country as we head deeper into spring. You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
Handicapping businesses and mental health into the summer is cruel.
You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
That is only true if there was zero risk of hospitilisation for those who have yet to be vaccinated. Otherwise it will go up, and if there is a "big bang" reopening it will undoubtedly go up quickly given that the group with the least takeup of vaccine will be the ones interacting the most.
You have no evidence that the 30-50s would interact more, or more riskily, than vaccinated over 50s would. Numbers in hospitals with covid are what, 90% down from the peak?
It should not be a controversial view to say that the dragging-out of restrictions to late June is excessively cautious.
"Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 requiring hospital admission from 22 days after the first dose was 100% (0 cases in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs 15 cases in the control group), with a lower bound of the one-sided 97·5% CI of 72·2% (appendix p 5)."
On this basis, they should lift all legally binding restrictions 22 days after all the over 50s are vaccinated. Which very roughly is Easter. I just don’t understand at all the rationale for keeping things going all the way to June, it should be a big bang opening in April.
Because even though the hospitalization rate for those younger than 50 is small, it is not zero. And a small fraction of a very big number is still a very big number.
Your thinking has been warped by a year of quite extraordinary measures. The vaccine programme is not stopping at age 50, the seasons are still marching on and the room for the virus to spread gets ever smaller given increasing immunity (both acquired and vaccine). I don’t say it lightly but the pathetic attitude of this article and your own comment makes me angry.
My attitude is pathetic? I thought it was a legitimate concern that the NHS would be overwhelmed by people being sick if the thing was allowed to let rip?
The fraction of under 50s hospitalised with covid is so tiny and the vaccine programme progressing so quickly that there is no danger at all of the nhs being “overwhelmed” if we opened up in April. Don’t forget a growing chunk of even the under 40s have already had one dose.
What analysis is this based on, or is it just a gut feeling?
The risk of hospitalisation is still quite high for 50-55 year olds but then drops substantially with each age bucket.
So the 50-64 bucket is less than half as likely to need hospital as the 75-84. The risk of hospitalisation almost halves again for the 40s. Meanwhile the mortality rate for that bucket is 95% lower than for the over 75s. The number start to get even more marginal when you get into the 30s band.
Max posted some stats recently on how many in Group 6, NHS/Carers and others under 40 had received one dose. It was a surprisingly high percentage of the age population. I know people in their late 30s who are not in group 6 who received their first dose in the last couple of days.
And that’s without considering the almost non existent case load in much of the country as we head deeper into spring. You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
Handicapping businesses and mental health into the summer is cruel.
You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
That is only true if there was zero risk of hospitilisation for those who have yet to be vaccinated. Otherwise it will go up, and if there is a "big bang" reopening it will undoubtedly go up quickly given that the group with the least takeup of vaccine will be the ones interacting the most.
You have no evidence that the 30-50s would interact more, or more riskily, than vaccinated over 50s would. Numbers in hospitals with covid are what, 90% down from the peak?
It should not be a controversial view to say that the dragging-out of restrictions to late June is excessively cautious.
Younger people don't socialise more? That's news to me! They are down from the peak because of the restrictions in place. You are arguing those should be removed.
And that is precisely what is controversial, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it.
I think it foolish of him to have used the word as he did in the conversation he was having. But then it is also ripe for students living in the UK to imply that he, as an Asian brought up in South Africa, has not lived the victim of racism life.
Indians in SA have historically suffered serious discrimination, being seen as neither of either side of the divide and thus being always the "out" group.
Sounds like some students require some extra lessons in the history of racism.
Regarding second paragraph: I'm concerned about those who clearly do NOT wish to erase the Covid experience from their minds. Hope of normality needs elevating into expectation.
Disagree completely - I can understand why some individuals will want to forget the 12 months - I get that. However, change can and often is therapeutic and we've been forced to change and confront that change and for some it has been a positive experience allowing them to re-evaluate what matters to them.
To elevate a return to the life we had before, to collectively consciously forget the last 12 months would be a mistake. The "normal" of 2021 and beyond isn't going to be the same as the life we had before covid. Too much has changed, too many people have seen alternate ways of working and living.
The desire to whitewash history and forget it ever happened - can't imagine where I've ever heard that.
"Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 requiring hospital admission from 22 days after the first dose was 100% (0 cases in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs 15 cases in the control group), with a lower bound of the one-sided 97·5% CI of 72·2% (appendix p 5)."
On this basis, they should lift all legally binding restrictions 22 days after all the over 50s are vaccinated. Which very roughly is Easter. I just don’t understand at all the rationale for keeping things going all the way to June, it should be a big bang opening in April.
Because even though the hospitalization rate for those younger than 50 is small, it is not zero. And a small fraction of a very big number is still a very big number.
Your thinking has been warped by a year of quite extraordinary measures. The vaccine programme is not stopping at age 50, the seasons are still marching on and the room for the virus to spread gets ever smaller given increasing immunity (both acquired and vaccine). I don’t say it lightly but the pathetic attitude of this article and your own comment makes me angry.
My attitude is pathetic? I thought it was a legitimate concern that the NHS would be overwhelmed by people being sick if the thing was allowed to let rip?
The fraction of under 50s hospitalised with covid is so tiny and the vaccine programme progressing so quickly that there is no danger at all of the nhs being “overwhelmed” if we opened up in April. Don’t forget a growing chunk of even the under 40s have already had one dose.
What analysis is this based on, or is it just a gut feeling?
The risk of hospitalisation is still quite high for 50-55 year olds but then drops substantially with each age bucket.
So the 50-64 bucket is less than half as likely to need hospital as the 75-84. The risk of hospitalisation almost halves again for the 40s. Meanwhile the mortality rate for that bucket is 95% lower than for the over 75s. The number start to get even more marginal when you get into the 30s band.
Max posted some stats recently on how many in Group 6, NHS/Carers and others under 40 had received one dose. It was a surprisingly high percentage of the age population. I know people in their late 30s who are not in group 6 who received their first dose in the last couple of days.
And that’s without considering the almost non existent case load in much of the country as we head deeper into spring. You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
Handicapping businesses and mental health into the summer is cruel.
You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
That is only true if there was zero risk of hospitilisation for those who have yet to be vaccinated. Otherwise it will go up, and if there is a "big bang" reopening it will undoubtedly go up quickly given that the group with the least takeup of vaccine will be the ones interacting the most.
You have no evidence that the 30-50s would interact more, or more riskily, than vaccinated over 50s would. Numbers in hospitals with covid are what, 90% down from the peak?
It should not be a controversial view to say that the dragging-out of restrictions to late June is excessively cautious.
Younger people don't socialise more? That's news to me!
And that is precisely what is controversial, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it.
During a pandemic when the vaccine rollout has discrimated by age?
Further, what f***** business is it of yours if a 20 year old wants to socialise, when the risk of excess societal death from covid has been almost eliminated, and those most likely to need medical intervention have received a vaccine which according to the Lancet, has 100% efficacy by that yardstick?
Some people here need to take a long hard look at the way this country treats both its young and its entrepreneur class. And then think about what that’s likely to mean for the fortunes of this country 20 years from now.
"Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 requiring hospital admission from 22 days after the first dose was 100% (0 cases in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs 15 cases in the control group), with a lower bound of the one-sided 97·5% CI of 72·2% (appendix p 5)."
On this basis, they should lift all legally binding restrictions 22 days after all the over 50s are vaccinated. Which very roughly is Easter. I just don’t understand at all the rationale for keeping things going all the way to June, it should be a big bang opening in April.
Because even though the hospitalization rate for those younger than 50 is small, it is not zero. And a small fraction of a very big number is still a very big number.
Your thinking has been warped by a year of quite extraordinary measures. The vaccine programme is not stopping at age 50, the seasons are still marching on and the room for the virus to spread gets ever smaller given increasing immunity (both acquired and vaccine). I don’t say it lightly but the pathetic attitude of this article and your own comment makes me angry.
My attitude is pathetic? I thought it was a legitimate concern that the NHS would be overwhelmed by people being sick if the thing was allowed to let rip?
The fraction of under 50s hospitalised with covid is so tiny and the vaccine programme progressing so quickly that there is no danger at all of the nhs being “overwhelmed” if we opened up in April. Don’t forget a growing chunk of even the under 40s have already had one dose.
What analysis is this based on, or is it just a gut feeling?
The risk of hospitalisation is still quite high for 50-55 year olds but then drops substantially with each age bucket.
So the 50-64 bucket is less than half as likely to need hospital as the 75-84. The risk of hospitalisation almost halves again for the 40s. Meanwhile the mortality rate for that bucket is 95% lower than for the over 75s. The number start to get even more marginal when you get into the 30s band.
Max posted some stats recently on how many in Group 6, NHS/Carers and others under 40 had received one dose. It was a surprisingly high percentage of the age population. I know people in their late 30s who are not in group 6 who received their first dose in the last couple of days.
And that’s without considering the almost non existent case load in much of the country as we head deeper into spring. You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
Handicapping businesses and mental health into the summer is cruel.
You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
That is only true if there was zero risk of hospitilisation for those who have yet to be vaccinated. Otherwise it will go up, and if there is a "big bang" reopening it will undoubtedly go up quickly given that the group with the least takeup of vaccine will be the ones interacting the most.
You have no evidence that the 30-50s would interact more, or more riskily, than vaccinated over 50s would. Numbers in hospitals with covid are what, 90% down from the peak?
It should not be a controversial view to say that the dragging-out of restrictions to late June is excessively cautious.
Younger people don't socialise more? That's news to me!
And that is precisely what is controversial, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it.
During a pandemic when the vaccine rollout has discrimated by age?
Further, what f***** business is it of yours if a 20 year old wants to socialise, when the risk of excess societal death from covid has been almost eliminated, and those most likely to need medical intervention have received a vaccine which according to the Lancet, has 100% efficacy by that yardstick?
Some people here need to take a long hard look at the way this country treats both its young and its entrepreneur class. And then think about what that likely to mean for the fortunes of this country 20 years from now.
What's the swearing about? And we seem to have veered off topic. I was saying that the risk to overwhelming the NHS if the thing is allowed to spread freely is too great. I suspect that is what is driving the official advice to the government, too.
And of course they discriminated by age. Age is the primary factor in determining how badly it hits you.
(No I'm not saying that is the answer, but I am questioning whether Quinn is engaging brain before engaging mouth. And that the answer is far less unequivocal than implied.)
Which is fine for us given all of our vaccines are approved by the EMA.
You are assuming we have EU vaccine passports.
Although I am inclined to think that distinctions like that may undermine the scheme.
We don't have EU vaccine passports because we aren't in the EU. Not sure if you somehow missed that news.
And I don't really understand your surprise that the EU only recognises EMA approved vaccinations. Why would you recognise as effective a vaccine that your regulatory authorities hadn't assessed as effective? You might add one or two at a later date (where they'd not filed in your jurisdiction due to focusing on others but where there is compelling evidence of effectiveness). But you're not just going to wave people through on the basis that the Chinese government has shoved something in someone's arm that they claim works.
How is this going to work for countries within the EU using Sputnik (or a Chinese vaccine) on the side? Are the EU going to insist they are all re-done with approved vaccines?
Or the EMA could license them in due course.
I can see that happening with Sputnik, but I'm not so sure about SinoPharm.
Sputnik is very effective, but I think they haven't sought approval in the EU.
It should be effective, having made good use of all the British cash invested into Oxford and AZ.
Ha! Yes, it is suspiciously similar.
Did this involve subterfuge or just reading papers?
"Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 requiring hospital admission from 22 days after the first dose was 100% (0 cases in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs 15 cases in the control group), with a lower bound of the one-sided 97·5% CI of 72·2% (appendix p 5)."
On this basis, they should lift all legally binding restrictions 22 days after all the over 50s are vaccinated. Which very roughly is Easter. I just don’t understand at all the rationale for keeping things going all the way to June, it should be a big bang opening in April.
Because even though the hospitalization rate for those younger than 50 is small, it is not zero. And a small fraction of a very big number is still a very big number.
Your thinking has been warped by a year of quite extraordinary measures. The vaccine programme is not stopping at age 50, the seasons are still marching on and the room for the virus to spread gets ever smaller given increasing immunity (both acquired and vaccine). I don’t say it lightly but the pathetic attitude of this article and your own comment makes me angry.
My attitude is pathetic? I thought it was a legitimate concern that the NHS would be overwhelmed by people being sick if the thing was allowed to let rip?
The fraction of under 50s hospitalised with covid is so tiny and the vaccine programme progressing so quickly that there is no danger at all of the nhs being “overwhelmed” if we opened up in April. Don’t forget a growing chunk of even the under 40s have already had one dose.
What analysis is this based on, or is it just a gut feeling?
The risk of hospitalisation is still quite high for 50-55 year olds but then drops substantially with each age bucket.
So the 50-64 bucket is less than half as likely to need hospital as the 75-84. The risk of hospitalisation almost halves again for the 40s. Meanwhile the mortality rate for that bucket is 95% lower than for the over 75s. The number start to get even more marginal when you get into the 30s band.
Max posted some stats recently on how many in Group 6, NHS/Carers and others under 40 had received one dose. It was a surprisingly high percentage of the age population. I know people in their late 30s who are not in group 6 who received their first dose in the last couple of days.
And that’s without considering the almost non existent case load in much of the country as we head deeper into spring. You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
Handicapping businesses and mental health into the summer is cruel.
You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
That is only true if there was zero risk of hospitilisation for those who have yet to be vaccinated. Otherwise it will go up, and if there is a "big bang" reopening it will undoubtedly go up quickly given that the group with the least takeup of vaccine will be the ones interacting the most.
You have no evidence that the 30-50s would interact more, or more riskily, than vaccinated over 50s would. Numbers in hospitals with covid are what, 90% down from the peak?
It should not be a controversial view to say that the dragging-out of restrictions to late June is excessively cautious.
Younger people don't socialise more? That's news to me!
And that is precisely what is controversial, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it.
During a pandemic when the vaccine rollout has discrimated by age?
Further, what f***** business is it of yours if a 20 year old wants to socialise, when the risk of excess societal death from covid has been almost eliminated, and those most likely to need medical intervention have received a vaccine which according to the Lancet, has 100% efficacy by that yardstick?
Some people here need to take a long hard look at the way this country treats both its young and its entrepreneur class. And then think about what that likely to mean for the fortunes of this country 20 years from now.
What's the swearing about? And we seem to have veered off topic. I was saying that the risk to overwhelming the NHS if the thing is allowed to spread freely is too great. I suspect that is what is driving the official advice to the government, too.
And of course they discriminated by age. Age is the primary factor in determining how badly it hits you.
The swearing is as I said, because comments like yours and this header above make me rage with anger. About the lack of national backbone, how much has been asked of the young, and how easily you seek to use unsubstantiated fears to destroy (yes destroy) the lives of others less able to bear any restrictions a minute longer. There is (thankfully) now no prospect of the NHS being “overwhelmed” once Phase 1 is complete. It’s time to stop hiding behind the duvet covers and for everyone to engage with the world again.
I think it foolish of him to have used the word as he did in the conversation he was having. But then it is also ripe for students living in the UK to imply that he, as an Asian brought up in South Africa, has not lived the victim of racism life.
Indians in SA have historically suffered serious discrimination, being seen as neither of either side of the divide and thus being always the "out" group.
Sounds like some students require some extra lessons in the history of racism.
Although of course they did have one important breakthrough, having a cricket captain (Hashim Amla) before black Africans did (Temba Bavuma, only just appointed).
But otherwise, yes, they were of course appallingly treated under apartheid.
"Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 requiring hospital admission from 22 days after the first dose was 100% (0 cases in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs 15 cases in the control group), with a lower bound of the one-sided 97·5% CI of 72·2% (appendix p 5)."
On this basis, they should lift all legally binding restrictions 22 days after all the over 50s are vaccinated. Which very roughly is Easter. I just don’t understand at all the rationale for keeping things going all the way to June, it should be a big bang opening in April.
Because even though the hospitalization rate for those younger than 50 is small, it is not zero. And a small fraction of a very big number is still a very big number.
Your thinking has been warped by a year of quite extraordinary measures. The vaccine programme is not stopping at age 50, the seasons are still marching on and the room for the virus to spread gets ever smaller given increasing immunity (both acquired and vaccine). I don’t say it lightly but the pathetic attitude of this article and your own comment makes me angry.
My attitude is pathetic? I thought it was a legitimate concern that the NHS would be overwhelmed by people being sick if the thing was allowed to let rip?
The fraction of under 50s hospitalised with covid is so tiny and the vaccine programme progressing so quickly that there is no danger at all of the nhs being “overwhelmed” if we opened up in April. Don’t forget a growing chunk of even the under 40s have already had one dose.
What analysis is this based on, or is it just a gut feeling?
The risk of hospitalisation is still quite high for 50-55 year olds but then drops substantially with each age bucket.
So the 50-64 bucket is less than half as likely to need hospital as the 75-84. The risk of hospitalisation almost halves again for the 40s. Meanwhile the mortality rate for that bucket is 95% lower than for the over 75s. The number start to get even more marginal when you get into the 30s band.
Max posted some stats recently on how many in Group 6, NHS/Carers and others under 40 had received one dose. It was a surprisingly high percentage of the age population. I know people in their late 30s who are not in group 6 who received their first dose in the last couple of days.
And that’s without considering the almost non existent case load in much of the country as we head deeper into spring. You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
Handicapping businesses and mental health into the summer is cruel.
You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
That is only true if there was zero risk of hospitilisation for those who have yet to be vaccinated. Otherwise it will go up, and if there is a "big bang" reopening it will undoubtedly go up quickly given that the group with the least takeup of vaccine will be the ones interacting the most.
You have no evidence that the 30-50s would interact more, or more riskily, than vaccinated over 50s would. Numbers in hospitals with covid are what, 90% down from the peak?
It should not be a controversial view to say that the dragging-out of restrictions to late June is excessively cautious.
Younger people don't socialise more? That's news to me!
And that is precisely what is controversial, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it.
During a pandemic when the vaccine rollout has discrimated by age?
Further, what f***** business is it of yours if a 20 year old wants to socialise, when the risk of excess societal death from covid has been almost eliminated, and those most likely to need medical intervention have received a vaccine which according to the Lancet, has 100% efficacy by that yardstick?
Some people here need to take a long hard look at the way this country treats both its young and its entrepreneur class. And then think about what that likely to mean for the fortunes of this country 20 years from now.
What's the swearing about? And we seem to have veered off topic. I was saying that the risk to overwhelming the NHS if the thing is allowed to spread freely is too great. I suspect that is what is driving the official advice to the government, too.
And of course they discriminated by age. Age is the primary factor in determining how badly it hits you.
The swearing is as I said, because comments like yours and this header above make me rage with anger. About the lack of national backbone, how much has been asked of the young, and how easily you seek to use unsubstantiated fears to destroy (yes destroy) the lives of others less able to bear any restrictions a minute longer. There is (thankfully) now no prospect of the NHS being “overwhelmed” once Phase 1 is complete. It’s time to stop hiding behind the duvet covers and for everyone to engage with the world again.
And taking it out on other commentators here helps? You are asserting things without demonstrating it to be the case. If there was no risk of that, why are the restrictions still in place? It isn't exactly cheap to maintain.
Which is fine for us given all of our vaccines are approved by the EMA.
You are assuming we have EU vaccine passports.
Although I am inclined to think that distinctions like that may undermine the scheme.
We don't have EU vaccine passports because we aren't in the EU. Not sure if you somehow missed that news.
And I don't really understand your surprise that the EU only recognises EMA approved vaccinations. Why would you recognise as effective a vaccine that your regulatory authorities hadn't assessed as effective? You might add one or two at a later date (where they'd not filed in your jurisdiction due to focusing on others but where there is compelling evidence of effectiveness). But you're not just going to wave people through on the basis that the Chinese government has shoved something in someone's arm that they claim works.
How is this going to work for countries within the EU using Sputnik (or a Chinese vaccine) on the side? Are the EU going to insist they are all re-done with approved vaccines?
Or the EMA could license them in due course.
I can see that happening with Sputnik, but I'm not so sure about SinoPharm.
Sputnik is very effective, but I think they haven't sought approval in the EU.
It should be effective, having made good use of all the British cash invested into Oxford and AZ.
Ha! Yes, it is suspiciously similar.
Did this involve subterfuge or just reading papers?
I thought AZ had licensed to a Russian Company for the former CIS market.
"Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 requiring hospital admission from 22 days after the first dose was 100% (0 cases in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs 15 cases in the control group), with a lower bound of the one-sided 97·5% CI of 72·2% (appendix p 5)."
On this basis, they should lift all legally binding restrictions 22 days after all the over 50s are vaccinated. Which very roughly is Easter. I just don’t understand at all the rationale for keeping things going all the way to June, it should be a big bang opening in April.
Because even though the hospitalization rate for those younger than 50 is small, it is not zero. And a small fraction of a very big number is still a very big number.
Your thinking has been warped by a year of quite extraordinary measures. The vaccine programme is not stopping at age 50, the seasons are still marching on and the room for the virus to spread gets ever smaller given increasing immunity (both acquired and vaccine). I don’t say it lightly but the pathetic attitude of this article and your own comment makes me angry.
My attitude is pathetic? I thought it was a legitimate concern that the NHS would be overwhelmed by people being sick if the thing was allowed to let rip?
The fraction of under 50s hospitalised with covid is so tiny and the vaccine programme progressing so quickly that there is no danger at all of the nhs being “overwhelmed” if we opened up in April. Don’t forget a growing chunk of even the under 40s have already had one dose.
What analysis is this based on, or is it just a gut feeling?
The risk of hospitalisation is still quite high for 50-55 year olds but then drops substantially with each age bucket.
So the 50-64 bucket is less than half as likely to need hospital as the 75-84. The risk of hospitalisation almost halves again for the 40s. Meanwhile the mortality rate for that bucket is 95% lower than for the over 75s. The number start to get even more marginal when you get into the 30s band.
Max posted some stats recently on how many in Group 6, NHS/Carers and others under 40 had received one dose. It was a surprisingly high percentage of the age population. I know people in their late 30s who are not in group 6 who received their first dose in the last couple of days.
And that’s without considering the almost non existent case load in much of the country as we head deeper into spring. You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
Handicapping businesses and mental health into the summer is cruel.
You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
That is only true if there was zero risk of hospitilisation for those who have yet to be vaccinated. Otherwise it will go up, and if there is a "big bang" reopening it will undoubtedly go up quickly given that the group with the least takeup of vaccine will be the ones interacting the most.
You have no evidence that the 30-50s would interact more, or more riskily, than vaccinated over 50s would. Numbers in hospitals with covid are what, 90% down from the peak?
It should not be a controversial view to say that the dragging-out of restrictions to late June is excessively cautious.
Younger people don't socialise more? That's news to me!
And that is precisely what is controversial, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it.
During a pandemic when the vaccine rollout has discrimated by age?
Further, what f***** business is it of yours if a 20 year old wants to socialise, when the risk of excess societal death from covid has been almost eliminated, and those most likely to need medical intervention have received a vaccine which according to the Lancet, has 100% efficacy by that yardstick?
Some people here need to take a long hard look at the way this country treats both its young and its entrepreneur class. And then think about what that likely to mean for the fortunes of this country 20 years from now.
What's the swearing about? And we seem to have veered off topic. I was saying that the risk to overwhelming the NHS if the thing is allowed to spread freely is too great. I suspect that is what is driving the official advice to the government, too.
And of course they discriminated by age. Age is the primary factor in determining how badly it hits you.
The swearing is as I said, because comments like yours and this header above make me rage with anger. About the lack of national backbone, how much has been asked of the young, and how easily you seek to use unsubstantiated fears to destroy (yes destroy) the lives of others less able to bear any restrictions a minute longer. There is (thankfully) now no prospect of the NHS being “overwhelmed” once Phase 1 is complete. It’s time to stop hiding behind the duvet covers and for everyone to engage with the world again.
And taking it out on other commentators here helps? You are asserting things without demonstrating it to be the case. If there was no risk of that, why are the restrictions still in place? It isn't exactly cheap to maintain.
Because the uniformed terrified public poll a certain way, because a very large proportion of such people are alright-Jack, with index linked incomes, money for nothing or steady employment. And because the government now err wildly to the side of over-caution, having been childishly cavalier with their approach between late Jan and late March.
The money doesn’t come into it does it, because the government are not spending their own money. They’re not even spending “taxpayers” money. They’re quite specifically spending the future wealth that quantitative easing has ripped away from the young.
"Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 requiring hospital admission from 22 days after the first dose was 100% (0 cases in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs 15 cases in the control group), with a lower bound of the one-sided 97·5% CI of 72·2% (appendix p 5)."
On this basis, they should lift all legally binding restrictions 22 days after all the over 50s are vaccinated. Which very roughly is Easter. I just don’t understand at all the rationale for keeping things going all the way to June, it should be a big bang opening in April.
Because even though the hospitalization rate for those younger than 50 is small, it is not zero. And a small fraction of a very big number is still a very big number.
Your thinking has been warped by a year of quite extraordinary measures. The vaccine programme is not stopping at age 50, the seasons are still marching on and the room for the virus to spread gets ever smaller given increasing immunity (both acquired and vaccine). I don’t say it lightly but the pathetic attitude of this article and your own comment makes me angry.
My attitude is pathetic? I thought it was a legitimate concern that the NHS would be overwhelmed by people being sick if the thing was allowed to let rip?
The fraction of under 50s hospitalised with covid is so tiny and the vaccine programme progressing so quickly that there is no danger at all of the nhs being “overwhelmed” if we opened up in April. Don’t forget a growing chunk of even the under 40s have already had one dose.
What analysis is this based on, or is it just a gut feeling?
The risk of hospitalisation is still quite high for 50-55 year olds but then drops substantially with each age bucket.
So the 50-64 bucket is less than half as likely to need hospital as the 75-84. The risk of hospitalisation almost halves again for the 40s. Meanwhile the mortality rate for that bucket is 95% lower than for the over 75s. The number start to get even more marginal when you get into the 30s band.
Max posted some stats recently on how many in Group 6, NHS/Carers and others under 40 had received one dose. It was a surprisingly high percentage of the age population. I know people in their late 30s who are not in group 6 who received their first dose in the last couple of days.
And that’s without considering the almost non existent case load in much of the country as we head deeper into spring. You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
Handicapping businesses and mental health into the summer is cruel.
You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
That is only true if there was zero risk of hospitilisation for those who have yet to be vaccinated. Otherwise it will go up, and if there is a "big bang" reopening it will undoubtedly go up quickly given that the group with the least takeup of vaccine will be the ones interacting the most.
You have no evidence that the 30-50s would interact more, or more riskily, than vaccinated over 50s would. Numbers in hospitals with covid are what, 90% down from the peak?
It should not be a controversial view to say that the dragging-out of restrictions to late June is excessively cautious.
Younger people don't socialise more? That's news to me!
And that is precisely what is controversial, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it.
During a pandemic when the vaccine rollout has discrimated by age?
Further, what f***** business is it of yours if a 20 year old wants to socialise, when the risk of excess societal death from covid has been almost eliminated, and those most likely to need medical intervention have received a vaccine which according to the Lancet, has 100% efficacy by that yardstick?
Some people here need to take a long hard look at the way this country treats both its young and its entrepreneur class. And then think about what that likely to mean for the fortunes of this country 20 years from now.
What's the swearing about? And we seem to have veered off topic. I was saying that the risk to overwhelming the NHS if the thing is allowed to spread freely is too great. I suspect that is what is driving the official advice to the government, too.
And of course they discriminated by age. Age is the primary factor in determining how badly it hits you.
The swearing is as I said, because comments like yours and this header above make me rage with anger. About the lack of national backbone, how much has been asked of the young, and how easily you seek to use unsubstantiated fears to destroy (yes destroy) the lives of others less able to bear any restrictions a minute longer. There is (thankfully) now no prospect of the NHS being “overwhelmed” once Phase 1 is complete. It’s time to stop hiding behind the duvet covers and for everyone to engage with the world again.
And taking it out on other commentators here helps? You are asserting things without demonstrating it to be the case. If there was no risk of that, why are the restrictions still in place? It isn't exactly cheap to maintain.
Because the uniformed terrified public poll a certain way, because a very large proportion of such people are alright-Jack, with index linked incomes, money for nothing or steady employment. And because the government now err widely to the side of over-caution, having been childishly cavalier with their approach between late Jan and late March.
The money doesn’t come into it does it, because the government are not spending their own money. They’re not even spending “taxpayers” money. They’re quite specifically spending the future wealth that quantitative easing has ripped away from the young.
So what motivation do you think the government have for maintaining things longer than necessary, they must have one. Perhaps it is over concerns similar to what I have laid out, or perhaps the worry of a new variant emerging if the thing is allowed to spread into hundreds of thousands of the young, one that is more transmissible. Exactly as happened with the Kent variant.
I don't think you are correct when you say there is "no prospect" of the NHS being overwhelmed. The risk might be small, but they have obviously decided it is not worth that risk, and rather wait a few more weeks to give as many people the protection from the vaccine as possible.
"Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 requiring hospital admission from 22 days after the first dose was 100% (0 cases in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs 15 cases in the control group), with a lower bound of the one-sided 97·5% CI of 72·2% (appendix p 5)."
On this basis, they should lift all legally binding restrictions 22 days after all the over 50s are vaccinated. Which very roughly is Easter. I just don’t understand at all the rationale for keeping things going all the way to June, it should be a big bang opening in April.
Because even though the hospitalization rate for those younger than 50 is small, it is not zero. And a small fraction of a very big number is still a very big number.
Your thinking has been warped by a year of quite extraordinary measures. The vaccine programme is not stopping at age 50, the seasons are still marching on and the room for the virus to spread gets ever smaller given increasing immunity (both acquired and vaccine). I don’t say it lightly but the pathetic attitude of this article and your own comment makes me angry.
My attitude is pathetic? I thought it was a legitimate concern that the NHS would be overwhelmed by people being sick if the thing was allowed to let rip?
The fraction of under 50s hospitalised with covid is so tiny and the vaccine programme progressing so quickly that there is no danger at all of the nhs being “overwhelmed” if we opened up in April. Don’t forget a growing chunk of even the under 40s have already had one dose.
What analysis is this based on, or is it just a gut feeling?
The risk of hospitalisation is still quite high for 50-55 year olds but then drops substantially with each age bucket.
So the 50-64 bucket is less than half as likely to need hospital as the 75-84. The risk of hospitalisation almost halves again for the 40s. Meanwhile the mortality rate for that bucket is 95% lower than for the over 75s. The number start to get even more marginal when you get into the 30s band.
Max posted some stats recently on how many in Group 6, NHS/Carers and others under 40 had received one dose. It was a surprisingly high percentage of the age population. I know people in their late 30s who are not in group 6 who received their first dose in the last couple of days.
And that’s without considering the almost non existent case load in much of the country as we head deeper into spring. You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
Handicapping businesses and mental health into the summer is cruel.
You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
That is only true if there was zero risk of hospitilisation for those who have yet to be vaccinated. Otherwise it will go up, and if there is a "big bang" reopening it will undoubtedly go up quickly given that the group with the least takeup of vaccine will be the ones interacting the most.
You have no evidence that the 30-50s would interact more, or more riskily, than vaccinated over 50s would. Numbers in hospitals with covid are what, 90% down from the peak?
It should not be a controversial view to say that the dragging-out of restrictions to late June is excessively cautious.
Younger people don't socialise more? That's news to me!
And that is precisely what is controversial, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it.
During a pandemic when the vaccine rollout has discrimated by age?
Further, what f***** business is it of yours if a 20 year old wants to socialise, when the risk of excess societal death from covid has been almost eliminated, and those most likely to need medical intervention have received a vaccine which according to the Lancet, has 100% efficacy by that yardstick?
Some people here need to take a long hard look at the way this country treats both its young and its entrepreneur class. And then think about what that’s likely to mean for the fortunes of this country 20 years from now.
And just as importantly, for the fortunes of the party they support.
The case of SOAS saying the n word in response to a student saying somebody else said it and what are you going to do....and then the students saying you can never ever utter that word, even though I just have, no matter what the context.
With the same logic, should the guardian be allowed to print it, if the piece is not written by a black person?
“we are (not in any way) banning the words 'mother' or 'father'."
Advising Staff against using the words is just as daft
I know this is the Generation Gap thing, but why?
Using "Parents and Guardians" instead of "Mothers and Father's" doesn't cost anyone anything, and is a little bit kinder to the small number of people who are included by one but excluded by the other.
Nothing is being enforced or banned, but it's just good manners.
Parent and Guardian does not mean the same as Mother and Father.
Indeed, it might be shockingly contentious to say this but absolutely every human alive has a biological mother and father.
But consider who a University might be writing to. The main contexts I can think of are "the adults we should contact when a student has a medical or personal crisis" or "the adults invited to graduation". In those contexts, P+G is more inclusive and accurate than M+F, because it allows for the possibility that a student isn't with their biological parents any more. Which is why schools have used this language for decades.
Now it's possible that there's some secret campaign by the University of Manchester to destroy the nuclear family. The alternative is that the Daily Mail and Toby Young have decided to make a mountain out of something that isn't even a molehill.
I know which one I would bet on.
This is a style guide which University employees themselves requested.
Did all the anti-woke snowflakes get so would up back in the day when they were instructed on when to use yours sincerely or yours faithfully in correspondence ?
"Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 requiring hospital admission from 22 days after the first dose was 100% (0 cases in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs 15 cases in the control group), with a lower bound of the one-sided 97·5% CI of 72·2% (appendix p 5)."
On this basis, they should lift all legally binding restrictions 22 days after all the over 50s are vaccinated. Which very roughly is Easter. I just don’t understand at all the rationale for keeping things going all the way to June, it should be a big bang opening in April.
Because even though the hospitalization rate for those younger than 50 is small, it is not zero. And a small fraction of a very big number is still a very big number.
Your thinking has been warped by a year of quite extraordinary measures. The vaccine programme is not stopping at age 50, the seasons are still marching on and the room for the virus to spread gets ever smaller given increasing immunity (both acquired and vaccine). I don’t say it lightly but the pathetic attitude of this article and your own comment makes me angry.
My attitude is pathetic? I thought it was a legitimate concern that the NHS would be overwhelmed by people being sick if the thing was allowed to let rip?
The fraction of under 50s hospitalised with covid is so tiny and the vaccine programme progressing so quickly that there is no danger at all of the nhs being “overwhelmed” if we opened up in April. Don’t forget a growing chunk of even the under 40s have already had one dose.
What analysis is this based on, or is it just a gut feeling?
The risk of hospitalisation is still quite high for 50-55 year olds but then drops substantially with each age bucket.
So the 50-64 bucket is less than half as likely to need hospital as the 75-84. The risk of hospitalisation almost halves again for the 40s. Meanwhile the mortality rate for that bucket is 95% lower than for the over 75s. The number start to get even more marginal when you get into the 30s band.
Max posted some stats recently on how many in Group 6, NHS/Carers and others under 40 had received one dose. It was a surprisingly high percentage of the age population. I know people in their late 30s who are not in group 6 who received their first dose in the last couple of days.
And that’s without considering the almost non existent case load in much of the country as we head deeper into spring. You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
Handicapping businesses and mental health into the summer is cruel.
You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
That is only true if there was zero risk of hospitilisation for those who have yet to be vaccinated. Otherwise it will go up, and if there is a "big bang" reopening it will undoubtedly go up quickly given that the group with the least takeup of vaccine will be the ones interacting the most.
You have no evidence that the 30-50s would interact more, or more riskily, than vaccinated over 50s would. Numbers in hospitals with covid are what, 90% down from the peak?
It should not be a controversial view to say that the dragging-out of restrictions to late June is excessively cautious.
Younger people don't socialise more? That's news to me!
And that is precisely what is controversial, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it.
During a pandemic when the vaccine rollout has discrimated by age?
Further, what f***** business is it of yours if a 20 year old wants to socialise, when the risk of excess societal death from covid has been almost eliminated, and those most likely to need medical intervention have received a vaccine which according to the Lancet, has 100% efficacy by that yardstick?
Some people here need to take a long hard look at the way this country treats both its young and its entrepreneur class. And then think about what that’s likely to mean for the fortunes of this country 20 years from now.
The risk of excise death and hospitalisation hasn't been removed yet. This would take vaccination down to, probably 40 or so.
“Global South” is a bizarre turn of phrase. I presume we opposed, at least in part, in the ground that the AZ move made any IP waivers unnecessary.
I believe Global South is used, because 3rd world is definitely now verboten and developing nations can also be seen as iffy / non-PC way of describing these countries, as its suggests they aren't as developed as other places.
I'm not confused, he's trying to use Covid as a stick for beating capitalism / the current pharma model. Just like the New Internationalist peeps. Various non-profit projects just blew up the campaign, and they have nowhere to go.
What he doesn't like is that mainly capitalism is already within spitting distance of delivering what he says it can't.
“Global South” is a bizarre turn of phrase. I presume we opposed, at least in part, in the ground that the AZ move made any IP waivers unnecessary.
I believe Global South is used, because 3rd world is definitely now verboten and developing nations can also be seen as iffy / non-PC way of describing these countries, as its suggests they aren't as developed as other places.
Oh for the days when we could just say “TPLAC”....
“Global South” does rather imply that Australia and NZ need development. Actually, in the case of the former....
“Global South” is a bizarre turn of phrase. I presume we opposed, at least in part, in the ground that the AZ move made any IP waivers unnecessary.
I believe Global South is used, because 3rd world is definitely now verboten and developing nations can also be seen as iffy / non-PC way of describing these countries, as its suggests they aren't as developed as other places.
Oh for the days when we could just say “TPLAC”....
“Global South” does rather imply that Australia and NZ need development. Actually, in the case of the former....
Well and lots of the countries in the "Global South" category aren't in the South.....can't be long until somebody decides South as a descriptor is racist and so we have to stop using that as well.
The question is, has Sumpers been radicalised (by whatever means) or has he been cunningly hiding his regressive, reactionary light under a bushel till now?
I'm going for radicalised by the lockdown sceptics/Covid-19 deniers.
“Global South” is a bizarre turn of phrase. I presume we opposed, at least in part, in the ground that the AZ move made any IP waivers unnecessary.
I believe Global South is used, because 3rd world is definitely now verboten and developing nations can also be seen as iffy / non-PC way of describing these countries, as its suggests they aren't as developed as other places.
Global South has been de rigueur amongst development organisations for a long time. It came in after the shift from Third World to Two-Thirds World, though is not quite so comprehensive.
Has been a widely used since late 1980s (?) It was coined about half a century ago, says Wiki.
Also very many used-to-be-developing countries have grown out of the category. eg China, many Asian - so "Two-thirds World" no longer works.
Western Australia I thought was quite conservative and old school.
Doesn't strike me as a left-wing stronghold aka Liverpool.
Maybe rurally, but like every other state, almost everyone lives in big cities. About 75% of WA voters live in Perth. So you have an incumbent during COVID-19 in one of the most successful regions in one of the most successful countries at COVID-19 suppression, in a state in the middle of a 30-year resource boom, where the opposition parties are the federal government. Seems ideal for a landslide in a second-order election.
“we are (not in any way) banning the words 'mother' or 'father'."
Advising Staff against using the words is just as daft
I know this is the Generation Gap thing, but why?
Using "Parents and Guardians" instead of "Mothers and Father's" doesn't cost anyone anything, and is a little bit kinder to the small number of people who are included by one but excluded by the other.
Nothing is being enforced or banned, but it's just good manners.
Parent and Guardian does not mean the same as Mother and Father.
Indeed, it might be shockingly contentious to say this but absolutely every human alive has a biological mother and father.
But consider who a University might be writing to. The main contexts I can think of are "the adults we should contact when a student has a medical or personal crisis" or "the adults invited to graduation". In those contexts, P+G is more inclusive and accurate than M+F, because it allows for the possibility that a student isn't with their biological parents any more. Which is why schools have used this language for decades.
Now it's possible that there's some secret campaign by the University of Manchester to destroy the nuclear family. The alternative is that the Daily Mail and Toby Young have decided to make a mountain out of something that isn't even a molehill.
I know which one I would bet on.
This is a style guide which University employees themselves requested.
Did all the anti-woke snowflakes get so would up back in the day when they were instructed on when to use yours sincerely or yours faithfully in correspondence ?
Incidentally, am I the only person who hates the common ‘kind regards’ sign off on emails?
An environment where lots of people had Covid turned out to be a place where people commonly caught Covid?
That’s amazing.
I assumed Covid patients were strictly seperated to prevent that sort of thing
Assuming aerosols are a mode of transmission for COVID, particularly over prolonged periods of exposure, then unless you have all COVID patients in isolation wards built specifically for respiratory disease patients (i.e. with high air exchange through HEPA filtration), then it is very hard to prevent all transmission, despite social distancing, hand and respiratory hygiene, and PPE.
My understanding is that, when the wave really hit, respiratory isolation units quickly became overwhelmed (and not all ICU units meet these standards), and COVID patients were put wherever hospitals could squeeze them in. In those circumstances, even with otherwise good IPC practices, I'd expect significant nosocomial infections.
“we are (not in any way) banning the words 'mother' or 'father'."
Advising Staff against using the words is just as daft
I know this is the Generation Gap thing, but why?
Using "Parents and Guardians" instead of "Mothers and Father's" doesn't cost anyone anything, and is a little bit kinder to the small number of people who are included by one but excluded by the other.
Nothing is being enforced or banned, but it's just good manners.
Parent and Guardian does not mean the same as Mother and Father.
Indeed, it might be shockingly contentious to say this but absolutely every human alive has a biological mother and father.
But consider who a University might be writing to. The main contexts I can think of are "the adults we should contact when a student has a medical or personal crisis" or "the adults invited to graduation". In those contexts, P+G is more inclusive and accurate than M+F, because it allows for the possibility that a student isn't with their biological parents any more. Which is why schools have used this language for decades.
Now it's possible that there's some secret campaign by the University of Manchester to destroy the nuclear family. The alternative is that the Daily Mail and Toby Young have decided to make a mountain out of something that isn't even a molehill.
I know which one I would bet on.
This is a style guide which University employees themselves requested.
Did all the anti-woke snowflakes get so would up back in the day when they were instructed on when to use yours sincerely or yours faithfully in correspondence ?
Incidentally, am I the only person who hates the common ‘kind regards’ sign off on emails?
Hate it. Its one saving grace is to make clear that if you switch to 'Regards' it means you're really pissed off...
"Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 requiring hospital admission from 22 days after the first dose was 100% (0 cases in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs 15 cases in the control group), with a lower bound of the one-sided 97·5% CI of 72·2% (appendix p 5)."
On this basis, they should lift all legally binding restrictions 22 days after all the over 50s are vaccinated. Which very roughly is Easter. I just don’t understand at all the rationale for keeping things going all the way to June, it should be a big bang opening in April.
Because even though the hospitalization rate for those younger than 50 is small, it is not zero. And a small fraction of a very big number is still a very big number.
Your thinking has been warped by a year of quite extraordinary measures. The vaccine programme is not stopping at age 50, the seasons are still marching on and the room for the virus to spread gets ever smaller given increasing immunity (both acquired and vaccine). I don’t say it lightly but the pathetic attitude of this article and your own comment makes me angry.
My attitude is pathetic? I thought it was a legitimate concern that the NHS would be overwhelmed by people being sick if the thing was allowed to let rip?
The fraction of under 50s hospitalised with covid is so tiny and the vaccine programme progressing so quickly that there is no danger at all of the nhs being “overwhelmed” if we opened up in April. Don’t forget a growing chunk of even the under 40s have already had one dose.
What analysis is this based on, or is it just a gut feeling?
The risk of hospitalisation is still quite high for 50-55 year olds but then drops substantially with each age bucket.
So the 50-64 bucket is less than half as likely to need hospital as the 75-84. The risk of hospitalisation almost halves again for the 40s. Meanwhile the mortality rate for that bucket is 95% lower than for the over 75s. The number start to get even more marginal when you get into the 30s band.
Max posted some stats recently on how many in Group 6, NHS/Carers and others under 40 had received one dose. It was a surprisingly high percentage of the age population. I know people in their late 30s who are not in group 6 who received their first dose in the last couple of days.
And that’s without considering the almost non existent case load in much of the country as we head deeper into spring. You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
Handicapping businesses and mental health into the summer is cruel.
You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
That is only true if there was zero risk of hospitilisation for those who have yet to be vaccinated. Otherwise it will go up, and if there is a "big bang" reopening it will undoubtedly go up quickly given that the group with the least takeup of vaccine will be the ones interacting the most.
You have no evidence that the 30-50s would interact more, or more riskily, than vaccinated over 50s would. Numbers in hospitals with covid are what, 90% down from the peak?
It should not be a controversial view to say that the dragging-out of restrictions to late June is excessively cautious.
Younger people don't socialise more? That's news to me!
And that is precisely what is controversial, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it.
During a pandemic when the vaccine rollout has discrimated by age?
Further, what f***** business is it of yours if a 20 year old wants to socialise, when the risk of excess societal death from covid has been almost eliminated, and those most likely to need medical intervention have received a vaccine which according to the Lancet, has 100% efficacy by that yardstick?
Some people here need to take a long hard look at the way this country treats both its young and its entrepreneur class. And then think about what that’s likely to mean for the fortunes of this country 20 years from now.
The risk of excise death and hospitalisation hasn't been removed yet. This would take vaccination down to, probably 40 or so.
Ok so perhaps two weeks longer than I said, if your goal is no excess death from covid. We’re still talking late April, not May and not June.
“we are (not in any way) banning the words 'mother' or 'father'."
Advising Staff against using the words is just as daft
I know this is the Generation Gap thing, but why?
Using "Parents and Guardians" instead of "Mothers and Father's" doesn't cost anyone anything, and is a little bit kinder to the small number of people who are included by one but excluded by the other.
Nothing is being enforced or banned, but it's just good manners.
Parent and Guardian does not mean the same as Mother and Father.
Indeed, it might be shockingly contentious to say this but absolutely every human alive has a biological mother and father.
But consider who a University might be writing to. The main contexts I can think of are "the adults we should contact when a student has a medical or personal crisis" or "the adults invited to graduation". In those contexts, P+G is more inclusive and accurate than M+F, because it allows for the possibility that a student isn't with their biological parents any more. Which is why schools have used this language for decades.
Now it's possible that there's some secret campaign by the University of Manchester to destroy the nuclear family. The alternative is that the Daily Mail and Toby Young have decided to make a mountain out of something that isn't even a molehill.
I know which one I would bet on.
This is a style guide which University employees themselves requested.
Did all the anti-woke snowflakes get so would up back in the day when they were instructed on when to use yours sincerely or yours faithfully in correspondence ?
Incidentally, am I the only person who hates the common ‘kind regards’ sign off on emails?
"Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 requiring hospital admission from 22 days after the first dose was 100% (0 cases in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs 15 cases in the control group), with a lower bound of the one-sided 97·5% CI of 72·2% (appendix p 5)."
On this basis, they should lift all legally binding restrictions 22 days after all the over 50s are vaccinated. Which very roughly is Easter. I just don’t understand at all the rationale for keeping things going all the way to June, it should be a big bang opening in April.
Because even though the hospitalization rate for those younger than 50 is small, it is not zero. And a small fraction of a very big number is still a very big number.
Your thinking has been warped by a year of quite extraordinary measures. The vaccine programme is not stopping at age 50, the seasons are still marching on and the room for the virus to spread gets ever smaller given increasing immunity (both acquired and vaccine). I don’t say it lightly but the pathetic attitude of this article and your own comment makes me angry.
My attitude is pathetic? I thought it was a legitimate concern that the NHS would be overwhelmed by people being sick if the thing was allowed to let rip?
The fraction of under 50s hospitalised with covid is so tiny and the vaccine programme progressing so quickly that there is no danger at all of the nhs being “overwhelmed” if we opened up in April. Don’t forget a growing chunk of even the under 40s have already had one dose.
What analysis is this based on, or is it just a gut feeling?
The risk of hospitalisation is still quite high for 50-55 year olds but then drops substantially with each age bucket.
So the 50-64 bucket is less than half as likely to need hospital as the 75-84. The risk of hospitalisation almost halves again for the 40s. Meanwhile the mortality rate for that bucket is 95% lower than for the over 75s. The number start to get even more marginal when you get into the 30s band.
Max posted some stats recently on how many in Group 6, NHS/Carers and others under 40 had received one dose. It was a surprisingly high percentage of the age population. I know people in their late 30s who are not in group 6 who received their first dose in the last couple of days.
And that’s without considering the almost non existent case load in much of the country as we head deeper into spring. You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
Handicapping businesses and mental health into the summer is cruel.
You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
That is only true if there was zero risk of hospitilisation for those who have yet to be vaccinated. Otherwise it will go up, and if there is a "big bang" reopening it will undoubtedly go up quickly given that the group with the least takeup of vaccine will be the ones interacting the most.
You have no evidence that the 30-50s would interact more, or more riskily, than vaccinated over 50s would. Numbers in hospitals with covid are what, 90% down from the peak?
It should not be a controversial view to say that the dragging-out of restrictions to late June is excessively cautious.
Younger people don't socialise more? That's news to me!
And that is precisely what is controversial, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it.
During a pandemic when the vaccine rollout has discrimated by age?
Further, what f***** business is it of yours if a 20 year old wants to socialise, when the risk of excess societal death from covid has been almost eliminated, and those most likely to need medical intervention have received a vaccine which according to the Lancet, has 100% efficacy by that yardstick?
Some people here need to take a long hard look at the way this country treats both its young and its entrepreneur class. And then think about what that’s likely to mean for the fortunes of this country 20 years from now.
The risk of excise death and hospitalisation hasn't been removed yet. This would take vaccination down to, probably 40 or so.
'Excise death" Is that ruination through taxation?
"Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 requiring hospital admission from 22 days after the first dose was 100% (0 cases in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs 15 cases in the control group), with a lower bound of the one-sided 97·5% CI of 72·2% (appendix p 5)."
On this basis, they should lift all legally binding restrictions 22 days after all the over 50s are vaccinated. Which very roughly is Easter. I just don’t understand at all the rationale for keeping things going all the way to June, it should be a big bang opening in April.
Because even though the hospitalization rate for those younger than 50 is small, it is not zero. And a small fraction of a very big number is still a very big number.
Your thinking has been warped by a year of quite extraordinary measures. The vaccine programme is not stopping at age 50, the seasons are still marching on and the room for the virus to spread gets ever smaller given increasing immunity (both acquired and vaccine). I don’t say it lightly but the pathetic attitude of this article and your own comment makes me angry.
My attitude is pathetic? I thought it was a legitimate concern that the NHS would be overwhelmed by people being sick if the thing was allowed to let rip?
The fraction of under 50s hospitalised with covid is so tiny and the vaccine programme progressing so quickly that there is no danger at all of the nhs being “overwhelmed” if we opened up in April. Don’t forget a growing chunk of even the under 40s have already had one dose.
What analysis is this based on, or is it just a gut feeling?
The risk of hospitalisation is still quite high for 50-55 year olds but then drops substantially with each age bucket.
So the 50-64 bucket is less than half as likely to need hospital as the 75-84. The risk of hospitalisation almost halves again for the 40s. Meanwhile the mortality rate for that bucket is 95% lower than for the over 75s. The number start to get even more marginal when you get into the 30s band.
Max posted some stats recently on how many in Group 6, NHS/Carers and others under 40 had received one dose. It was a surprisingly high percentage of the age population. I know people in their late 30s who are not in group 6 who received their first dose in the last couple of days.
And that’s without considering the almost non existent case load in much of the country as we head deeper into spring. You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
Handicapping businesses and mental health into the summer is cruel.
You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
That is only true if there was zero risk of hospitilisation for those who have yet to be vaccinated. Otherwise it will go up, and if there is a "big bang" reopening it will undoubtedly go up quickly given that the group with the least takeup of vaccine will be the ones interacting the most.
You have no evidence that the 30-50s would interact more, or more riskily, than vaccinated over 50s would. Numbers in hospitals with covid are what, 90% down from the peak?
It should not be a controversial view to say that the dragging-out of restrictions to late June is excessively cautious.
Younger people don't socialise more? That's news to me!
And that is precisely what is controversial, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it.
During a pandemic when the vaccine rollout has discrimated by age?
Further, what f***** business is it of yours if a 20 year old wants to socialise, when the risk of excess societal death from covid has been almost eliminated, and those most likely to need medical intervention have received a vaccine which according to the Lancet, has 100% efficacy by that yardstick?
Some people here need to take a long hard look at the way this country treats both its young and its entrepreneur class. And then think about what that’s likely to mean for the fortunes of this country 20 years from now.
The risk of excise death and hospitalisation hasn't been removed yet. This would take vaccination down to, probably 40 or so.
Ok so perhaps two weeks longer than I said, if your goal is no excess death from covid. We’re still talking late April, not May and not June.
The 40-49 cohort vaccination program doesn't start until the middle of April. By the time they are done and have had sufficient time to build protection that will be well into May, which aligns pretty well with the current plan.
French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo has come under fire for a cartoon which shows the Queen kneeling on Meghan Markle's neck, drawing parallels to the death of George Floyd.
I'm not confused, he's trying to use Covid as a stick for beating capitalism / the current pharma model. Just like the New Internationalist peeps. Various non-profit projects just blew up the campaign, and they have nowhere to go.
What he doesn't like is that mainly capitalism is already within spitting distance of delivering what he says it can't.
I'm not confused, he's trying to use Covid as a stick for beating capitalism / the current pharma model. Just like the New Internationalist peeps. Various non-profit projects just blew up the campaign, and they have nowhere to go.
What he doesn't like is that mainly capitalism is already within spitting distance of delivering what he says it can't.
"Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 requiring hospital admission from 22 days after the first dose was 100% (0 cases in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs 15 cases in the control group), with a lower bound of the one-sided 97·5% CI of 72·2% (appendix p 5)."
On this basis, they should lift all legally binding restrictions 22 days after all the over 50s are vaccinated. Which very roughly is Easter. I just don’t understand at all the rationale for keeping things going all the way to June, it should be a big bang opening in April.
Because even though the hospitalization rate for those younger than 50 is small, it is not zero. And a small fraction of a very big number is still a very big number.
Your thinking has been warped by a year of quite extraordinary measures. The vaccine programme is not stopping at age 50, the seasons are still marching on and the room for the virus to spread gets ever smaller given increasing immunity (both acquired and vaccine). I don’t say it lightly but the pathetic attitude of this article and your own comment makes me angry.
My attitude is pathetic? I thought it was a legitimate concern that the NHS would be overwhelmed by people being sick if the thing was allowed to let rip?
The fraction of under 50s hospitalised with covid is so tiny and the vaccine programme progressing so quickly that there is no danger at all of the nhs being “overwhelmed” if we opened up in April. Don’t forget a growing chunk of even the under 40s have already had one dose.
What analysis is this based on, or is it just a gut feeling?
The risk of hospitalisation is still quite high for 50-55 year olds but then drops substantially with each age bucket.
So the 50-64 bucket is less than half as likely to need hospital as the 75-84. The risk of hospitalisation almost halves again for the 40s. Meanwhile the mortality rate for that bucket is 95% lower than for the over 75s. The number start to get even more marginal when you get into the 30s band.
Max posted some stats recently on how many in Group 6, NHS/Carers and others under 40 had received one dose. It was a surprisingly high percentage of the age population. I know people in their late 30s who are not in group 6 who received their first dose in the last couple of days.
And that’s without considering the almost non existent case load in much of the country as we head deeper into spring. You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
Handicapping businesses and mental health into the summer is cruel.
You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
That is only true if there was zero risk of hospitilisation for those who have yet to be vaccinated. Otherwise it will go up, and if there is a "big bang" reopening it will undoubtedly go up quickly given that the group with the least takeup of vaccine will be the ones interacting the most.
You have no evidence that the 30-50s would interact more, or more riskily, than vaccinated over 50s would. Numbers in hospitals with covid are what, 90% down from the peak?
It should not be a controversial view to say that the dragging-out of restrictions to late June is excessively cautious.
Younger people don't socialise more? That's news to me!
And that is precisely what is controversial, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it.
During a pandemic when the vaccine rollout has discrimated by age?
Further, what f***** business is it of yours if a 20 year old wants to socialise, when the risk of excess societal death from covid has been almost eliminated, and those most likely to need medical intervention have received a vaccine which according to the Lancet, has 100% efficacy by that yardstick?
Some people here need to take a long hard look at the way this country treats both its young and its entrepreneur class. And then think about what that’s likely to mean for the fortunes of this country 20 years from now.
The risk of excise death and hospitalisation hasn't been removed yet. This would take vaccination down to, probably 40 or so.
Ok so perhaps two weeks longer than I said, if your goal is no excess death from covid. We’re still talking late April, not May and not June.
The 40-49 cohort vaccination program doesn't start until the middle of April. By the time they are done and have had sufficient time to build protection that will be well into May, which aligns pretty well with the current plan.
A mate has been vaccinated in Zone 2 today: 44 years of age, no underlying health conditions...
Western Australia I thought was quite conservative and old school.
Doesn't strike me as a left-wing stronghold aka Liverpool.
Maybe rurally, but like every other state, almost everyone lives in big cities. About 75% of WA voters live in Perth. So you have an incumbent during COVID-19 in one of the most successful regions in one of the most successful countries at COVID-19 suppression, in a state in the middle of a 30-year resource boom, where the opposition parties are the federal government. Seems ideal for a landslide in a second-order election.
Umm: how do you the resources boom is going to last 30 years?
"Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 requiring hospital admission from 22 days after the first dose was 100% (0 cases in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs 15 cases in the control group), with a lower bound of the one-sided 97·5% CI of 72·2% (appendix p 5)."
On this basis, they should lift all legally binding restrictions 22 days after all the over 50s are vaccinated. Which very roughly is Easter. I just don’t understand at all the rationale for keeping things going all the way to June, it should be a big bang opening in April.
Because even though the hospitalization rate for those younger than 50 is small, it is not zero. And a small fraction of a very big number is still a very big number.
Your thinking has been warped by a year of quite extraordinary measures. The vaccine programme is not stopping at age 50, the seasons are still marching on and the room for the virus to spread gets ever smaller given increasing immunity (both acquired and vaccine). I don’t say it lightly but the pathetic attitude of this article and your own comment makes me angry.
My attitude is pathetic? I thought it was a legitimate concern that the NHS would be overwhelmed by people being sick if the thing was allowed to let rip?
The fraction of under 50s hospitalised with covid is so tiny and the vaccine programme progressing so quickly that there is no danger at all of the nhs being “overwhelmed” if we opened up in April. Don’t forget a growing chunk of even the under 40s have already had one dose.
What analysis is this based on, or is it just a gut feeling?
The risk of hospitalisation is still quite high for 50-55 year olds but then drops substantially with each age bucket.
So the 50-64 bucket is less than half as likely to need hospital as the 75-84. The risk of hospitalisation almost halves again for the 40s. Meanwhile the mortality rate for that bucket is 95% lower than for the over 75s. The number start to get even more marginal when you get into the 30s band.
Max posted some stats recently on how many in Group 6, NHS/Carers and others under 40 had received one dose. It was a surprisingly high percentage of the age population. I know people in their late 30s who are not in group 6 who received their first dose in the last couple of days.
And that’s without considering the almost non existent case load in much of the country as we head deeper into spring. You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
Handicapping businesses and mental health into the summer is cruel.
You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
That is only true if there was zero risk of hospitilisation for those who have yet to be vaccinated. Otherwise it will go up, and if there is a "big bang" reopening it will undoubtedly go up quickly given that the group with the least takeup of vaccine will be the ones interacting the most.
You have no evidence that the 30-50s would interact more, or more riskily, than vaccinated over 50s would. Numbers in hospitals with covid are what, 90% down from the peak?
It should not be a controversial view to say that the dragging-out of restrictions to late June is excessively cautious.
Younger people don't socialise more? That's news to me!
And that is precisely what is controversial, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it.
During a pandemic when the vaccine rollout has discrimated by age?
Further, what f***** business is it of yours if a 20 year old wants to socialise, when the risk of excess societal death from covid has been almost eliminated, and those most likely to need medical intervention have received a vaccine which according to the Lancet, has 100% efficacy by that yardstick?
Some people here need to take a long hard look at the way this country treats both its young and its entrepreneur class. And then think about what that’s likely to mean for the fortunes of this country 20 years from now.
The risk of excise death and hospitalisation hasn't been removed yet. This would take vaccination down to, probably 40 or so.
Ok so perhaps two weeks longer than I said, if your goal is no excess death from covid. We’re still talking late April, not May and not June.
The 40-49 cohort vaccination program doesn't start until the middle of April. By the time they are done and have had sufficient time to build protection that will be well into May, which aligns pretty well with the current plan.
Think it will start a bit earlier than that and the 30-39 will commence in the third week of April.
Which is fine for us given all of our vaccines are approved by the EMA.
You are assuming we have EU vaccine passports.
Although I am inclined to think that distinctions like that may undermine the scheme.
We don't have EU vaccine passports because we aren't in the EU. Not sure if you somehow missed that news.
And I don't really understand your surprise that the EU only recognises EMA approved vaccinations. Why would you recognise as effective a vaccine that your regulatory authorities hadn't assessed as effective? You might add one or two at a later date (where they'd not filed in your jurisdiction due to focusing on others but where there is compelling evidence of effectiveness). But you're not just going to wave people through on the basis that the Chinese government has shoved something in someone's arm that they claim works.
How is this going to work for countries within the EU using Sputnik (or a Chinese vaccine) on the side? Are the EU going to insist they are all re-done with approved vaccines?
Or the EMA could license them in due course.
I can see that happening with Sputnik, but I'm not so sure about SinoPharm.
Sputnik is very effective, but I think they haven't sought approval in the EU.
It should be effective, having made good use of all the British cash invested into Oxford and AZ.
Ha! Yes, it is suspiciously similar.
Did this involve subterfuge or just reading papers?
I thought AZ had licensed to a Russian Company for the former CIS market.
Spunik is very similar to AZ but using a slightly different vector.
I think it was worked on before AZ licenced anything in Russia? I think the implication above was that the Oxford research had been 'cloned' in some way.
Which is fine for us given all of our vaccines are approved by the EMA.
You are assuming we have EU vaccine passports.
Although I am inclined to think that distinctions like that may undermine the scheme.
We don't have EU vaccine passports because we aren't in the EU. Not sure if you somehow missed that news.
And I don't really understand your surprise that the EU only recognises EMA approved vaccinations. Why would you recognise as effective a vaccine that your regulatory authorities hadn't assessed as effective? You might add one or two at a later date (where they'd not filed in your jurisdiction due to focusing on others but where there is compelling evidence of effectiveness). But you're not just going to wave people through on the basis that the Chinese government has shoved something in someone's arm that they claim works.
How is this going to work for countries within the EU using Sputnik (or a Chinese vaccine) on the side? Are the EU going to insist they are all re-done with approved vaccines?
Or the EMA could license them in due course.
I can see that happening with Sputnik, but I'm not so sure about SinoPharm.
Sputnik is very effective, but I think they haven't sought approval in the EU.
It should be effective, having made good use of all the British cash invested into Oxford and AZ.
Ha! Yes, it is suspiciously similar.
Did this involve subterfuge or just reading papers?
I thought AZ had licensed to a Russian Company for the former CIS market.
Spunik is very similar to AZ but using a slightly different vector.
I think it was worked on before AZ licenced anything in Russia? I think the implication above was that the Oxford research had been 'cloned' in some way.
Sputnik is actually a bit smarter than the AZ vaccine as it used two slightly different vectors for each dose to overcome vector immunity. However, the vector for the second dose is linked to making people very slightly more predisposed to HIV which is why if we can combine the first Sputnik dose with a second dose of AZ it eliminates vector immunity and avoids the risk of the second Sputnik vector.
Western Australia I thought was quite conservative and old school.
Doesn't strike me as a left-wing stronghold aka Liverpool.
Maybe rurally, but like every other state, almost everyone lives in big cities. About 75% of WA voters live in Perth. So you have an incumbent during COVID-19 in one of the most successful regions in one of the most successful countries at COVID-19 suppression, in a state in the middle of a 30-year resource boom, where the opposition parties are the federal government. Seems ideal for a landslide in a second-order election.
Chuck in a wildly popular State Premier and an opposition campaign imploding too. PS. Labor has won the rural areas too. In fairness, won pretty much everywhere.
“we are (not in any way) banning the words 'mother' or 'father'."
Advising Staff against using the words is just as daft
I know this is the Generation Gap thing, but why?
Using "Parents and Guardians" instead of "Mothers and Father's" doesn't cost anyone anything, and is a little bit kinder to the small number of people who are included by one but excluded by the other.
Nothing is being enforced or banned, but it's just good manners.
Parent and Guardian does not mean the same as Mother and Father.
Indeed, it might be shockingly contentious to say this but absolutely every human alive has a biological mother and father.
But consider who a University might be writing to. The main contexts I can think of are "the adults we should contact when a student has a medical or personal crisis" or "the adults invited to graduation". In those contexts, P+G is more inclusive and accurate than M+F, because it allows for the possibility that a student isn't with their biological parents any more. Which is why schools have used this language for decades.
Now it's possible that there's some secret campaign by the University of Manchester to destroy the nuclear family. The alternative is that the Daily Mail and Toby Young have decided to make a mountain out of something that isn't even a molehill.
I know which one I would bet on.
This is a style guide which University employees themselves requested.
Did all the anti-woke snowflakes get so would up back in the day when they were instructed on when to use yours sincerely or yours faithfully in correspondence ?
Incidentally, am I the only person who hates the common ‘kind regards’ sign off on emails?
Hate it. Its one saving grace is to make clear that if you switch to 'Regards' it means you're really pissed off...
“we are (not in any way) banning the words 'mother' or 'father'."
Advising Staff against using the words is just as daft
I know this is the Generation Gap thing, but why?
Using "Parents and Guardians" instead of "Mothers and Father's" doesn't cost anyone anything, and is a little bit kinder to the small number of people who are included by one but excluded by the other.
Nothing is being enforced or banned, but it's just good manners.
Parent and Guardian does not mean the same as Mother and Father.
Indeed, it might be shockingly contentious to say this but absolutely every human alive has a biological mother and father.
But consider who a University might be writing to. The main contexts I can think of are "the adults we should contact when a student has a medical or personal crisis" or "the adults invited to graduation". In those contexts, P+G is more inclusive and accurate than M+F, because it allows for the possibility that a student isn't with their biological parents any more. Which is why schools have used this language for decades.
Now it's possible that there's some secret campaign by the University of Manchester to destroy the nuclear family. The alternative is that the Daily Mail and Toby Young have decided to make a mountain out of something that isn't even a molehill.
I know which one I would bet on.
This is a style guide which University employees themselves requested.
Did all the anti-woke snowflakes get so would up back in the day when they were instructed on when to use yours sincerely or yours faithfully in correspondence ?
Incidentally, am I the only person who hates the common ‘kind regards’ sign off on emails?
Hate it. Its one saving grace is to make clear that if you switch to 'Regards' it means you're really pissed off...
'Thanks,' is the ultimate furious sign off.
Not really, "regards" or "sincerely" are much worse. Thanks can work fine depending on the context.
“we are (not in any way) banning the words 'mother' or 'father'."
Advising Staff against using the words is just as daft
I know this is the Generation Gap thing, but why?
Using "Parents and Guardians" instead of "Mothers and Father's" doesn't cost anyone anything, and is a little bit kinder to the small number of people who are included by one but excluded by the other.
Nothing is being enforced or banned, but it's just good manners.
Parent and Guardian does not mean the same as Mother and Father.
Indeed, it might be shockingly contentious to say this but absolutely every human alive has a biological mother and father.
But consider who a University might be writing to. The main contexts I can think of are "the adults we should contact when a student has a medical or personal crisis" or "the adults invited to graduation". In those contexts, P+G is more inclusive and accurate than M+F, because it allows for the possibility that a student isn't with their biological parents any more. Which is why schools have used this language for decades.
Now it's possible that there's some secret campaign by the University of Manchester to destroy the nuclear family. The alternative is that the Daily Mail and Toby Young have decided to make a mountain out of something that isn't even a molehill.
I know which one I would bet on.
This is a style guide which University employees themselves requested.
Did all the anti-woke snowflakes get so would up back in the day when they were instructed on when to use yours sincerely or yours faithfully in correspondence ?
Incidentally, am I the only person who hates the common ‘kind regards’ sign off on emails?
Hate it. Its one saving grace is to make clear that if you switch to 'Regards' it means you're really pissed off...
'Thanks,' is the ultimate furious sign off.
Not really, "regards" or "sincerely" are much worse. Thanks can work fine depending on the context.
French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo has come under fire for a cartoon which shows the Queen kneeling on Meghan Markle's neck, drawing parallels to the death of George Floyd.
You asked about a 20 year old socialising, and making their own choices about the risks they are prepared to run.
Let me take a step back. Imagine you build a factory and it belches out noxious and toxic emissions. You might be prepared to work in the factory and run the risk of being affected by those emissions, but the emissions don't stop at the factory gates. Those fumes drift beyond, and they can get other people sick.
We therefore have rules about the emissions factories are allowed to emit.
Your 20 year old, if they have CV19, they might not even notice, or it might be a mild sniffle. They aren't going to be negatively affected (or at least not much), but they are a walking talking negartive externality spewer. And in democratic societies, we have rules that restrict negative externalities.
If it were possible to segment the risk, so that 20 year olds were unable to pass CV19 onto other people, it would be amazing. But the reality is that your 20 year old probably lives at home with their parents, or socialises with people who live with their parents. How do you stop those externalities spreading?
Which is fine for us given all of our vaccines are approved by the EMA.
You are assuming we have EU vaccine passports.
Although I am inclined to think that distinctions like that may undermine the scheme.
We don't have EU vaccine passports because we aren't in the EU. Not sure if you somehow missed that news.
And I don't really understand your surprise that the EU only recognises EMA approved vaccinations. Why would you recognise as effective a vaccine that your regulatory authorities hadn't assessed as effective? You might add one or two at a later date (where they'd not filed in your jurisdiction due to focusing on others but where there is compelling evidence of effectiveness). But you're not just going to wave people through on the basis that the Chinese government has shoved something in someone's arm that they claim works.
How is this going to work for countries within the EU using Sputnik (or a Chinese vaccine) on the side? Are the EU going to insist they are all re-done with approved vaccines?
Or the EMA could license them in due course.
I can see that happening with Sputnik, but I'm not so sure about SinoPharm.
Sputnik is very effective, but I think they haven't sought approval in the EU.
It should be effective, having made good use of all the British cash invested into Oxford and AZ.
Ha! Yes, it is suspiciously similar.
Did this involve subterfuge or just reading papers?
I thought AZ had licensed to a Russian Company for the former CIS market.
Spunik is very similar to AZ but using a slightly different vector.
I think it was worked on before AZ licenced anything in Russia? I think the implication above was that the Oxford research had been 'cloned' in some way.
Sputnik is actually a bit smarter than the AZ vaccine as it used two slightly different vectors for each dose to overcome vector immunity. However, the vector for the second dose is linked to making people very slightly more predisposed to HIV which is why if we can combine the first Sputnik dose with a second dose of AZ it eliminates vector immunity and avoids the risk of the second Sputnik vector.
Yes. It is slightly surprising that Oxford didn't try a mixed vector too.
I hadn't seen that about HIV. Is that people actually getting HIV or are they just showing up as HIV false positives (which the failed Australian vaccine was shown to cause)?
French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo has come under fire for a cartoon which shows the Queen kneeling on Meghan Markle's neck, drawing parallels to the death of George Floyd.
French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo has come under fire for a cartoon which shows the Queen kneeling on Meghan Markle's neck, drawing parallels to the death of George Floyd.
The case rate is still flat rather than rising, which is encouraging - and the further into the vaccination program we get, the less harmful on average each one of the remaining cases will be. It's all good.
French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo has come under fire for a cartoon which shows the Queen kneeling on Meghan Markle's neck, drawing parallels to the death of George Floyd.
French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo has come under fire for a cartoon which shows the Queen kneeling on Meghan Markle's neck, drawing parallels to the death of George Floyd.
I have to say I think that was an unfortunate choice of words given Charlie Hebdo’s history.
On the substantive point, it’s a shitty magazine that likes to shock and be offensive for the sake of it. Taking it seriously plays it at its own game.
You asked about a 20 year old socialising, and making their own choices about the risks they are prepared to run.
Let me take a step back. Imagine you build a factory and it belches out noxious and toxic emissions. You might be prepared to work in the factory and run the risk of being affected by those emissions, but the emissions don't stop at the factory gates. Those fumes drift beyond, and they can get other people sick.
We therefore have rules about the emissions factories are allowed to emit.
Your 20 year old, if they have CV19, they might not even notice, or it might be a mild sniffle. They aren't going to be negatively affected (or at least not much), but they are a walking talking negartive externality spewer. And in democratic societies, we have rules that restrict negative externalities.
If it were possible to segment the risk, so that 20 year olds were unable to pass CV19 onto other people, it would be amazing. But the reality is that your 20 year old probably lives at home with their parents, or socialises with people who live with their parents. How do you stop those externalities spreading?
It’s thankfully now straightforward. You vaccinate the parents. Which we will have done nationwide very soon, certainly far earlier than the current timetable for lifting restrictions.
Which is fine for us given all of our vaccines are approved by the EMA.
You are assuming we have EU vaccine passports.
Although I am inclined to think that distinctions like that may undermine the scheme.
We don't have EU vaccine passports because we aren't in the EU. Not sure if you somehow missed that news.
And I don't really understand your surprise that the EU only recognises EMA approved vaccinations. Why would you recognise as effective a vaccine that your regulatory authorities hadn't assessed as effective? You might add one or two at a later date (where they'd not filed in your jurisdiction due to focusing on others but where there is compelling evidence of effectiveness). But you're not just going to wave people through on the basis that the Chinese government has shoved something in someone's arm that they claim works.
How is this going to work for countries within the EU using Sputnik (or a Chinese vaccine) on the side? Are the EU going to insist they are all re-done with approved vaccines?
UAE have been using Sinopharm, which they trialled themselves before approving. Are the EU saying that EU citizens in the UAE can’t go home for the summer?
58.7% of the vote as it stands. If it weren't for Trump this cleaving towards incumbency would be blindingly obvious to all. Explains, for me, the consistent Tory leads.
The current projections are Labor 53, Nationals 4 and Liberals 2 which would be a huge result for Labor and for the State Premier Mark McGowan.
Liberal leader Zac Kirkup probably didn't do himself any favours with this:
Conceding after the polls close is one thing but conceding two weeks in advance never sends a strong message to your supporters. Kirkup himself has lost his own seat which the Liberals have held since 1966. To be fair, Kirkup only became leader 4 months ago.
Some of the swings being recorded by Labor are into double figures but it's early days and a lot of votes still to be counted but it looks a disastrous night for the Liberals.
That’s why I don’t get the criticism of Swinson stating that she was going to be the next PM. Certainly no-one believed her but I think the 2010 Clegg-gasm got punctured when he limited his public sights to propping up either Brown or Cameron.
I've tried that implicitly on the doorstep in obviously hopeless situations - "Vote for us to stop the Tory landslide!" It doesn't work - supporters feel depressed and don't vote, opponents are pleased at the idea of a landslide. The idea of limiting it to a modest majority because they might go too far is too cerebral - most people who like X want X to win big!
French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo has come under fire for a cartoon which shows the Queen kneeling on Meghan Markle's neck, drawing parallels to the death of George Floyd.
Imagine being furious about a magazine cover that you don't have to look at if you don't want to.
Two takes on this both of which are apposite.
Firstly - Everyone was right behind Charlie Hebdo when they were just insulting Muslims. That was fine. But now they are insulting the Royal Family those same people are 'furious'. They seem to forget the whole point of CH - and all cutting edge satire - is to shove a stick into an ants nest and get them angry. They are very good at it and good luck to them.
Secondly - I would suspect that the chances of a violent reaction to this 'insult' is just about zero. Which does say something about our sense of proportion in Britain (and the rest of Europe to be fair).
Finally - I hadn't actually thought about CH recently but now I have heard about this my reaction is that I think I would have been disappointed if they hadn't done something like this. It actually gives me a weird sense of hope about French society.
I have just returned from Asda needing paracetamol for a rather painful tooth extraction last week, and the place was crazy with hordes of people and children, no social distancing, no control by Asda staff, or security either, on the volumes of people in the store or social distancing.
It was just like covid had never happened.
I know it is Mothers day tomorrow and last minute buying of flowers and chocs are understandable, but this was mayhem.
I was grateful that I have had my two Pfizer vaccinations, the second one a week ago, but if the public are unable to show any restraint we will be back in UK lockdown very soon.
Which is fine for us given all of our vaccines are approved by the EMA.
You are assuming we have EU vaccine passports.
Although I am inclined to think that distinctions like that may undermine the scheme.
We don't have EU vaccine passports because we aren't in the EU. Not sure if you somehow missed that news.
And I don't really understand your surprise that the EU only recognises EMA approved vaccinations. Why would you recognise as effective a vaccine that your regulatory authorities hadn't assessed as effective? You might add one or two at a later date (where they'd not filed in your jurisdiction due to focusing on others but where there is compelling evidence of effectiveness). But you're not just going to wave people through on the basis that the Chinese government has shoved something in someone's arm that they claim works.
How is this going to work for countries within the EU using Sputnik (or a Chinese vaccine) on the side? Are the EU going to insist they are all re-done with approved vaccines?
Or the EMA could license them in due course.
I can see that happening with Sputnik, but I'm not so sure about SinoPharm.
Sputnik is very effective, but I think they haven't sought approval in the EU.
It should be effective, having made good use of all the British cash invested into Oxford and AZ.
Ha! Yes, it is suspiciously similar.
Did this involve subterfuge or just reading papers?
I thought AZ had licensed to a Russian Company for the former CIS market.
Spunik is very similar to AZ but using a slightly different vector.
I think it was worked on before AZ licenced anything in Russia? I think the implication above was that the Oxford research had been 'cloned' in some way.
Sputnik is actually a bit smarter than the AZ vaccine as it used two slightly different vectors for each dose to overcome vector immunity. However, the vector for the second dose is linked to making people very slightly more predisposed to HIV which is why if we can combine the first Sputnik dose with a second dose of AZ it eliminates vector immunity and avoids the risk of the second Sputnik vector.
Yes. It is slightly surprising that Oxford didn't try a mixed vector too.
I hadn't seen that about HIV. Is that people actually getting HIV or are they just showing up as HIV false positives (which the failed Australian vaccine was shown to cause)?
How many off the shelf vectors are in there in the stable at the moment? Are they a scarce resource? While we’ve got mRNA tech up our sleeves now, I’d have to be persuaded about firing too many vector bullets on covid 19, given it’s now unlikely to represent a major public health risk again.
“we are (not in any way) banning the words 'mother' or 'father'."
Advising Staff against using the words is just as daft
I know this is the Generation Gap thing, but why?
Using "Parents and Guardians" instead of "Mothers and Father's" doesn't cost anyone anything, and is a little bit kinder to the small number of people who are included by one but excluded by the other.
Nothing is being enforced or banned, but it's just good manners.
Parent and Guardian does not mean the same as Mother and Father.
Indeed, it might be shockingly contentious to say this but absolutely every human alive has a biological mother and father.
But consider who a University might be writing to. The main contexts I can think of are "the adults we should contact when a student has a medical or personal crisis" or "the adults invited to graduation". In those contexts, P+G is more inclusive and accurate than M+F, because it allows for the possibility that a student isn't with their biological parents any more. Which is why schools have used this language for decades.
Now it's possible that there's some secret campaign by the University of Manchester to destroy the nuclear family. The alternative is that the Daily Mail and Toby Young have decided to make a mountain out of something that isn't even a molehill.
I know which one I would bet on.
This is a style guide which University employees themselves requested.
Did all the anti-woke snowflakes get so would up back in the day when they were instructed on when to use yours sincerely or yours faithfully in correspondence ?
Incidentally, am I the only person who hates the common ‘kind regards’ sign off on emails?
Hate it. Its one saving grace is to make clear that if you switch to 'Regards' it means you're really pissed off...
'Thanks,' is the ultimate furious sign off.
Not really, "regards" or "sincerely" are much worse. Thanks can work fine depending on the context.
I've always used "Thanks" but now I wonder who I've offended with that. What should I use instead?
"Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 requiring hospital admission from 22 days after the first dose was 100% (0 cases in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs 15 cases in the control group), with a lower bound of the one-sided 97·5% CI of 72·2% (appendix p 5)."
On this basis, they should lift all legally binding restrictions 22 days after all the over 50s are vaccinated. Which very roughly is Easter. I just don’t understand at all the rationale for keeping things going all the way to June, it should be a big bang opening in April.
Because even though the hospitalization rate for those younger than 50 is small, it is not zero. And a small fraction of a very big number is still a very big number.
Your thinking has been warped by a year of quite extraordinary measures. The vaccine programme is not stopping at age 50, the seasons are still marching on and the room for the virus to spread gets ever smaller given increasing immunity (both acquired and vaccine). I don’t say it lightly but the pathetic attitude of this article and your own comment makes me angry.
My attitude is pathetic? I thought it was a legitimate concern that the NHS would be overwhelmed by people being sick if the thing was allowed to let rip?
The fraction of under 50s hospitalised with covid is so tiny and the vaccine programme progressing so quickly that there is no danger at all of the nhs being “overwhelmed” if we opened up in April. Don’t forget a growing chunk of even the under 40s have already had one dose.
What analysis is this based on, or is it just a gut feeling?
The risk of hospitalisation is still quite high for 50-55 year olds but then drops substantially with each age bucket.
So the 50-64 bucket is less than half as likely to need hospital as the 75-84. The risk of hospitalisation almost halves again for the 40s. Meanwhile the mortality rate for that bucket is 95% lower than for the over 75s. The number start to get even more marginal when you get into the 30s band.
Max posted some stats recently on how many in Group 6, NHS/Carers and others under 40 had received one dose. It was a surprisingly high percentage of the age population. I know people in their late 30s who are not in group 6 who received their first dose in the last couple of days.
And that’s without considering the almost non existent case load in much of the country as we head deeper into spring. You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
Handicapping businesses and mental health into the summer is cruel.
You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
That is only true if there was zero risk of hospitilisation for those who have yet to be vaccinated. Otherwise it will go up, and if there is a "big bang" reopening it will undoubtedly go up quickly given that the group with the least takeup of vaccine will be the ones interacting the most.
You have no evidence that the 30-50s would interact more, or more riskily, than vaccinated over 50s would. Numbers in hospitals with covid are what, 90% down from the peak?
It should not be a controversial view to say that the dragging-out of restrictions to late June is excessively cautious.
Younger people don't socialise more? That's news to me!
And that is precisely what is controversial, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it.
During a pandemic when the vaccine rollout has discrimated by age?
Further, what f***** business is it of yours if a 20 year old wants to socialise, when the risk of excess societal death from covid has been almost eliminated, and those most likely to need medical intervention have received a vaccine which according to the Lancet, has 100% efficacy by that yardstick?
Some people here need to take a long hard look at the way this country treats both its young and its entrepreneur class. And then think about what that’s likely to mean for the fortunes of this country 20 years from now.
The risk of excise death and hospitalisation hasn't been removed yet. This would take vaccination down to, probably 40 or so.
Ok so perhaps two weeks longer than I said, if your goal is no excess death from covid. We’re still talking late April, not May and not June.
The 40-49 cohort vaccination program doesn't start until the middle of April. By the time they are done and have had sufficient time to build protection that will be well into May, which aligns pretty well with the current plan.
A mate has been vaccinated in Zone 2 today: 44 years of age, no underlying health conditions...
I have just returned from Asda needing paracetamol for a rather painful tooth extraction last week, and the place was crazy with hordes of people and children, no social distancing, no control by Asda staff, or security either, on the volumes of people in the store or social distancing.
It was just like covid had never happened.
I know it is Mothers day tomorrow and last minute buying of flowers and chocs are understandable, but this was mayhem.
I was grateful that I have had my two Pfizer vaccinations, the second one a week ago, but if the public are unable to show any restraint we will be back in UK lockdown very soon.
“we are (not in any way) banning the words 'mother' or 'father'."
Advising Staff against using the words is just as daft
I know this is the Generation Gap thing, but why?
Using "Parents and Guardians" instead of "Mothers and Father's" doesn't cost anyone anything, and is a little bit kinder to the small number of people who are included by one but excluded by the other.
Nothing is being enforced or banned, but it's just good manners.
Parent and Guardian does not mean the same as Mother and Father.
Indeed, it might be shockingly contentious to say this but absolutely every human alive has a biological mother and father.
But consider who a University might be writing to. The main contexts I can think of are "the adults we should contact when a student has a medical or personal crisis" or "the adults invited to graduation". In those contexts, P+G is more inclusive and accurate than M+F, because it allows for the possibility that a student isn't with their biological parents any more. Which is why schools have used this language for decades.
Now it's possible that there's some secret campaign by the University of Manchester to destroy the nuclear family. The alternative is that the Daily Mail and Toby Young have decided to make a mountain out of something that isn't even a molehill.
I know which one I would bet on.
This is a style guide which University employees themselves requested.
Did all the anti-woke snowflakes get so would up back in the day when they were instructed on when to use yours sincerely or yours faithfully in correspondence ?
Incidentally, am I the only person who hates the common ‘kind regards’ sign off on emails?
Hate it. Its one saving grace is to make clear that if you switch to 'Regards' it means you're really pissed off...
'Thanks,' is the ultimate furious sign off.
Not really, "regards" or "sincerely" are much worse. Thanks can work fine depending on the context.
I've always used "Thanks" but now I wonder who I've offended with that. What should I use instead?
Yours in anticipation.
I always use 'cheers'. Not sure why, just habit and I happen to like it as a sign off. I use it in all circumstances except the most formal of comms.
“we are (not in any way) banning the words 'mother' or 'father'."
Advising Staff against using the words is just as daft
I know this is the Generation Gap thing, but why?
Using "Parents and Guardians" instead of "Mothers and Father's" doesn't cost anyone anything, and is a little bit kinder to the small number of people who are included by one but excluded by the other.
Nothing is being enforced or banned, but it's just good manners.
Parent and Guardian does not mean the same as Mother and Father.
Indeed, it might be shockingly contentious to say this but absolutely every human alive has a biological mother and father.
But consider who a University might be writing to. The main contexts I can think of are "the adults we should contact when a student has a medical or personal crisis" or "the adults invited to graduation". In those contexts, P+G is more inclusive and accurate than M+F, because it allows for the possibility that a student isn't with their biological parents any more. Which is why schools have used this language for decades.
Now it's possible that there's some secret campaign by the University of Manchester to destroy the nuclear family. The alternative is that the Daily Mail and Toby Young have decided to make a mountain out of something that isn't even a molehill.
I know which one I would bet on.
This is a style guide which University employees themselves requested.
Did all the anti-woke snowflakes get so would up back in the day when they were instructed on when to use yours sincerely or yours faithfully in correspondence ?
Incidentally, am I the only person who hates the common ‘kind regards’ sign off on emails?
Hate it. Its one saving grace is to make clear that if you switch to 'Regards' it means you're really pissed off...
'Thanks,' is the ultimate furious sign off.
Not really, "regards" or "sincerely" are much worse. Thanks can work fine depending on the context.
I've always used "Thanks" but now I wonder who I've offended with that. What should I use instead?
Yours in anticipation.
Lol, "thanks" really does depend on the context and who it is you're emailing. A good catch all is "kind regards", it's inoffensive and good for all seasons.
Comments
So the 50-64 bucket is less than half as likely to need hospital as the 75-84. The risk of hospitalisation almost halves again for the 40s. Meanwhile the mortality rate for that bucket is 95% lower than for the over 75s. The number start to get even more marginal when you get into the 30s band.
Max posted some stats recently on how many in Group 6, NHS/Carers and others under 40 had received one dose. It was a surprisingly high percentage of the age population. I know people in their late 30s who are not in group 6 who received their first dose in the last couple of days.
And that’s without considering the almost non existent case load in much of the country as we head deeper into spring. You could “let rip” fairly happily without hospitalisations much rising from here, and certainly allow the rules from summer 2020 from Easter.
Handicapping businesses and mental health into the summer is cruel.
Letters home from school to our kids have used the "parents and guardians" form of words ever since they were toddlers. This is not a new thing & the DM is just stirring culture wars again.
That is only true if there was zero risk of hospitilisation for those who have yet to be vaccinated. Otherwise it will go up, and if there is a "big bang" reopening it will undoubtedly go up quickly given that the group with the least takeup of vaccine will be the ones interacting the most.
I think you mean ‘next of kin,’ which is a bit different and may well not include guardians.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9357973/SOAS-boss-facing-calls-quit-used-N-word-video-call-students.html
And in other news, a bear shits in the woods.
It should not be a controversial view to say that the dragging-out of restrictions to late June is excessively cautious.
And that is precisely what is controversial, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it.
Sounds like some students require some extra lessons in the history of racism.
To elevate a return to the life we had before, to collectively consciously forget the last 12 months would be a mistake. The "normal" of 2021 and beyond isn't going to be the same as the life we had before covid. Too much has changed, too many people have seen alternate ways of working and living.
The desire to whitewash history and forget it ever happened - can't imagine where I've ever heard that.
Further, what f***** business is it of yours if a 20 year old wants to socialise, when the risk of excess societal death from covid has been almost eliminated, and those most likely to need medical intervention have received a vaccine which according to the Lancet, has 100% efficacy by that yardstick?
Some people here need to take a long hard look at the way this country treats both its young and its entrepreneur class. And then think about what that’s likely to mean for the fortunes of this country 20 years from now.
And of course they discriminated by age. Age is the primary factor in determining how badly it hits you.
EU research (survey of 42,000) would seem to suggest that the tweeting Guardian Journo may need to do some homework, or find some other reasons.
Pretending that relative changes represent absolute values is classic Guardian.
Source:
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2014-vaw-survey-main-results-apr14_en.pdf
(No I'm not saying that is the answer, but I am questioning whether Quinn is engaging brain before engaging mouth. And that the answer is far less unequivocal than implied.)
Did this involve subterfuge or just reading papers?
But otherwise, yes, they were of course appallingly treated under apartheid.
The money doesn’t come into it does it, because the government are not spending their own money. They’re not even spending “taxpayers” money. They’re quite specifically spending the future wealth that quantitative easing has ripped away from the young.
https://twitter.com/corbyn_project/status/1370463913976954881?s=20
I don't think you are correct when you say there is "no prospect" of the NHS being overwhelmed. The risk might be small, but they have obviously decided it is not worth that risk, and rather wait a few more weeks to give as many people the protection from the vaccine as possible.
https://twitter.com/AlistairHaimes/status/1370753174617927682
With the same logic, should the guardian be allowed to print it, if the piece is not written by a black person?
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/mar/12/oklahoma-high-school-basketball-racial-slur
Did all the anti-woke snowflakes get so would up back in the day when they were instructed on when to use yours sincerely or yours faithfully in correspondence ?
That’s amazing.
https://twitter.com/MeanwhileScotia/status/1370755556064043008?s=20
I'm not confused, he's trying to use Covid as a stick for beating capitalism / the current pharma model. Just like the New Internationalist peeps. Various non-profit projects just blew up the campaign, and they have nowhere to go.
What he doesn't like is that mainly capitalism is already within spitting distance of delivering what he says it can't.
https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1369279539973660675
https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1370303425343336448
A gent to keep firmly on the margins, by the sounds of it.
“Global South” does rather imply that Australia and NZ need development. Actually, in the case of the former....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56382612
Has been a widely used since late 1980s (?) It was coined about half a century ago, says Wiki.
Also very many used-to-be-developing countries have grown out of the category. eg China, many Asian - so "Two-thirds World" no longer works.
My understanding is that, when the wave really hit, respiratory isolation units quickly became overwhelmed (and not all ICU units meet these standards), and COVID patients were put wherever hospitals could squeeze them in. In those circumstances, even with otherwise good IPC practices, I'd expect significant nosocomial infections.
The UK Olympic pistol shooting team had to move to Belgium to practice. They still have to go to Switzerland or the Channel Islands.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9358299/Fury-Charlie-Hebdo-magazine-cover-shows-Queen-kneeling-Meghan-Markles-neck.html
I must have missed that chapter in The Wealth of Nations.
Adam Smith’s grave listed in dossier of sites linked to ‘slavery and colonialism’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/adam-smith-grave-slavery-colonialism-edinburgh-b1813411.html
I think it was worked on before AZ licenced anything in Russia? I think the implication above was that the Oxford research had been 'cloned' in some way.
PS. Labor has won the rural areas too. In fairness, won pretty much everywhere.
Imagine being furious about a magazine cover that you don't have to look at if you don't want to.
You asked about a 20 year old socialising, and making their own choices about the risks they are prepared to run.
Let me take a step back. Imagine you build a factory and it belches out noxious and toxic emissions. You might be prepared to work in the factory and run the risk of being affected by those emissions, but the emissions don't stop at the factory gates. Those fumes drift beyond, and they can get other people sick.
We therefore have rules about the emissions factories are allowed to emit.
Your 20 year old, if they have CV19, they might not even notice, or it might be a mild sniffle. They aren't going to be negatively affected (or at least not much), but they are a walking talking negartive externality spewer. And in democratic societies, we have rules that restrict negative externalities.
If it were possible to segment the risk, so that 20 year olds were unable to pass CV19 onto other people, it would be amazing. But the reality is that your 20 year old probably lives at home with their parents, or socialises with people who live with their parents. How do you stop those externalities spreading?
I hadn't seen that about HIV. Is that people actually getting HIV or are they just showing up as HIV false positives (which the failed Australian vaccine was shown to cause)?
Even if I have to take two weeks unpaid leave while quarantining in an airport hotel.
It will be worth it.
https://twitter.com/fact_covid/status/1370768524239634437?s=20
On the substantive point, it’s a shitty magazine that likes to shock and be offensive for the sake of it. Taking it seriously plays it at its own game.
Firstly - Everyone was right behind Charlie Hebdo when they were just insulting Muslims. That was fine. But now they are insulting the Royal Family those same people are 'furious'. They seem to forget the whole point of CH - and all cutting edge satire - is to shove a stick into an ants nest and get them angry. They are very good at it and good luck to them.
Secondly - I would suspect that the chances of a violent reaction to this 'insult' is just about zero. Which does say something about our sense of proportion in Britain (and the rest of Europe to be fair).
Finally - I hadn't actually thought about CH recently but now I have heard about this my reaction is that I think I would have been disappointed if they hadn't done something like this. It actually gives me a weird sense of hope about French society.
Edit - okay that was three takes not two.
It was just like covid had never happened.
I know it is Mothers day tomorrow and last minute buying of flowers and chocs are understandable, but this was mayhem.
I was grateful that I have had my two Pfizer vaccinations, the second one a week ago, but if the public are unable to show any restraint we will be back in UK lockdown very soon.
Yours in anticipation.