SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

[Wolverine]

That doesn’t make sense because there’s no need to rely on infections for immunity ahead of winter. The vaccines will do that instead. A medium spike before everyone is fully vaccinated carries no upside at all. Other than the upside of opening as originally scheduled.

Which I think to them is big enough, benefit wise socioeconomic and politically, to feel that they can be risky.

I'm wondering if the angle is more of a combination of herd immunity through ongoing aggressive vaccination (including third doses, in addition to shorter intervals) with an increase in cases that are milder than previous, that doesn't translate into hospitalisations and deaths.

So going into the winter you'll have that combination keeping the next winter peak plateau'd (in all terms cases, deaths etc)

Don't agree with it though mind. Along with possibility that variants could emerge, the balance is finer I feel with other viruses back into play, and inevitable burst of cases suddenly due to summer time mixing in various indoor settings that'll make superspreader event with this more infectious variant.

The other thing is they keep harping about in the UK about delayed care for daycases operations and focusing on other diseases, mental health etc. That's certainly out the window as covid will surely be the main thing NHS will have to focus on.

 

[Brwned]

Goodness me. So many inconsistencies in the briefing from Boris. And the scientists seem to be going along with it. The key message was that they have to open up at some point and it is best not to do that in the winter. So better to do it now. Remember. We are being guided by the DATA and not the DATE.
And the message about masks was farcical in the extreme. The advice is still to wear a mask inside and in crowded places. And yet we don't have to wear a mask after 19th July.
Well I for one is going to carry on as I have been.

There are a lot of things we are allowed to do but advised not to do, for personal and community health. The guidance is that in places where there is higher risk, take more precautions, in places where there are lower risk take less, and we’ll provide the information that allows for informed choice, but we won’t mandate them in law: that’s a normal part of government practice.

We have already seen that transition in the US. When Fauci is in his home state he doesn’t wear his mask in most indoor situations, if he’s in a county with higher risks of infection and lower levels of protection, and he finds himself in higher risk environments (crowded, indoors, etc) then he will put on a mask. He is pretty well versed in risk assessment and among the more vulnerable populations too, so the idea of choosing not to wear a mask isn’t a completely ludicrous decision. But it’s also perfectly reasonable for people to be more risk averse too. This doesn’t restrict that choice.

The biggest transition we’ll be making is convincing the population that more personal freedoms are in society’s best interests, even when risks exist. Right now a lot of people are so distrustful of their neighbours and their leaders that restrictions are their comfort blanket. That carries serious risks too. People are better versed in risk assessment now than they were two years ago. Giving them that choice is a healthy thing for society. Whether it’s the right time is of course debatable but no matter when we do it, that same issue will exist: the virus will be there, it will pose risks, and we’ll need people to make choices in that environment.

 

[Pexbo]

That doesn’t make sense because there’s no need to rely on infections for immunity ahead of winter. The vaccines will do that instead. A medium spike before everyone is fully vaccinated carries no upside at all. Other than the upside of opening as originally scheduled.

I’m just trying to understand it beyond Tory ignorance. Why lift the requirement for masks? There’s no economic impact to it. The only thing I can possibly think of is that they want the virus to spread. If thats not for a malicious reason then it can only be for herd immunity.

Don’t forget that there is a percentage of people (children mostly) that will not be vaccinated before winter. Boris said if you can’t open in summer when you have an advantage then it will be winter when the virus has the advantage. Does he mean that we plan to close again in winter? Or does he mean he hopes we will increase our immunity over the summer and be ready for winter?

 

[groovyalbert]

I’m just trying to understand it beyond Tory ignorance. Why lift the requirement for masks? There’s no economic impact to it. The only thing I can possibly think of is that they want the virus to spread. If thats not for a malicious reason then it can only be for herd immunity.

Don’t forget that there is a percentage of people (children mostly) that will not be vaccinated before winter. Boris said if you can’t open in summer when you have an advantage then it will be winter when the virus has the advantage. Does he mean that we plan to close again in winter? Or does he mean he hopes we will increase our immunity over the summer and be ready for winter?

The only thing I can think of is that it is perhaps linked to the fears of a really bad flu season this winter? That alongside covid could be bad so they're wanting natural immune systems to be in operation ahead of then?

I'm probably being far too generous here.

 

[Penna]

It's not a huge problem in Europe yet. Delta accounts for 22.7% of cases in Italy as of the weekend just gone.

Masks have been compulsory outside until last week and we have also taken a different approach on vaccines. The focus is on getting the second doses done and people fully vaccinated, even if it has to mean a delay in first doses for the young. The UK has done the opposite all along and gone for as many first doses as possible. Personally, i think it's yet another shot in the dark from Boris as we know one dose doesn't provide great protection against the Delta variant, but who knows.

There were 480 new cases and 17 deaths today in Italy, which is reassuring.

 

[McGrathsipan]

"

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

"

That's funny but terrifying also

 

[Superden]

no information on travel yet, supposed to come later this week. Not a big fan of Cummings, but his recent commentary on Boris is absolutely spot on, and makes for galling reading, not that the boris cult will acknowledge any of it.

 

[Superden]

article on countries that have relaxed covid restrictions etc...clearly its not the panacea its made out to be.
Countries that have gone mask-free as England set to end Covid rules on 19 July (inews.co.uk)

 

[Wolverine]

Yep. Pretty much sums it up.
Zero scientific evidence.
Zero sense.
Zero logic.
All about the date.

Pretty much

I tried to listen to what logic this was predicated on. I have enormous respect for Prof Whitty but I don't see how the summer break is seen as decreasing chances of community spread when everybody will be planning meet ups and trips. All at once. Seeding this highly infectious variant as they go along.

Would have much preferred if mask mandates were kept for public transport and indoor hospitality/theatres etc. That literally has no downside apart from a few conspiracy theory cry babies making a fuss.

I just admitted a patient into hospital today who had both AZ jabs, tested positive for covid, he had chest pain and was coughing up blood.
There's a lot of freedoms people are still enjoying now, I get though that certain industries are struggling but there's no plan to combat surge in cases that I can see. When that should at the very least be the aspirational thing to do.

I can foresee the next talking point will be if people are cautious and staying home and businesses not picking up it'll be framed in a culture war mindset ala eat out to help out where it'll be implied people aren't patriotic enough to set aside their selfish self-interest in not catching covid versus spending and helping the country economically.

 

[Superden]

The culture war aspect of mask wearing is as you say inevitable, @Wolverine .
This has always been this govts way of dealing with difficult situations, make it binary and blame the people, create sides. The anti-woke brigade will just have another major issue to get their teeth into.

 

[Rooney1987]

Legally it might not have gone but here in West Yorkshire people not wearing masks went in March. Getting on the bus from work earlier half the bus didn't have a mask on. I'm personally always gonna wear one while travelling round a city centre or public transport even after all this is over.

 

[F-Red]

Would have much preferred if mask mandates were kept for public transport and indoor hospitality/theatres etc. That literally has no downside apart from a few conspiracy theory cry babies making a fuss.

Indoor hospitality is a funny one to be honest, there never was great logic in wearing it to be seated to a table/use the toilet when people are not wearing it for 95% of their visit. Public transport I can see the logic for remaining, and any mass transit function.

However, whilst the headlines are about mask free, the story is more about it not being a legal requirement now. People just need to exercise caution and choice now if they feel they don't want to take the risk.

Yep. Pretty much sums it up.
Zero scientific evidence.
Zero sense.
Zero logic.
All about the date.

Playing devils advocate for a second here, there is some logic to trying to open up now without restrictions, more than doing so in the winter. If we can't open now, then there is limited chance at all for this year. It's easy for most of us sat behind a screen saying this, but there's plenty of businesses and people that are happy to manage the risk moving forward. The argument presented over the last 12 months has been that vaccines are the way out of this, and since those with the highest risk of death are now immunised, is there any logic to still have restrictions?

 

[11101]

I’m just trying to understand it beyond Tory ignorance. Why lift the requirement for masks? There’s no economic impact to it. The only thing I can possibly think of is that they want the virus to spread. If thats not for a malicious reason then it can only be for herd immunity.

Don’t forget that there is a percentage of people (children mostly) that will not be vaccinated before winter. Boris said if you can’t open in summer when you have an advantage then it will be winter when the virus has the advantage. Does he mean that we plan to close again in winter? Or does he mean he hopes we will increase our immunity over the summer and be ready for winter?

I can only see economic reasons.

Everybody wearing masks breeds caution and fear (rightly so, after 4 million deaths). With the US almost back to normal and Europe threatening to open up again imminently, the government needs to UK economy running at full tilt this summer. Masks remind people that they should behave differently.

 

[Balljy]

I am giving the government too much credit here, but the reason for mentioning summer versus winter may be because there will be large chunk of people who refuse to vaccinate. It will be low in the UK compared to a lot of other countries but I would still expect it to be around 10 to 15% overall. If a proportion of those can get it now rather than all over the winter when respiratory infections spread easier anyway it may spread the strain on the NHS.

On the unvaccinated subject, the US is likely to have big problems eventually. They're struggling to get above 70% overall now with empty centres in loads of places.

The government are complete idiots though. The statement made no sense at all with the only reasoning being we have to open. At least put some scientific basis to back it up.

 

[Pexbo]

I can only see economic reasons.

Everybody wearing masks breeds caution and fear (rightly so, after 4 million deaths). With the US almost back to normal and Europe threatening to open up again imminently, the government needs to UK economy running at full tilt this summer. Masks remind people that they should behave differently.

And what about the flip side to that? The people who won’t have the confidence to go to public events because they don’t feel safe with loads of people not wearing masks and not socially distancing?

 

[horsechoker]

And what about the flip side to that? The people who won’t have the confidence to go to public events because they don’t feel safe with loads of people not wearing masks and not socially distancing?

Hard to say which would have a bigger effect but I suppose no masks may encourage people to go out and spend money in the short term.

I think that people will grow increasingly tired of wearing masks, even sensible people and take their chances.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I’m just trying to understand it beyond Tory ignorance. Why lift the requirement for masks? There’s no economic impact to it. The only thing I can possibly think of is that they want the virus to spread. If thats not for a malicious reason then it can only be for herd immunity.

Don’t forget that there is a percentage of people (children mostly) that will not be vaccinated before winter. Boris said if you can’t open in summer when you have an advantage then it will be winter when the virus has the advantage. Does he mean that we plan to close again in winter? Or does he mean he hopes we will increase our immunity over the summer and be ready for winter?

I think you’re giving them too much credit. Politicians often make decisions based on what will win them votes rather than what is the most sensible or logical thing to do. There doesn’t have to be a master plan. This is just BoJo playing to his base.

 

[Massive Spanner]

I think you’re giving them too much credit. Politicians often make decisions based on what will win them votes rather than what is the most sensible or logical thing to do. There doesn’t have to be a master plan. This is just BoJo playing to his base.

I won't deny the idiocy of BoJo and the Tories but isn't there not another election due for at least three years? Not sure what the point of playing to his base here is, and.. I doubt anyone was actually expecting them to remove every restriction to early, like wearing masks etc.

 

[Wolverine]

Indoor hospitality is a funny one to be honest, there never was great logic in wearing it to be seated to a table/use the toilet when people are not wearing it for 95% of their visit. Public transport I can see the logic for remaining, and any mass transit function.

However, whilst the headlines are about mask free, the story is more about it not being a legal requirement now. People just need to exercise caution and choice now if they feel they don't want to take the risk.

I think that's a fair point regarding indoor hospitality.
There was no mention of healthcare settings having mask mandates. I wonder if they'll allow any private business the legal framework to enforce mandatory mask wearing in their premises.

There was the Queensland health minister who mentioned that this thing is contagious with even seconds of fleeting close contact thats the worry
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...eed-to-know-about-sydneys-delta-covid-variant

 

[F-Red]

I think that's a fair point regarding indoor hospitality.
There was no mention of healthcare settings having mask mandates. I wonder if they'll allow any private business the legal framework to enforce mandatory mask wearing in their premises.

There won't be any legal framework for businesses to do that, it's quite clear the government have left it down to personal choice & discretion of the individual. Healthcare settings make sense to me, given the nature of the place and the demographics going through there. However, infection control protocol surely managed this prior to 2020 right? So either that wasn't fit for purpose or they've realised that they should have had masks all along in those settings.

There was the Queensland health minister who mentioned that this thing is contagious with even seconds of fleeting close contact thats the worry
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...eed-to-know-about-sydneys-delta-covid-variant

I don't deny that there's more transmissibility with variants, but given that we've now had it as the most prevalent strain in the UK from the beginning of last month, we'd surely this in the data of hospitalisations and deaths in line with cases. Vaccines either work or they don't, and the data is suggesting that they are, so the confidence to open up either needs to be there to support an immunisation programme, otherwise what message does it send? The long and short is that it just needs to be managed now like the other virus' we have sadly. Natural selection should hopefully sort out the anti-vaccine brigade.

 

[golden_blunder]

The Tories: We need to open back up again ASAP, to safeguard mental health. Mental health is absolutely vital.

Also the Tories: Mental health beds down by 25% since 2010

Exactly. They’re in it for the money. Everything else is spin

 

[0le]

Given how many people wear masks incorrectly, I am sceptical regarding how much difference they make anymore. Too many people do not cover their nose or alternatively wear the shields which offer almost no protection for someone who is just exhaling. This is aside from the fact that people already just don't care and won't wear them, regardless of whether they have to or not.

 

[Buster15]

Indoor hospitality is a funny one to be honest, there never was great logic in wearing it to be seated to a table/use the toilet when people are not wearing it for 95% of their visit. Public transport I can see the logic for remaining, and any mass transit function.

However, whilst the headlines are about mask free, the story is more about it not being a legal requirement now. People just need to exercise caution and choice now if they feel they don't want to take the risk.



Playing devils advocate for a second here, there is some logic to trying to open up now without restrictions, more than doing so in the winter. If we can't open now, then there is limited chance at all for this year. It's easy for most of us sat behind a screen saying this, but there's plenty of businesses and people that are happy to manage the risk moving forward. The argument presented over the last 12 months has been that vaccines are the way out of this, and since those with the highest risk of death are now immunised, is there any logic to still have restrictions?

The one I am most concerned about is the highly confusing statement on mask wearing.
I mean what is the real issue with maintaining the requirements to wear masks/face covering inside public places.
Yes we are in the summer months. But in the weeks to come, the weather is going to change. And once the public get used to not wearing face coverings, it will be significantly more difficult to change that.
And Boris promised that he was going to be guided by the data.
Well there was no data to support the relaxation. Not even an attempt to show any data. Because there is none.

 

[Buster15]

Given how many people wear masks incorrectly, I am sceptical regarding how much difference they make anymore. Too many people do not cover their nose or alternatively wear the shields which offer almost no protection for someone who is just exhaling. This is aside from the fact that people already just don't care and won't wear them, regardless of whether they have to or not.

That has become the case. But much of this has been caused by the mood music from the government and in particular from the new Health Secretary.

 

[Dan_F]

I think you’re giving them too much credit. Politicians often make decisions based on what will win them votes rather than what is the most sensible or logical thing to do. There doesn’t have to be a master plan. This is just BoJo playing to his base.

I’d be surprised if it was for any other reason than this. Masks are the visual representation of restrictions, so he can’t claim he’s getting rid of all restrictions without doing that too. He’s more interested in how he’s perceived rather than if he’s making the right decision. It’s basically backed up by Cummings tweets on him too.

 

[jojojo]

That doesn’t make sense because there’s no need to rely on infections for immunity ahead of winter. The vaccines will do that instead. A medium spike before everyone is fully vaccinated carries no upside at all. Other than the upside of opening as originally scheduled.

The basic modelling theory as I understand it is that the most at risk are already double vaxxed and everyone else who wants to be will be at least single vaxed. However that will still leave all the under 18s and those people who aren't easy to vaccinate (for whatever reason) - so whenever you reopen you get an exit wave.

Do it in the winter and the "vaxxed but still at risk" can't easily dodge some of the added risks (by meeting outside or leaving a window open when you've got visitors). Do it in the summer and a bunch of kids get ill, but it doesn't close the school. The unvaxxed are going to get it anyway, so it doesn't really matter when it happens to them so long as the NHS isn't so busy at the time that it falls apart.

It's pretty ugly and the numbers are balanced on a knife edge, but if you're looking for something that looks a lot like herd immunity without (most of) the deaths it gets you there. If it goes wrong they'll blame the irresponsible public, lack of border controls and political correctness, and the Daily Mail will do headlines about the NHS's failure to defend the old (or young, or diabetics or whoever) and Boris will look sad while the camera is on him but will declare himself innocent on all charges.

 

[F-Red]

The one I am most concerned about is the highly confusing statement on mask wearing.
I mean what is the real issue with maintaining the requirements to wear masks/face covering inside public places.

I guess it's more about making it a legal requirement to wear one. I'm pretty sure if people aren't comfortable in public places, then they're entitled to wear one. I guess it's just not getting to the depths of regulating what people should and should not wear in the interest of public health.

Yes we are in the summer months. But in the weeks to come, the weather is going to change. And once the public get used to not wearing face coverings, it will be significantly more difficult to change that.
And Boris promised that he was going to be guided by the data.
Well there was no data to support the relaxation. Not even an attempt to show any data. Because there is none.

Again, playing devils advocate, there's no data provided to support wearing them still other than notion. You could argue that social distancing probably has the potential of more of an impact than masks. I go back to a point I made on a previous post, not wearing masks for 95% of peoples visits to indoor hospitality hasn't made them a complete cesspool of infection in comparison to schools which have had them on full time up until very recently, the social distancing has probably more to play.

I don't buy into the 'guiding by the data' annecodates from Boris, and you probably don't as well. The information they gave out back in February about the four stages for unlock were pretty clear:

1. The vaccine deployment programme continues successfully.
2. Evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those vaccinated.
3. Infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS.
4. Our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new Variants of Concern.

Going by the current data, it's difficult to see why they wouldn't relieve restrictions. That's not to say they won't come back, and I'm sure we'll see some level of social distancing back in before the end of year. I suspect a lot of the noise out there is more general anxiety than anything else. Time will tell for sure.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Legally it might not have gone but here in West Yorkshire people not wearing masks went in March. Getting on the bus from work earlier half the bus didn't have a mask on. I'm personally always gonna wear one while travelling round a city centre or public transport even after all this is over.

Same here. Mask wearing is about 50/50 where I am and has been for a long time, few shops are enforcing rules. I'm not sure how much difference this will actually make. The people that want to remain cautious have been doing and those with a more cavalier attitude are not and haven't been for at least two months now.

 

[0le]

I guess it's more about making it a legal requirement to wear one. I'm pretty sure if people aren't comfortable in public places, then they're entitled to wear one. I guess it's just not getting to the depths of regulating what people should and should not wear in the interest of public health.



Again, playing devils advocate, there's no data provided to support wearing them still other than notion. You could argue that social distancing probably has the potential of more of an impact than masks. I go back to a point I made on a previous post, not wearing masks for 95% of peoples visits to indoor hospitality hasn't made them a complete cesspool of infection in comparison to schools which have had them on full time up until very recently, the social distancing has probably more to play.

I don't buy into the 'guiding by the data' annecodates from Boris, and you probably don't as well. The information they gave out back in February about the four stages for unlock were pretty clear:

1. The vaccine deployment programme continues successfully.
2. Evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those vaccinated.
3. Infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS.
4. Our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new Variants of Concern.

Going by the current data, it's difficult to see why they wouldn't relieve restrictions. That's not to say they won't come back, and I'm sure we'll see some level of social distancing back in before the end of year. I suspect a lot of the noise out there is more general anxiety than anything else. Time will tell for sure.

It really depends on the seal of the mask. If there is a good seal, most of the air flow containing the particulates will be exhaled through the filtering material. Otherwise some of it will just escape through the gaps.

The most important factors in an indoor setting is (1) the concentration of particulates in the room, (2) the exposure time of an individual breathing in those particulates and (3) the relationship between the quantity of viral particulates inhaled and the chance of being infected. Social distancing helps in the sense that you are less likely to inhale large droplets from nearby people because they either evaporate quickly and/or settle quickly. But aside from that, what you really need is good ventilation (so particulates already in the room can mix with an external supply of air and disperse elsewhere, preferably outside or via ducting) and regular cleaning of surfaces.

In schools, what has probably happened is the fact that the kids remain in the same rooms for prolonged periods of time, with little or poor ventilation. They are also in close proximity to each other and the surfaces are not regularly cleaned. Contrast to social care homes where visits may not last as long. There are also likely some behavioural effects such as that people who visit care homes are more likely to follow the rules carefully to avoid infecting a loved one compared to kids who generally don't care because it doesn't affect them as much.

 

[Ecstatic]

There are a lot of things we are allowed to do but advised not to do, for personal and community health. The guidance is that in places where there is higher risk, take more precautions, in places where there are lower risk take less, and we’ll provide the information that allows for informed choice, but we won’t mandate them in law: that’s a normal part of government practice.

We have already seen that transition in the US. When Fauci is in his home state he doesn’t wear his mask in most indoor situations, if he’s in a county with higher risks of infection and lower levels of protection, and he finds himself in higher risk environments (crowded, indoors, etc) then he will put on a mask. He is pretty well versed in risk assessment and among the more vulnerable populations too, so the idea of choosing not to wear a mask isn’t a completely ludicrous decision. But it’s also perfectly reasonable for people to be more risk averse too. This doesn’t restrict that choice.

The biggest transition we’ll be making is convincing the population that more personal freedoms are in society’s best interests, even when risks exist. Right now a lot of people are so distrustful of their neighbours and their leaders that restrictions are their comfort blanket. That carries serious risks too. People are better versed in risk assessment now than they were two years ago. Giving them that choice is a healthy thing for society. Whether it’s the right time is of course debatable but no matter when we do it, that same issue will exist: the virus will be there, it will pose risks, and we’ll need people to make choices in that environment.

I guess it's more about making it a legal requirement to wear one. I'm pretty sure if people aren't comfortable in public places, then they're entitled to wear one. I guess it's just not getting to the depths of regulating what people should and should not wear in the interest of public health.



Again, playing devils advocate, there's no data provided to support wearing them still other than notion. You could argue that social distancing probably has the potential of more of an impact than masks. I go back to a point I made on a previous post, not wearing masks for 95% of peoples visits to indoor hospitality hasn't made them a complete cesspool of infection in comparison to schools which have had them on full time up until very recently, the social distancing has probably more to play.

I don't buy into the 'guiding by the data' annecodates from Boris, and you probably don't as well. The information they gave out back in February about the four stages for unlock were pretty clear:

1. The vaccine deployment programme continues successfully.
2. Evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those vaccinated.
3. Infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS.
4. Our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new Variants of Concern.

Going by the current data, it's difficult to see why they wouldn't relieve restrictions. That's not to say they won't come back, and I'm sure we'll see some level of social distancing back in before the end of year. I suspect a lot of the noise out there is more general anxiety than anything else. Time will tell for sure.

Quality posts

 

[Ecstatic]

It really depends on the seal of the mask. If there is a good seal, most of the air flow containing the particulates will be exhaled through the filtering material. Otherwise some of it will just escape through the gaps.

The most important factors in an indoor setting is (1) the concentration of particulates in the room, (2) the exposure time of an individual breathing in those particulates and (3) the relationship between the quantity of viral particulates inhaled and the chance of being infected. Social distancing helps in the sense that you are less likely to inhale large droplets from nearby people because they either evaporate quickly and/or settle quickly. But aside from that, what you really need is good ventilation (so particulates already in the room can mix with an external supply of air and disperse elsewhere, preferably outside or via ducting) and regular cleaning of surfaces.

In schools, what has probably happened is the fact that the kids remain in the same rooms for prolonged periods of time, with little or poor ventilation. They are also in close proximity to each other and the surfaces are not regularly cleaned. Contrast to social care homes where visits may not last as long. There are also likely some behavioural effects such as that people who visit care homes are more likely to follow the rules carefully to avoid infecting a loved one compared to kids who generally don't care because it doesn't affect them as much.

Interesting.

Do we know if children can suffer from long-term covid (smell loss, breathing issues etc) if they are tested positive?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

So about this idea that vaccines have broken the link between cases and hospitalisations…

 

[Champ]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

So about this idea that vaccines have broken the link between cases and hospitalisations…

Do we know the people being hospitalised have been vaccinated?

 

[Ecstatic]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

So about this idea that vaccines have broken the link between cases and hospitalisations…

You did read a lot of reports, stats over the last 18 months. You know the plan of BoJo from 19 July.

Do you think there will be another lockdown this year? If yes when?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Do we know the people being hospitalised have been vaccinated?

We don’t. But I would be very surprised (and worried!) if everyone being admitted was too young to have been vaccinated yet.

 

[massi83]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

So about this idea that vaccines have broken the link between cases and hospitalisations…

Some of your posting (maybe 10%) is starting to be pretty scaremongerish.

 

[Brwned]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

So about this idea that vaccines have broken the link between cases and hospitalisations…

Are you really not convinced at this point whether the vaccines prevent hospitalisation? You’ve shared loads of evidence suggesting they do, so that’s a huge dose of scepticism to pour over that evidence! Especially when there’s a plausible alternative explanation that already fits into your broader risk assessment: millions of people still being unvaccinated.

 

[Champ]

We don’t. But I would be very surprised (and worried!) if everyone being admitted was too young to have been vaccinated yet.

Whilst the climb in hospitalisations is slightly alarming, the fact remains it could have been worse had vaccines not been around, no?

I would like to see the percentage of vaccinated people being admitted to hospital, any outlets with those stats out there?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

You did read a lot of reports, stats over the last 18 months. You know the plan of BoJo from 19 July.

Do you think there will be another lockdown this year? If yes when?

I honestly don’t know. I do know the UK is taking a huge gamble. I also think that even if a lockdown is avoided there will be a huge collateral cost to the health of the nation (both covid-related and non-covid related) from the government’s refusal to delay the full reopening.

The uk electorate will have to live with the decisions of the uk government. And I don’t live there (any more) so that’s not my business. What will really boil my piss though will be if the decision to allow covid run riot in a partially vaccinated population ends up spinning off a variant that is as contagious but more vaccine resistant than delta. Because if you wanted to create a variant like that, these are exactly the conditions you’d expect to incubate it.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Are you really not convinced at this point whether the vaccines prevent hospitalisation? You’ve shared loads of evidence suggesting they do, so that’s a huge dose of scepticism to pour over that evidence! Especially when there’s a plausible alternative explanation that already fits into your broader risk assessment: millions of people still being unvaccinated.

They reduce hospitalisation. They don’t prevent it. We’ve seen the PHE data on deaths and hospital admissions. We know for a fact that at least some vaccinated people are ending up in hospital/dead. At this stage the only unknown is how many more will follow that same path.