That's because the COVID crisis has been an absolute boon for the media and they don't want to show any light at the end of the tunnel.
The South African variant is only present in the UK in tiny numbers at the moment and there's intensive testing to try and trace its presence where it has turned up, which has returned very few cases.
There is a need. The more people that are vaccinated, the less replication of the virus there will be. The less replication of the virus, the less chance of a mutation that evades the vaccines. The less chance of a mutation evading the vaccines, the better chance we all won't have to go through this mess again.
There is already an internationally recognised stand alone vaccine passport format called ICV - a.k.a. the WHO Yellow Book (all yellow paper and card) that has existed for decades (I have one in a drawer somewhere) so no need to devise anything new unless they want a parallel electronic record too. Conveniently sized at just smaller than passport size so you can tuck it inside.
Largely agreed. It looks like the issue is that Cytokine and specific T-cell response still works as expected with the SA variant but that antibody bonding with 484K mutations is much worse hence a delayed antibody response (by circa 2 days) so there are more symptomatic patients (it also means the patient is a potential very good super spreader for an extra 2 days) . The interesting question (not answered yet) is whether the body (post vaccination or previous older infection) when faced with a 484K variant just tries to use the existing antibodies but in far larger quantities (some evidence for this) or creates new antibodies or both!
Mutations will happen regardless of the amount of transmission, and in fact by artificially reducing it we can potentially give any new variants a foothold with they would otherwise not have. Consider this for a moment, when we started the initial lockdown the variant that was dominant was suppressed. Then as early as September (and probably earlier still) a mutation occurred that appears to have made the virus more transmittable & as the previous variant had been supressed, this gave the new variant an advantage it would otherwise would not have had.
Yes, agreed. Once again some people are shifting the goalposts. We are trying to prevent hospitalisations and deaths, which the vaccines will do. We are not trying to cure the symptoms of the common cold.
The noises coming from the Sunday political interviews are more encouraging, when Zahawi the vaccine minister said that all current vaccines will keep people out of hospital, which is the aim. I think there's some dawning of reality in government, and the locktivist element are starting to be outnumbered.
The Kent variant spiralled in lockdown 2 across Kent, SE London and Essex we are not seeing that with the SA variant currently so that suggests its transmissibility is being moderated by lockdown.
Agreed but the continuing absence of acceptable levels for both these metrics is a concern and reinforces my view that zero is the level and the govt aren't coming clean that the goalposts have been moved.
I believe quite a significant proportion of tests are genome-sequenced (I read 5-10%). If it there was a widespread presence of it, it would have been picked up.
An organisation called COVID-19 Genomics UK produce a weekly surveillance report. Latest one released on 2/2 but dataset is nearly a month old and they had sampled 6.8% of tests that week. There is also a global reporting site here that is following evolution of the UK, SA and Brazil variants. On the latter the UK now has 118 detections it was 110 earlier in the week when Hancock answered questions in the house I recollect. The chart showing prevalence appears to be on a declining trend for UK as well especially when you consider case rates back in early January were very high. This to me feels like they got spooked with the UK variant and how that messed up there plans after coming out of lockdown 2 so they've thrown caution to the wind over the SA variant which was sensible but there needs to be a time limit. So given the genomic testing is running 3-4 weeks in arrears by the looks of it and the fact cases are down by 60% since early January to me means you can infer that we are not seeing high levels of transmission. That's not say that its not the dominant mutation now in circulation just that its not driven the rate up in lockdown that we saw with Kent variant so this has to be a positive.
The vaccine will only keep people out of hospital if they have been vaccinated with a couple of week time lag for immunity to build!
Doing the sequencing efficiently for a large number of samples take 3 weeks hence the 3 week lag. You can rush individual samples through in about 5 days but this is very inefficient so you lose overall testing capacity.
The Kent variant was first spotted in samples on 21st and 22nd September so it took 3 months to cause huge issues.
That's incorrect I'm afraid. There is zero evidence that that the SA strain spreads faster or more readily than the Kent Strain. When it was discovered a flustered Hancock said "it could spread faster" but since then Vallance has said there is no evidence for this - and the fact that the Kent strain is so widespread, that it would be extremely unlikely that it was displaced by the SA strain as it isnt more infectious.
www.bbc.co.uk
They make it clear that it's not peer-reviewed, which is likely to be pretty much a formality with a follow-up study like this anyway. They also make it clear that it appears to protect against severe cases. It's a pretty reasonable report tbhThis is not the first time the BBC, and probably other outlets too, have done this, but they're reporting on the Oxford vaccine assessment against the SA strain as if its content is nailed on, but it's been made clear the study hasn't yet been peer-reviewed:
Covid: Oxford jab offers less S Africa variant protection
Developers say they are likely to have a modified version of the jab by autumn to combat the variant.
www.bbc.co.uk
I don't think GPs will mind - it's hardly a lot of work but they'll be able to charge £30 or so for the pleasure, as is typical for other doctor's letters. GPs are techincally private businesses after all.Covid: Minister rules out vaccine passports in UK
The vaccine minister says people should ask their GP if they need proof of vaccination to go abroad.
I'm not sure GPs should be responsible for proving you can go on a jolly to Greece to be honest!
Plenty of other countries will be requiring proof whether there are passport or not including Greece, Sweden, US, Australia.
It actually turned out that Vallance hadn't been in one of the briefings and had missed the discussion on some South Africa work (done by close contacts of PHE experts) that was about to be published several days later. With the additional E484K mutation it is fundamentally harder for specific antibodies to stick to that bit of the spike, the practical impact of which is "patients" having high viral loads for longer giving the new strain a transmission advantage. Hence why Hancock is still very worried byt he SA strain.
It's already the case that GPs (and some private clinics and pharmacies, etc) will provide optional vaccines for people who require them for overseas travel. Some of these are subsidised by the NHS as the disease is deemed to pose a risk if it is brought back to the UK by a traveller.
Which was made totally clear on the news at 13:00 which I assume you did not watch!This is not the first time the BBC, and probably other outlets too, have done this, but they're reporting on the Oxford vaccine assessment against the SA strain as if its content is nailed on, but it's been made clear the study hasn't yet been peer-reviewed:
Covid: Oxford jab offers less S Africa variant protection
Developers say they are likely to have a modified version of the jab by autumn to combat the variant.
