How many have been vaccinated so far?

[Newc]

ghost83 said:

Anyone else looking forward to seeing our vaccination numbers just start to go stratospheric

Anyone else feel like we are just that bit closer to freedom once they’ve hit the 32m

Was done this week. Just shy of 50, no special conditions, got a text from the GP, and could book both appointments online. Second one set for late May. Central London.

Went up to Lords for it and there were a lot of people in the 40-60 range I'd say. Four extra centres are just opening near me so my second jab is a 5 minute stroll from my house. It looks like they're getting ready to really ramp up.

In other news, holiday flights to Greece booked for June and the US for October.

[otolith]

Cold said:

A similar number to what we have today. Virus is gonna virus.

Really? You think everyone who would have been infected has been infected? On what basis?

[Zoobeef]

oyster said:

1. To help reduce spread of Covid, thereby enabling society to open up faster and return to normality sooner.

Edited by oyster on Saturday 6th March 23:14

Ahhh, you're one of those people.

[anonymous-user]

Data starting to show vaccine not only prevents serious illness in those vaccinated but also significantly reduces infection of them in the first place, reduces viral load in those who are infected and reduces transmission from those vaccinated and infected. The antivax argument that they aren't effective on all fronts, based on a previous lack of evidence, is crumbling fast as the data comes in.

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2021/03/04...

[isaldiri]

otolith said:

Cold said:

A similar number to what we have today. Virus is gonna virus.

Really? You think everyone who would have been infected has been infected? On what basis?

Given infection rates were falling (certainly in lockdown 1 and 2 and slowing before 3 at minimum) before the most intensive restrictions were mandated like the stay at home or everyone dies nonsense, there is at least some doubt whether the lockdowns significantly affected the course of the outbreak.

[Boringvolvodriver]

fblm said:

Data starting to show vaccine not only prevents serious illness in those vaccinated but also significantly reduces infection of them in the first place, reduces viral load in those who are infected and reduces transmission from those vaccinated and infected. The antivax argument that they aren't effective on all fronts, based on a previous lack of evidence, is crumbling fast as the data comes in.

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2021/03/04...

Which is good news indeed. Slightly disingenuous to use the phrase anti vax though. I am not anti vax, I just prefer to have all the facts in front of me before I put something into my body and ideally not be part of an extended trial that goes on to 2023.

I am also going on the basis of a NHS leaflet that says I don’t actually need the vaccine as I am not in one of the groups that according to said leaflet “should have the vaccine”

[Muddle238]

isaldiri said:

otolith said:

Cold said:

A similar number to what we have today. Virus is gonna virus.

Really? You think everyone who would have been infected has been infected? On what basis?

Given infection rates were falling (certainly in lockdown 1 and 2 and slowing before 3 at minimum) before the most intensive restrictions were mandated like the stay at home or everyone dies nonsense, there is at least some doubt whether the lockdowns significantly affected the course of the outbreak.

I have no doubt that lockdown significantly helps reduce transmission. When you look at a graph showing new daily cases in the UK, the declines correlate directly with the dates of lockdown. See below, there’s a clear decline during November when we had the short “circuit breaker” lockdown, followed by a consistent decline since early Jan when the current lockdown began:




So for me, no doubt whatsoever that lockdown has significantly affected the course of the outbreak.

[isaldiri]

Muddle238 said:

I have no doubt that lockdown significantly helps reduce transmission. When you look at a graph showing new daily cases in the UK, the declines correlate directly with the dates of lockdown. See below, there’s a clear decline during November when we had the short “circuit breaker” lockdown, followed by a consistent decline since early Jan when the current lockdown began:




So for me, no doubt whatsoever that lockdown has significantly affected the course of the outbreak.

Look a little more carefully at when they starting turning. 5 day incubation period estimated, -> Infections were falling before the start of lockdown 2. And had slowed right down before lockdown 1 in spring. Which fell everywhere in Europe regardless of restrictions. Zoe app infection tracker very clearly shows this for nov. Tier3 restrictions in the NW were working. The zoe app has been even better than the ONS infection survey in forecasting infection rates over the whole autumn. Less clear in jan i agree but rate of increase definitely had fallen as well albeit not decreasing.

And one could plausibly argue lockdown 2 shifted the problem to dec making everyone mix around even more as well having been shut in over nov....

[anonymous-user]

Boringvolvodriver said:

Which is good news indeed. Slightly disingenuous to use the phrase anti vax though. I am not anti vax, I just prefer to have all the facts in front of me before I put something into my body and ideally not be part of an extended trial that goes on to 2023.

I am also going on the basis of a NHS leaflet that says I don’t actually need the vaccine as I am not in one of the groups that according to said leaflet “should have the vaccine”

That leaflet was produced in November 2020 when vaccine was in very limited supply. It was aimed at making the most vulnerable aware of their need to vaccinate in the early stages.

The list was for people most at risk, it wasnt an exclusion of others not in that list advice piece.

Everyone is at risk to be either ill or to be a carrier, if you are using that leaflet as a crotch to justify your reluctance to have the jab, thats not very smart understanding of the situation or the document.

[Boringvolvodriver]

jsf said:

That leaflet was produced in November 2020 when vaccine was in very limited supply. It was aimed at making the most vulnerable aware of their need to vaccinate in the early stages.

The list was for people most at risk, it wasnt an exclusion of others not in that list advice piece.

Everyone is at risk to be either ill or to be a carrier, if you are using that leaflet as a crotch to justify your reluctance to have the jab, thats not very smart understanding of the situation or the document.

So why are they still sending it out with the letters then? I got my letter this week and the leaflet I have in front of me is dated Feb 21.

I accept that every one has a risk to be ill - based on all the information I have seen and knowing my own health situation, my risk assessment is that I have an extremely low risk of becoming seriously ill. If I had symptoms then I would not go out.

If the vaccine works as it should, then there is no requirement for all the population to be vaccinated. Now If the CFR and IFR were a lot higher, then that would be a different situation.

Edited by Boringvolvodriver on Sunday 7th March 10:48

[Newc]

Boringvolvodriver said:

jsf said:

That leaflet was produced in November 2020 when vaccine was in very limited supply. It was aimed at making the most vulnerable aware of their need to vaccinate in the early stages.

The list was for people most at risk, it wasnt an exclusion of others not in that list advice piece.

Everyone is at risk to be either ill or to be a carrier, if you are using that leaflet as a crotch to justify your reluctance to have the jab, thats not very smart understanding of the situation or the document.

So why are they still sending it out with the letters then? I got my letter this week and the leaflet I have in front of me is dated Feb 21.

I accept that every one has a risk to be ill - based on all the information I have seen and knowing my own health situation, my risk assessment is that I have an extremely low risk of becoming seriously ill. If I had symptoms then I would not go out.

If the vaccine works as it should, then there is no requirement for all the population to be vaccinated. Now If the CFR and IFR were a lot higher, then that would be a different situation.

Is it the science you're having difficulty understanding, or the maths ? Either way, plenty of smart people on here who can probably give you some pointers.

Ultimately of course it is your sole decision. Just as it is the sole decision of other countries not to let you travel there, or the UK to require you to isolate on your return, or owners of pubs, restaurants, theatres, and venues to refuse you entry, or the health service to direct you only to certain facilities which may be a long way away, or employers to offer different employment conditions and benefits packages.

[otolith]

isaldiri said:

otolith said:

Cold said:

A similar number to what we have today. Virus is gonna virus.

Really? You think everyone who would have been infected has been infected? On what basis?

Given infection rates were falling (certainly in lockdown 1 and 2 and slowing before 3 at minimum) before the most intensive restrictions were mandated like the stay at home or everyone dies nonsense, there is at least some doubt whether the lockdowns significantly affected the course of the outbreak.

Is your contention that we would have had the same number of infections had we continued business as usual? I'm not asking whether "the most intensive restrictions" made a difference versus the baseline of what we did between them, I'm asking whether we would have had the same number of infections (and therefore deaths) had we done absolutely nothing, like we do in a bad flu season.

[smashing]

Newc said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

jsf said:

That leaflet was produced in November 2020 when vaccine was in very limited supply. It was aimed at making the most vulnerable aware of their need to vaccinate in the early stages.

The list was for people most at risk, it wasnt an exclusion of others not in that list advice piece.

Everyone is at risk to be either ill or to be a carrier, if you are using that leaflet as a crotch to justify your reluctance to have the jab, thats not very smart understanding of the situation or the document.

So why are they still sending it out with the letters then? I got my letter this week and the leaflet I have in front of me is dated Feb 21.

I accept that every one has a risk to be ill - based on all the information I have seen and knowing my own health situation, my risk assessment is that I have an extremely low risk of becoming seriously ill. If I had symptoms then I would not go out.

If the vaccine works as it should, then there is no requirement for all the population to be vaccinated. Now If the CFR and IFR were a lot higher, then that would be a different situation.

Is it the science you're having difficulty understanding, or the maths ? Either way, plenty of smart people on here who can probably give you some pointers.

Ultimately of course it is your sole decision. Just as it is the sole decision of other countries not to let you travel there, or the UK to require you to isolate on your return, or owners of pubs, restaurants, theatres, and venues to refuse you entry, or the health service to direct you only to certain facilities which may be a long way away, or employers to offer different employment conditions and benefits packages.

countries can do what they like with regard to access but creating a two tier society as you've described is genuinely scary...but hey if we are going down this route there are a lot of other conditions we should place on people to save them from themselves...be careful what you wish for

[otolith]

smashing said:

countries can do what they like with regard to access but creating a two tier society as you've described is genuinely scary...but hey if we are going down this route there are a lot of other conditions we should place on people to save them from themselves...be careful what you wish for

We already have a two-tier system - try getting and keeping a good job if you have an ideological objection to the concept of personal hygiene.

[smashing]

otolith said:

smashing said:

countries can do what they like with regard to access but creating a two tier society as you've described is genuinely scary...but hey if we are going down this route there are a lot of other conditions we should place on people to save them from themselves...be careful what you wish for

We already have a two-tier system - try getting and keeping a good job if you have an ideological objection to the concept of personal hygiene.

You've obviously not worked with some of the people I have.

[Boringvolvodriver]

smashing said:

countries can do what they like with regard to access but creating a two tier society as you've described is genuinely scary...but hey if we are going down this route there are a lot of other conditions we should place on people to save them from themselves...be careful what you wish for

Exactly this - whilst it has been discussed before, why don’t we make people who are obese pay for NHS treatment because, you know, they have exercised their free will as to what they have put into their bodies.

Discrimination takes all forms and in a supposedly free western society, restricting access to certain things based on what one has chosen to do or what medical procedure you have chosen to have, should be abhorrent to any right minded person.

[spikeyhead]

and can we please keep this thread to "how many people have been vaccinated"

[Vasco]

Boringvolvodriver said:

fblm said:

Data starting to show vaccine not only prevents serious illness in those vaccinated but also significantly reduces infection of them in the first place, reduces viral load in those who are infected and reduces transmission from those vaccinated and infected. The antivax argument that they aren't effective on all fronts, based on a previous lack of evidence, is crumbling fast as the data comes in.

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2021/03/04...

Which is good news indeed. Slightly disingenuous to use the phrase anti vax though. I am not anti vax, I just prefer to have all the facts in front of me before I put something into my body and ideally not be part of an extended trial that goes on to 2023.

I am also going on the basis of a NHS leaflet that says I don’t actually need the vaccine as I am not in one of the groups that according to said leaflet “should have the vaccine”

Excellent - so you don't believe it will help you. Perhaps leave this thread to others if you have no real contribution?

[ghost83]

Good numbers again

[anonymous-user]

Boringvolvodriver said:

fblm said:

Data starting to show vaccine not only prevents serious illness in those vaccinated but also significantly reduces infection of them in the first place, reduces viral load in those who are infected and reduces transmission from those vaccinated and infected. The antivax argument that they aren't effective on all fronts, based on a previous lack of evidence, is crumbling fast as the data comes in.

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2021/03/04...

Which is good news indeed. Slightly disingenuous to use the phrase anti vax though. I am not anti vax, I just prefer to have all the facts in front of me before I put something into my body and ideally not be part of an extended trial that goes on to 2023.

I am also going on the basis of a NHS leaflet that says I don’t actually need the vaccine as I am not in one of the groups that according to said leaflet “should have the vaccine”

Hmm, you seem to have failed to have grasped the relevance of the data now coming out. The vaccines reduce infections and reduce transmission, not just prevent severe illness. The fewer hosts we give it the fewer chances of further mutation. But sure it's all about your choice. You're not antivax you're just anti this vax, heard it all before.

ETA this idea that the vaccine is untested and you don't want to be a part of an "extended trial" ignores the fact that you're already a participant in a massive uncontrolled experiment to create an ever more infectious virus; the vaccine is your chance to opt out of that experiment. Or not.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 7th March 16:25