How many have been vaccinated so far?
Discussion
isaldiri said:
CarlosFandango11 said:
Did you read what I said? Or look at the graph in any detail? I haven’t said it will continue to accelerate upwards like in December 2020. And it’s a graph of ICU occupancy not hospitalisation.
Vaccines work. But currently it’s clear that they’re not preventing an increase in cases and a subsequent increase in ICU occupancy - see the ICU occupancy graph. And bear in mind that there is a time lag between the recent increase in cases and ICU occupancy.
The graph isn’t going to change direction overnight. It will take time and more vaccinations.
Well why then have you been continually banging on about how numbers are 'accelerating upwards exponentially' then if not to suggest it will follow Dec20....? Vaccines work. But currently it’s clear that they’re not preventing an increase in cases and a subsequent increase in ICU occupancy - see the ICU occupancy graph. And bear in mind that there is a time lag between the recent increase in cases and ICU occupancy.
The graph isn’t going to change direction overnight. It will take time and more vaccinations.
All over 50s are pretty much double jabbed now - they are the ones that have overwhelmingly made up the bulk of the hospitalisations and ICU capacity so far in Apr20 and Jan 21. If you believe the vaccines will work, there is an effective cap on the number of people that will end up in hospital and ICU. That number (if again you believe the vaccines work) should be below what the healthcare system should be able to support.
And ultimately more vaccinations isn't going to stop the virus from circulating no matter how much you wish it to by jabbing up anyone and everyone regardless of risk/age. It almost certainly will not provide long term sterilising immunity. The risk of older people even if double jabbed is still going to be higher than much younger people who are not vaccinated. Numbers of 'cases' and even hospitalisations etc going up is inevitable at some point as we end up living with the virus over time unless you think eradication is possible but simply that they happen at levels that are acceptable.
There are several significant differences between now and December 20: the level of immunity in the population (vaccinations and previous infections), transmission rates due to the Indian/Delta variant, the level of lockdown, the rate of vaccinations going forwards and what the government announce tomorrow. Hence I wouldn’t suggest that the next month would follow December 20.
There’s always an effective cap on the number of people that could end up in hospital and ICU, dependent on the level of immunity/vaccination in the population. Having an effective cap should stop exponential growth in the future, but not necessarily at present. Looking at recent data (https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ and https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/cases-rising-rapidl... are useful) it’s clear that there aren’t enough people vaccinated to prevent exponential growth in the number of cases, and ICU occupancy (growth, and decline, for these metrics will often be exponential given the how transmission happens and their relationship to each other). It just remains to be seen how long the growth will continue and what the government decide to announce tomorrow. Interestingly, deaths haven’t risen much yet.
CarlosFandango11 said:
isaldiri said:
CarlosFandango11 said:
Did you read what I said? Or look at the graph in any detail? I haven’t said it will continue to accelerate upwards like in December 2020. And it’s a graph of ICU occupancy not hospitalisation.
Vaccines work. But currently it’s clear that they’re not preventing an increase in cases and a subsequent increase in ICU occupancy - see the ICU occupancy graph. And bear in mind that there is a time lag between the recent increase in cases and ICU occupancy.
The graph isn’t going to change direction overnight. It will take time and more vaccinations.
Well why then have you been continually banging on about how numbers are 'accelerating upwards exponentially' then if not to suggest it will follow Dec20....? Vaccines work. But currently it’s clear that they’re not preventing an increase in cases and a subsequent increase in ICU occupancy - see the ICU occupancy graph. And bear in mind that there is a time lag between the recent increase in cases and ICU occupancy.
The graph isn’t going to change direction overnight. It will take time and more vaccinations.
All over 50s are pretty much double jabbed now - they are the ones that have overwhelmingly made up the bulk of the hospitalisations and ICU capacity so far in Apr20 and Jan 21. If you believe the vaccines will work, there is an effective cap on the number of people that will end up in hospital and ICU. That number (if again you believe the vaccines work) should be below what the healthcare system should be able to support.
And ultimately more vaccinations isn't going to stop the virus from circulating no matter how much you wish it to by jabbing up anyone and everyone regardless of risk/age. It almost certainly will not provide long term sterilising immunity. The risk of older people even if double jabbed is still going to be higher than much younger people who are not vaccinated. Numbers of 'cases' and even hospitalisations etc going up is inevitable at some point as we end up living with the virus over time unless you think eradication is possible but simply that they happen at levels that are acceptable.
There are several significant differences between now and December 20: the level of immunity in the population (vaccinations and previous infections), transmission rates due to the Indian/Delta variant, the level of lockdown, the rate of vaccinations going forwards and what the government announce tomorrow. Hence I wouldn’t suggest that the next month would follow December 20.
There’s always an effective cap on the number of people that could end up in hospital and ICU, dependent on the level of immunity/vaccination in the population. Having an effective cap should stop exponential growth in the future, but not necessarily at present. Looking at recent data (https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ and https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/cases-rising-rapidl... are useful) it’s clear that there aren’t enough people vaccinated to prevent exponential growth in the number of cases, and ICU occupancy (growth, and decline, for these metrics will often be exponential given the how transmission happens and their relationship to each other). It just remains to be seen how long the growth will continue and what the government decide to announce tomorrow. Interestingly, deaths haven’t risen much yet.
soofsayer said:
So what happened to 12 weeks apart?
That decision was based on the fact that the vaccines were acceptably effective after a single dose, that there was a vaccine shortage and a large number of highly vulnerable people to vaccinate.The change has been due to the recognition that the current delta (Indian) variant, which is not estimated to account for nearly 90% of CV19 cases in the UK shows a degree of vaccine escape, such that a single dose does not provide acceptable protection, although acceptable protection is achieved after 2 doses.
The latest PHE data suggest 33% effectiveness of a single dose of vaccine against the delta variant, rising to approx 80% after 2 doses. (This compares to 50% for 1 dose, and 88% for 2 doses, for the UK variant).
Last week, Italy started to 'strongly recommend' the AZ vaccine was used on the over 60s only.
Today, the Times seems to be reporting Italy has taken it up a notch and banned the AZ vaccine for anyone under 60. This follows the death of an 18 year old girl from blood clotting post-vaccination.
If this is the case, I would have expected a little more coverage by the MSM.
Then again..
Today, the Times seems to be reporting Italy has taken it up a notch and banned the AZ vaccine for anyone under 60. This follows the death of an 18 year old girl from blood clotting post-vaccination.
If this is the case, I would have expected a little more coverage by the MSM.
Then again..
SS2. said:
Last week, Italy started to 'strongly recommend' the AZ vaccine was used on the over 60s only.
Today, the Times seems to be reporting Italy has taken it up a notch and banned the AZ vaccine for anyone under 60. This follows the death of an 18 year old girl from blood clotting post-vaccination.
If this is the case, I would have expected a little more coverage by the MSM.
Then again..
The Times reported that the woman in questin was on a "hormone treatment" that has a risk of causing blood clots. The contraceptive pill would seem to have a far higher risk than the vaccine, but yes, the ban is reported to being linked to this case.Today, the Times seems to be reporting Italy has taken it up a notch and banned the AZ vaccine for anyone under 60. This follows the death of an 18 year old girl from blood clotting post-vaccination.
If this is the case, I would have expected a little more coverage by the MSM.
Then again..
CarlosFandango11 said:
Looking at recent data (https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ and https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/cases-rising-rapidl... are useful) it’s clear that there aren’t enough people vaccinated to prevent exponential growth in the number of cases, and ICU occupancy (growth, and decline, for these metrics will often be exponential given the how transmission happens and their relationship to each other). It just remains to be seen how long the growth will continue and what the government decide to announce tomorrow. Interestingly, deaths haven’t risen much yet.
Attempting to ramp up vaccinations purely to prevent 'cases' is a dead end longer term. Vaccination does not provide long term sterilising immunity. At some future point, there will be 'exponential growth' in cases. There won't be a corresponding associated rise in ICU occupancy because the vaccines provide an extremely high degree of protection from serious disease. Reduce hospitalisations/death rates by >90%, there isn't a healthcare issue. We already have done practically everything possible now to protect the over 50s with all groups having been offered second doses. Unless you think eradication or permanent suppression of the disease is possible, jabbing up loads now just to try to reduce cases just kicks the issue a bit further down the road....to winter as it turns out just when respiratory diseases start circulating more strongly again. If we aren't reducing restrictions at the height of summer with rock bottom deaths etc what do you think is going to happen come autumn again if we don't start trying to live with the bloody thing without panicking?
Edited by isaldiri on Monday 14th June 08:47
WatchfulEye said:
soofsayer said:
So what happened to 12 weeks apart?
That decision was based on the fact that the vaccines were acceptably effective after a single dose, that there was a vaccine shortage and a large number of highly vulnerable people to vaccinate.The change has been due to the recognition that the current delta (Indian) variant, which is not estimated to account for nearly 90% of CV19 cases in the UK shows a degree of vaccine escape, such that a single dose does not provide acceptable protection, although acceptable protection is achieved after 2 doses.
The latest PHE data suggest 33% effectiveness of a single dose of vaccine against the delta variant, rising to approx 80% after 2 doses. (This compares to 50% for 1 dose, and 88% for 2 doses, for the UK variant).
What I was asking is why has the 12 week gap between injections been junked? The 12 week gap was to get the maximum efficacy from the second jab afaik? It would follow that reducing the gap would reduce the efficacy, which when the efficacy against the Indian virus is quoted as less than with the kent variant why would hmg worsen the efficacy further by going faster on 2nd jabs?
What does the science say about only a few weeks gap between injections?
And is this for all the different vaccines, seems simplistic to lump them all together with a single set of figures when the technologies are different?
soofsayer said:
WatchfulEye said:
soofsayer said:
So what happened to 12 weeks apart?
That decision was based on the fact that the vaccines were acceptably effective after a single dose, that there was a vaccine shortage and a large number of highly vulnerable people to vaccinate.The change has been due to the recognition that the current delta (Indian) variant, which is not estimated to account for nearly 90% of CV19 cases in the UK shows a degree of vaccine escape, such that a single dose does not provide acceptable protection, although acceptable protection is achieved after 2 doses.
The latest PHE data suggest 33% effectiveness of a single dose of vaccine against the delta variant, rising to approx 80% after 2 doses. (This compares to 50% for 1 dose, and 88% for 2 doses, for the UK variant).
What I was asking is why has the 12 week gap between injections been junked? The 12 week gap was to get the maximum efficacy from the second jab afaik? It would follow that reducing the gap would reduce the efficacy, which when the efficacy against the Indian virus is quoted as less than with the kent variant why would hmg worsen the efficacy further by going faster on 2nd jabs?
What does the science say about only a few weeks gap between injections?
And is this for all the different vaccines, seems simplistic to lump them all together with a single set of figures when the technologies are different?
Now the situation has changed the near date is being used.
Solocle said:
You should change the photo if you want to hide your name - I can read your name easily there. 
Northernboy said:
SS2. said:
Last week, Italy started to 'strongly recommend' the AZ vaccine was used on the over 60s only.
Today, the Times seems to be reporting Italy has taken it up a notch and banned the AZ vaccine for anyone under 60. This follows the death of an 18 year old girl from blood clotting post-vaccination.
If this is the case, I would have expected a little more coverage by the MSM.
Then again..
The Times reported that the woman in questin was on a "hormone treatment" that has a risk of causing blood clots. The contraceptive pill would seem to have a far higher risk than the vaccine, but yes, the ban is reported to being linked to this case.Today, the Times seems to be reporting Italy has taken it up a notch and banned the AZ vaccine for anyone under 60. This follows the death of an 18 year old girl from blood clotting post-vaccination.
If this is the case, I would have expected a little more coverage by the MSM.
Then again..
NRS said:
The risk of clots seems to be higher with contraceptive pills, but the impact seems to be far lower. If I understand it the issue with ViTT is it causes low palette counts while also clotting. The normal treatment for clots would be blood thinners, but that doesn't really work as the blood is already very thin if I understand it correctly. Hence the very high death rate for those that do get hit by it, compared to "normal" clots associated with the pill.
More or Less covered this issue a couple of weeks back (I seem to write that line a lot), and I think that the risk of death from clots was still higher from the pill than the vaccination.Of course, that's not the only measure that matters, as it says nothing about the relative benefits of the two treatments. A pill signficantly reduces the risk of pregnancy, which has far higher risks for an average young woman than does a vaccine or contraceptives.
NRS said:
The risk of clots seems to be higher with contraceptive pills, but the impact seems to be far lower. If I understand it the issue with ViTT is it causes low palette counts while also clotting. The normal treatment for clots would be blood thinners, but that doesn't really work as the blood is already very thin if I understand it correctly. Hence the very high death rate for those that do get hit by it, compared to "normal" clots associated with the pill.
There's somewhat of a misrepresentation by those who like to claim clots occur in contraceptive pills etc vs the AZN/JnJ ViTT issue. The latter is a bloody serious one with considerable medical implications. The former is.....well more likely than not just a 'standard' blood clot which doesn't typically kill around 17% of people and get those with it landed in intensive care.isaldiri said:
There's somewhat of a misrepresentation by those who like to claim clots occur in contraceptive pills etc vs the AZN/JnJ ViTT issue. The latter is a bloody serious one with considerable medical implications. The former is.....well more likely than not just a 'standard' blood clot which doesn't typically kill around 17% of people and get those with it landed in intensive care.
That's not what Ive seen in the data. What numbers do you have for deaths per person on each treatment?V88Dicky said:
andy43 said:
First AZ dose knocked me sideways, second one was just meh - from what I've read it's the first one that will cause a problem. I'm still on the fence as to whether these vaccines really do cause clots etc over and above a general population of a similar age group but it's the same with everything covid - we're still learning day by day - it'll be years before we have solid numbers on anything covid related.
Precisely why I won’t be bothering, at least for now. A thought echoed by many of my friends and most of my workmates oyster said:
With vaccine support at around 94%, that’s quite amazing you have a circle of friends and colleagues made up almost entirely from the other 6%.
There's a high correlation between education levels and vaccine support, so it's possible that if he and his mates are manual workers that there'll be a clustering there.It's still remarkable though that he's found a workplace and group of friends where it's near 100%
Why has the rollout of the vaccine slowed since March? surely with more factories being built and more vaccines coming online and with our already agreed deals this should have ramped up.
I suspect that behind the scenes the EU actually won this battle, we have been put in our box and have had to share our allocation with other countries.
A few months ago we nearly did a million in one day. These days we are lucky to top half that. We are now being told that the lockdown will be delayed to get more people vaccinated.
I suspect that behind the scenes the EU actually won this battle, we have been put in our box and have had to share our allocation with other countries.
A few months ago we nearly did a million in one day. These days we are lucky to top half that. We are now being told that the lockdown will be delayed to get more people vaccinated.
272BHP said:
Why has the rollout of the vaccine slowed since March? surely with more factories being built and more vaccines coming online and with our already agreed deals this should have ramped up.
I suspect that behind the scenes the EU actually won this battle, we have been put in our box and have had to share our allocation with other countries.
A few months ago we nearly did a million in one day. These days we are lucky to top half that. We are now being told that the lockdown will be delayed to get more people vaccinated.
I suppose that if you make up the figures like this then you can paint quite a negative picture, but we never did nearly a million in a day and we've not dropped to half that amount.I suspect that behind the scenes the EU actually won this battle, we have been put in our box and have had to share our allocation with other countries.
A few months ago we nearly did a million in one day. These days we are lucky to top half that. We are now being told that the lockdown will be delayed to get more people vaccinated.
Northernboy said:
I suppose that if you make up the figures like this then you can paint quite a negative picture, but we never did nearly a million in a day and we've not dropped to half that amount.
Sorry my memory failed me, it was in fact a government goal a few months ago to reach a million a day. We did do 711k in March and now nearly 4 months on we haven't managed to beat that despite all the extra resources.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff