How many have been vaccinated so far?
Discussion
tertius said:
Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? It may perfectly well be that the current level of vaccination doesn't provide acceptable protection against cases/hospitalisations/etc. (however you choose to measure or judge it) - but some higher level will without necessarily going so far as eradication.
The UK already has over 90% of over 50s vaccinated. They are by far the group that has been dying and filling up hospitals. How much further are you proposing to go in terms of vaccination if the current level is not acceptable?isaldiri said:
tertius said:
Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? It may perfectly well be that the current level of vaccination doesn't provide acceptable protection against cases/hospitalisations/etc. (however you choose to measure or judge it) - but some higher level will without necessarily going so far as eradication.
The UK already has over 90% of over 50s vaccinated. They are by far the group that has been dying and filling up hospitals. How much further are you proposing to go in terms of vaccination if the current level is not acceptable?Slight sidetrack, but how would you feel if by limited vaccine deployment, we 'brew' a variant that you are actually scared by? As those unvaxxed won't be dying in large numbers, but they will be hosting/replicating/spreading in an environment which creates evolutionary pressure on the virus to bypass extant vaccines.
Note, that's not me asking how likely you think that is, cause frankly I don't care - but I've generally found it's really easy for people to play the hard nosed economics warrior when they feel they're safe...
First second total jabs today
129,782 417,683 547,465
If R =4 then we need 75% of people to have immunity or numbers will grow again.
There's currently a backlog of 4.7 million hospital treatments, and if hospitals have to worry about covid disruptions then that number will grow and not shrink.
129,782 417,683 547,465
isaldiri said:
The UK already has over 90% of over 50s vaccinated. They are by far the group that has been dying and filling up hospitals. How much further are you proposing to go in terms of vaccination if the current level is not acceptable?
they are by far the group that has been dying, but there's still been plenty of under 50s in hospital. We're currently in a decent position, everything heading in a good direction. Best case scenario with R=3 and 67% vaccinated with 100% efficacy or immune from past infection then once the jabs have been in for the necessary three weeks then we should be able to lift all restrictions.If R =4 then we need 75% of people to have immunity or numbers will grow again.
There's currently a backlog of 4.7 million hospital treatments, and if hospitals have to worry about covid disruptions then that number will grow and not shrink.
isaldiri said:
tertius said:
Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? It may perfectly well be that the current level of vaccination doesn't provide acceptable protection against cases/hospitalisations/etc. (however you choose to measure or judge it) - but some higher level will without necessarily going so far as eradication.
The UK already has over 90% of over 50s vaccinated. They are by far the group that has been dying and filling up hospitals. How much further are you proposing to go in terms of vaccination if the current level is not acceptable?isaldiri said:
tertius said:
Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? It may perfectly well be that the current level of vaccination doesn't provide acceptable protection against cases/hospitalisations/etc. (however you choose to measure or judge it) - but some higher level will without necessarily going so far as eradication.
The UK already has over 90% of over 50s vaccinated. They are by far the group that has been dying and filling up hospitals. How much further are you proposing to go in terms of vaccination if the current level is not acceptable?spikeyhead said:
First second total jabs today
129,782 417,683 547,465
If R =4 then we need 75% of people to have immunity or numbers will grow again.
There's currently a backlog of 4.7 million hospital treatments, and if hospitals have to worry about covid disruptions then that number will grow and not shrink.
The most recent data on gov.U.K (14 April) says that there were 2,291 people in hospital with Covid - down from 3,019 seven day’s earlier.129,782 417,683 547,465
isaldiri said:
The UK already has over 90% of over 50s vaccinated. They are by far the group that has been dying and filling up hospitals. How much further are you proposing to go in terms of vaccination if the current level is not acceptable?
they are by far the group that has been dying, but there's still been plenty of under 50s in hospital. We're currently in a decent position, everything heading in a good direction. Best case scenario with R=3 and 67% vaccinated with 100% efficacy or immune from past infection then once the jabs have been in for the necessary three weeks then we should be able to lift all restrictions.If R =4 then we need 75% of people to have immunity or numbers will grow again.
There's currently a backlog of 4.7 million hospital treatments, and if hospitals have to worry about covid disruptions then that number will grow and not shrink.
Do, when you say there are ‘plenty’ of under 50s in hospital, how many do you mean
rover 623gsi said:
The most recent data on gov.U.K (14 April) says that there were 2,291 people in hospital with Covid - down from 3,019 seven day’s earlier.
Do, when you say there are ‘plenty’ of under 50s in hospital, how many do you mean
I did not say that, I said that there have been...Do, when you say there are ‘plenty’ of under 50s in hospital, how many do you mean
rover 623gsi said:
spikeyhead said:
First second total jabs today
129,782 417,683 547,465
If R =4 then we need 75% of people to have immunity or numbers will grow again.
There's currently a backlog of 4.7 million hospital treatments, and if hospitals have to worry about covid disruptions then that number will grow and not shrink.
The most recent data on gov.U.K (14 April) says that there were 2,291 people in hospital with Covid - down from 3,019 seven day’s earlier.129,782 417,683 547,465
isaldiri said:
The UK already has over 90% of over 50s vaccinated. They are by far the group that has been dying and filling up hospitals. How much further are you proposing to go in terms of vaccination if the current level is not acceptable?
they are by far the group that has been dying, but there's still been plenty of under 50s in hospital. We're currently in a decent position, everything heading in a good direction. Best case scenario with R=3 and 67% vaccinated with 100% efficacy or immune from past infection then once the jabs have been in for the necessary three weeks then we should be able to lift all restrictions.If R =4 then we need 75% of people to have immunity or numbers will grow again.
There's currently a backlog of 4.7 million hospital treatments, and if hospitals have to worry about covid disruptions then that number will grow and not shrink.
Do, when you say there are ‘plenty’ of under 50s in hospital, how many do you mean
At this point, when we've pretty much protected the people for whom Covid is a serious risk, it's hospital admission numbers that count, not number of cases.
Or alternatively, we used to have millions of cases of flu every year, but we tolerated that without any restrictions because the number of hospital admissions from flu was in the tens of thousands.
We are at the point now where Covid is as dangerous to our population as the flu.
youngsyr said:
And this is the issue, the government aren't making it particularly clear that 1 million cases in under 15s carries a much lower risk than 10,000 cases amongst over 80s.
At this point, when we've pretty much protected the people for whom Covid is a serious risk, it's hospital admission numbers that count, not number of cases.
Or alternatively, we used to have millions of cases of flu every year, but we tolerated that without any restrictions because the number of hospital admissions from flu was in the tens of thousands.
We are at the point now where Covid is as dangerous to our population as the flu.
I'd agree, with the qualifier of 'currently'...At this point, when we've pretty much protected the people for whom Covid is a serious risk, it's hospital admission numbers that count, not number of cases.
Or alternatively, we used to have millions of cases of flu every year, but we tolerated that without any restrictions because the number of hospital admissions from flu was in the tens of thousands.
We are at the point now where Covid is as dangerous to our population as the flu.
Of course, the current status is why we're already opening back up and really not long now until 'normality'.
Sway said:
Slight sidetrack, but how would you feel if by limited vaccine deployment, we 'brew' a variant that you are actually scared by? As those unvaxxed won't be dying in large numbers, but they will be hosting/replicating/spreading in an environment which creates evolutionary pressure on the virus to bypass extant vaccines.
Note, that's not me asking how likely you think that is, cause frankly I don't care - but I've generally found it's really easy for people to play the hard nosed economics warrior when they feel they're safe...
Sorry exactly how do you brew this super scary variant where the unvaxxed are still not dying in large numbers? What then would be so scary?Note, that's not me asking how likely you think that is, cause frankly I don't care - but I've generally found it's really easy for people to play the hard nosed economics warrior when they feel they're safe...
Ultimately large numbers of vaccinated people are the ones that will at some point ensure the existence of an escape variant because of selection pressure. That won't happen due to unvaccinated people because there is no advantage in the virus bypassing the vaccines in those. And even so the more vaccine resistant variants are still capable of being neutralised by existing antibodies and have been shown to largely trigger t cell recognition. As long as protection from severe disease still exists why does a escape variant causing mild symptomatic illness at higher rates matter?
isaldiri said:
Sway said:
Slight sidetrack, but how would you feel if by limited vaccine deployment, we 'brew' a variant that you are actually scared by? As those unvaxxed won't be dying in large numbers, but they will be hosting/replicating/spreading in an environment which creates evolutionary pressure on the virus to bypass extant vaccines.
Note, that's not me asking how likely you think that is, cause frankly I don't care - but I've generally found it's really easy for people to play the hard nosed economics warrior when they feel they're safe...
Sorry exactly how do you brew this super scary variant where the unvaxxed are still not dying in large numbers? What then would be so scary?Note, that's not me asking how likely you think that is, cause frankly I don't care - but I've generally found it's really easy for people to play the hard nosed economics warrior when they feel they're safe...
Ultimately large numbers of vaccinated people are the ones that will at some point ensure the existence of an escape variant because of selection pressure. That won't happen due to unvaccinated people because there is no advantage in the virus bypassing the vaccines in those. And even so the more vaccine resistant variants are still capable of being neutralised by existing antibodies and have been shown to largely trigger t cell recognition. As long as protection from severe disease still exists why does a escape variant causing mild symptomatic illness at higher rates matter?
isaldiri said:
<apologies for edit>
As long as protection from severe disease still exists why does a escape variant causing mild symptomatic illness at higher rates matter?
Come on Isaldiri, get with the programme. Don't you realise that all "variants of concern" are highly transmissible, super deadly, affect the young - especially the marathon runners - and will evade every vaccine? Especially if originating somewhere exotic like Brazil, India or Bali.As long as protection from severe disease still exists why does a escape variant causing mild symptomatic illness at higher rates matter?
Therefore, you must do exactly what the government says, at all times. And for pity's sake WEAR YOUR MASK, even when asleep, or you will KILL MY GRANNY.
DFS are going to launch a new range of "wrap around" really protective sofas for everyone to hide behind. You heard it here first.
tertius said:
I’m sorry but that bit in bold is completely wrong - there is no intelligence that drives mutations it is pure chance and the more opportunities that the virus has to multiply the more chances there are of undesirable mutations occurring, and the more unvaccinated people there are the more opportunities there will be. People who have been successfully vaccinated are closed paths to the virus and stop that replication opportunity - THAT is why the more that are vaccinated the better for all of us.
How so? The virus needs to generate a mutation that can avoid the spike protein resistance generated by the vaccines in order to transmit amongst the vaccinated so there is selection pressure to do so. Are you denying that?Now your argument is that blanket reduction of transmission means that is less likely to happen. Which is true as well but then it becomes a question of whether the probability of a completely random mutation amongst higher transmission is larger than the probability of much more focused vaccine resistance but in a scenario of lower transmission is more likely. That's....not obvious unless as I pointed out your target is a zero covid world which seems to make you accuse me of scaremongering when I'm simply pointing out what your preferred strategy ultimately leads to. Especially given vaccine provided sterilising immunity isn't likely to be long term.
isaldiri said:
Sway said:
Slight sidetrack, but how would you feel if by limited vaccine deployment, we 'brew' a variant that you are actually scared by? As those unvaxxed won't be dying in large numbers, but they will be hosting/replicating/spreading in an environment which creates evolutionary pressure on the virus to bypass extant vaccines.
Note, that's not me asking how likely you think that is, cause frankly I don't care - but I've generally found it's really easy for people to play the hard nosed economics warrior when they feel they're safe...
Sorry exactly how do you brew this super scary variant where the unvaxxed are still not dying in large numbers? What then would be so scary?Note, that's not me asking how likely you think that is, cause frankly I don't care - but I've generally found it's really easy for people to play the hard nosed economics warrior when they feel they're safe...
Ultimately large numbers of vaccinated people are the ones that will at some point ensure the existence of an escape variant because of selection pressure. That won't happen due to unvaccinated people because there is no advantage in the virus bypassing the vaccines in those. And even so the more vaccine resistant variants are still capable of being neutralised by existing antibodies and have been shown to largely trigger t cell recognition. As long as protection from severe disease still exists why does a escape variant causing mild symptomatic illness at higher rates matter?
Those unvaccinated by definition support greater viral loads post infection, and therefore significantly greated opportunities for mutation.
The only person who has come up with the idea of a mutation that "where the unvaxxed still aren't dying in large numbers" . That's a strawman invented to support your point.
As I said, I'm not interested in your opinion of the likelihood of it occurring - I'm asking how would you feel if it did, based on your vehement position currently that it's all OK and there's nothing to worry about... I note you didn't answer that bit.
isaldiri said:
tertius said:
I’m sorry but that bit in bold is completely wrong - there is no intelligence that drives mutations it is pure chance and the more opportunities that the virus has to multiply the more chances there are of undesirable mutations occurring, and the more unvaccinated people there are the more opportunities there will be. People who have been successfully vaccinated are closed paths to the virus and stop that replication opportunity - THAT is why the more that are vaccinated the better for all of us.
How so? The virus needs to generate a mutation that can avoid the spike protein resistance generated by the vaccines in order to transmit amongst the vaccinated so there is selection pressure to do so. Are you denying that?Now your argument is that blanket reduction of transmission means that is less likely to happen. Which is true as well but then it becomes a question of whether the probability of a completely random mutation amongst higher transmission is larger than the probability of much more focusedvaccine resistance but in a scenario of lower transmission is more likely. That's....not obvious unless as I pointed out your target is a zero covid world which seems to make you accuse me of scaremongering when I'm simply pointing out what your preferred strategy ultimately leads to. Especially given vaccine provided sterilising immunity isn't likely to be long term.
And I am not accusing of you of scaremongering for highlighting the absurdity of a zero Covid strategy (which I have never espoused by the way, though if you disagree please show me where) I accuse you of scaremongering when you present it as a binary choice: either what we have achieved today OR zero Covid ... rather I think there is a spectrum of possibilities between those two positions.
We have a defined roadmap back to something like normality, part of that roadmap includes continuing to both make the vaccine available and encouraging people to take it.
Sway said:
Every single replication has the chance to create an exceptional mutation that either a) bypasses vaccine protection, B) increases mortality or c) both.
Those unvaccinated by definition support greater viral loads post infection, and therefore significantly greated opportunities for mutation.
The only person who has come up with the idea of a mutation that "where the unvaxxed still aren't dying in large numbers" . That's a strawman invented to support your point.
As I said, I'm not interested in your opinion of the likelihood of it occurring - I'm asking how would you feel if it did, based on your vehement position currently that it's all OK and there's nothing to worry about... I note you didn't answer that bit.
Er because that is exactly what you stated that t'he unvaxxed won't be dying in large numbers' in your earlier post. I didn't 'invent a strawman' as your post wasn't exactly clear which is why I didn't answer it. Those unvaccinated by definition support greater viral loads post infection, and therefore significantly greated opportunities for mutation.
The only person who has come up with the idea of a mutation that "where the unvaxxed still aren't dying in large numbers" . That's a strawman invented to support your point.
As I said, I'm not interested in your opinion of the likelihood of it occurring - I'm asking how would you feel if it did, based on your vehement position currently that it's all OK and there's nothing to worry about... I note you didn't answer that bit.
Just to make clear, what is your super scary variant actually going to be doing then? that it kills everyone full stop or just those who are vaccinated?
And given the likelihood of something occuring is to me at least actually important with regards to what I might or might not feel about it, if you are demanding that I ignore that likelihood it becomes a little hard for me to answer your question as you are inventing all kinds of fantastical scenarios.
As I said, in centuries of hcov infections amongst humans it hasn't turned out a super mutant variant that kills people at the rate of the black death or something like that. I'm a little curious why it is such a worry that sars-cov2 (well on it's way to being hcov5) will do so despite not having turned out anything particularly special in a little over a year of merrily infecting people whereby it's probably gone through 10-15% of the global population.
And I repeat, your post implies you wish to forever ensure infections are kept to a minimum to ensure no 'super scary variant mutation' arises. Vaccination will not provide lifelong sterilising immunity like say measles - so are you meaning to fight the forever covid war then? testing all the time, regular jabs forever for absolutely everyone...?
tertius said:
Focused by what exactly? Mutations are random - they may be positive (from our perspective) or they may be negative. The more there are of them then the greater the likelihood of an undesirable mutation occurring. A high degree of resistance (whether from vaccination or something else) greatly reduces that probability.
Vaccines are so far all primarily focused on the spike protein. It's a little bit different from the more general infection recovery immune system response as I understand things. but anyway a little irrelevant.Mutations are random but in say a population that is largely vaccinated, your probability of a mutation arising that is capable of resisting the vaccine is (considerably) higher because it has to be able to do so to spread than that same mutation arising out of the mutations happening in an unexposed population where there isn't the same level of resistance. Whether that probability is greater with admittedly much less infections but higher probability of doing so when it does but more infections but less probability of that mutation as it isn't required to spread isn't obvious.
And my point about you espousing zerocovid is because that is the consequence of you wanting to keep infections low/minimal forever. that is zerocovid in all but name whether you are directly stating it or not.
Edited by isaldiri on Friday 16th April 19:53
isaldiri said:
Sway said:
Every single replication has the chance to create an exceptional mutation that either a) bypasses vaccine protection, B) increases mortality or c) both.
Those unvaccinated by definition support greater viral loads post infection, and therefore significantly greated opportunities for mutation.
The only person who has come up with the idea of a mutation that "where the unvaxxed still aren't dying in large numbers" . That's a strawman invented to support your point.
As I said, I'm not interested in your opinion of the likelihood of it occurring - I'm asking how would you feel if it did, based on your vehement position currently that it's all OK and there's nothing to worry about... I note you didn't answer that bit.
Er because that is exactly what you stated that t'he unvaxxed won't be dying in large numbers' in your earlier post. I didn't 'invent a strawman' as your post wasn't exactly clear which is why I didn't answer it. Those unvaccinated by definition support greater viral loads post infection, and therefore significantly greated opportunities for mutation.
The only person who has come up with the idea of a mutation that "where the unvaxxed still aren't dying in large numbers" . That's a strawman invented to support your point.
As I said, I'm not interested in your opinion of the likelihood of it occurring - I'm asking how would you feel if it did, based on your vehement position currently that it's all OK and there's nothing to worry about... I note you didn't answer that bit.
Just to make clear, what is your super scary variant actually going to be doing then? that it kills everyone full stop or just those who are vaccinated?
And given the likelihood of something occuring is to me at least actually important with regards to what I might or might not feel about it, if you are demanding that I ignore that likelihood it becomes a little hard for me to answer your question as you are inventing all kinds of fantastical scenarios.
As I said, in centuries of hcov infections amongst humans it hasn't turned out a super mutant variant that kills people at the rate of the black death or something like that. I'm a little curious why it is such a worry that sars-cov2 (well on it's way to being hcov5) will do so despite not having turned out anything particularly special in a little over a year of merrily infecting people whereby it's probably gone through 10-15% of the global population.
And I repeat, your post implies you wish to forever ensure infections are kept to a minimum to ensure no 'super scary variant mutation' arises. Vaccination will not provide lifelong sterilising immunity like say measles - so are you meaning to fight the forever covid war then? testing all the time, regular jabs forever for absolutely everyone...?
And no, my post doesn't imply that at all. You infer it due to the lens you're applying to everything relating to this. Just like when assumed that I hadn't been impacted personally financially...
The likelihood of it happening is irrelevant to how you'd feel in the event it happens . Is a hypothetical scenario so difficult for you to imagine? That might explain a fair amount.
Parents getting their second jabs tomorrow after being called by the surgery today asking if they wanted to go in. Their original 2nd jab appointments now brought forward by 3 weeks and my OH had her 2nd jab yesterday and was told by the nurse they've had lots of Astra Zeneca jab cancellations.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff