Heading into autumn - what next?

[Bikeman78]

I think the key thing is exactly what is meant by "..unsustainable pressure on the NHS..", which Sajid Javid has said will be the trigger for Plan B.

"..Unsustainable pressure on the NHS.." can mean different things to different people, and it is likely that the NHS will be "..under pressure.." this winter, as it usually is.

The NHS is already stuffed. I know a doctor who works in a nearby hospital. She has completely run herself into the ground over the past year culminating in a slipped disc in her neck. Mostly likely caused by, amongst other things, being hunched over a laptop and going on hundreds of zoom meetings. Despite the pain she's still been going to work because she doesn't want to let colleagues down, although she has finally given in and called in sick this week.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Sep 2021 ==

And I genuinely struggle to think of a better way of describing my thoughts about that bunch of fearmongers, too. So thanks for saving me the trouble

Correct me if I'm wrong but Covid accounts for roughly 150 out of 1500 daily deaths? What are the other people dying of? Imagine if there were daily updates on all those causes of death trying to scare people.

 

[Bantamzen]

The NHS is already stuffed. I know a doctor who works in a nearby hospital. She has completely run herself into the ground over the past year culminating in a slipped disc in her neck. Mostly likely caused by, amongst other things, being hunched over a laptop and going on hundreds of zoom meetings. Despite the pain she's still been going to work because she doesn't want to let colleagues down, although she has finally given in and called in sick this week.

I can remember back in the mid 90s my then girlfriend who was a student nurse having to pull 18 hours shifts, with some junior doctors being on-site for 72 hours grabbing kip when then could in managers offices. So its really nothing new for the NHS.

 

[Bikeman78]

There still a significant number of unvaccinated which is probably where any big wave of hospitalisations are likely to come from. Just look at the data from yesterday’s briefing.

My view of additional restrictions coming from these idiots (yes I said that again and stand by it) who refuse to be vaccinated is that I’m not being restricted because they believe some crap they’ve read on a dodgy YouTube channel.

The numbers for people under 40 don't look too scary. And they aren't all going to catch it in the same week.

 

[kristiang85]

I can remember back in the mid 90s my then girlfriend who was a student nurse having to pull 18 hours shifts, with some junior doctors being on-site for 72 hours grabbing kip when then could in managers offices. So its really nothing new for the NHS.

It's mad how people seem to forget that this has been going on for much of the last couple of decades. Just search "NHS crisis" in Google News for each year and you can see its never changed. See the links to each year below, and a headline I've seen on the first page of results. All could be 2021, but back then we all weren't expected to prostate oursevles to the deity of the NHS.

2019 - "75,000 patients stuck with ambulance crews as winter at A&E bites"
2018 - "Patients 'dying in hospital corridors'"
2017 - "NHS rejects claims of 'humanitarian crisis' in England's hospitals"
2016 - "NHS chief warns that hospitals in England are on the brink of collapse"
2015 - "NHS winter crisis underway as figures show hospital trusts running out of beds"
2014 - "NHS 'in crisis' with hospitals at breaking poist after record number of admissions this week"
2013 - "Hospitals scramble to prevent crisis in NHS's 'toughest ever' winter"
etc.

 

[greyman42]

To be fair to Chris Whitty, he actually acknowledged the dangers of people like Nicki Minaj after that recent controversy, and would say that we shouldn't be blaming individuals who haven't taken the vaccine (which is divisive), as someone/something caused them to think that way. We should be looking for the sources of this to prevent misinformation getting out in the first place

I still find it hard to believe that there are people daft enough to take any notice of it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Sep 2021 ==

But for the very young and healthy, who have a tiny chance of being seriously ill with Covid, surely you can you see why they might (quite reasonably) think: “why bother?”.

What have they got to loose by being vaccinated?

 

[duncanp]

Are they predictions of doom? My reading is that it tells us that a short period of relatively minor measures - mask-wearing, work from home advice - could be sufficient to stop any major wave of hospitalizations and deaths emerging. This seems pretty optimistic to me.

And how short is "short"?

Because we know from past experience that once the measures are in place, these so called "SAGE scientists" will produce even more dodgy modelling to try and scare the government into maintaining restrictions.

Look at what happened during the various stages of the roadmap in the spring and summer.

They tried, and almost succeeded, in delaying the easing of restrictions on 17th May.

They scared the government into delaying stage 4 on 21st June.

They tried to delay the easing on 19th July, and when they weren't successful in that, there were dire predictions about "..lockdown by August.." and "...cases surging..."

 

[greyman42]

They tried to delay the easing on 19th July, and when they weren't successful in that, there were dire predictions about "..lockdown by August.." and "...cases surging..."

Sajid Javid has made it clear that he is aware of SAGE's August predictions so hopefully will take that into account regarding future fantasies.
Thankfully Hancock is not health secretary any more.

 

[Smidster]

What have they got to loose by being vaccinated?

Let's not forget that being vaccinated is not without risk - although we as humans are very bad at evaluating it and aren't good at trading off between risks.

While very very few will have a serious or long-lasting side effect it is very common to be floored for a day or two post vaccination which might really put you off if you aren't able to take time off work

 

[greyman42]

Let's not forget that being vaccinated is not without risk - although we as humans are very bad at evaluating it and aren't good at trading off between risks.

The risk is tiny.

While very very few will have a serious or long-lasting side effect it is very common to be floored for a day or two post vaccination which might really put you off if you aren't able to take time off work

I would not say it was very common to be "floored for a day or two" at all. I think people who believe this are taking too much notice of what they read on social media.

 

[DustyBin]

What have they got to loose by being vaccinated?

Perhaps nothing, however they may have considered the following:

• The chance to benefit from natural immunity which some experts are saying offers better protection;
• The possibility of having to receive regular boosters in order to maintain vaccine-induced immunity;
• The implications of a vaccine escape mutation, or even ADE;
• The risk of side effects from the vaccine itself;
• The feeling of being bullied and coerced into being vaccinated.

These are only examples but are all legitimate considerations in my opinion, although some probably aren't worth worrying too much about. I think the point is, it's quite possible to decide to decline the vaccine based on an informed risk-benefit analysis as opposed to the advice of Nicki Minaj....

 

[nedchester]

Perhaps nothing, however they may have considered the following:

• The chance to benefit from natural immunity which some experts are saying offers better protection;
• The possibility of having to receive regular boosters in order to maintain vaccine-induced immunity;
• The implications of a vaccine escape mutation, or even ADE;
• The risk of side effects from the vaccine itself;
• The feeling of being bullied and coerced into being vaccinated.

These are only examples but are all legitimate considerations in my opinion, although some probably aren't worth worrying too much about. I think the point is, it's quite possible to decide to decline the vaccine based on an informed risk-benefit analysis as opposed to the advice of Nicki Minaj....

Let's take those points in order:

1. If you get the vaccine and get a breakthrough infection then you might get ill with Covid but less ill than you would have done without the vaccine. You do get natural immunity as well = win win
2. Regular boosters - probably 30 minute out of your day every 6-12 months - not really an issue
3. Vaccines can be tweaked to adapt to mutations rather like Influenza vaccines are adapted to different strains
4. Side effects do happen (like with many medicines) but are minimal when compared statistically to the effects that Covid could have should you contract the disease. Why do anti-vaxxers / Covid deniers talk about Covid having a 99.5% survival rate but make a massive fuss about a vaccine with a 99.9999% survival rate? Very odd.
5. Why feel bullied when by using a little bit of decent research find that actually the vaccine going to prevent you (and those close to you) getting very ill.

 

[robbob700]

Let's take the example of someone in their thirties. On average, the chance of them being hospitalised (every month) with the virus is 1 in 6,000 if they are vaccinated and 1 in 50,000 if they aren't. To someone with a statistical background, that's a huge difference and very clear.

Sorry - I may be misreading this, but that seems to suggest that the chance of being hospitalised is greater if you are vaccinated, which is obviously not true.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Sorry - I may be misreading this, but that seems to suggest that the chance of being hospitalised is greater if you are vaccinated, which is obviously not true.

No, you're reading it right - that was a typo on my part. The actual figures are the other way around (and I've fixed them in the post).

 

[Bantamzen]

Let's take those points in order:

1. If you get the vaccine and get a breakthrough infection then you might get ill with Covid but less ill than you would have done without the vaccine. You do get natural immunity as well = win win

Breakthrough virus? You mean the existing one that we know does get through? Yes the vaccine massively reduces the risk of serious illness, but you can still get it, transmit it, and feel grotty from it. And while we are on about natural immunity, I wonder how many of those people you label "idiots" have had it & known about it. Perhaps they have natural immunity and so might not need the vaccine as much, hence their decision?

2. Regular boosters - probably 30 minute out of your day every 6-12 months - not really an issue

Even if we say 5 minutes per jab, at 30 million proposed jabs that is at least 2.5 million NHS hours needed every year for a booster that some scientists don't think most people need. Big issue.

3. Vaccines can be tweaked to adapt to mutations rather like Influenza vaccines are adapted to different strains

Yes they can, if needed, but they may not be needed.

4. Side effects do happen (like with many medicines) but are minimal when compared statistically to the effects that Covid could have should you contract the disease. Why do anti-vaxxers / Covid deniers talk about Covid having a 99.5% survival rate but make a massive fuss about a vaccine with a 99.9999% survival rate? Very odd.

Why do some people assume that people hesitant about the vaccine are "anti-vaxxers". In fact why do some people obsess about "anti-vaxxers"?

5. Why feel bullied when by using a little bit of decent research find that actually the vaccine going to prevent you (and those close to you) getting very ill.

The vaccines don't actually stop transmission, I thought we had established that they are beneficial to the individual? Hence the reason why people argue for choice.

 

[43066]

What have they got to loose by being vaccinated?

It’s more that they probably perceive that have very little to gain, and of course the factors @DustyBin has listed above are relevant considerations for many.

 

[kristiang85]

And while we are on about natural immunity, I wonder how many of those people you label "idiots" have had it & known about it. Perhaps they have natural immunity and so might not need the vaccine as much, hence their decision?

Indeed. Some countries will let you in unvaccinated if you have certificated proof that you've recovered from COVID-19.

 

[WestRiding]

And now there are murmurings in the press of Lockdowns again this winter.

 

[DustyBin]

Let's take those points in order:

1. If you get the vaccine and get a breakthrough infection then you might get ill with Covid but less ill than you would have done without the vaccine. You do get natural immunity as well = win win

But the risk of becoming ill even if unvaccinated is very low if you're young fit and healthy. Most people have mild or no symptoms. I'm not sure you get the full benefit of natural immunity once vaccinated (I stand to be corrected however).

2. Regular boosters - probably 30 minute out of your day every 6-12 months - not really an issue

For how long though? Can you not see why to some people this is an issue?

3. Vaccines can be tweaked to adapt to mutations rather like Influenza vaccines are adapted to different strains

Correct and whilst I don't think we'll see total vaccine escape it's possible that a variant partially escapes and a tweaked vaccine isn't immediately available. ADE is a different matter and most experts don't think it's likely to occur; hopefully they're right!

4. Side effects do happen (like with many medicines) but are minimal when compared statistically to the effects that Covid could have should you contract the disease. Why do anti-vaxxers / Covid deniers talk about Covid having a 99.5% survival rate but make a massive fuss about a vaccine with a 99.9999% survival rate? Very odd.

I'm neither an antivaxxer nor a covid denier and I'm not overly concerned about the safety aspects of the vaccines. I'm not concerned about the virus either however.

5. Why feel bullied when by using a little bit of decent research find that actually the vaccine going to prevent you (and those close to you) getting very ill.

People who were/are vaccine hesitant were very quickly branded antivaxxers and threatened with sanctions. There are people who ARE vaccinated who say they didn't accept it on medical grounds. To me this is wrong. In regard to protecting others, this argument is looking increasingly weak.

 

[LAX54]

It's mad how people seem to forget that this has been going on for much of the last couple of decades. Just search "NHS crisis" in Google News for each year and you can see its never changed. See the links to each year below, and a headline I've seen on the first page of results. All could be 2021, but back then we all weren't expected to prostate oursevles to the deity of the NHS.

2019 - "75,000 patients stuck with ambulance crews as winter at A&E bites"
2018 - "Patients 'dying in hospital corridors'"
2017 - "NHS rejects claims of 'humanitarian crisis' in England's hospitals"
2016 - "NHS chief warns that hospitals in England are on the brink of collapse"
2015 - "NHS winter crisis underway as figures show hospital trusts running out of beds"
2014 - "NHS 'in crisis' with hospitals at breaking poist after record number of admissions this week"
2013 - "Hospitals scramble to prevent crisis in NHS's 'toughest ever' winter"
etc.

Even in 2019 our local hospital was in the local news with ambulances waiting up to 7 hours outside A&E, due to no room / beds.

 

[joncombe]

And now there are murmurings in the press of Lockdowns again this winter.

This just looks like a repeat of what always happens. SAGE make some recommendations to the Government which in this case appears to be that the Government should re-impose working from home and face coverings over the winter. The Government refused so SAGE go running to the press instead about how their recommendations have not been acted on and at least some of the press can't resist slapping it on the front page. We've seen this so many times before.

The job of SAGE is to advise the Government, but they seem far to keen to go to the press instead if the Government doesn't do what they recommend.

 

[duncanp]

The job of SAGE is to advise the Government, but they seem far to keen to go to the press instead if the Government doesn't do what they recommend.

This needs to be looked at when the pandemic is over. (Which it will be, despite what some people think)

SAGE should be treated like civil servants, whose job is to provide impartial and informed advice to the government.

They should not be allowed to speak to the media.

It is up to the government whether or not to act on their advice, and to take responsibility for the consequences.

 

[yorksrob]

It's mad how people seem to forget that this has been going on for much of the last couple of decades. Just search "NHS crisis" in Google News for each year and you can see its never changed. See the links to each year below, and a headline I've seen on the first page of results. All could be 2021, but back then we all weren't expected to prostate oursevles to the deity of the NHS.

2019 - "75,000 patients stuck with ambulance crews as winter at A&E bites"
2018 - "Patients 'dying in hospital corridors'"
2017 - "NHS rejects claims of 'humanitarian crisis' in England's hospitals"
2016 - "NHS chief warns that hospitals in England are on the brink of collapse"
2015 - "NHS winter crisis underway as figures show hospital trusts running out of beds"
2014 - "NHS 'in crisis' with hospitals at breaking poist after record number of admissions this week"
2013 - "Hospitals scramble to prevent crisis in NHS's 'toughest ever' winter"
etc.

Meanwhile, the Government keeps a tight control on how many people are trained in the medical professions each year.

I wonder if there has been an uplift in numbers the post two years and how many that has been.

 

[35B]

For the record I’m not offended personally.

It’s not as simple as you’re making out though as those being hospitalised are still overwhelmingly from the known vulnerable age groups, vaccinated or otherwise.

When people read articles such as this one (note that the BMJ isn’t a dodgy YouTube channel) they may quite reasonably decide to decline the vaccine for the time being at least

It’s worth note that this is a letter to the editor of the BMJ, not editorial content.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Sep 2021 ==

Why do some people assume that people hesitant about the vaccine are "anti-vaxxers". In fact why do some people obsess about "anti-vaxxers"?

Because there has been a concerted attempt by some to create doubt about vaccines in general, who have used lies and misrepresentation to spread myths about the risks of vaccines and vaccination. This has been consistent over more than a century, and turbocharged lately.

In the context of Covid, it is noticeable that there’s a strong correlation between those who oppose the use of vaccines and those who’ve opposed any other measures to deal with Covid. This is evident in the exchanges between various high profile campaigners exposed in the Hart leaks.

 

[Bantamzen]

Because there has been a concerted attempt by some to create doubt about vaccines in general, who have used lies and misrepresentation to spread myths about the risks of vaccines and vaccination. This has been consistent over more than a century, and turbocharged lately.

Just as much as there has been a concerted effort to throw "anti-vaxxer" accusations at anyone daring to question the party line. But questioning the party line is what we should always do, even when they are right.

In the context of Covid, it is noticeable that there’s a strong correlation between those who oppose the use of vaccines and those who’ve opposed any other measures to deal with Covid. This is evident in the exchanges between various high profile campaigners exposed in the Hart leaks.

See above...

 

[35B]

This needs to be looked at when the pandemic is over. (Which it will be, despite what some people think)

SAGE should be treated like civil servants, whose job is to provide impartial and informed advice to the government.

They should not be allowed to speak to the media.

It is up to the government whether or not to act on their advice, and to take responsibility for the consequences.

Sage is an ad hoc body, made up of relevant experts in the matter at hand. They do so without remuneration, on top of their day jobs. Asking that they not only treat what they discuss at Sage as confidential, but that they cannot speak on their expertise to the media is not necessarily calculated to attract experts.

Whatever your view of the current composition of Sage, and the quality of their advice, there’s a wider impact that warrants careful consideration. In that, you may want to reflect that this would not just have silenced Ferguson, but also many of those who disagreed with him - and that having left Sage, former members remain free to comment.

 

[DustyBin]

It’s worth note that this is a letter to the editor of the BMJ, not editorial content.

Correct, however it reflects what a number of experts are saying. For what it's worth the denial (because that's what it amounts to) of natural immunity against this virus has never sat right with me, and whilst I don't believe there is a grand conspiracy to secretly microchip the population etc. I do think there should have been a grown up conversation around the risk-benefit to individual age groups. Instead the government chose to treat the population like children (although they are at least consistent, I'll give them that!).

 

[35B]

Just as much as there has been a concerted effort to throw "anti-vaxxer" accusations at anyone daring to question the party line. But questioning the party line is what we should always do, even when they are right.


See above...

To be fair, I think some of those regurgitating the lies of the anti vaxxers are more fairly considered idiots; the regurgitation demonstrates an inability to weigh up information, frequently as they cite statistics. If I were a bookie, I’d be delighted to take their money.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Sep 2021 ==

Correct, however it reflects what a number of experts are saying. For what it's worth the denial (because that's what it amounts to) of natural immunity against this virus has never sat right with me, and whilst I don't believe there is a grand conspiracy to secretly microchip the population etc. I do think there should have been a grown up conversation around the risk-benefit to individual age groups. Instead the government chose to treat the population like children (although they are at least consistent, I'll give them that!).

Thanks for the clarification of your interpretation. I largely agree with you on engagement (remember that Danish tweet I quoted a few days ago about consensus), but I also give government and it’s advisors credit for having to try to respond under great pressure. I also think that deliberate misinformation has been sufficiently rife that relying on reason alone is a challenge.

 

[Bantamzen]

To be fair, I think some of those regurgitating the lies of the anti vaxxers are more fairly considered idiots; the regurgitation demonstrates an inability to weigh up information, frequently as they cite statistics. If I were a bookie, I’d be delighted to take their money.

That's a two way street, and why we should never simply accept what we are told without questions.

 

[35B]

That's a two way street, and why we should never simply accept what we are told without questions.

I agree - but the corollary is also true, which is that we should be very careful about treating sources as intrinsically tainted.

 

[duncanp]

Sage is an ad hoc body, made up of relevant experts in the matter at hand. They do so without remuneration, on top of their day jobs. Asking that they not only treat what they discuss at Sage as confidential, but that they cannot speak on their expertise to the media is not necessarily calculated to attract experts.

Whatever your view of the current composition of Sage, and the quality of their advice, there’s a wider impact that warrants careful consideration. In that, you may want to reflect that this would not just have silenced Ferguson, but also many of those who disagreed with him - and that having left Sage, former members remain free to comment.

Well then perhaps members of SAGE should be remunerated, on condition that they do not speak to the media.

This would put them in the same position as civil servants, who are also required to be impartial, and are not allowed to be members of political parties. (eg. Susan Michie)

The current situation is unsatisfactory, as SAGE (and Fake SAGE) seem to be running a media campaign to cajole/bully the government into doing what they think is the right course of action. They are not the government, and it is about time they realised that.

Their modelling has been shown to be incorrect on several occasions in the past. Any modelling should be independently peer reviewed to see that the model is accurate, so that the government can rely on the quality of the advice.