How many have been vaccinated so far?
Discussion
Interested to see your model. Last year infections fell off a cliff while things were semi-open; this summer I'd expected the unvaccinated to still apply a modicum of caution commensurate with the risk to them (e.g. if you're a fat blob maybe go easy on snogging random strangers!).
In any event, the ONS has figures that the 15-44 age range is 30 times less likely to be admitted to hospital:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...
25.5 Million in the 15-44 bracket, so to hit 40000 in hospital would need 0.15% to be admitted.
Amusingly there's 26.5 million over 45, so the 40000 admitted at peak was also 0.15%
It's also worth noting that 15-44 year olds would have been more likely to be exposed to the virus as they are the age range most likely to have to still be working (and exposed through their children etc.)
So to see the same peak admission numbers, my simplistic assumption would be that dropping lockdown would have to increase transmission by at least 30x, which seems highly unrealistic when the unmitigated "R0" has been estimated at around 2.6 (nowhere near 30). And that R0 assumes no prior immunity, which if infection rate calculations are accurate is also unrealistic.
In any event, the ONS has figures that the 15-44 age range is 30 times less likely to be admitted to hospital:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...
25.5 Million in the 15-44 bracket, so to hit 40000 in hospital would need 0.15% to be admitted.
Amusingly there's 26.5 million over 45, so the 40000 admitted at peak was also 0.15%
It's also worth noting that 15-44 year olds would have been more likely to be exposed to the virus as they are the age range most likely to have to still be working (and exposed through their children etc.)
So to see the same peak admission numbers, my simplistic assumption would be that dropping lockdown would have to increase transmission by at least 30x, which seems highly unrealistic when the unmitigated "R0" has been estimated at around 2.6 (nowhere near 30). And that R0 assumes no prior immunity, which if infection rate calculations are accurate is also unrealistic.
Flooble said:
Interested to see your model. Last year infections fell off a cliff while things were semi-open; this summer I'd expected the unvaccinated to still apply a modicum of caution commensurate with the risk to them (e.g. if you're a fat blob maybe go easy on snogging random strangers!).
In any event, the ONS has figures that the 15-44 age range is 30 times less likely to be admitted to hospital:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...
25.5 Million in the 15-44 bracket, so to hit 40000 in hospital would need 0.15% to be admitted.
Amusingly there's 26.5 million over 45, so the 40000 admitted at peak was also 0.15%
It's also worth noting that 15-44 year olds would have been more likely to be exposed to the virus as they are the age range most likely to have to still be working (and exposed through their children etc.)
So to see the same peak admission numbers, my simplistic assumption would be that dropping lockdown would have to increase transmission by at least 30x, which seems highly unrealistic when the unmitigated "R0" has been estimated at around 2.6 (nowhere near 30). And that R0 assumes no prior immunity, which if infection rate calculations are accurate is also unrealistic.
I like your maths. How accurate I couldn’t say, but any glimmer of hope that suggests things are improving is welcome in my book. In any event, the ONS has figures that the 15-44 age range is 30 times less likely to be admitted to hospital:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...
25.5 Million in the 15-44 bracket, so to hit 40000 in hospital would need 0.15% to be admitted.
Amusingly there's 26.5 million over 45, so the 40000 admitted at peak was also 0.15%
It's also worth noting that 15-44 year olds would have been more likely to be exposed to the virus as they are the age range most likely to have to still be working (and exposed through their children etc.)
So to see the same peak admission numbers, my simplistic assumption would be that dropping lockdown would have to increase transmission by at least 30x, which seems highly unrealistic when the unmitigated "R0" has been estimated at around 2.6 (nowhere near 30). And that R0 assumes no prior immunity, which if infection rate calculations are accurate is also unrealistic.
Flooble said:
Interested to see your model. Last year infections fell off a cliff while things were semi-open; this summer I'd expected the unvaccinated to still apply a modicum of caution commensurate with the risk to them (e.g. if you're a fat blob maybe go easy on snogging random strangers!).
In any event, the ONS has figures that the 15-44 age range is 30 times less likely to be admitted to hospital:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...
25.5 Million in the 15-44 bracket, so to hit 40000 in hospital would need 0.15% to be admitted.
Amusingly there's 26.5 million over 45, so the 40000 admitted at peak was also 0.15%
It's also worth noting that 15-44 year olds would have been more likely to be exposed to the virus as they are the age range most likely to have to still be working (and exposed through their children etc.)
So to see the same peak admission numbers, my simplistic assumption would be that dropping lockdown would have to increase transmission by at least 30x, which seems highly unrealistic when the unmitigated "R0" has been estimated at around 2.6 (nowhere near 30). And that R0 assumes no prior immunity, which if infection rate calculations are accurate is also unrealistic.
and now repeat your sums for the under 55's as I had stated, not the under 45sIn any event, the ONS has figures that the 15-44 age range is 30 times less likely to be admitted to hospital:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...
25.5 Million in the 15-44 bracket, so to hit 40000 in hospital would need 0.15% to be admitted.
Amusingly there's 26.5 million over 45, so the 40000 admitted at peak was also 0.15%
It's also worth noting that 15-44 year olds would have been more likely to be exposed to the virus as they are the age range most likely to have to still be working (and exposed through their children etc.)
So to see the same peak admission numbers, my simplistic assumption would be that dropping lockdown would have to increase transmission by at least 30x, which seems highly unrealistic when the unmitigated "R0" has been estimated at around 2.6 (nowhere near 30). And that R0 assumes no prior immunity, which if infection rate calculations are accurate is also unrealistic.
Flooble said:
spikeyhead said:
and now repeat your sums for the under 55's as I had stated, not the under 45s
Perhaps you would care to post your model? However that simply shows under those assumptions it's possible. Actual data suggests it's rather quite unlikely......
isaldiri said:
To be fair, it's probably not entirely as stupid a suggestion as one might have initially thought. Hospitalisation rate of ~1% for the 18-55 group, about 30m people in that group. If one runs a very crude model making no allowance for existing infection and the blind assumption transmission goes back to the natural R0 without any slackening due to summer (that everyone in the northern hemisphere showed last year) it is possible to get to infection rates that mean similar numbers of people are in hospital.
However that simply shows under those assumptions it's possible. Actual data suggests it's rather quite unlikely......
As always a well balanced post - thank you. My initial thought was that given the ages of those being hospitalized, then to get those levels with the under 55s would not be possible.However that simply shows under those assumptions it's possible. Actual data suggests it's rather quite unlikely......
As a side note, I received my invitation for the vaccine yesterday and in the accompanying NHS leaflet it clearly states that “you should have the Covid 19 Vaccine if you are
An adult living or working in a care home for the elderly
A frontline health care or social care worker
A carer in domiciliary care looking after older adults
Aged 65 or older
Younger adults with long term clinical conditions - see next page with a list”
Given that I do not fit any of the above criteria, why should I have the vaccine and why do the NHS think that I should when the guidance says otherwise?
Maybe they think that most people won’t read the accompanying leaflet?
Lord Marylebone said:
MiniMan64 said:
dickymint said:
One death reported in Wales today.
Total UK numbers? They must be getting low as I can't find them reported anywhere! We seem to be fluctuating at around 100-300 deaths per day for the UK.
Definitely time to get moving again.
Lord Marylebone said:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/...
We seem to be fluctuating at around 100-300 deaths per day for the UK.
Really?We seem to be fluctuating at around 100-300 deaths per day for the UK.
Boringvolvodriver said:
As always a well balanced post - thank you. My initial thought was that given the ages of those being hospitalized, then to get those levels with the under 55s would not be possible.
As a side note, I received my invitation for the vaccine yesterday and in the accompanying NHS leaflet it clearly states that “you should have the Covid 19 Vaccine if you are
An adult living or working in a care home for the elderly
A frontline health care or social care worker
A carer in domiciliary care looking after older adults
Aged 65 or older
Younger adults with long term clinical conditions - see next page with a list”
Given that I do not fit any of the above criteria, why should I have the vaccine and why do the NHS think that I should when the guidance says otherwise?
Maybe they think that most people won’t read the accompanying leaflet?
Don’t do it!!As a side note, I received my invitation for the vaccine yesterday and in the accompanying NHS leaflet it clearly states that “you should have the Covid 19 Vaccine if you are
An adult living or working in a care home for the elderly
A frontline health care or social care worker
A carer in domiciliary care looking after older adults
Aged 65 or older
Younger adults with long term clinical conditions - see next page with a list”
Given that I do not fit any of the above criteria, why should I have the vaccine and why do the NHS think that I should when the guidance says otherwise?
Maybe they think that most people won’t read the accompanying leaflet?
I noticed this morning I now have extra fingers and toes starting to grow!!
Ahonen said:
A friend of ours in Lincolnshire received her invitation to be vaccinated yesterday. She's 39, in perfect health and works as an accountant. She, like us, is very surprised and can't believe that everyone older than her in her village has already been jabbed.
It's possible there is an error in her records (error when records were transcribed from paper to electronic) or she had a childhood condition (e.g asthma) that has caused her to be flagged? vaud said:
Ahonen said:
A friend of ours in Lincolnshire received her invitation to be vaccinated yesterday. She's 39, in perfect health and works as an accountant. She, like us, is very surprised and can't believe that everyone older than her in her village has already been jabbed.
It's possible there is an error in her records (error when records were transcribed from paper to electronic) or she had a childhood condition (e.g asthma) that has caused her to be flagged? Alucidnation said:
The better half has just received her invite for the vaccination, but she got a letter.
I got a text with a link that took me straight to the booking page.
We are both registered at the same docs as well.
Seems to be a mixture of the systems on the go.I got a text with a link that took me straight to the booking page.
We are both registered at the same docs as well.
Locally (Wiltshire) it seems to be a fairly generic, presumably national, NHS letter first which ends up pointing you to online booking at a super centre, followed up reasonably quickly by a text/call from the local GP offering an appointment at the actual GP or other local location.
My guess is, if you've already been contacted locally because they're doing well in the area, the central letter may never arrive.
In these parts a lot of folk are ignoring the central NHS letter as the nearest super centre is quite some distance away (none in the county) and word has got round that it's rarely a week at most before you get contacted by your GP for a local appointment, that is typically before the earliest available super centre one anyway.
Not a complaint, by the way, the system seems to be working and offers the choice of travelling further away if you're able, or waiting a small amount of additional time for an appointment within a couple of miles at most.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff