Our total reliance on a vaccine and putting life on hold until it's rolled out

[Huntergreed]

Nicola sturgeon confirming this new system is as normal as we can get before a vaccine, sounds like if we don’t get one then this is going to be indefinite.

 

[philosopher]

Nicola sturgeon confirming this new system is as normal as we can get before a vaccine, sounds like if we don’t get one then this is going to be indefinite.

From the BBC live page:

Nicola Sturgeon says Scotland's new level zero is "broadly comparable to the position we reached in August when the virus was very suppressed, but still a threat".

Level one and level two are the closest to normal the country can be without effective treatment or a vaccine, while the highest grade would be more similar to a full lockdown.

The first minister said the new strategy was about "striking the best balances we can" between suppressing the virus and minimising wider harms to businesses and individuals.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-54656821

How I interpret this article from is that with a vaccine or effective treatment, Scotland will be on level 0, which was the situation in August. However even in August there were restrictions such as face masks. Therefore even with a vaccine or effective treatment Nicola Sturgeon intends to keep some restrictions.

 

[yorkie]

... Therefore even with a vaccine or effective treatment Nicola Sturgeon intends to keep some restrictions.

I think it's too early to say how long restrictions will last for but to discuss the longer term picture once a vaccine is rolled out, I'd say this thread isn't the best place to discuss that as it's already under discussion elsewhere (and I am keen to avoid too much duplication in multiple threads, though some duplication will of course be inevitable)

 

[Howardh]

If they are saying that life won't return to the old (or even new?) normal until a vaccine is out and at least the vulnerable have taken it, haven't they (Sturgeon in particular) made a rod for their own backs if, like the common cold, there simply isn't a working vaccine?
That leaves them with two options - having restrictions for ever; or going back to the old normal which says "OK, we're happy now to "kill off granny"". Neither, to me, is acceptable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That leaves them with two options - having restrictions for ever; or going back to the old normal which says "OK, we're happy now to "kill off granny"". Neither, to me, is acceptable.

Those are the only two options. Having restrictions or not having restrictions is binary.

 

[bramling]

If they are saying that life won't return to the old (or even new?) normal until a vaccine is out and at least the vulnerable have taken it, haven't they (Sturgeon in particular) made a rod for their own backs if, like the common cold, there simply isn't a working vaccine?
That leaves them with two options - having restrictions for ever; or going back to the old normal which says "OK, we're happy now to "kill off granny"". Neither, to me, is acceptable.

One presumes there will have to come a time when herd immunity kicks in (assuming there is no mutation?). The more restrictions there are now the further into the future that point will be

But yes it’s a dangerous path.

 

[Howardh]

One presumes there will have to come a time when herd immunity kicks in (assuming there is no mutation?). The more restrictions there are now the further into the future that point will be

But yes it’s a dangerous path.

On the news I just caught that (something like) it's now one-in-50 of us currently have covid. Please correct if I mis-heard. Used to be over one-in-1000 in summer, so at this rate all of the population will have covid by Xmas. Again, I underline I only caught a glimpse of that on the news, I could have mis-heard.

But if the majority of the country has (or has had) covid, then shoudnt't herd immunity kick in? Thinking if you haven't had covid, you can't catch it offsomeone who has had it?

 

[Ian Cunningham]

From the BBC live page:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-54656821

How I interpret this article from is that with a vaccine or effective treatment, Scotland will be on level 0, which was the situation in August. However even in August there were restrictions such as face masks. Therefore even with a vaccine or effective treatment Nicola Sturgeon intends to keep some restrictions.

from page 9 of the framework document (with it's truly epic URL)
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/conte...nt/covid-19-scotlands-strategic-framework.pdf

Level What you can expect
Baseline and Level 1:
Within these levels, we would expect to see low incidence of the virus with isolated clusters, and low community transmission.
Broadly, these levels are the closest we can get to normality, without a vaccine or effective treatment in place, before conditions will allow us to move to Phase 4 of the Route Map.
They would be similar to the measures in place during the summer, once we reached Phase 3. The Baseline and Level 1 are designed to be sustainable for longer periods.


This would suggest that Baseline (level 0) and Level 1 are intended as longer term measures in the absence of a vaccine / treatment not with a vaccine

 

[Peter Mugridge]

On the news I just caught that (something like) it's now one-in-50 of us currently have covid. Please correct if I mis-heard. Used to be over one-in-1000 in summer, so at this rate all of the population will have covid by Xmas. Again, I underline I only caught a glimpse of that on the news, I could have mis-heard.

It's 1 in 130 ( for England )

Coronavirus infections continue to rise across UK

The highest levels continue to be in the north of England, says the Office for National Statistics.

www.bbc.co.uk

Around one in 130 people you might meet in the street in England had coronavirus in the week to 16 October, data from the ONS infection survey suggests.
This compares with one in 180 in Wales and Scotland, and one in 100 in Northern Ireland.

 

[Howardh]

It's 1 in 130 ( for England )

Coronavirus infections continue to rise across UK

The highest levels continue to be in the north of England, says the Office for National Statistics.

www.bbc.co.uk

Thanks, the 1-in-50 may have been mis-heard, or relating to a certain part of the country or town. My fault for doing the ironing and not concentrating!! Still, 1/130's still staggeringly higher than it was in August.

 

[DB]

It's 1 in 130 ( for England )

Coronavirus infections continue to rise across UK

The highest levels continue to be in the north of England, says the Office for National Statistics.

www.bbc.co.uk

Going to vary considerably by area though.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Going to vary considerably by area though.

Yes, the ONS will be quoting an overall average.

 

[Yew]

Given we have numbers like that, what was the prevalence in March and April? At those sort of rates, it doesn't take long for community immunity to start having a noticeable effect on limiting spread.

 

[Mag_seven]

It's 1 in 130 ( for England )

Coronavirus infections continue to rise across UK

The highest levels continue to be in the north of England, says the Office for National Statistics.

www.bbc.co.uk

But in theory you shouldn't be meeting anyone in the street that has Covid because if they have they should be self isolating! I am assuming therefore the figures are based on an estimate of those who are infectious but who haven't been tested?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Given we have numbers like that, what was the prevalence in March and April? At those sort of rates, it doesn't take long for community immunity to start having a noticeable effect on limiting spread.

We don't really know, but the most common figures being bandied about seem to be estimates of 100,000 infections a day to 150,000 infections a day back then.

Assuming the mid point, 125,000 a day, and taking 10 days as the period of active infection, that would imply roughly 1,250,000 people at a time were infectious which interestingly enough would have meant about 1 in 52 at the time - which does seem to be proportionately in line with the current estimates of daily cases and "one in x number".

 

[trebor79]

But in theory you shouldn't be meeting anyone in the street that has Covid because if they have they should be self isolating! I am assuming therefore the figures are based on an estimate of those who are infectious but who haven't been tested?

Mmm, but if 80% of the infections are asymptomatic, then you won't know you're infected and won't know you're meant to be isolating. It's also not clear cut that asymptomatic people are a major source of new infections.

 

[kristiang85]

The problem is we might never know when this pandemic is truly over due to the unknown False Positivity Rate of the PCR tests. Normally this will be released, but it hasn't in this case. Hancock himself said (under duress) that it was potentially around 0.9%. However, given all the new staff rushed in to work on testing in quite suboptimal conditions and minimal training, some estimate the FPR could be going up to 3% (cross contamination, poor storage of samples, error in testing, etc.).

Now, if we have an FPR of 3% and they are doing 300,000 tests a day, it could show up 9,000 cases even when there is no virus in circulation! And if is someone getting to hospital or dying with these tests, then that gets added to those COVID stats.

So if the governments are basing the exit from these restrictions on very low numbers of COVID, we could be waiting a long time with the way things are currently being done. Even if the disease is, in all intents and purposes, gone.

 

[big_rig]

There was a fascinating article going around on Twitter I saw about that 'false positives' in the context of whooping cough in America in 2007, where an epidemic was accidentally invented through bad tests.

In the context of covid where case numbers are one part of the formula for ongoing restrictions and misery until the vaccine or otherwise it's quite an under-reported area for something so important, especially with the aspiration of a million tests a day or whatever the Moonshot was. Troubling to think that could lead to more putting life on hold instead of less.

For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care.

Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.

Not a single case of whooping cough was confirmed with the definitive test, growing the bacterium, Bordetella pertussis, in the laboratory. Instead, it appears the health care workers probably were afflicted with ordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold.
Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test that led them astray.

Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t (Published 2007)

Experts say tests that led to a false alarm at a New Hampshire hospital are coming into increasing use.

www.nytimes.com

 

[hwl]

Mmm, but if 80% of the infections are asymptomatic, then you won't know you're infected and won't know you're meant to be isolating. It's also not clear cut that asymptomatic people are a major source of new infections.

It certainly looks like pre/as-symptomatic spread is a significant part of the overall equation. Covid is one of those particularly unhelpful virus unlike it cousins SARs and MERS

Covid: Why is coronavirus such a threat?

Why does the biology of coronavirus mean it poses such a threat to human life?

www.bbc.co.uk

Our body's cells start releasing chemicals - called interferons - once they are being hijacked by a virus and this is a warning signal to the rest of the body and the immune system.
But the coronavirus has an "amazing capability" of switching off this chemical warning, Prof Lehner says, "it does it so well you don't even know you're ill".
He says when you look at infected cells in the laboratory you cannot tell they have been infected and yet tests show they are "screaming with virus" and this is just one of the "joker cards" the virus can play.
It behaves like a 'hit and run' killer
The amount of virus in our body begins to peak the day before we begin to get sick.
But it takes at least a week before Covid progresses to the point where people need hospital treatment.
"This is a really brilliant evolutionary tactic - you don't go to bed, you go out and have a good time," says Prof Lehner.
So the virus is like a dangerous driver fleeing the scene - the virus has moved on to the next victim long before we either recover or die.

 

[Howardh]

If you have covid in your body and you don't know, is it a case after 2-3 weeks the covid has gone, or is it dormant there, and if so, for how long?

 

[brad465]

Given we have numbers like that, what was the prevalence in March and April? At those sort of rates, it doesn't take long for community immunity to start having a noticeable effect on limiting spread.

Judging by the following graph in the BBC article on the ONS data, the limiting spread may already be happening:

Coronavirus infections continue to rise across UK

The highest levels continue to be in the north of England, says the Office for National Statistics.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[MattA7]

It irritates me that Sturgeon has yet again used the term “until there is a vaccine” when outlining her new 5 level Restriction system apparently level 0 is the closest to normal we can have until there is a vaccine. It’s worrying that they don’t seem to realize that they may never be a vaccine or if their is it may not be as effective as they are hoping it will be (they appear under the illusion that the vaccine will eradicate the disease like smallpox etc)

 

[DB]

It irritates me that Sturgeon has yet again used the term “until there is a vaccine” when outlining her new 5 level Restriction system apparently level 0 is the closest to normal we can have until there is a vaccine. It’s worrying that they don’t seem to realize that they may never be a vaccine or if their is it may not be as effective as they are hoping it will be (they appear under the illusion that the vaccine will eradicate the disease like smallpox etc)

They are going even further than with Smallpox, in that the basic assumption will be that not only will it eradicate it, it will also do so very quickly.

Even with a very effective vaccine, if one ever appeared, it would take years or more probably decades.

 

[Richard Scott]

It irritates me that Sturgeon has yet again used the term “until there is a vaccine” when outlining her new 5 level Restriction system apparently level 0 is the closest to normal we can have until there is a vaccine. It’s worrying that they don’t seem to realize that they may never be a vaccine or if their is it may not be as effective as they are hoping it will be (they appear under the illusion that the vaccine will eradicate the disease like smallpox etc)

She's totally obsessed with this and loving the power. A dangerous combination.

 

[bramling]

She's totally obsessed with this and loving the power. A dangerous combination.

I’m not actually sure she is loving it any more. At the beginning it was clearly a chance to shine, and a chance to shine was good news for independence. However she now looks ill at times, the strain is clearly getting to her.

 

[Richard Scott]

I’m not actually sure she is loving it any more. At the beginning it was clearly a chance to shine, and a chance to shine was good news for independence. However she now looks ill at times, the strain is clearly getting to her.

Probably because she now has to keep up this charade of eradication, one which we know is impossible. Afraid it's of her own making and have no sympathy.

 

[bramling]

Probably because she now has to keep up this charade of eradication, one which we know is impossible. Afraid it's of her own making and have no sympathy.

I bet she’s not the only politician looking longingly at Sweden. It’s not going to be easy to change course after they’ve invested so much capital in terrifying the population.

 

[Mag_seven]

I bet she’s not the only politician looking longingly at Sweden. It’s not going to be easy to change course after they’ve invested so much capital in terrifying the population.

The problem now is there are too many egos at stake - the proponents of lockdown will never admit defeat now. In effect our liberties and the right to be able to assess the risks for ourselves have been sacrificed to ensure people like Whitty and Vallance don't end up with egg on their faces.

 

[takno]

Probably because she now has to keep up this charade of eradication, one which we know is impossible. Afraid it's of her own making and have no sympathy.

It was interesting to read the quote attributed to Linda Bauld in another thread. Bauld is in the same department as Devi Shridhar, and has largely followed the same line as her in the press to date, but the quote was almost openly abusive. I think it's possible she's been told *a lot* by academics that this destruction of hospitality is pointless, and the mindless extension of it is felt to be an act of bad faith too far

 

[bramling]

The problem now is there are too many egos at stake - the proponents of lockdown will never admit defeat now. In effect our liberties and the right to be able to assess the risks for ourselves have been sacrificed to ensure people like Whitty and Vallance don't end up with egg on their faces.

The trouble is that a large part of the rationale for our March lockdown seems to have been because other peer countries were doing it. Meanwhile we were never told what the actual objective of doing it was, so there was never a measurable end point where we could come away and judge that it had succeeded in doing what it had set out to do.

So you could have several different people all with different views on what the purpose of the lockdown was - protect the NHS from being overwhelmed, buy time to implement distancing, save lives, eradicate the virus, being R down, etc etc etc.

Vaccine is an end point for politicians to talk about because it reconciles all of the above. The problem is how long can they really expect to maintain such a strategy (and at what economic cost?) before any remaining buy-in dries up, and the nuclear question is what on earth happens if a vaccine doesn’t materialise? Or is talk of vaccine a bit of a smokescreen and they just let herd immunity build up in the meantime, but don’t want to say that as certain people have weaponised their term?