How many have been vaccinated so far?

[plasticpig]

V88Dicky said:

You know fine well we weren’t testing nearly a million people per day last June.

Test and ye shall find….

Zoe symptom study analysis from this time last year says 1400ish symptomatic cases per day: https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-incidence-uk

Latest analysis posted today says 15000 symptomatic cases per day: https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/are-holidays-causin...

[MYOB]

plasticpig said:

V88Dicky said:

You know fine well we weren’t testing nearly a million people per day last June.

Test and ye shall find….

Zoe symptom study analysis from this time last year says 1400ish symptomatic cases per day: https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-incidence-uk

Latest analysis posted today says 15000 symptomatic cases per day: https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/are-holidays-causin...

Someone is being a bit dim here.

[plasticpig]

MYOB said:

Someone is being a bit dim here.

Well it’s not me. The vaccines are supposed to lower the risk of severe disease. That’s exactly what they appear to be doing. Hospital admissions are far lower than this time last year despite there being far more infections.

[speedy_thrills]

Boringvolvodriver said:

The focus on all getting vaccinated, is IMO, now not required - the vulnerable are protected.

They're doing it to try to suppress the transmission rate, not only are those vaccinated 95% less likely to catch it but if someone is unlucky enough to be in the other 5% (I believe these are called "breakthrough" cases) those vaccinated are 40-60% less likely to transmit the virus if they catch it. Unfortunately there are geographic pockets and communities where the vaccination rate is still low compared to the overall population.

Regarding the poster who commented that cases are concentrated among the young, that's not too surprising because they've likely only recently been approved to be vaccinated.

Edited by speedy_thrills on Friday 25th June 02:42

[anonymous-user]

Matty3 said:

abzmike said:

Matty3 said:

Best of luck to you jabbed peeps. 3 folk I know were admitted to hospital within 3 days of their first jab, dont know one person who has been admitted with 'first degree' Covid of whatever mutation. Delaying my jabbing until it is approved in 2023, think I will pass even then.

Presumably you expect to enjoy the benefits of 80% of the population being jabbed?

Benefits - lol - are?

You really do need to research the facts.

Classic anti-vax attention seeking - “research” - the information’s all out there folks!

[V88Dicky]

MYOB said:

plasticpig said:

V88Dicky said:

You know fine well we weren’t testing nearly a million people per day last June.

Test and ye shall find….

Zoe symptom study analysis from this time last year says 1400ish symptomatic cases per day: https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-incidence-uk

Latest analysis posted today says 15000 symptomatic cases per day: https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/are-holidays-causin...

Someone is being a bit dim here.

So there’s many more daily cases this June compared to last, despite jabbing every man and his dog. And cat.

[FiF]

Alert Alert, calling barryrs, your presence is urgently requested on this thread, as seen on other threads.

barryrs said:

I see sweeping moronic comments are widespread today.

[johnboy1975]

plasticpig said:

MYOB said:

Someone is being a bit dim here.

Well it’s not me. The vaccines are supposed to lower the risk of severe disease. That’s exactly what they appear to be doing. Hospital admissions are far lower than this time last year despite there being far more infections.

There's also far more testing. But I agree - hospitisations (and deaths) are far lower than last year

Given this bombshell, can we get on with our lives yet, or do we need to jab the kids?

[isaldiri]

speedy_thrills said:

They're doing it to try to suppress the transmission rate, not only are those vaccinated 95% less likely to catch it but if someone is unlucky enough to be in the other 5% (I believe these are called "breakthrough" cases) those vaccinated are 40-60% less likely to transmit the virus if they catch it. Unfortunately there are geographic pockets and communities where the vaccination rate is still low compared to the overall population.

Regarding the poster who commented that cases are concentrated among the young, that's not too surprising because they've likely only recently been approved to be vaccinated.

So......forever then as transmission is always going to be possible even with vaccinated/recovered people and sterilising immunity is also very likely to fase over time? And then all under 18s will also need jabbing out to 'suppress transmission' in that younger age group too.

'Eternal jabs every year for everyone' really what you think is the viable way out?

[Boringvolvodriver]

speedy_thrills said:

They're doing it to try to suppress the transmission rate, not only are those vaccinated 95% less likely to catch it but if someone is unlucky enough to be in the other 5% (I believe these are called "breakthrough" cases) those vaccinated are 40-60% less likely to transmit the virus if they catch it. Unfortunately there are geographic pockets and communities where the vaccination rate is still low compared to the overall population.

Regarding the poster who commented that cases are concentrated among the young, that's not too surprising because they've likely only recently been approved to be vaccinated.

Edited by speedy_thrills on Friday 25th June 02:42

IIRC, the young (and by that under 65s) were always the ones where more positives were seen, not just now. And that was before we were testing at the same rate as we now.

[duckson]

Compared to last June the percent of tests that are positive are broadly similar.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/uk-covid-positi...

Although currently the dominant variant is more transmissible so not a fair comparison IMO, in real terms we are probably doing better and that will be thanks to the vaccines.

[NRS]

speedy_thrills said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

The focus on all getting vaccinated, is IMO, now not required - the vulnerable are protected.

They're doing it to try to suppress the transmission rate, not only are those vaccinated 95% less likely to catch it but if someone is unlucky enough to be in the other 5% (I believe these are called "breakthrough" cases) those vaccinated are 40-60% less likely to transmit the virus if they catch it. Unfortunately there are geographic pockets and communities where the vaccination rate is still low compared to the overall population.

Regarding the poster who commented that cases are concentrated among the young, that's not too surprising because they've likely only recently been approved to be vaccinated.

Edited by speedy_thrills on Friday 25th June 02:42

They never care about stopping the transmission rate in the past with flu, and that kills lot of old people who were not jabbed or who didn't have enough protection. Why change strategy now?

And I'd have to say if old vulnerable people have not had the jab now and get seriously sick/die it is their own choice. We shouldn't keep lots of restrictions to protect people who won't help themselves.

[CarlosFandango11]

V88Dicky said:

MYOB said:

plasticpig said:

V88Dicky said:

You know fine well we weren’t testing nearly a million people per day last June.

Test and ye shall find….

Zoe symptom study analysis from this time last year says 1400ish symptomatic cases per day: https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-incidence-uk

Latest analysis posted today says 15000 symptomatic cases per day: https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/are-holidays-causin...

Someone is being a bit dim here.

So there’s many more daily cases this June compared to last, despite jabbing every man and his dog. And cat.

Perhaps there are some other differences compared to last June….
How about the transmission rate being significantly higher due to new variants? Or even the level of lockdown in May/June?

[V88Dicky]

CarlosFandango11 said:

Perhaps there are some other differences compared to last June….
How about the transmission rate being significantly higher due to new variants? Or even the level of lockdown in May/June?

Ok, maybe put it another way

Where do you see us, say this August, compared to last, regards cases, hospitalisations and deaths?

[plasticpig]

NRS said:

They never care about stopping the transmission rate in the past with flu, and that kills lot of old people who were not jabbed or who didn't have enough protection. Why change strategy now?

And I'd have to say if old vulnerable people have not had the jab now and get seriously sick/die it is their own choice. We shouldn't keep lots of restrictions to protect people who won't help themselves.

R0 of flu is a lot lower than Covid.

[CarlosFandango11]

V88Dicky said:

CarlosFandango11 said:

Perhaps there are some other differences compared to last June….
How about the transmission rate being significantly higher due to new variants? Or even the level of lockdown in May/June?

Ok, maybe put it another way

Where do you see us, say this August, compared to last, regards cases, hospitalisations and deaths?

I don't have a model, so it's hard for me to say.

Cases are a lot higher than a year ago and are increasing, they were decreasing this time last year. Lifting the remaining lockdown restrictions on 19th July time will increase transmission then. But more and more people are being vaccinated and gaining some level of immunity which will reduce transmission. At some point the level of immunity in the population should cause the number of new cases to reduce. I would guess that cases will start to reduce mid July, but then increase after lifting restrictions and then peak in mid August.

Importantly, hospitalisations, ICU occupancy and deaths being much lower than this time last year, despite there being many more cases; deaths are about 20% of this time last year. This is the impact of double vaccinating almost all vulnerable people. I reckon hospitalisations, ICU occupancy and deaths will increase, but remain relatively low by the start of August.

[V88Dicky]

CarlosFandango11 said:

I don't have a model, so it's hard for me to say.

Cases are a lot higher than a year ago and are increasing, they were decreasing this time last year. Lifting the remaining lockdown restrictions on 19th July time will increase transmission then. But more and more people are being vaccinated and gaining some level of immunity which will reduce transmission. At some point the level of immunity in the population should cause the number of new cases to reduce. I would guess that cases will start to reduce mid July, but then increase after lifting restrictions and then peak in mid August.

Importantly, hospitalisations, ICU occupancy and deaths being much lower than this time last year, despite there being many more cases; deaths are about 20% of this time last year. This is the impact of double vaccinating almost all vulnerable people. I reckon hospitalisations, ICU occupancy and deaths will increase, but remain relatively low by the start of August.

Some good points. We can only hope we’re right on this

[isaldiri]

plasticpig said:

NRS said:

They never care about stopping the transmission rate in the past with flu, and that kills lot of old people who were not jabbed or who didn't have enough protection. Why change strategy now?

And I'd have to say if old vulnerable people have not had the jab now and get seriously sick/die it is their own choice. We shouldn't keep lots of restrictions to protect people who won't help themselves.

R0 of flu is a lot lower than Covid.

The R0 of covid when it settles as being endemic with everyone being infected or vaccinated at some point is unclear. You can't properly compare r0 of an emergent virus with most susceptible like covid to flu which has been cycling through the human population for centuries where we don't incessantly test for asymptomatic infection.

[MOTORVATOR]

isaldiri said:

plasticpig said:

NRS said:

They never care about stopping the transmission rate in the past with flu, and that kills lot of old people who were not jabbed or who didn't have enough protection. Why change strategy now?

And I'd have to say if old vulnerable people have not had the jab now and get seriously sick/die it is their own choice. We shouldn't keep lots of restrictions to protect people who won't help themselves.

R0 of flu is a lot lower than Covid.

The R0 of covid when it settles as being endemic with everyone being infected or vaccinated at some point is unclear. You can't properly compare r0 of an emergent virus with most susceptible like covid to flu which has been cycling through the human population for centuries where we don't incessantly test for asymptomatic infection.

WTF? R0 is totally unaffected by those infected or vaccinated as it is based on a 100% susceptible population.

[NRS]

MOTORVATOR said:

isaldiri said:

plasticpig said:

NRS said:

They never care about stopping the transmission rate in the past with flu, and that kills lot of old people who were not jabbed or who didn't have enough protection. Why change strategy now?

And I'd have to say if old vulnerable people have not had the jab now and get seriously sick/die it is their own choice. We shouldn't keep lots of restrictions to protect people who won't help themselves.

R0 of flu is a lot lower than Covid.

The R0 of covid when it settles as being endemic with everyone being infected or vaccinated at some point is unclear. You can't properly compare r0 of an emergent virus with most susceptible like covid to flu which has been cycling through the human population for centuries where we don't incessantly test for asymptomatic infection.

WTF? R0 is totally unaffected by those infected or vaccinated as it is based on a 100% susceptible population.

But we're not unprotected now. We have already got the protection through vaccines in many people, and basically all vulnerable people have it unless they chose not to take it. If you compare the (now vaccinated) death rates and serious illness rates to flu in a normal year where we only focus on the at-risk groups are they any different? Corona seems to be around 1% on death rates without jabs, and all the vulnerable people now have around a 90-95% protection on that non-protected rate so that will be slashed even more. So why does the infection rate matter much? We're not in an unprotected situation, so there's no point in having vaccination strategy that assumes we are.