One problem about tactical voting is that Party members in their constituency (who may even have been campaigning) find it very hard not to vote for their Party's candidate even where any tactical voting recommendation would be to do otherwise. What's need is STRATEGY among the 5 non-Tory Parties in order to get non-Conservatives elected. And all the Parties must have reform of the electoral system (preferably AV Plus) in their manifestos.
The similar posts beneath are unreal - the megaphone shouting "F the Jews" and talking of rape, the three young boys, one with the Israeli flag on the sole of his shoes, saying "Israel is not real"
Incredible scenes, one of the major unthought of down sides of multiculturalism. The people who introduced the concept - Roy Jenkins, Lord Lester etc - arrogantly thought that the commonwealth immigrants and their descendants would be so happy to be called British they'd forget their roots
I dare say a few hearty white Englishmen who can trace their ancestry back to Ethelred aren't wholly immune from such bigotry.
Of course, I agree. I don't know that we see them in their thousands parading the streets telling reporters that other ethnic/religious groups don't exist, or that their daughters should be raped though. The anti BLM demos last year? I dont know that they were openly racist, although maybe the people on them just dont shout about it anymore
And even if we did, why invite millions of new people with similarly strong views against other religions and races into the country?
And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."
... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.
And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).
And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).
The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.
I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.
The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.
Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.
I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.
The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?
We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.
The vaccines appear to be hugely effective against serious illness.
You illustrate my point perfectly. The point is that the modellers will have looked at actual numbers backed up by scientific reasoning. And if they are respectable scientists they will have explained their reasoning and cited their evidence. People on social media just make assertions.
It is not true to say that modellers always look at actual numbers backed up by scientific reasoning. In fact most modelling usually starts off with very little numbers. It starts off with assumptions/variables which are plugged in to generate a range of scenarios. It is only over time when the initial wide range of projections can be overlaid with real numbers that the models can be refined, and the range of possible outcomes narrowed.
Most of the scientific comment i've seen on this Indian variant is still clearly at the initial stages - particularly where it comes to things like transmissibility. They have a wide range of possibilities but are not, as yet, ruling out the worse case scenarios. And for those who prefer caution they are arguing for this until that can be done.
Additionally it's wrong to assume that data modellers don't succumb to political pressure and fiddle with the data to get specific outcomes. The last doom model used a population immunity figure of 45% in May and 55% in June, at the time it was published in April we were already at 55%. It also used an input of just 60% efficacy against hospitalisation when the known efficacy is 80% with a single dose of either vaccine and ~95% with two doses of either vaccine and a cumulative effect of reducing them by over 99% with two doses. It also assumed no reduction in spread but we know that the combined reduction in spread with just one dose of either vaccine is 45%, which is expected to rise fairly significantly with a second dose, that study is ongoing.
As @Selebian and I have argued about a few times, these reasonable worst case scenarios exist to grab headlines and persuade politicians to take specific actions. They aren't actually anywhere near reasonable when it comes to modelling real outcomes.
And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."
... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.
And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).
And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).
The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.
I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.
The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.
Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.
I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.
The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?
We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.
The vaccines appear to be hugely effective against serious illness.
You illustrate my point perfectly. The point is that the modellers will have looked at actual numbers backed up by scientific reasoning. And if they are respectable scientists they will have explained their reasoning and cited their evidence. People on social media just make assertions.
People on social media just make assertions
You mean like this:
probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective
Perhaps you can provide some data showing that the vaccines are 'not hugely more effective' against death than against infection.
I'll repeat that I was talking specifically about AstraZeneca above.
Here is what the abstract says about AstraZeneca effectiveness: With ChAdOx1-S, effects were seen from 14 to 20 days after vaccination, reaching an effectiveness of 60% (41% to 73%) from 28 to 34 days, increasing to 73% (27% to 90%) from day 35 onwards. ... Participants who had received one dose of ChAdOx1-S had a further 37% (3% to 59%) reduced risk of emergency hospital admission. Follow-up was insufficient to assess the effect of ChAdOx1-S on mortality. Combined with the effect against symptomatic disease, a single dose of either vaccine was about 80% effective at preventing admission to hospital with covid-19 ...
The point is that 80% for hospitalisation is not hugely more than 60-73% for infection.
And those 60-73% figures are for symptomatic efficacy, not efficacy against all infections.
Off topic - Just listened to the file on 4 documentary on umbrella companies. It’s due to repeat at 5pm.
I can understand why there isn’t a lot of point hmrc going after the test and tracers - at the end of the day, it would just mean an adjustment on the treasuries ledger, but surely we should be doing more to crack down on abuse of the scheme more widely?
Chris "people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science."
This is the weight (also warf & woof) of Chris's "argument" beside of course the AZN Phase III results.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
Chris, it's YOUR responsibility to present a semi-convincing, quasi-persuasive rationale for YOUR theory. NOT anyone else.
And calling anyone who challenges you, or simply asks questions (dumb or otherwise) as willfully pig ignorant, is neither convincing nor persuasive. Instead, the opposite!
IF you are going to be insulting EVERY TIME YOU POST SOMETHING then at least display some semblance of a sense of humor.
To quote Chris. "It's really pointless . . ." You can say that again - about your approach.
United Kingdom government official There is no place for antisemitism in our society. Ahead of Shavuot, I stand with Britain’s Jews who should not have to endure the type of shameful racism we have seen today.
Those vile fuckwits in the cars are going to get banged up.
Will Starmer do likewise?
Yes
Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer Utterly disgusting. Antisemitism, misogyny and hate have no place on our streets or in our society. There must be consequences.
And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."
... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.
And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).
And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).
The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.
I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.
The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.
Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.
I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.
The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?
We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.
Your numbers are wrong, AZ is around 90% effective against infection of the original strain with a large gap between doses. Efficacy with a single dose is 76% after 4 weeks. Efficacy against severe symptoms is around 95%+ with two doses and with a single dose it reduces spread by around 40% the study for two doses will be out soon but it is expected to come in around 80% reduction in spread.
Your whole premise is flawed.
So you assert, but you cite no evidence.
My numbers came from the AstraZeneca Phase III trial. Where did yours come from?
Mine comes from the real world PHE study. COV001/2 has been superceded by two new studies and by lots and lots of real world data. Fwiw, a single dose of AZ vaccine is 85% effective at preventing death for patients of all ages against the Kent strain three weeks after the initial dose. That number keeps on rising.
As I said, I'm guessing you are quoting figures for symptomatic infections only.
United Kingdom government official There is no place for antisemitism in our society. Ahead of Shavuot, I stand with Britain’s Jews who should not have to endure the type of shameful racism we have seen today.
Those vile fuckwits in the cars are going to get banged up.
Will Starmer do likewise?
Yes
Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer Utterly disgusting. Antisemitism, misogyny and hate have no place on our streets or in our society. There must be consequences.
United Kingdom government official There is no place for antisemitism in our society. Ahead of Shavuot, I stand with Britain’s Jews who should not have to endure the type of shameful racism we have seen today.
Those vile fuckwits in the cars are going to get banged up.
Will Starmer do likewise?
Yes
Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer Utterly disgusting. Antisemitism, misogyny and hate have no place on our streets or in our society. There must be consequences.
United Kingdom government official There is no place for antisemitism in our society. Ahead of Shavuot, I stand with Britain’s Jews who should not have to endure the type of shameful racism we have seen today.
Those vile fuckwits in the cars are going to get banged up.
Will Starmer do likewise?
Yes
Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer Utterly disgusting. Antisemitism, misogyny and hate have no place on our streets or in our society. There must be consequences.
Chris "people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science."
This is the weight (also warf & woof) of Chris's "argument" beside of course the AZN Phase III results.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
Chris, it's YOUR responsibility to present a semi-convincing, quasi-persuasive rationale for YOUR theory. NOT anyone else.
And calling anyone who challenges you, or simply asks questions (dumb or otherwise) as willfully pig ignorant, is neither convincing nor persuasive. Instead, the opposite!
IF you are going to be insulting EVERY TIME YOU POST SOMETHING then at least display some semblance of a sense of humor.
To quote Chris. "It's really pointless . . ." You can say that again - about your approach.
Yeah - was on the receiving end of that yesterday. As for his "people on social media" comment there are a fair few people on social media who do. Recommend this thread on "Indian Variant" modelling -
And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."
... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.
And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).
And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).
The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.
I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.
The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.
Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.
I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.
The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?
We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.
Your numbers are wrong, AZ is around 90% effective against infection of the original strain with a large gap between doses. Efficacy with a single dose is 76% after 4 weeks. Efficacy against severe symptoms is around 95%+ with two doses and with a single dose it reduces spread by around 40% the study for two doses will be out soon but it is expected to come in around 80% reduction in spread.
Your whole premise is flawed.
So you assert, but you cite no evidence.
My numbers came from the AstraZeneca Phase III trial. Where did yours come from?
Mine comes from the real world PHE study. COV001/2 has been superceded by two new studies and by lots and lots of real world data. Fwiw, a single dose of AZ vaccine is 85% effective at preventing death for patients of all ages against the Kent strain three weeks after the initial dose. That number keeps on rising.
As I said, I'm guessing you are quoting figures for symptomatic infections only.
But have it your own way.
And what? Does it matter if people get it asymptomatically in a society that has 90%+ people vaccinated?
Your argument is facetious and relies on outdated data of 50-60% efficacy from COV001/2. Your desire to keep everyone locked up forever for their own good is causing you to make unnecessary mistakes.
United Kingdom government official There is no place for antisemitism in our society. Ahead of Shavuot, I stand with Britain’s Jews who should not have to endure the type of shameful racism we have seen today.
Those vile fuckwits in the cars are going to get banged up.
When I first read this I thought wow, Boris is really going for it with that last sentence; but then I realised that the last sentence wasn't Boris. I think.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
United Kingdom government official There is no place for antisemitism in our society. Ahead of Shavuot, I stand with Britain’s Jews who should not have to endure the type of shameful racism we have seen today.
Those vile fuckwits in the cars are going to get banged up.
Will Starmer do likewise?
Yes
Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer Utterly disgusting. Antisemitism, misogyny and hate have no place on our streets or in our society. There must be consequences.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
And you completely fail to understand what the vaccines are here to achieve. It's to stop people going to hospital, whatever they do beyond that is merely a bonus. Both AZ and Pfizer prevent hospitalisation with both doses to a very high degree.
United Kingdom government official There is no place for antisemitism in our society. Ahead of Shavuot, I stand with Britain’s Jews who should not have to endure the type of shameful racism we have seen today.
Those vile fuckwits in the cars are going to get banged up.
Will Starmer do likewise?
Yes
Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer Utterly disgusting. Antisemitism, misogyny and hate have no place on our streets or in our society. There must be consequences.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
The number one point of vaccination is not to reach herd immunity, it is to protect against serious disease and death. If no one who was vaccinated became seriously ill/died then everyone can catch it with no problems. That is where we are heading plus there is going to be significant efficacy against infection, and reduction in spread. I think sometimes you like to argue as someone with a wide knowledge of the field. Is this true? I am no lover of intrinsically believe experts know best, but in your case I wonder where your confidence comes from?
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
And you completely fail to understand what the vaccines are here to achieve. It's to stop people going to hospital, whatever they do beyond that is merely a bonus. Both AZ and Pfizer prevent hospitalisation with both doses to a very high degree.
Yup. The vaccines don't have to prevent infection, although that is a bonus, they merely need to lower the severity of the infection to an acceptable level.
I'll repeat that I was talking specifically about AstraZeneca above.
Here is what the abstract says about AstraZeneca effectiveness: With ChAdOx1-S, effects were seen from 14 to 20 days after vaccination, reaching an effectiveness of 60% (41% to 73%) from 28 to 34 days, increasing to 73% (27% to 90%) from day 35 onwards. ... Participants who had received one dose of ChAdOx1-S had a further 37% (3% to 59%) reduced risk of emergency hospital admission. Follow-up was insufficient to assess the effect of ChAdOx1-S on mortality. Combined with the effect against symptomatic disease, a single dose of either vaccine was about 80% effective at preventing admission to hospital with covid-19 ...
The point is that 80% for hospitalisation is not hugely more than 60-73% for infection.
And those 60-73% figures are for symptomatic efficacy, not efficacy against all infections.
You're being misleading or misunderstanding. The paper you cite is entitled "Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines on covid-19 related symptoms, hospital admissions, and mortality in older adults in England: test negative case-control study" (emphasisis mine).
Participants were "156 930 adults aged 70 years and older who reported symptoms of covid-19 between 8 December 2020 and 19 February 2021 and were successfully linked to vaccination data in the National Immunisation Management System."
So the paper you cite deals with older (and thus more likely to be immunocompromised) individuals alone. You can't cherry-pick data like that.
United Kingdom government official There is no place for antisemitism in our society. Ahead of Shavuot, I stand with Britain’s Jews who should not have to endure the type of shameful racism we have seen today.
Those vile fuckwits in the cars are going to get banged up.
Will Starmer do likewise?
Yes
Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer Utterly disgusting. Antisemitism, misogyny and hate have no place on our streets or in our society. There must be consequences.
What on earth has one random tweet from an idiot got to do with "the state of the Left"? Sounds like you were hoping, not just expecting, to see more of this sort of reply. It's not difficult to find idiots, fascists and racists on twitter, but the idea that they represent the left, or the right, is daft.
Your argument is facetious and relies on outdated data of 50-60% efficacy from COV001/2. Your desire to keep everyone locked up forever for their own good is causing you to make unnecessary mistakes.
This just typifies what I mean about social media.
I've quoted the figures for overall efficacy, and I've cited the source - the Phase III trial.
You just say the figures are wrong. You post some different figures.
I ask you to cite your source. You just say it's from a PHE study. I suggest that they are figures for symptomatic infections only. You don't comment on that, but just keep saying the Phase III figures are wrong.
And so it goes. No wonder you people find the activities of scientists puzzling.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
And you completely fail to understand what the vaccines are here to achieve. It's to stop people going to hospital, whatever they do beyond that is merely a bonus. Both AZ and Pfizer prevent hospitalisation with both doses to a very high degree.
Yup. The vaccines don't have to prevent infection, although that is a bonus, they merely need to lower the severity of the infection to an acceptable level.
Problem is, there is a suspicion that the scientists think we need to protect the anti-vaxxers.
I'm guessing no journalist has asked this rather awkward question.
United Kingdom government official There is no place for antisemitism in our society. Ahead of Shavuot, I stand with Britain’s Jews who should not have to endure the type of shameful racism we have seen today.
Those vile fuckwits in the cars are going to get banged up.
Will Starmer do likewise?
Yes
Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer Utterly disgusting. Antisemitism, misogyny and hate have no place on our streets or in our society. There must be consequences.
What on earth has one random tweet from an idiot got to do with "the state of the Left"? Sounds like you were hoping, not just expecting, to see more of this sort of reply. It's not difficult to find idiots, fascists and racists on twitter, but the idea that they represent the left, or the right, is daft.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
And you completely fail to understand what the vaccines are here to achieve. It's to stop people going to hospital, whatever they do beyond that is merely a bonus. Both AZ and Pfizer prevent hospitalisation with both doses to a very high degree.
Yup. The vaccines don't have to prevent infection, although that is a bonus, they merely need to lower the severity of the infection to an acceptable level.
Unfortunately it's apparent that there is no such acceptable level for a large fraction of the scientific community that advises the Government. This is reflected in numerous hand-wringing statements to the effect that unlocking should be slowed down (or even slammed into reverse) to protect the remaining unvaccinated, along with the small minority of the vaccinated for whom the jabs haven't worked very well.
If ministers give in and do what these people want then we shall be stuck with a substantial fraction of the restrictions forever.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
And you completely fail to understand what the vaccines are here to achieve. It's to stop people going to hospital, whatever they do beyond that is merely a bonus. Both AZ and Pfizer prevent hospitalisation with both doses to a very high degree.
One could also point out that the key "if" in the above statement is just one of a range of inputs used within the scientific model. Nobody has said that they have evidence that the R number is 5-6. Merely that they are not yet at a stage in the modelling based on real world inputs to rule it out.
I'll repeat that I was talking specifically about AstraZeneca above.
Here is what the abstract says about AstraZeneca effectiveness: With ChAdOx1-S, effects were seen from 14 to 20 days after vaccination, reaching an effectiveness of 60% (41% to 73%) from 28 to 34 days, increasing to 73% (27% to 90%) from day 35 onwards. ... Participants who had received one dose of ChAdOx1-S had a further 37% (3% to 59%) reduced risk of emergency hospital admission. Follow-up was insufficient to assess the effect of ChAdOx1-S on mortality. Combined with the effect against symptomatic disease, a single dose of either vaccine was about 80% effective at preventing admission to hospital with covid-19 ...
The point is that 80% for hospitalisation is not hugely more than 60-73% for infection.
And those 60-73% figures are for symptomatic efficacy, not efficacy against all infections.
You're being misleading or misunderstanding. The paper you cite is entitled "Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines on covid-19 related symptoms, hospital admissions, and mortality in older adults in England: test negative case-control study" (emphasisis mine).
Participants were "156 930 adults aged 70 years and older who reported symptoms of covid-19 between 8 December 2020 and 19 February 2021 and were successfully linked to vaccination data in the National Immunisation Management System."
So the paper you cite deals with older (and thus more likely to be immunocompromised) individuals alone. You can't cherry-pick data like that.
On the contrary, that is the age group where most of the fatalities have been, so those data are absolutely the most relevant to the argument.
But please don't let me discourage you from citing some data - any data - PLEASE, ANY DATA AT ALL! - to support your own claims.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
And you completely fail to understand what the vaccines are here to achieve. It's to stop people going to hospital, whatever they do beyond that is merely a bonus. Both AZ and Pfizer prevent hospitalisation with both doses to a very high degree.
One could also point out that the key "if" in the above statement is just one of a range of inputs used within the scientific model. Nobody has said that they have evidence that the R number is 5-6. Merely that they are not yet at a stage in the modelling based on real world inputs to rule it out.
That was my original point. That if (1) were true and if (2) were true then there could be a large number of fatalities. So as the answers to a lot of the relevant questions are unclear, it's not surprising that the modelling is showing the possibility of a large number of fatalities.
I'll repeat that I was talking specifically about AstraZeneca above.
Here is what the abstract says about AstraZeneca effectiveness: With ChAdOx1-S, effects were seen from 14 to 20 days after vaccination, reaching an effectiveness of 60% (41% to 73%) from 28 to 34 days, increasing to 73% (27% to 90%) from day 35 onwards. ... Participants who had received one dose of ChAdOx1-S had a further 37% (3% to 59%) reduced risk of emergency hospital admission. Follow-up was insufficient to assess the effect of ChAdOx1-S on mortality. Combined with the effect against symptomatic disease, a single dose of either vaccine was about 80% effective at preventing admission to hospital with covid-19 ...
The point is that 80% for hospitalisation is not hugely more than 60-73% for infection.
And those 60-73% figures are for symptomatic efficacy, not efficacy against all infections.
You're being misleading or misunderstanding. The paper you cite is entitled "Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines on covid-19 related symptoms, hospital admissions, and mortality in older adults in England: test negative case-control study" (emphasisis mine).
Participants were "156 930 adults aged 70 years and older who reported symptoms of covid-19 between 8 December 2020 and 19 February 2021 and were successfully linked to vaccination data in the National Immunisation Management System."
So the paper you cite deals with older (and thus more likely to be immunocompromised) individuals alone. You can't cherry-pick data like that.
On the contrary, that is the age group where most of the fatalities have been, so those data are absolutely the most relevant to the argument.
But please don't let me discourage you from citing some data - any data - PLEASE, ANY DATA AT ALL! - to support your own claims.
What claims? I haven't made any claims. You have and it seems you have also cherry picked your supporting evidence. There was no mention of age specific efficacy in th thread leading up to your post. Come on, we all make mistakes sometimes, is it so hard to admit it?
Feel free to shout at me but others may think you sound a little rude though.
He’s going to be fine, the English are going to be paying his pension.
Well, UKG did send out letters to pensioners who asked, back in 2013/14, saying exactly that. One of us posted a copy a few weeks back.
That's nonsense.
Not even the SNP Scottish Government thinks that:
UK State pensions currently in payment to Scottish residents would be paid by the Scottish Government. For Scottish residents of working age, the liability for all State Pensions earned to date would fall to the Scottish Government
It's not happening - however much you might wish it.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue - revenue the independent Scottish government will be raising and keeping.
If you think rUK tax payers will be finding Scottish pensions you'll be sorely disappointed. Any rUK government that agreed to that would be voted out at the first opportunity.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
The severity of infection is far less for recipients of Astra; and at some point you have to bite the bullet and let Covid take it's course. By June 21st we will have everyone over 30 at least done that wants it; we may well, if India has an r0 as high as 6 have Covid burn through the population with mild illness for the vaccinated and severe for older unvaxxed that didn't bother. Well Carol0646746885 on twitter made her choice by relying on her amazing immune system and 99.7% chance of survival. We can't run society around these muppets forever.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
Can you give me some data that shows the efficacy of AstraZenica is 50%-60% in all cohorts (not just the over 70s) as in a discussion about herd immunity that is vital.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
And you completely fail to understand what the vaccines are here to achieve. It's to stop people going to hospital, whatever they do beyond that is merely a bonus. Both AZ and Pfizer prevent hospitalisation with both doses to a very high degree.
No. The problem is that your attention span is apparently so short that you can't remember more than the first part of the post you started to argue with in the first place.
It's not a question of herd immunity per se. It's a question of (1) whether we reach herd immunity, (2) how many more infections there will be if we don't and (3) what the case fatality rate will be after vaccination.
2 of my lads have had both doses (late 20's early 30's)
1 of them has 2nd dose this week (he is 18)
I have my second in 2 weeks roughly
What a superb effort
The rumours seem to be that the pace of vaccination is going to pick up still further, so by mid June a very considerable proportion of the over 18s will have had at least one jab. It now seems clear that the roadmap out was heavily aligned with the expected vaccination progress. It’s not a surprise that that this will happen, despite our European friends playing silly buggers in the last couple of months.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
Can you give me some data that shows the efficacy of AstraZenica is 50%-60% in all cohorts (not just the over 70s) as in a discussion about herd immunity that is vital.
It comes from the Phase III trial.
I've explained that about 5 times,
You remember, the trial that was criticised for NOT HAVING ENOUGH OLD PEOPLE IN IT???
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
Can you give me some data that shows the efficacy of AstraZenica is 50%-60% in all cohorts (not just the over 70s) as in a discussion about herd immunity that is vital.
It comes from the Phase III trial.
I've explained that about 5 times,
You remember, the trial that was criticised for NOT HAVING ENOUGH OLD PEOPLE IN IT???
Ye Gods.
There is now far more data than the fecking phase III trial. Why are you so hung up on it?
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
Can you give me some data that shows the efficacy of AstraZenica is 50%-60% in all cohorts (not just the over 70s) as in a discussion about herd immunity that is vital.
It comes from the Phase III trial.
I've explained that about 5 times,
You remember, the trial that was criticised for NOT HAVING ENOUGH OLD PEOPLE IN IT???
Ye Gods.
Hasn't that study been superseded by the 20 million or so doses administered so far?
The similar posts beneath are unreal - the megaphone shouting "F the Jews" and talking of rape, the three young boys, one with the Israeli flag on the sole of his shoes, saying "Israel is not real"
Incredible scenes, one of the major unthought of down sides of multiculturalism. The people who introduced the concept - Roy Jenkins, Lord Lester etc - arrogantly thought that the commonwealth immigrants and their descendants would be so happy to be called British they'd forget their roots
I dare say a few hearty white Englishmen who can trace their ancestry back to Ethelred aren't wholly immune from such bigotry.
Of course, I agree. I don't know that we see them in their thousands parading the streets telling reporters that other ethnic/religious groups don't exist, or that their daughters should be raped though. The anti BLM demos last year? I dont know that they were openly racist, although maybe the people on them just dont shout about it anymore
And even if we did, why invite millions of new people with similarly strong views against other religions and races into the country?
In my city we had a few thousand white Brits bellowing about being up to their knees in Fenian blood yesterday. Tbf I suppose that's an explicit admission that Fenians do exist, else how could these blokes be up to their knees in their blood?
Labour can count on unionised workers, mostly in the public sector, and increasingly professionals too. “The cottages that used to be for tweed mill workers 100 years ago are now full of university professors and teachers – that’s where I get lots of my votes,” says Saul.
That's not quite right, unless Chipping Norton country is very unusual, or dynamics are different for a local election,
Every-time I look at the numbers TU members voting Lab is about half in General Elections.
It is polled eg for Unite Members regularly.
Not sure if I can dig it out, though. There are a few newspaper reports around.
Remember that many Indians came via Uganda. Also that India is approx 15% Muslim (a little less at the period of high migration). The Muslim populations of Bangladesh, Pakistan and India are quite similar in numbers.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
And you completely fail to understand what the vaccines are here to achieve. It's to stop people going to hospital, whatever they do beyond that is merely a bonus. Both AZ and Pfizer prevent hospitalisation with both doses to a very high degree.
No. The problem is that your attention span is apparently so short that you can't remember more than the first part of the post you started to argue with in the first place.
It's not a question of herd immunity per se. It's a question of (1) whether we reach herd immunity, (2) how many more infections there will be if we don't and (3) what the case fatality rate will be after vaccination.
Too hard to grasp?
1. You're literally contradicting the first line of the paragraph, does herd immunity matter or doesn't it, make up your mind. 2. No one cares about the infection rate if it isn't feeding through to hospitals. 3. We already know from studies done in the US, UK, Israel and Europe based on actual real world fucking data that the CFR for vaccinated people is extremely low.
Once again, the PHE Siren study showed that a single dose of AZ or Pfizer resulted in a cumulative reduction of 80% in the hospitalisation rate, for two doses of Pfizer this rises to around 95% and the AZ study is ongoing. You're making this about efficacy against asymptomatic infection, but that's never been what vaccines are here to do. I'll keep saying it until you understand it, vaccines are here to stop people from going to hospital for COVID, what they do beyond that is a bonus.
Honestly, you seem to think you're always the smartest guy in the room, people who think that way are prone to making idiotic mistakes just as you are on this whole "yeah but it doesn't stop people getting infected" idea.
I wonder who came up with the idea of sticking "Great" in front of "British Railways"?
Could be an interesting few years on the rail front. The government ploughing on with HS2 whilst cutting existing services might not be the greatest of looks.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
Can you give me some data that shows the efficacy of AstraZenica is 50%-60% in all cohorts (not just the over 70s) as in a discussion about herd immunity that is vital.
It comes from the Phase III trial.
I've explained that about 5 times,
You remember, the trial that was criticised for NOT HAVING ENOUGH OLD PEOPLE IN IT???
Ye Gods.
The new figures from AZ, which developed the vaccine in partnership with Oxford University, give an efficacy at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 of 76%, down from 79%, while the efficacy against severed or critical disease and hospitalisation remains at 100%
In patients aged over 65, the vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 has been revised upwards by 5 percentage points to 85%.
AZ said that the figures presented on Monday were based on a pre-specified interim analysis with a data cut-off of 17 February.
2 of my lads have had both doses (late 20's early 30's)
1 of them has 2nd dose this week (he is 18)
I have my second in 2 weeks roughly
What a superb effort
The rumours seem to be that the pace of vaccination is going to pick up still further, so by mid June a very considerable proportion of the over 18s will have had at least one jab. It now seems clear that the roadmap out was heavily aligned with the expected vaccination progress. It’s not a surprise that that this will happen, despite our European friends playing silly buggers in the last couple of months.
Are there any updates on the court case that was, as a first injunctive step, apparently going to prevent AZN from supplying any more vaccines to the UK until the EU orders had been fulfilled?
The similar posts beneath are unreal - the megaphone shouting "F the Jews" and talking of rape, the three young boys, one with the Israeli flag on the sole of his shoes, saying "Israel is not real"
Incredible scenes, one of the major unthought of down sides of multiculturalism. The people who introduced the concept - Roy Jenkins, Lord Lester etc - arrogantly thought that the commonwealth immigrants and their descendants would be so happy to be called British they'd forget their roots
I dare say a few hearty white Englishmen who can trace their ancestry back to Ethelred aren't wholly immune from such bigotry.
Of course, I agree. I don't know that we see them in their thousands parading the streets telling reporters that other ethnic/religious groups don't exist, or that their daughters should be raped though. The anti BLM demos last year? I dont know that they were openly racist, although maybe the people on them just dont shout about it anymore
And even if we did, why invite millions of new people with similarly strong views against other religions and races into the country?
In my city we had a few thousand white Brits bellowing about being up to their knees in Fenian blood yesterday. Tbf I suppose that's an explicit admission that Fenians do exist, else how could these blokes be up to their knees in their blood?
I meant the country didn’t exist, not the people sorry
I just don’t think that having deep rooted racism/sectarianism already in the country is a good reason to import a lot more new varieties. You can have too much of a bad thing
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
Can you give me some data that shows the efficacy of AstraZenica is 50%-60% in all cohorts (not just the over 70s) as in a discussion about herd immunity that is vital.
It comes from the Phase III trial.
I've explained that about 5 times,
You remember, the trial that was criticised for NOT HAVING ENOUGH OLD PEOPLE IN IT???
Ye Gods.
You're quoting COV001/2 but it's outdated. The US trial is done and we have got actual real world efficacy data from numerous PHE studies. What is your obsession with the oldest trial data?
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
Can you give me some data that shows the efficacy of AstraZenica is 50%-60% in all cohorts (not just the over 70s) as in a discussion about herd immunity that is vital.
Chris read some data 4 months ago and doesn't seem to think anything has changed since then. No point in engaging until he updates his data sets.
Remember that many Indians came via Uganda. Also that India is approx 15% Muslim (a little less at the period of high migration). The Muslim populations of Bangladesh, Pakistan and India are quite similar in numbers.
Also:
One that surprised me last week is that no other EU countries have significant Indian-origin populations.
UK is 1.4m. Next on the list is Italy at 10% of that.
2 of my lads have had both doses (late 20's early 30's)
1 of them has 2nd dose this week (he is 18)
I have my second in 2 weeks roughly
What a superb effort
The rumours seem to be that the pace of vaccination is going to pick up still further, so by mid June a very considerable proportion of the over 18s will have had at least one jab. It now seems clear that the roadmap out was heavily aligned with the expected vaccination progress. It’s not a surprise that that this will happen, despite our European friends playing silly buggers in the last couple of months.
Are there any updates on the court case that was, as a first injunctive step, apparently going to prevent AZN from supplying any more vaccines to the UK until the EU orders had been fulfilled?
It's all moot because we're self sufficient for AZ, especially now that it's not being used for first doses very much at all now.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
Can you give me some data that shows the efficacy of AstraZenica is 50%-60% in all cohorts (not just the over 70s) as in a discussion about herd immunity that is vital.
Chris read some data 4 months ago and doesn't seem to think anything has changed since then. No point in engaging until he updates his data sets.
Remember that many Indians came via Uganda. Also that India is approx 15% Muslim (a little less at the period of high migration). The Muslim populations of Bangladesh, Pakistan and India are quite similar in numbers.
The traditional Muslim population of Bolton is Gujurati. Many came in the 50's and 60's to work in the mills. There have been more recent ones from Bangladesh and Pakistan, but I would wager, as a former resident of Bolton, that a significant majority have their roots in India.
He’s going to be fine, the English are going to be paying his pension.
Well, UKG did send out letters to pensioners who asked, back in 2013/14, saying exactly that. One of us posted a copy a few weeks back.
That's nonsense.
Not even the SNP Scottish Government thinks that:
UK State pensions currently in payment to Scottish residents would be paid by the Scottish Government. For Scottish residents of working age, the liability for all State Pensions earned to date would fall to the Scottish Government
It's not happening - however much you might wish it.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue - revenue the independent Scottish government will be raising and keeping.
If you think rUK tax payers will be finding Scottish pensions you'll be sorely disappointed. Any rUK government that agreed to that would be voted out at the first opportunity.
I know all that, but it's not nonsense that the DWP sent out those letters. And if it [edit] did , no wonder people read them and think, oh ...
I just talked to a care worker who said she was to have a third jab in a few months. There's a awful lot we don't know about this. That's life.
I hope we will be able to get out and dirty soon, especially the kids. I did, however, see a cute kiddiewink stomp and splash through a puddle in her wellies, so I guess some things don't change.
2 of my lads have had both doses (late 20's early 30's)
1 of them has 2nd dose this week (he is 18)
I have my second in 2 weeks roughly
What a superb effort
The rumours seem to be that the pace of vaccination is going to pick up still further, so by mid June a very considerable proportion of the over 18s will have had at least one jab. It now seems clear that the roadmap out was heavily aligned with the expected vaccination progress. It’s not a surprise that that this will happen, despite our European friends playing silly buggers in the last couple of months.
Are there any updates on the court case that was, as a first injunctive step, apparently going to prevent AZN from supplying any more vaccines to the UK until the EU orders had been fulfilled?
It's all moot because we're self sufficient for AZ, especially now that it's not being used for first doses very much at all now.
I may well be wrong, but my memory was that the EU were trying to get an injunction to get hold of supplies currently being produced in the UK (those infamous "UK sites which were to be considered part of the EU for the purposes of supplying the EU market"). All barmy of course, but the EU commissioner involved was trying to argue that part of the purpose of the court case was to get more supplies than AZN were currently delivering (which could only have come from supplies being produced outside of the EU), as opposed primarily to obtaining financial restitution for supposed contract breach.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
Can you give me some data that shows the efficacy of AstraZenica is 50%-60% in all cohorts (not just the over 70s) as in a discussion about herd immunity that is vital.
Chris read some data 4 months ago and doesn't seem to think anything has changed since then. No point in engaging until he updates his data sets.
2 of my lads have had both doses (late 20's early 30's)
1 of them has 2nd dose this week (he is 18)
I have my second in 2 weeks roughly
What a superb effort
The rumours seem to be that the pace of vaccination is going to pick up still further, so by mid June a very considerable proportion of the over 18s will have had at least one jab. It now seems clear that the roadmap out was heavily aligned with the expected vaccination progress. It’s not a surprise that that this will happen, despite our European friends playing silly buggers in the last couple of months.
Are there any updates on the court case that was, as a first injunctive step, apparently going to prevent AZN from supplying any more vaccines to the UK until the EU orders had been fulfilled?
It's all moot because we're self sufficient for AZ, especially now that it's not being used for first doses very much at all now.
I may well be wrong, but my memory was that the EU were trying to get an injunction to get hold of supplies currently being produced in the UK (those infamous "UK sites which were to be considered part of the EU for the purposes of supplying the EU market"). All barmy of course, but the EU commissioner involved was trying to argue that part of the purpose of the court case was to get more supplies than AZN were currently delivering (which could only have come from supplies being produced outside of the EU), as opposed primarily to obtaining financial restitution for supposed contract breach.
I'm not sure which court could compel the UK government in such a manner, certainly not a Belgian one.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
And you completely fail to understand what the vaccines are here to achieve. It's to stop people going to hospital, whatever they do beyond that is merely a bonus. Both AZ and Pfizer prevent hospitalisation with both doses to a very high degree.
No. The problem is that your attention span is apparently so short that you can't remember more than the first part of the post you started to argue with in the first place.
It's not a question of herd immunity per se. It's a question of (1) whether we reach herd immunity, (2) how many more infections there will be if we don't and (3) what the case fatality rate will be after vaccination.
Too hard to grasp?
1. You're literally contradicting the first line of the paragraph, does herd immunity matter or doesn't it, make up your mind. 2. No one cares about the infection rate if it isn't feeding through to hospitals. 3. We already know from studies done in the US, UK, Israel and Europe based on actual real world fucking data that the CFR for vaccinated people is extremely low.
Once again, the PHE Siren study showed that a single dose of AZ or Pfizer resulted in a cumulative reduction of 80% in the hospitalisation rate, for two doses of Pfizer this rises to around 95% and the AZ study is ongoing. You're making this about efficacy against asymptomatic infection, but that's never been what vaccines are here to do. I'll keep saying it until you understand it, vaccines are here to stop people from going to hospital for COVID, what they do beyond that is a bonus.
Honestly, you seem to think you're always the smartest guy in the room, people who think that way are prone to making idiotic mistakes just as you are on this whole "yeah but it doesn't stop people getting infected" idea.
Agreed. Slightly tangentially positive tests also appear to be falling on the Zoe app, which I hadn’t expected. It’s too soon to call a trend but worth keeping an eye on (it tends to be a fortnight or so ahead of government data IIRC).
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
Can you give me some data that shows the efficacy of AstraZenica is 50%-60% in all cohorts (not just the over 70s) as in a discussion about herd immunity that is vital.
Chris read some data 4 months ago and doesn't seem to think anything has changed since then. No point in engaging until he updates his data sets.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
Can you give me some data that shows the efficacy of AstraZenica is 50%-60% in all cohorts (not just the over 70s) as in a discussion about herd immunity that is vital.
Chris read some data 4 months ago and doesn't seem to think anything has changed since then. No point in engaging until he updates his data sets.
He just wants to argue.
Well that is what we are all here for!!!
Speak for yourself, some of us are here to make awesome puns.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
And you completely fail to understand what the vaccines are here to achieve. It's to stop people going to hospital, whatever they do beyond that is merely a bonus. Both AZ and Pfizer prevent hospitalisation with both doses to a very high degree.
No. The problem is that your attention span is apparently so short that you can't remember more than the first part of the post you started to argue with in the first place.
It's not a question of herd immunity per se. It's a question of (1) whether we reach herd immunity, (2) how many more infections there will be if we don't and (3) what the case fatality rate will be after vaccination.
Too hard to grasp?
1. You're literally contradicting the first line of the paragraph, does herd immunity matter or doesn't it, make up your mind. 2. No one cares about the infection rate if it isn't feeding through to hospitals. 3. We already know from studies done in the US, UK, Israel and Europe based on actual real world fucking data that the CFR for vaccinated people is extremely low.
Once again, the PHE Siren study showed that a single dose of AZ or Pfizer resulted in a cumulative reduction of 80% in the hospitalisation rate, for two doses of Pfizer this rises to around 95% and the AZ study is ongoing. You're making this about efficacy against asymptomatic infection, but that's never been what vaccines are here to do. I'll keep saying it until you understand it, vaccines are here to stop people from going to hospital for COVID, what they do beyond that is a bonus.
Honestly, you seem to think you're always the smartest guy in the room, people who think that way are prone to making idiotic mistakes just as you are on this whole "yeah but it doesn't stop people getting infected" idea.
Agreed. Slightly tangentially positive tests also appear to be falling on the Zoe app, which I hadn’t expected. It’s too soon to call a trend but worth keeping an eye on (it tends to be a fortnight or so ahead of government data IIRC).
Usual caveats of I'm a lawyer not an epidemologist, but the more I see about the Indian variant, the more I think it's going to fizzle, just like the South African variant etc. It may become dominant here, but I strongly suspect that it'll be dominant in the same way Kent variant was a month ago - small numbers and not really a threat.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
And you completely fail to understand what the vaccines are here to achieve. It's to stop people going to hospital, whatever they do beyond that is merely a bonus. Both AZ and Pfizer prevent hospitalisation with both doses to a very high degree.
No. The problem is that your attention span is apparently so short that you can't remember more than the first part of the post you started to argue with in the first place.
It's not a question of herd immunity per se. It's a question of (1) whether we reach herd immunity, (2) how many more infections there will be if we don't and (3) what the case fatality rate will be after vaccination.
Too hard to grasp?
1. You're literally contradicting the first line of the paragraph, does herd immunity matter or doesn't it, make up your mind. 2. No one cares about the infection rate if it isn't feeding through to hospitals. 3. We already know from studies done in the US, UK, Israel and Europe based on actual real world fucking data that the CFR for vaccinated people is extremely low.
Once again, the PHE Siren study showed that a single dose of AZ or Pfizer resulted in a cumulative reduction of 80% in the hospitalisation rate, for two doses of Pfizer this rises to around 95% and the AZ study is ongoing. You're making this about efficacy against asymptomatic infection, but that's never been what vaccines are here to do. I'll keep saying it until you understand it, vaccines are here to stop people from going to hospital for COVID, what they do beyond that is a bonus.
Honestly, you seem to think you're always the smartest guy in the room, people who think that way are prone to making idiotic mistakes just as you are on this whole "yeah but it doesn't stop people getting infected" idea.
Agreed. Slightly tangentially positive tests also appear to be falling on the Zoe app, which I hadn’t expected. It’s too soon to call a trend but worth keeping an eye on (it tends to be a fortnight or so ahead of government data IIRC).
It's in the current data as well I think, at least the rate of increase has slowed to a crawl. As the vaccine programme gets further into the 18-39 cohorts the number of viable hosts will continue to go down. From what I've been reading today it seems as though the government will invite all over 30s for first doses before the end of May which gives them 20 days to get the 18-29 cohort done in June before final unlockdown. Even just 5 days with Pfizer and Moderna starts to give some level of protection and we know with younger people the risk of hospitalisation is already very low.
Remember that many Indians came via Uganda. Also that India is approx 15% Muslim (a little less at the period of high migration). The Muslim populations of Bangladesh, Pakistan and India are quite similar in numbers.
Also:
One that surprised me last week is that no other EU countries have significant Indian-origin populations.
UK is 1.4m. Next on the list is Italy at 10% of that.
Isn't that down to the UK hiring doctors from that part of the world and you know being the pre-eminent colonial power in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh?
The latter explains why we have so much immigration from that part of the world, for good or ill British colonialism/immigration/conquest of other countries explains why we went for mass immigration from that part of the world
The likes of Portuguese India consisted of a few goat herders whilst the British Raj controlled everything.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
And you completely fail to understand what the vaccines are here to achieve. It's to stop people going to hospital, whatever they do beyond that is merely a bonus. Both AZ and Pfizer prevent hospitalisation with both doses to a very high degree.
No. The problem is that your attention span is apparently so short that you can't remember more than the first part of the post you started to argue with in the first place.
It's not a question of herd immunity per se. It's a question of (1) whether we reach herd immunity, (2) how many more infections there will be if we don't and (3) what the case fatality rate will be after vaccination.
Too hard to grasp?
1. You're literally contradicting the first line of the paragraph, does herd immunity matter or doesn't it, make up your mind. 2. No one cares about the infection rate if it isn't feeding through to hospitals. 3. We already know from studies done in the US, UK, Israel and Europe based on actual real world fucking data that the CFR for vaccinated people is extremely low.
Once again, the PHE Siren study showed that a single dose of AZ or Pfizer resulted in a cumulative reduction of 80% in the hospitalisation rate, for two doses of Pfizer this rises to around 95% and the AZ study is ongoing. You're making this about efficacy against asymptomatic infection, but that's never been what vaccines are here to do. I'll keep saying it until you understand it, vaccines are here to stop people from going to hospital for COVID, what they do beyond that is a bonus.
Honestly, you seem to think you're always the smartest guy in the room, people who think that way are prone to making idiotic mistakes just as you are on this whole "yeah but it doesn't stop people getting infected" idea.
Agreed. Slightly tangentially positive tests also appear to be falling on the Zoe app, which I hadn’t expected. It’s too soon to call a trend but worth keeping an eye on (it tends to be a fortnight or so ahead of government data IIRC).
Usual caveats of I'm a lawyer not an epidemologist, but the more I see about the Indian variant, the more I think it's going to fizzle, just like the South African variant etc. It may become dominant here, but I strongly suspect that it'll be dominant in the same way Kent variant was a month ago - small numbers and not really a threat.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
Can you give me some data that shows the efficacy of AstraZenica is 50%-60% in all cohorts (not just the over 70s) as in a discussion about herd immunity that is vital.
Chris read some data 4 months ago and doesn't seem to think anything has changed since then. No point in engaging until he updates his data sets.
This forum seems to be full of people who don't see the point of engaging with the facts!
As for recent "real world" data on efficacy against infections, here's the preprint from just three weeks ago from the ONS infection survey, which is based on random PCR tests, and therefore picks up all infections, not just symptomatic ones: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.22.21255913v1.full.pdf
It shows an efficacy of 61% for asymptomatic and 63% for asymptomatic, 21 days or more after the first dose of AstraZeneca (insufficient data so far on the effect of two doses).
Not that I'm under any illusion that anyone wants to know that.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
Can you give me some data that shows the efficacy of AstraZenica is 50%-60% in all cohorts (not just the over 70s) as in a discussion about herd immunity that is vital.
Chris read some data 4 months ago and doesn't seem to think anything has changed since then. No point in engaging until he updates his data sets.
This forum seems to be full of people who don't see the point of engaging with the facts!
As for recent "real world" data on efficacy against infections, here's the preprint from just three weeks ago from the ONS infection survey, which is based on random PCR tests, and therefore picks up all infections, not just symptomatic ones: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.22.21255913v1.full.pdf
It shows an efficacy of 61% for asymptomatic and 63% for asymptomatic, 21 days or more after the first dose of AstraZeneca (insufficient data so far on the effect of two doses).
Not that I'm under any illusion that anyone wants to know that.
Isn't that expected though, what would be symptomatic without a vaccine becomes asymptomatic?
Like a well-oiled military machine from start to finish, plus with a London 2012 style of service from car parking volunteers to reception staff to medical staff. Also, the personal service isn't lost too: 3-4 minutes of chat and small talk first before the shot (which takes seconds) and space for a couple of jokes too from the two nurses.
Extremely impressive. We are very very good at single-minded national efforts. Extremely good.
Remember that many Indians came via Uganda. Also that India is approx 15% Muslim (a little less at the period of high migration). The Muslim populations of Bangladesh, Pakistan and India are quite similar in numbers.
Also:
One that surprised me last week is that no other EU countries have significant Indian-origin populations.
UK is 1.4m. Next on the list is Italy at 10% of that.
Isn't that down to the UK hiring doctors from that part of the world and you know being the pre-eminent colonial power in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh?
The latter explains why we have so much immigration from that part of the world, for good or ill British colonialism/immigration/conquest of other countries explains why we went for mass immigration from that part of the world
The likes of Portuguese India consisted of a few goat herders whilst the British Raj controlled everything.
Apparently those goat herders may have been few in number but they were real Goas.
Remember that many Indians came via Uganda. Also that India is approx 15% Muslim (a little less at the period of high migration). The Muslim populations of Bangladesh, Pakistan and India are quite similar in numbers.
Also:
One that surprised me last week is that no other EU countries have significant Indian-origin populations.
UK is 1.4m. Next on the list is Italy at 10% of that.
Isn't that down to the UK hiring doctors from that part of the world and you know being the pre-eminent colonial power in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh?
The latter explains why we have so much immigration from that part of the world, for good or ill British colonialism/immigration/conquest of other countries explains why we went for mass immigration from that part of the world
The likes of Portuguese India consisted of a few goat herders whilst the British Raj controlled everything.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
Can you give me some data that shows the efficacy of AstraZenica is 50%-60% in all cohorts (not just the over 70s) as in a discussion about herd immunity that is vital.
Chris read some data 4 months ago and doesn't seem to think anything has changed since then. No point in engaging until he updates his data sets.
This forum seems to be full of people who don't see the point of engaging with the facts!
As for recent "real world" data on efficacy against infections, here's the preprint from just three weeks ago from the ONS infection survey, which is based on random PCR tests, and therefore picks up all infections, not just symptomatic ones: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.22.21255913v1.full.pdf
It shows an efficacy of 61% for asymptomatic and 63% for asymptomatic, 21 days or more after the first dose of AstraZeneca (insufficient data so far on the effect of two doses).
Not that I'm under any illusion that anyone wants to know that.
Isn't that expected though, what would be symptomatic without a vaccine becomes asymptomatic?
I am genuinely bewildered at the idea it’s somehow bad that we have asymptomatic cases. Surely the whole fecking problem is the symptoms?
True, asymptomatic carriers may still be infectious, but it doesn’t look as though they are, or at least, not significant vectors of transmission.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
You baffle me. What is it you don't understand about this?
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and (2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60% (3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
Can you give me some data that shows the efficacy of AstraZenica is 50%-60% in all cohorts (not just the over 70s) as in a discussion about herd immunity that is vital.
Chris read some data 4 months ago and doesn't seem to think anything has changed since then. No point in engaging until he updates his data sets.
This forum seems to be full of people who don't see the point of engaging with the facts!
As for recent "real world" data on efficacy against infections, here's the preprint from just three weeks ago from the ONS infection survey, which is based on random PCR tests, and therefore picks up all infections, not just symptomatic ones: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.22.21255913v1.full.pdf
It shows an efficacy of 61% for asymptomatic and 63% for asymptomatic, 21 days or more after the first dose of AstraZeneca (insufficient data so far on the effect of two doses).
Not that I'm under any illusion that anyone wants to know that.
Single dose for asymptomatic infection, that study doesn't look into the hospitalisation rate for those people. Even at 61/63% it's higher than your range of 50-60% and it's with a single dose. I don't know if you read or watch the news at all, we're currently doing around 400k second doses per day.
And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."
... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.
And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).
And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).
The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.
I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.
The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.
Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.
I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.
The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?
We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.
Your numbers are wrong, AZ is around 90% effective against infection of the original strain with a large gap between doses. Efficacy with a single dose is 76% after 4 weeks. Efficacy against severe symptoms is around 95%+ with two doses and with a single dose it reduces spread by around 40% the study for two doses will be out soon but it is expected to come in around 80% reduction in spread.
Your whole premise is flawed.
So you assert, but you cite no evidence.
My numbers came from the AstraZeneca Phase III trial. Where did yours come from?
Mine comes from the real world PHE study. COV001/2 has been superceded by two new studies and by lots and lots of real world data. Fwiw, a single dose of AZ vaccine is 85% effective at preventing death for patients of all ages against the Kent strain three weeks after the initial dose. That number keeps on rising.
How do people still keep getting away with making calculations divorced from a raft of the latest data? It is just scaremongering of the most base kind.
69.4% of the UK adult population have now had one dose. That is 7 in 10 of them where the ability to contract the disease, be hospitalised by the disease, pass on the disease - the roll-call of potential targets for the virus has massively reduced since September. 38% - the cohort most at risk - have now had two jabs. Not exactly immortal - but hugely protected.
This past winter, the hospitals were full of the unjabbed elderly. They weren't full of people under 40. The idea they will be now overwhelming the NHS with Indian Variant Covid has no logical basis.
I find it very hubristic to assume that the Lib Dems would automatically vote Labour over Tory. Many would, but others wouldn't.
Personally speaking I could easily be a Lib Dem voters, especially orange book, but not Labour.
In 1983 didn't the opinion polls show that most Alliance voters preferred a Thatcher government over a Foot one? So quite possibly the Alliance far from splitting the "anti-Conservative" vote could have split the anti-Foot vote too.
Having been disappointed in various ways by both of the larger parties, I suspect the only offer which might cement any kind of electoral alliance would be a cast iron commitment to PR. In the end that’s the only way the smaller parties have any prospect getting a real say.
This forum seems to be full of people who don't see the point of engaging with the facts!
As for recent "real world" data on efficacy against infections, here's the preprint from just three weeks ago from the ONS infection survey, which is based on random PCR tests, and therefore picks up all infections, not just symptomatic ones: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.22.21255913v1.full.pdf
It shows an efficacy of 61% for asymptomatic and 63% for asymptomatic, 21 days or more after the first dose of AstraZeneca (insufficient data so far on the effect of two doses).
Not that I'm under any illusion that anyone wants to know that.
You have to stop cherry picking data and engage with data that doesn't support your narrative. The paper YOU YOURSELF cite says -
"In those vaccinated, the largest reduction in odds was seen post second dose (70%, 95% CI 62 to 77%; PBetween Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 22, 2021, a total of 1 331 993 people were vaccinated over the study period. The mean age of those vaccinated was 65·0 years (SD 16·2). The first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was associated with a vaccine effect of 91% (95% CI 85–94) for reduced COVID-19 hospital admission at 28–34 days post-vaccination. Vaccine effect at the same time interval for the ChAdOx1 vaccine was 88% (95% CI 75–94). Results of combined vaccine effects against hospital admission due to COVID-19 were similar when restricting the analysis to those aged 80 years and older (83%, 95% CI 72–89 at 28–34 days post-vaccination).
Remember that many Indians came via Uganda. Also that India is approx 15% Muslim (a little less at the period of high migration). The Muslim populations of Bangladesh, Pakistan and India are quite similar in numbers.
Also:
One that surprised me last week is that no other EU countries have significant Indian-origin populations.
UK is 1.4m. Next on the list is Italy at 10% of that.
Isn't that down to the UK hiring doctors from that part of the world and you know being the pre-eminent colonial power in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh?
The latter explains why we have so much immigration from that part of the world, for good or ill British colonialism/immigration/conquest of other countries explains why we went for mass immigration from that part of the world
The likes of Portuguese India consisted of a few goat herders whilst the British Raj controlled everything.
I find it very hubristic to assume that the Lib Dems would automatically vote Labour over Tory. Many would, but others wouldn't.
Personally speaking I could easily be a Lib Dem voters, especially orange book, but not Labour.
In 1983 didn't the opinion polls show that most Alliance voters preferred a Thatcher government over a Foot one? So quite possibly the Alliance far from splitting the "anti-Conservative" vote could have split the anti-Foot vote too.
Having been disappointed in various ways by both of the larger parties, I suspect the only offer which might cement any kind of electoral alliance would be a cast iron commitment to PR. In the end that’s the only way the smaller parties have any prospect getting a real say.
The Lib Dems had a real say in 2010.
Also, PR might mean it's a very different set of small parties having a say.
And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."
... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.
And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).
And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).
The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.
I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.
The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.
Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.
I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.
The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?
We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.
Your numbers are wrong, AZ is around 90% effective against infection of the original strain with a large gap between doses. Efficacy with a single dose is 76% after 4 weeks. Efficacy against severe symptoms is around 95%+ with two doses and with a single dose it reduces spread by around 40% the study for two doses will be out soon but it is expected to come in around 80% reduction in spread.
Your whole premise is flawed.
So you assert, but you cite no evidence.
My numbers came from the AstraZeneca Phase III trial. Where did yours come from?
Mine comes from the real world PHE study. COV001/2 has been superceded by two new studies and by lots and lots of real world data. Fwiw, a single dose of AZ vaccine is 85% effective at preventing death for patients of all ages against the Kent strain three weeks after the initial dose. That number keeps on rising.
How do people still keep getting away with making calculations divorced from a raft of the latest data? It is just scaremongering of the most base kind.
69.4% of the UK adult population have now had one dose. That is 7 in 10 of them where the ability to contract the disease, be hospitalised by the disease, pass on the disease - the roll-call of potential targets for the virus has massively reduced since September. 38% - the cohort most at risk - have now had two jabs. Not exactly immortal - but hugely protected.
This past winter, the hospitals were full of the unjabbed elderly. They weren't full of people under 40. The idea they will be now overwhelming the NHS with Indian Variant Covid has no logical basis.
Indeed. How many healthy under 40s have died of Covid since the pandemic began?
I’ve not seen the latest figures, but as of August 2020 that figure stood at 38 individuals.
Interesting. A couple of WWC blokes in their early 40s (I'm in Basingstoke) miffed that they can't give "English" as their nationality, and have to give British instead.
Remember that many Indians came via Uganda. Also that India is approx 15% Muslim (a little less at the period of high migration). The Muslim populations of Bangladesh, Pakistan and India are quite similar in numbers.
Also:
One that surprised me last week is that no other EU countries have significant Indian-origin populations.
UK is 1.4m. Next on the list is Italy at 10% of that.
Isn't that down to the UK hiring doctors from that part of the world and you know being the pre-eminent colonial power in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh?
The latter explains why we have so much immigration from that part of the world, for good or ill British colonialism/immigration/conquest of other countries explains why we went for mass immigration from that part of the world
The likes of Portuguese India consisted of a few goat herders whilst the British Raj controlled everything.
Apparently those goat herders may have been few in number but they were real Goas.
And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."
... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.
And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).
And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).
The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.
I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.
The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.
Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.
I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.
The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?
We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.
Your numbers are wrong, AZ is around 90% effective against infection of the original strain with a large gap between doses. Efficacy with a single dose is 76% after 4 weeks. Efficacy against severe symptoms is around 95%+ with two doses and with a single dose it reduces spread by around 40% the study for two doses will be out soon but it is expected to come in around 80% reduction in spread.
Your whole premise is flawed.
So you assert, but you cite no evidence.
My numbers came from the AstraZeneca Phase III trial. Where did yours come from?
Mine comes from the real world PHE study. COV001/2 has been superceded by two new studies and by lots and lots of real world data. Fwiw, a single dose of AZ vaccine is 85% effective at preventing death for patients of all ages against the Kent strain three weeks after the initial dose. That number keeps on rising.
How do people still keep getting away with making calculations divorced from a raft of the latest data? It is just scaremongering of the most base kind.
69.4% of the UK adult population have now had one dose. That is 7 in 10 of them where the ability to contract the disease, be hospitalised by the disease, pass on the disease - the roll-call of potential targets for the virus has massively reduced since September. 38% - the cohort most at risk - have now had two jabs. Not exactly immortal - but hugely protected.
This past winter, the hospitals were full of the unjabbed elderly. They weren't full of people under 40. The idea they will be now overwhelming the NHS with Indian Variant Covid has no logical basis.
Indeed. How many healthy under 40s have died of Covid since the pandemic began?
I’ve not seen the latest figures, but as of August 2020 that figure stood at 38 individuals.
Remember that many Indians came via Uganda. Also that India is approx 15% Muslim (a little less at the period of high migration). The Muslim populations of Bangladesh, Pakistan and India are quite similar in numbers.
Also:
One that surprised me last week is that no other EU countries have significant Indian-origin populations.
UK is 1.4m. Next on the list is Italy at 10% of that.
Isn't that down to the UK hiring doctors from that part of the world and you know being the pre-eminent colonial power in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh?
The latter explains why we have so much immigration from that part of the world, for good or ill British colonialism/immigration/conquest of other countries explains why we went for mass immigration from that part of the world
The likes of Portuguese India consisted of a few goat herders whilst the British Raj controlled everything.
Apparently those goat herders may have been few in number but they were real Goas.
Remember that many Indians came via Uganda. Also that India is approx 15% Muslim (a little less at the period of high migration). The Muslim populations of Bangladesh, Pakistan and India are quite similar in numbers.
Also:
One that surprised me last week is that no other EU countries have significant Indian-origin populations.
UK is 1.4m. Next on the list is Italy at 10% of that.
Isn't that down to the UK hiring doctors from that part of the world and you know being the pre-eminent colonial power in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh?
The latter explains why we have so much immigration from that part of the world, for good or ill British colonialism/immigration/conquest of other countries explains why we went for mass immigration from that part of the world
The likes of Portuguese India consisted of a few goat herders whilst the British Raj controlled everything.
Apparently those goat herders may have been few in number but they were real Goas.
Interesting. A couple of WWC blokes in their early 40s (I'm in Basingstoke) miffed that they can't give "English" as their nationality, and have to give British instead.
Seems to be a thing.
I’m pretty sure I gave both English and British as mine on the census. I can’t remember the choice on the vax - you might be right. In any case, I think one should be able to say English/Scots etc. It should be the same as the census IMO.
I find it very hubristic to assume that the Lib Dems would automatically vote Labour over Tory. Many would, but others wouldn't.
Personally speaking I could easily be a Lib Dem voters, especially orange book, but not Labour.
In 1983 didn't the opinion polls show that most Alliance voters preferred a Thatcher government over a Foot one? So quite possibly the Alliance far from splitting the "anti-Conservative" vote could have split the anti-Foot vote too.
Having been disappointed in various ways by both of the larger parties, I suspect the only offer which might cement any kind of electoral alliance would be a cast iron commitment to PR. In the end that’s the only way the smaller parties have any prospect getting a real say.
The Lib Dems had a real say in 2010.
Also, PR might mean it's a very different set of small parties having a say.
Progressive Alliance easily won GE 2019 on 52.4% of the vote!
Remember that many Indians came via Uganda. Also that India is approx 15% Muslim (a little less at the period of high migration). The Muslim populations of Bangladesh, Pakistan and India are quite similar in numbers.
Also:
One that surprised me last week is that no other EU countries have significant Indian-origin populations.
UK is 1.4m. Next on the list is Italy at 10% of that.
Isn't that down to the UK hiring doctors from that part of the world and you know being the pre-eminent colonial power in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh?
The latter explains why we have so much immigration from that part of the world, for good or ill British colonialism/immigration/conquest of other countries explains why we went for mass immigration from that part of the world
The likes of Portuguese India consisted of a few goat herders whilst the British Raj controlled everything.
Apparently those goat herders may have been few in number but they were real Goas.
You gotta be kidding me!
Honestly, if you get upset with that, you shouldn’t be on this forum, you should be in some kind of nanny state.
Comments
What's need is STRATEGY among the 5 non-Tory Parties in order to get non-Conservatives elected. And all the Parties must have reform of the electoral system (preferably AV Plus) in their manifestos.
And even if we did, why invite millions of new people with similarly strong views against other religions and races into the country?
As @Selebian and I have argued about a few times, these reasonable worst case scenarios exist to grab headlines and persuade politicians to take specific actions. They aren't actually anywhere near reasonable when it comes to modelling real outcomes.
https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1088
I'll repeat that I was talking specifically about AstraZeneca above.
Here is what the abstract says about AstraZeneca effectiveness:
With ChAdOx1-S, effects were seen from 14 to 20 days after vaccination, reaching an effectiveness of 60% (41% to 73%) from 28 to 34 days, increasing to 73% (27% to 90%) from day 35 onwards. ... Participants who had received one dose of ChAdOx1-S had a further 37% (3% to 59%) reduced risk of emergency hospital admission. Follow-up was insufficient to assess the effect of ChAdOx1-S on mortality. Combined with the effect against symptomatic disease, a single dose of either vaccine was about 80% effective at preventing admission to hospital with covid-19 ...
The point is that 80% for hospitalisation is not hugely more than 60-73% for infection.
And those 60-73% figures are for symptomatic efficacy, not efficacy against all infections.
I can understand why there isn’t a lot of point hmrc going after the test and tracers - at the end of the day, it would just mean an adjustment on the treasuries ledger, but surely we should be doing more to crack down on abuse of the scheme more widely?
Hmrc desperately needs more resources.
This is the weight (also warf & woof) of Chris's "argument" beside of course the AZN Phase III results.
Maybe he's got a point? Who knows, as he never actually makes it. just keeps saying that everyone - except him of course - is an idiot.
Chris, it's YOUR responsibility to present a semi-convincing, quasi-persuasive rationale for YOUR theory. NOT anyone else.
And calling anyone who challenges you, or simply asks questions (dumb or otherwise) as willfully pig ignorant, is neither convincing nor persuasive. Instead, the opposite!
IF you are going to be insulting EVERY TIME YOU POST SOMETHING then at least display some semblance of a sense of humor.
To quote Chris. "It's really pointless . . ." You can say that again - about your approach.
Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
Utterly disgusting. Antisemitism, misogyny and hate have no place on our streets or in our society. There must be consequences.
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1393950984058068993
But have it your own way.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesWard73/status/1393932001271554049
Your argument is facetious and relies on outdated data of 50-60% efficacy from COV001/2. Your desire to keep everyone locked up forever for their own good is causing you to make unnecessary mistakes.
(1) If the R0 of the Indian variant is 5-6 and
(2) if the efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection is 50-60%
(3) then vaccination isn't going to give us herd immunity.
Why should there be, it’s inexcusable behaviour
And you completely fail to understand what the vaccines are here to achieve. It's to stop people going to hospital, whatever they do beyond that is merely a bonus. Both AZ and Pfizer prevent hospitalisation with both doses to a very high degree.
https://twitter.com/UK_Centrist/status/1393951557113233420
Participants were "156 930 adults aged 70 years and older who reported symptoms of covid-19 between 8 December 2020 and 19 February 2021 and were successfully linked to vaccination data in the National Immunisation Management System."
So the paper you cite deals with older (and thus more likely to be immunocompromised) individuals alone. You can't cherry-pick data like that.
I've quoted the figures for overall efficacy, and I've cited the source - the Phase III trial.
You just say the figures are wrong. You post some different figures.
I ask you to cite your source. You just say it's from a PHE study. I suggest that they are figures for symptomatic infections only. You don't comment on that, but just keep saying the Phase III figures are wrong.
And so it goes. No wonder you people find the activities of scientists puzzling.
I'm guessing no journalist has asked this rather awkward question.
If ministers give in and do what these people want then we shall be stuck with a substantial fraction of the restrictions forever.
But please don't let me discourage you from citing some data - any data - PLEASE, ANY DATA AT ALL! - to support your own claims.
I did write all that out in the first place.
Feel free to shout at me but others may think you sound a little rude though.
Not even the SNP Scottish Government thinks that:
UK State pensions currently in payment to Scottish residents would be paid by the Scottish Government.
For Scottish residents of working age, the liability for all State Pensions earned to date would fall to the Scottish Government
https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/documents/pdf/1310ifoa-commentary-challenges-facing-financial-services-if-there-should-be-independent-scotland-rev.pdf
It's not happening - however much you might wish it.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue - revenue the independent Scottish government will be raising and keeping.
If you think rUK tax payers will be finding Scottish pensions you'll be sorely disappointed. Any rUK government that agreed to that would be voted out at the first opportunity.
Wife had her 2nd jab yesterday
2 of my lads have had both doses (late 20's early 30's)
1 of them has 2nd dose this week (he is 18)
I have my second in 2 weeks roughly
What a superb effort
Well Carol0646746885 on twitter made her choice by relying on her amazing immune system and 99.7% chance of survival. We can't run society around these muppets forever.
It's not a question of herd immunity per se. It's a question of (1) whether we reach herd immunity, (2) how many more infections there will be if we don't and (3) what the case fatality rate will be after vaccination.
Too hard to grasp?
I've explained that about 5 times,
You remember, the trial that was criticised for NOT HAVING ENOUGH OLD PEOPLE IN IT???
Ye Gods.
Every-time I look at the numbers TU members voting Lab is about half in General Elections.
It is polled eg for Unite Members regularly.
Not sure if I can dig it out, though. There are a few newspaper reports around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indians#:~:text=0.6%-,Population,of the total UK population).
Remember that many Indians came via Uganda. Also that India is approx 15% Muslim (a little less at the period of high migration). The Muslim populations of Bangladesh, Pakistan and India are quite similar in numbers.
2. No one cares about the infection rate if it isn't feeding through to hospitals.
3. We already know from studies done in the US, UK, Israel and Europe based on actual real world fucking data that the CFR for vaccinated people is extremely low.
Once again, the PHE Siren study showed that a single dose of AZ or Pfizer resulted in a cumulative reduction of 80% in the hospitalisation rate, for two doses of Pfizer this rises to around 95% and the AZ study is ongoing. You're making this about efficacy against asymptomatic infection, but that's never been what vaccines are here to do. I'll keep saying it until you understand it, vaccines are here to stop people from going to hospital for COVID, what they do beyond that is a bonus.
Honestly, you seem to think you're always the smartest guy in the room, people who think that way are prone to making idiotic mistakes just as you are on this whole "yeah but it doesn't stop people getting infected" idea.
I wonder who came up with the idea of sticking "Great" in front of "British Railways"?
Could be an interesting few years on the rail front. The government ploughing on with HS2 whilst cutting existing services might not be the greatest of looks.
In patients aged over 65, the vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 has been revised upwards by 5 percentage points to 85%.
AZ said that the figures presented on Monday were based on a pre-specified interim analysis with a data cut-off of 17 February.
https://pharmaphorum.com/news/az-issues-revised-efficacy-figures-for-covid-19-shot/
I just don’t think that having deep rooted racism/sectarianism already in the country is a good reason to import a lot more new varieties. You can have too much of a bad thing
One that surprised me last week is that no other EU countries have significant Indian-origin populations.
UK is 1.4m. Next on the list is Italy at 10% of that.
Progressive Alliance[1] vote-share at GE 2019: [1] Parties deemed to be of the "Left" OR "Centre-left" by Wikipedia.
Right-wing Alliance[2] vote-share at GE 2019: [2] Parties deemed to be of the "Right" OR "Centre-right" by Wikipedia.
Remember, this just for a bit of fun!
There's a awful lot we don't know about this. That's life.
I hope we will be able to get out and dirty soon, especially the kids.
I did, however, see a cute kiddiewink stomp and splash through a puddle in her wellies, so I guess some things don't change.
The latter explains why we have so much immigration from that part of the world, for good or ill British colonialism/immigration/conquest of other countries explains why we went for mass immigration from that part of the world
The likes of Portuguese India consisted of a few goat herders whilst the British Raj controlled everything.
As for recent "real world" data on efficacy against infections, here's the preprint from just three weeks ago from the ONS infection survey, which is based on random PCR tests, and therefore picks up all infections, not just symptomatic ones:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.22.21255913v1.full.pdf
It shows an efficacy of 61% for asymptomatic and 63% for asymptomatic, 21 days or more after the first dose of AstraZeneca (insufficient data so far on the effect of two doses).
Not that I'm under any illusion that anyone wants to know that.
Like a well-oiled military machine from start to finish, plus with a London 2012 style of service from car parking volunteers to reception staff to medical staff. Also, the personal service isn't lost too: 3-4 minutes of chat and small talk first before the shot (which takes seconds) and space for a couple of jokes too from the two nurses.
Extremely impressive. We are very very good at single-minded national efforts. Extremely good.
True, asymptomatic carriers may still be infectious, but it doesn’t look as though they are, or at least, not significant vectors of transmission.
So what’s the problem?
69.4% of the UK adult population have now had one dose. That is 7 in 10 of them where the ability to contract the disease, be hospitalised by the disease, pass on the disease - the roll-call of potential targets for the virus has massively reduced since September. 38% - the cohort most at risk - have now had two jabs. Not exactly immortal - but hugely protected.
This past winter, the hospitals were full of the unjabbed elderly. They weren't full of people under 40. The idea they will be now overwhelming the NHS with Indian Variant Covid has no logical basis.
In the end that’s the only way the smaller parties have any prospect getting a real say.
"In those vaccinated, the largest reduction in odds was seen post second dose (70%, 95% CI 62 to 77%; PBetween Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 22, 2021, a total of 1 331 993 people were vaccinated over the study period. The mean age of those vaccinated was 65·0 years (SD 16·2). The first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was associated with a vaccine effect of 91% (95% CI 85–94) for reduced COVID-19 hospital admission at 28–34 days post-vaccination. Vaccine effect at the same time interval for the ChAdOx1 vaccine was 88% (95% CI 75–94). Results of combined vaccine effects against hospital admission due to COVID-19 were similar when restricting the analysis to those aged 80 years and older (83%, 95% CI 72–89 at 28–34 days post-vaccination).
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00677-2/fulltext
You are hugely disingenuous.
I was surprised that it was quite 10:1, though.
Also, PR might mean it's a very different set of small parties having a say.
I’ve not seen the latest figures, but as of August 2020 that figure stood at 38 individuals.
Seems to be a thing.
Right-wing Alliance only got 46.8%!
(tables shown up-thread)
Utterly disgusting. Antisemitism, misogyny and hate have no place on our streets or in our society. There must be consequences.
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1393950984058068993